- This topic has 113 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 7 months, 3 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Who, in the past century, deserves to have an age named after them?
-
Stalin, clearly.
-
Tbh, the “The Age of Bogdanoff”
Who?
-
Ew they’re so gross looking.
-
he bought?
-
-
-
>Durant
Garbage
Also
>Eurocentrism for "story of civilization"
Kek-
>>Eurocentrism
lol stay jelly shitskin-
You’re scrotebrained, it’s OK. Just don’t get buttblasted about it my guy
-
That’s fine I’ll wait for your non eurocentric suggestion for the history of civilization
-
-
>muh skin
You will never have a real ethnostate.-
-
>Translation: Equal opportunity means access to white people.
-
-
-
yes fuck kevin durant
-
ayo lebron always gonna be da goat fr bruv
-
-
History has been Eurocentric for the past 2800 years.
-
Hegel had it right. The history of China and India is unimportant in the grand scheme of things. Only the West matters to human development.
-
It was MENA centric from 3500 BC to 800 BC. Then it was Med centric until MENAS had another brief golden age. Then from the 15th century forward it was Eurocentric again.
-
-
-
-
The Age of Civilizations
-
The Age of Barrack
-
The Age of Womenx
-
‘The Age of LGBTTQQIAAP, BLM, LatinX, and Other Folk who identify with an acronym and or with a ‘X’ at the End of a Pronoun but Even This Long Ass Title isn’t Enough to Please Every One so we Apologize in Advance’- the book.
-
Barry O’Bama
-
Hegel
-
Whoever it is we can’t stop talking about. I think we all know who that is.
-
Go away shill
-
Isn’t the entire point of this thread to shill someone for whom the 20th century can be named? Your post makes no sense.
-
Hitler is an influential figure and is interesting to discuss for this thread, but I’m tired of seeing fascist shills bring up the god damn Greatest Story Never Told.
-
-
-
-
Elizabeth II maybe? Really the only authority figure to survive the 20th century.
-
MAYBE Churchhill
-
"Hitler" in Google search: 402 million results
"Churchill" in Google search: 352 million resultsHitler wins this contest. The 20th Century is The Age of Hitler. End thread.
-
You can’t name the whole century after a guy who was in power for such a short amount of time.
-
We’re a decent way into the 21st century now and he still lives rent-free in the minds of virtually everyone
-
That doesn’t mean much, you could say that about half a dozen leaders from WW2 alone.
-
Lol no you actually can’t say that. Hitler’s name is invoked far more than any other leader from WW2, easily. Godwin’s Law is legit.
-
Hitler has virtually no direct influence on world history.
-
Uh-huh.
-
It’s true
-
-
This has to be the most massive cope in years. You can argue that there are others who had even more influence on world history, but to say he had "virtually no direct influence on world history" is quite possibly the silliest statement ever posted on this board.
-
Can you name me those who subscribe to Hitlerism? Can you name me the institutions created under Hitler which survived the war?
-
>Can you name me those who subscribe to Hitlerism?
According to nearly everyone on the left, virtually everyone who doesn’t agree with them subscribes to Hitlerism.You could say the same thing about Napoleon, though, yet the Durants titled their book The Age of Napoleon.
-
>You could say the same thing about Napoleon, though, yet the Durants titled their book The Age of Napoleon.
Nahhhhh, Napoleon’s institutions that he set up left a lasting impact on the continent. The legal and political systems that he set up lasted much longer than the empire and the man himself. Is it Sweden that still has their Bonapartist monarch? And all the nationalism that came out of the 19th century can be pretty directly traced to Napoleon, his soldiers and their approach to empire building.
How about the official end of the HRE? That’s a pretty classic move, the sale of Louisiana? I don’t know there are a lot of examples. -
I have a suspicion that Hitler will be rehabilitated and might even become a hero and inspiration to Whites in the coming struggle. Don’t count him out yet.
-
Yeah, this is the history board, where we talk about things that have already happened, not things that might happen in the future.
