Yinko
Well-known member
Generic American mutt. Bits of this and that from all across northern Europe.
History What are some of your most contraversial takes on history?
- Thread starter Winston Bush
- Start date
Lister is widely considered the "father of modern surgery", but it's not really accurate to say he contributed to the development of germ theory. What he did was pioneer the adoption of sterile surgical techniques for infection control.
Yes, so basically he applied the lessons of the germ theory to surgeries.
Which, as I said, makes him a pioneering figure in modern surgery, not in developing germ theory per se. In my opinion, it's important to give historical figures the right credit.
TheRejectionist
TheRejectionist
JFK Is a horny whoreson bastard for having planned a coup in my mother's country and many ills stem from that.
Fuck that cunt.
RFK Jr Is awesome though.
Fuck that cunt.
RFK Jr Is awesome though.
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
Tito was far worse than Pavelic, but he is hailed as a hero simply because he fought on the "correct" side of World War II.
Related: World War II was a war of three different yet equal evils (liberal democracy, Nazism, Communism)... but I think I already posted that.
Related: World War II was a war of three different yet equal evils (liberal democracy, Nazism, Communism)... but I think I already posted that.
gral
Well-known member
People say the Brazilian 1964 coup was planned by the US Government in collaboration with Brazilian military and civilian people, but I think that's wrong. While the US was aware of the planning, and had assets that were in place to support the coup, if asked, the planning and the trigger event(General Olympio Mourão Filho's decision to put the 4th Infantry Divison on march to Rio) were internal affairs.
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
Errr...one of these is not like the two...
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
Liberalism, with its denial of traditional forms of literally everything, is directly responsible for appearance of Communism (and thus also Nazism). And today's liberal democracies are basically Communist dictatorships lite - and I for one think that, rather than being a failure of liberal democracy, such a turn of events represented an inevitable outcome due to nature of liberal democracy itself.
Doomsought
Well-known member
You are conflating two very different things when you say liberal democracy. There is the Anglo branch of liberalism which ultimately and expansion of the principles set by the magna carta, the government itself is limited by law for the benefit of those under it. Continental liberalism is instead born from the madness of the French revolution, which instead is based on the principles of noblesse oblige with the nobility subtracted from it.
TheRejectionist
TheRejectionist
JFK was the one planned. Johnson gave the ok but yes. It was mostly internal and that was probably for the best considering what Condor did to our neighbors.
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
I didn't mention liberal democracy anywhere in the post. What I meant is liberalism itself: rejection of the idea of society as family, almost exclusive focus on the individual, and so on. That being said, between American and French liberalism, it is true that latter is far worse. But you cannot really separate American liberalism from the French revolution: latter was directly inspired by the former.
gral
Well-known member
As far as I can tell(and what current historiography in Brazil seems to point at - take that as you will), JFK(and his government), while certainly not being a friend of João Goulart, didn't get involved beyond making things difficult for Goulart(mainly by lavishly funding his opponents - Carlos Lacerda received much US funding while he was Governor of Guanabara State, for example) and setting contacts between some plotters. The US involvement was, IMO, less involved in the 1964 coup than it was in the 1963 South Vietnamese one(and even there, it wasn't the main driver of events).
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
"Don't tread on me" is not the same as "abolish the family." Herein is conclusive proof that reactionaries just don't know when to stop reacting.
Whiggery in a vacuum is a problem, but when it's attached to a proper moral framework (as Classical Liberals did with Christianity) it can work pretty well. Liberalism has its problems, but don't throw the baby out of the bathwater. Because in the end, as Doomsought pointed out, liberalism evolved out of Magna Carta and English Common Law more than anything else. Which means, in a way, it predates the Enlightenment by centuries.
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
Almost exclusive focus on individual and individualism does, however, lead (eventually) to "abolish the family" - it promotes self-centeredness, selfishness and immediate gratification. That is what I am talking about. A degree of collectivism is necessary for the society to function - but as usual, it is easier to go into extremes than to figure out "how much" actually works.
I would prefer to speak of "community" rather than "collectivism". The latter term connotes a system in which individuals are treated as expendable, and decisions are dictated top-down.
bintananth
behind a desk
The Magna Carta is the result of King John (one of the foremost legal scholars of the late-12th/early-13th century) dealing with upset nobles after he had to come up with a literal King's Ransom because his older brother Richard went on a Crusade instead of doing what he was supposed to do: govern England.
John got stuck with the crown because his big brother Dick was an irresponsible asshole.
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
Agreed.
TheRejectionist
TheRejectionist
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
I didn't. I took it from Wikipedia or somewhere - it is historical Coat of Arms of Matthias Corvinus:
