Two Views of History

Kamala Trump

Kamala Trump

Verified User
Can you be honest with yourselves? Which view makes more sense? You really believe the royals of old just gave up their power and wealth? Or do they mask it?

http://www.threeworldwars.com/intro.htm
Two Views of History

There are two fundamental ways to view history: We call one the catastrophic or accidental view of history, the other we call the conspiratorial view of history.
Accidental History

In the catastrophic or accidental view of history we are led to believe that historical events, such as wars and revolutions were the direct result of some sudden or surprising event. While the catastrophic view is accurate for weather, volcanoes and earthquakes, it does not always provide a realistic view of humanity and events influenced by man.

Young, malleable American and other Western minds are sadly taught the Accidental view of history in the government school systems. This view is reinforced throughout their lives by the controlled mass media. As a result, when most discover the Conspiratorial View of History, the immediate reaction is shock, disbelief and a refusal to accept something other than they've been taught to believe.
Conspiratorial History

Conspiratorial history studies that part of history that is a product of man's planning. In conspiratorial history we are led to believe that events, such as wars and revolutions, are the result of planned events. While the conspiratorial view is not accurate for weather, volcanoes and earthquakes, it is a realistic and accurate view of the interrelationship of man and nations. Since the planning for most of these events was done in secret, we use the term conspiratorial history. That is; this history is the result of plans constructed in secret, which by definition is a conspiracy.
Click to expand...
 
What about the Gradual View of history? People, policies, attitudes, customs, cultures, societies, sciences, technologies, philosophies and beliefs gradually take form and effect mankind to some extent, triggering further change, sometimes catestrophic and occasionally cataclysmic in nature.
 
Threedee said:
What about the Gradual View of history? People, policies, attitudes, customs, cultures, societies, sciences, technologies, philosophies and beliefs gradually take form and effect mankind to some extent, triggering further change, sometimes catestrophic and occasionally cataclysmic in nature.
Click to expand...


And some people affect the world much more than others, like the internationlists fascists whose cocks you suck on, ignorantly.

Gradual is not a view of history.
 
AssHatZombie said:
And some people affect the world much more than others, like the internationlists fascists whose cocks you suck on, ignorantly.

Gradual is not a view of history.
Click to expand...
Its my view, and I am an historian. So fuck off. And most historians hold the Gradual View as fact, so you can stop masturbating over "evidence" of the Illuminati and grow up...
 
Threedee said:
Its my view, and I am an historian. So fuck off. And most historians hold the Gradual View as fact, so you can stop masturbating over "evidence" of the Illuminati and grow up...
Click to expand...

The gradual view? that's fucking retarded. It means nothing. Of course history happens gradually. Im talking about what one believes is the role of elites in shaping history. The elites DO shape it greatly, with their own agenda in mind. This is indisputable.

Try to get your money back on your education, because you're a fool.
 
AssHatZombie said:
The gradual view? that's fucking retarded. It means nothing. Of course history happens gradually. Im talking about what one believes is the role of elites in shaping history. The elites DO shape it greatly, with their own agenda in mind. This is indisputable.

Try to get your money back on your education, because you're a fool.
Click to expand...
So, you're a Marxist. Now, some of the most influential people in history were Jesus, Mohammad, Guttenburg, and Luther, and they were by no means upper-class elites. In fact, in the making of Christendom, (33-900), the only two elites were Constantine and Charlemaigne. The rest were a bunch of paupers. Similarly, the Islamic world was not much influenced by elites until the height of the Umayyad Dynasty, roughly 60 years after the death of the prophet.

Now, shut the fuck up, because I'm sure the aliens don't want to hear your damn complaining.
 
Threedee said:
So, you're a Marxist. Now, some of the most influential people in history were Jesus, Mohammad, Guttenburg, and Luther, and they were by no means upper-class elites. In fact, in the making of Christendom, (33-900), the only two elites were Constantine and Charlemaigne. The rest were a bunch of paupers. Similarly, the Islamic world was not much influenced by elites until the height of the Umayyad Dynasty, roughly 60 years after the death of the prophet.

Now, shut the fuck up, because I'm sure the aliens don't want to hear your damn complaining.
Click to expand...

Why are you prattling on about religions? This has no relationship to the fact that mankind's world is overwhelmingly shaped by the rich and powerful. Pointing out this truth doesn't make me a marxist, you moron.

You're a seriously confused retard. Like I said, see if you can get your money back on your education.
 
Last edited:
AssHatZombie said:
Why are you prattling on about religions? This has no relationship to the fact that mankind's world is overwhelmingly shaped by the rich and powerful. Pointing out this truth doesn't make me a marxist, you moron.

You're a seriously confused retard. Like I said, see if you can get your money back on your education.
Click to expand...
Hang on, you don't know what Marxist historiography is? And Guttenberg was not a religious leader - it just happens that they can be very influential. My point was that some very ordinary people have greatly empacted history over the years.
 
Threedee said:
Hang on, you don't know what Marxist historiography is? And Guttenberg was not a religious leader - it just happens that they can be very influential. My point was that some very ordinary people have greatly empacted history over the years.
Click to expand...
But the rich and powerful have had much more impact, despite some statistical outliers you have identified.

Marxism itself is just a cover ideology for an elite movement. The bolshevisks were funded by an american Banker named Jacob Schiff.
 
AssHatZombie said:
But the rich and powerful have had much more impact, despite some statistical outliers you have identified.

Marxism itself is just a cover ideology for an elite movement. The bolshevisks were funded by an american Banker named Jacob Schiff.
Click to expand...
Guttenburg was recently ranked the most influential person. Your precious elites have been unable to top a handful of ordinary men in terms of their historical impact. Another hugely influential man was Columbus (ordinary). Others include Marco Polo, the Renaissance artists, Socrates and numerous Greek philosophers, and the list goes on.

The elites that are remembered as most influential are usually headed by Alexander, Octavian, and Napolean - still not on par with most of the commoners I listed.

Oh, and fyi, Marx viewed history as a class struggle between the have's and have-not's, just as you see it. Marxism was not invented just so Lenin could gain power, but because Marx had a warped view of what is important about the world.
 
Threedee said:
Guttenburg was recently ranked the most influential person. Your precious elites have been unable to top a handful of ordinary men in terms of their historical impact. Another hugely influential man was Columbus (ordinary). Others include Marco Polo, the Renaissance artists, Socrates and numerous Greek philosophers, and the list goes on.
Click to expand...
That's not honest, the strongmen with the guns have the most real power.
The elites that are remembered as most influential are usually headed by Alexander, Octavian, and Napolean - still not on par with most of the commoners I listed.

Oh, and fyi, Marx viewed history as a class struggle between the have's and have-not's, just as you see it. Marxism was not invented just so Lenin could gain power, but because Marx had a warped view of what is important about the world.
Click to expand...

Communism was always fascism under the hood. Those checks redistributing all the wealth never really came. It was all to justify seizure of all property by a self proclaimed elite.

You're basically a moron with moronic thoughts.
 
AssHatZombie said:
That's not honest, the strongmen with the guns have the most real power.


Communism was always fascism under the hood. Those checks redistributing all the wealth never really came. It was all to justify seizure of all property by a self proclaimed elite.

You're basically a moron with moronic thoughts.
Click to expand...
You can't know that because Marx was not a political leader or revolutionary. He never tried to implement his ideology in the way the Bolsheviks did. This is what allowsw his loyal followers to claim that the bloodbath which followed is not his fault because his idology was "perverted" by others.

And so what if some Western loser gave financial support to the Bolsheviks? They still would have defeated the republicans regardless of that.
 
Threedee said:
You can't know that because Marx was not a political leader or revolutionary. He never tried to implement his ideology in the way the Bolsheviks did. This is what allowsw his loyal followers to claim that the bloodbath which followed is not his fault because his idology was "perverted" by others.

And so what if some Western loser gave financial support to the Bolsheviks? They still would have defeated the republicans regardless of that.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry. Movements that get funded tend to be the ones that make history. Don't be a dunce.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top