I thought about this today. Is he right?

I thought about this today. Is he right?

Attached: conspiracies_and_terrorism[1].png (1423x1005, 1.29M)

There is no flow of history
Go read a book and then watch Lupin III

not with that attitude

Attached: Yang alcohol friend.jpg (1279x960, 140.1K)

Literally every revolution that has ever occurred has been the result of conspirators (usually freemasons or Jews) meeting in secrecy.

Attached: enarxi-epanastaseos.jpg (769x432, 60.41K)

>"Assassinations can't change the world"
>gets assassinated
>world changes

No.

The world changed, but it didn't reverse. The Iserlohn Republic didn't vanish, it remained, thus time didn't reverse.
The point of the argument isn't that terrorism and conspiracies don't change the world, it's that they don't bring back what's already changed. No amount of terrorism would return Earth to it's heyday, because human civilization had already branched out and become something new

no, that's wrong. human history isn't some linear progression to an ultimate state. there's no reason to believe that the political trends of one period will continue into the next. complete cultural reverses happen all the time, and yes, it's often the direct result of conspiracies/fringe groups
anyone who says they know what life will be like in 100 years is delusional

Completely wrong, killing JFK changed everything for example.

>galactic homo said another retard quote (this only happens 30 times an episode)
>time for another shit thread
Kill yourself.

I think he's correct. Usually the basis of changing flows in history is ideological, religious, and philosophical shifts. There's an argument to be made the basis of that is physiological, and that can further reduced to environment. But that goes beyond history somewhat.

>basic Whig/Hegelian view of history.
This is more a religious question then a scientific one, but the answer is no. Tbf to Yang, he may saying that it's difficult to go against the spirit of an era, but even this can be shaped with such methods.

How is this whig or hegelian? He's not talking about "progress" here, or whether history is cyclical or whatever, he's just commenting on what he thinks drives historical trends.

For me, it's Bittenfeld.

history is worthless because technology affects culture to such a huge degree that it's impossible to predict how societies will develop

like look at the crazy shit china gets away with, nobody knows if their technofascist state will survive or not, but so far it's been doing great. social media (including Any Forums!) lets people live in more radical bubbles than ever before, making it possible to have entire populations of a country believing absolute nonsense. in twenty years maybe it'll be possible to just straight up plug your brain into something and who knows where that'll lead. good luck trying to draw parallels to historical societal movements when toaster AIs are demanding rights.

I know you'll be dead in 100 years.

Show me on the archive where the LoGH fan touched you.

>Go read a book
which one?

my friend, i'll be dead in less than 10 if i don't radically change my lifestyle

honestly with how quickly everything is turning to shit I doubt very much anybody would want to be alive 10 years from now

>good luck trying to draw parallels to historical societal movements when toaster AIs are demanding rights
Beings that should never be considered above objects or animals demanding to be treated as equals...
Nope. No parallels in history for it at all.