-
Then why are we talking about what person to name the 20th century after, since the decision hasn’t happened yet? It is too soon to tell. It might turn out that Gandhi was the most important figure of the 20th Century, or maybe Dean Acheson. We aren’t far enough removed from that century to say with any certainty.
-
Well you could say that we are too close to the 19th and 18th centuries yet. I think it was Zhou Enlai who said when asked what he thought of the French Revolution “Its a bit early to tell”.
-
I agree with Zhou. If you had asked an educated Roman in 110 AD who the most influential person of the previous century was, he would never in a million years have guessed that it was some uppity rabbi in Jerusalem who caused a stir for a few months and then got crucified.
-
Right, we have only a limited hope of understanding the impact of things that have already happened. Forget about trying to see into the future.
-
>According to nearly everyone on the left
Can you name those who subscribe to Hitlerism?
>You could say the same thing about Napoleon
You can’t. Napoleon is possibly the most influential figure in history. He spread the ideas of the French Revolution and Enlightenment, ended feudalism, and awakened nationalism. -
>Can you name those who subscribe to Hitlerism?
Everyone who isn’t "woke" and balks at giving hormone blockers to children.>Napoleon is possibly the most influential figure in history
More influential than Alexander or Caesar or Genghis? Doubt. -
>Everyone who isn’t "woke" and balks at giving hormone blockers to children.
Can you name those who subscribe to Hitlerism?
>Alexander
Yes
>Caesar
Maybe
>Genghis
Yes -
my sis john, timothy from next door, and sarah my musician.
-
>Can you name those who subscribe to Hitlerism?
Yes, like I said, everyone who isn’t "woke" and balks at giving hormone blockers to children, which would include. John Abernathy, Carol Gingold, Arthur, Menzes, Torvald Sigmussen, Bill Whately, Karl Sheck, Timothy Sherman, Todd Christian, Ernie Hovart, Ken Tilghman, Dorothy Squires, Amelia Duarte, Constantine Podgorny, Jules Tennstedt, David Angleton, Christopher Zaller, George Lumley, and Angela Breitbarth, among millions of others. -
I’m not the guy you are replying to, but are those people supposed to be famous and influential followers of Hitlerism?
-
He didn’t say famous and influential. He just said to name some people who subscribe to Hitlerism, and since the woke left describes anyone who isn’t on board with turning 9-year-old children into trannies with hormone blockers as "literally Hitler", then all the people I named and millions more definitely subscribe to Hitlerism.
-
Forget about what the woke whatever says. Who are the actual Hitlerists. I know they still have bonapartists in France.
-
Actual Hitlerists would be clandestine. Since anything connected with Hitler has been so demonized, no one would ever admit to it. But if you laid out the principles of National Socialism as defined by Hitler but omitted his name and the term "Nazi", you’d probably find quite a few people who would agree with almost all of it.
-
Okay so we don’t actually have any hitlerists we can go to is what you are saying? Incidentally I think that’s not really the case I’m sure we can find plenty of Neo-Nazis in the world, they just aren’t that influential and never have been really.
And as far as Hitler’s principles I’m not sure you would be able to define them since so often they were subjective. -
All of them impacted history in a different way in a distant past even for Napoleon, it was barely relevant to him imagine to us, of course their actions changed history just as much but Napoleon is the most recent and most influental figure of our familiar past yes
-
-
I agree with that guy, Hitler’s impact on history was entirely secondary. His war brought about the pre-eminence of the world’s first super-powers, through only indirect action.
-
-
-
Oh well that’s different what you are saying is that the name Hitler is just the most famous. And there are more famous people than that from the 20th century.
-
>Oh well that’s different what you are saying is that the name Hitler is just the most famous.
^A line of logic so scrotebrained that only an american could have thought it up.-
You are saying its an idiotic claim that Hitler not the most famous name of the 20th century?
-
-
-
-
-
-
Why not? Napoleon was eventually defeated and poisoned after a few years in power, but the Durants named the 19th century The Age of Napoleon.
-
Age =/= century.
-
Read the thread title,anon. Hitler was only on the scene for about 12 years, but he’s all we talk about now. He is more famous than Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, and Napoleon Bonaparte. EVERYONE has heard of Hitler, even little kids in the ghettos of Baltimore and Detroit.
-
-
Well I don’t think that’s a great name for it, might as well have called it the age of Talleyrand or Metternich.
-
-
Why not? No other person is alluded to in modern politics more than this guy. Not even close.
-
-
>Churchill was involved in all 3 British Wars in the 20th century
>Played Major role in both World wars
>Led the country to its own self destuction by >fighting the Nazis
>Watches England crumble as he dies
Churchill Era 1905-1965 -
Now do the "Stalin".
-
113 million results. Not even close.
-
-
I got 800 million for Joe Biden lol.
-
Well, there ya go. It’s settled. The 20th Century is now officially "The Age of Biden".
-
-
-
-
Kissinger, perhaps?
-
Hitler – shaped the Europe into the abomination that it is now.
Every major Soviet leader, just because their politics uniquely stand up and shaped the USSR, both internally and externally.Reagan, as the reagonomics were proto-globalism.
Mao, for obvious reasons.
-
The Age of Lenin
-
People cannot stop bringing up Hitler and the Nazis at every possible opportunity so he’d have to get a nod for sure.
-
The age of Marx. Who can even compete?
-
Lenin
-
-
The Chosen.
-
1901-1945: British era.
1945-1968: Soviet era (progress stagnated and unity dissolved after this, last nail in the coffin was 1991).
1991- 2001: American era.-
So wtf was going on from 1968 – 2001?
-
The USSR was a shithole that couldn’t recover from the 70s oil shock/Afghanistan and never returned to the relative stability of the 60s. The United States had always been more prosperous but it wasn’t until the dissolution that they became the sole hegemon of the world. Nobody could challenge them but it seems like America is the sick old man of the West 30 years. later
-
>a shithole that couldn’t recover from the 70s oil shock/Afghanistan
Sounds kinda like the USA, too. Our golden age started to end in the early ’70s and with our recent humiliation in Afghanistan, we are definitely on the downslope.
-
-
-
The Soviet Era and the American Era overlapped. American Era was ’45 to ’21.
-
That’s just the ongoing Cold War. You could say the USSR was at their height in the early 60s. The US basically owned the world for 20 years after communism failed.
-
-
I’m going to say the British era was already over before WW1 even ended, especially since the war moved so much British capital from London to New York. Whenever Kitchener died I think would be a good end date.
-
The British Empire officially enfed when they lost India but the situation was irreversibly dire by then and they were in no financial position to maintain a colony.
-
Well I always heard the official end date as the giving Hong Kong to the Chinese government.
It’s a long slow process with no fixed day, I was think more of the ‘era’ than the actual empire itself.-
The ‘era’ of the British in the sense that they would no longer effectively project strength onto another major powere would be between WWII and losing India. Asian colonial belongings were going to end up in American hands anway due to their geopolitical value.
Everyone was scared shitless of the commies in the late 50s-60s so I call that their ‘era’ plus the early success with the space race.
1991-2001 was when America could go around flexing military and economic dominance before becoming a paranoid corrupt surveillance state that sinks trillions into unwinnable wars with no clear objective.
-
> a paranoid corrupt surveillance state that sinks trillions into unwinnable wars with no clear objective.
That was the case before 2001, and even before 1991.-
The "no clear objective" was deliberate, because if the real reason for the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq had been made clear to the American people, they would not have supported it.
-
>The "no clear objective" was deliberate
Of course. American warmongering politicians KNOW what they’re doing. My point was that this is a bad habit prevalent in countries experiencing decline.-
The USA is like one of those ants infected by the cordyceps fungus:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuKjBIBBAL8
Its brain has been hijacked and it is carrying out the agenda of a parasitic alien entity at the cost of its own life.
