Sign into an existing account

Anarchism is a political philosophy advocating for the absence of government and any other form of hierarchical authority, seeking to replace them with voluntary associations and free cooperation. It's often seen as a libertarian wing of the socialist movement, aiming to create a society without coercive structures like the state or capitalism.

Key aspects of Anarchism:

Anti-authoritarianism:

Anarchism fundamentally rejects all forms of hierarchical authority, including the state, law, and any system that forces individuals to obey.

Focus on individual liberty:

It prioritizes individual autonomy and freedom, believing that people should have the right to make their own decisions without coercion.

Emphasis on voluntary association:

Anarchists envision societies where individuals come together voluntarily to cooperate and achieve shared goals without coercion.

Anti-capitalism:

Many anarchists also oppose capitalism, viewing it as a form of economic exploitation and a source of inequality that reinforces hierarchical structures.

Diverse forms:

Anarchism encompasses various sub-movements and schools of thought, including anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-primitivism, and green anarchism, each with its own approach to achieving a stateless society.
Important points to consider:

Misconceptions:

The term "anarchy" is often associated with chaos and disorder, but anarchists envision a society that is free, not chaotic.

Methods of change:

Anarchists employ various strategies, including non-violent direct action, protests, and the creation of alternative institutions to challenge existing power structures.

Contemporary relevance:

Anarchism continues to be a relevant political philosophy, particularly in movements against capitalism, globalization, and authoritarianism.

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71bpHx6+w3L._AC_UF1000,1000_QL80_.jpg

"Both Latins and Anglo-Saxons equate whiteness with superiority"

For context this was published in 1981. Specifically, this is found in his chapter on Mexicans. As Ann Coulter said - we shouldn't have let all of these racists into the country.

https://books.google.com/books/about/Ethnic_Amer.html?id=7LD9RfcZPpkC&source=kp_book_description

And you see it today with male spics voting against Kamala Harris like 56-44%.

https://www.upgoat.net/viewpost?postid=6735016bdd769

Yes, the vast majority of historians, including those who are not religious, agree that Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish man who lived in the 1st century AD, existed as a historical figure, and Christianity was later built upon his life and teachings.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

Historical Consensus:

The question of Jesus' historicity was generally settled in scholarship in the early 20th century, with most scholars now agreeing that he existed.

Distinction between "Jesus of History" and "Christ of Faith":

Scholars make a distinction between the historical Jesus and the figure of Christ as portrayed in religious texts and beliefs.

Evidence for Existence:

Extrabiblical Sources:
Jewish and Roman historians, such as Josephus and Tacitus, mention Jesus, providing evidence beyond the New Testament.

Early Christian Writings:

The letters of Paul, some of the earliest surviving Christian writings, reference Jesus and his followers, including eyewitnesses like Jesus' brother James.

Lack of Debate in Antiquity:

There's no indication that writers in antiquity who opposed Christianity questioned the existence of Jesus.

Specific Events:

While there's no consensus on all elements of the biblical story, two events are widely accepted as historical: Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist and his crucifixion by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

While the Safavid Empire (modern-day Iran) and the Ottoman Empire were rivals, the Safavids' existence and conflicts with the Ottomans did not directly "save" Europe, but rather, they prevented the Ottomans from focusing solely on European expansion.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

Ottoman-Safavid Rivalry:
The Safavid Empire, a Shi'a Muslim dynasty, emerged in Persia (modern-day Iran) in the early 16th century, challenging the Ottoman Empire's dominance in the region.

Ottoman Expansion in Europe:

The Ottomans were expanding into Europe, particularly in the Balkans and Hungary, and were a significant threat to the Habsburgs and other European powers.

The "Long" Ottoman War:

The Ottomans engaged in a prolonged conflict with the Safavids, known as the "long" Ottoman war (1603-1618), which diverted Ottoman resources and attention from their European campaigns.

Ottoman-Safavid Wars:

The Ottoman-Safavid wars, including the Ottoman-Safavid War of 1623-1639, were fought over control of Mesopotamia and other territories.

The Safavids' Role:

The Safavids' existence as a strong, independent power in the East meant that the Ottomans could not focus all their resources on Europe.

Ottoman-Habsburg Wars:

The Ottomans also fought wars with the Habsburgs in Europe, including the Siege of Vienna in 1683, which marked a turning point in Ottoman expansion in Europe.

Decline of the Ottoman Empire:

The Ottomans faced internal problems and external pressures, including wars with Russia, Austria, and Poland, which led to the decline of the Ottoman Empire in the late 17th and 18th centuries.

Conclusion:

While the Safavids' actions did not directly "save" Europe from the Ottomans, their resistance and the wars they fought against the Ottomans did prevent the Ottomans from fully consolidating their power in Europe and allowed European powers to resist their expansion.