The ancient world - A Dangerous rant

The ancient egyptians, romans and greeks were shit, the only reason we learn about them is because the jews like to remind us they got annihilated by christianity, how a race ends is just as important as how it began, the romans greeks and ancient egyptians are at this point simply ressurected corpses for jews to play with and throw at the clueless northern european master race, all roman material, swords, gladiators, colleseums, leigons, should be destroyed, all greek and ancient egytian pyramids, spartans, alexander the great (jews name their kids alexander after he encountered them) phalanx, hoplites, democracy should all be destroyed as it all supports the jews.

Attached: download.jpg (275x183, 13.01K)

how is it support the jews ? if we destroyed it all we going to have is jewry , we need to learn from history not destroy it

Mod Supported Thread #24675

Actually I like the fact, that some informations about the ancient world are being preserved. One reason for this is, that those informations demonstrate a few things, most of you should agree to:

The bronze-age civilisations, just as the greek and roman civilisation, ended as state-centric and hyperregulated civilizations. Just like our own. When those civilizations finally were conquered by sea-people, german barbarians, and muslims, their empires collapsed largely without a fight, and their populations were easily integrated into the new realm.

Historically this is not common. Historically its normal, that conquered people rebuild their civilisations, if they're not completely wiped out by death or enslavement. But those highly civilized societies collapsed, and were not rebuilt. This is a very convincing argument against a large state, which makes it's people impotent and reliant upon the government.

Another thing one could learn from the ancient past is the failing of democracy. Greek democracy was a total shitshow, which, among other things, killed sokrates and enslaved plato, because they tried to make sense out of the world. Additionally, most greek wars were totally senseless. In regards to the romans, the history of ceasar really shows the failings of a democracy. Back then the state was as corrupt as one could imagine, and the conversion of the roman state from an democratic republic into an dictatorship has to be be considered as an improvement. But even then, the state destroyed the spirit of its people, and, in the end, the whole roman civilisation was destroyed by primitives, whose spirit has not been corrupted. It's REALLY interesting to see, how the muslims wiped the floor with the eastern roman empire. The muslims were much poorer and less "civilized", had smaller armies, and had nearly none of the military infrastructure, the romans had. You know, wars are being won by having the better infrastructure. The arabs pretty much had none, and yet destroyed bigger roman forces in the open field.

Anyhow, I think those ancient examples are among the best reasons against having a civilisation run by a large and omnipotent state. They really show, how catastrophically those societies fail, when they're due.

...

lmao.

btw, it's been the romans, who have destroyed most of the ancient literature. Not the church, and not the muslims. The romans are the culprit.

Personally, I think, that they've done it, because they've realized, that their state-centric ways were a mistake. That's why the west-roman civilization wasn't rebuilt, but replaced by the more free and less spirit-killing feudal societies of the middle ages.

I think you should actually read some history before you make such retarded claims.

A dangerous shitpost indeed

...

ask wikipedia for the timetable. In 500ad, which marks the official beginning of the middle ages, the ancient books already had been destroyed.

Yeah but on accident because Italians are fucking stupid.

Literally the most intelligent ethnicity in Europe.

yes.

Perfect inversions of reality are the hallmark of the kike propagandist. Be mindful.

That's not very likely. Most ancient scripts were privately owned, so any burned library could have been replenished by making new copies from the private copies.

The destruction of the ancient scripts happened on purpose. Maybe even on one of their brighter moments, after theyve realized, that their ways were wrong, and large central states must be destroyed at any cost. But that's my theory.

No. It goes like this:

Stone Age: 10,000bc - 3500bc
Bronze Age: 3500bc - 1500bc
Iron Age: 1500bc - 500ad
Migration Age: 500ad - 1000ad
Middle Age: 1000ad - 1500ad
and so on…

This timeline includes the entire world, not just Europe or parts of Europe, and does not exclude Norse migrations from the Migration Age like jews do.

It was an accident as has been documented by Seneca the Younger and Plutarch but all that was destroyed were scrolls in a warehouse-type stucture, many of which were copies as you assert. It is argued that Didymus Chalcenterus (Biblioláthēs) used such copies as sources to write his many thousands of books, as libraries began to spring up everywhere to preserve history.

In your own personal opinion, how much of the surviving, non-destroyed history is being intentionally obfuscated?

What's considered to be the "middle ages" depends on the historian and the region. According to what I've learned, late antiquity ended somewhere around the year 500, and was succeeded by the dark ages, which are considered to be part of the middle ages.

but if you say, that the middle ages started at around 1000ad, it's even more clear, that the ancient scripts were not destroyed during that time.