-
>A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (commonly known as the "Clean Break" report) is a policy document that was prepared in 1996 by a study group led by Richard Perle for Benjamin Netanyahu, the then Prime Minister of Israel.[1] The report explained a new approach to solving Israel’s security problems in the Middle East with an emphasis on "Western values." It has since been criticized for advocating an aggressive new policy including the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and the containment of Syria by engaging in proxy warfare and highlighting its possession of "weapons of mass destruction". Certain parts of the policies set forth in the paper were rejected by Netanyahu.
https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm
>In the days after September 11, Mr Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, mounted an attempt to include Iraq in the war against terror. When the established agencies came up with nothing concrete to link Iraq and al-Qaida, the OSP was given the task of looking more carefully.
>"None of the Israelis who came were cleared into the Pentagon through normal channels," said one source familiar with the visits. Instead, they were waved in on Mr Feith’s authority without having to fill in the usual forms.
>The exchange of information continued a long-standing relationship Mr Feith and other Washington neo-conservatives had with Israel’s Likud party.
>The Israeli influence was revealed most clearly by a story floated by unnamed senior US officials in the American press, suggesting the reason that no banned weapons had been found in Iraq was that they had been smuggled into Syria. Intelligence sources say that the story came from the office of the Israeli prime minister.
-
-
-
-
Yes but things like this are rooted in society decades before they come into law. It wasn’t until the late 90s/2000s that things like the PATRIOT Act kickstarted a series of NSA-backed surveillance and privacy laws. Then WikiLeaks happened and the glowscrotes started glowing even harder on damage control (early 2010s).
-
-
Right, I got that this is your opinion, I’m saying the British era is already over, they had already been replaced as the most powerful nation even during WW1 and were playing a distant third place be the end of WW2
-
I’d say the British Empire was officially over the day the left India.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
YOU KNOW WHO.
-
Yes. Professor Yuri Slezkine wrote an entire book on who really made the 20th Century what it was.
-
>>>/x/
-
Nah, Jones performs his amazing feats of accurate prediction simply by reading the white papers put out by the NGOs founded by the plutocrats who run our world–the CFR, the Trilateral Commission, the Rockefeller Foundation, the UN, etc. etc. They freaking TELL YOU what they have planned for us.
-
>Nah, Jones performs his amazing feats of accurate prediction simply by reading
A Right-winger who can actually read?
Nah. It is more likely that he is psychic.-
He probably has assistants and interns to read and then summarize them for him. Still, that’s his method and people continue to be astonished at how he’s almost always proven right, eventually.
-
>He probably has assistants and interns to read and then summarize them for him
Okay. That makes sense.
-
-
-
-
-
-
>naming historical periods after people
-
I hate the idealization of one man many of these historical men were born into wealth or prominent families
-
Not Hitler. He was born into the lower-middle-class.
-
-
Elizabeth the 2nd for an unironic answer. Especially if the time after her death is bookedended with an event of great proportion like a major war.
-
>The age of Teddy Roosevelt
>The age of Lenin
>The age of Mustafa kemal Atatürk
>The age of Adolf Hitler
>The age of Joseph Stalin
>The age of FDR
>The age of Mao Zedong
>The age of Keynes
>The age of Orson Welles
>The age of Ayn Rand
>The age of Ronald Reagan
>The age of Bill Clinton-
I propose we find the most perfectly ordinary, perfectly representative person and make him or her the avatar of the age. If after extensive research we discover that a man named Albert Putterman is the perfectly average, representative man of the 20th century, we call the 20th century The Age of Albert Putterman or The Putterman Era.
-
Didn’t Time magazine once make its Person of the Year an inanimate object? I think it was the PC or something. We should do that for the previous century. The Age of the ____.
(I already know what the 21st century will be called: The Age of the Dildo.)
-
-
-
The Pepe Age
-
>Age of Voltaire
>Muh enlightenment memelordThis is the period equivalent of a onions
-
Obviously the Age of Hitler.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.