Historical


                    
                    
                

                

                

            

        
    







            

            
            

                

                    
                

                

                    

                        


	

	
    
        

            

                
                    
                    
                    
                    

    

        Wonned
        

            
            Wonned
        

    

    

         
Wonned

    



                
                    
                    
                    
                    

    

        Mentiones
        

            
            Mentiones
        

    

    

         
Mentiones

    



                
                    
                    
                    
                    

    

        fact
        

            
            fact
        

    

    

         
fact

    



                
                    
                    
                    
                    

    

        mutual
        

            
            mutual
        

    

    

         
mutual

    



                
                    
                    
                    
                    

    

        there
        

            
            there
        

    

    

         
there

    



                
                    
                    
                    
                    

    

        were
        

            
            were
        

    

    

         
were

    



                
                    
                    
                    
                    

    

        argumentative
        

            
            argumentative
        

    

    

         
argumentative

    



                
                    
                    
                    
                    

    

        ons
        

            
            ons
        

    

    

         
ons

    



                
                    
                    
                    
                    

    

        their
        

            
            their
        

    

    

         
their

    



                
                    
                    
                    
                    

    

        digits
        

            
            digits
        

    

    

         
digits

    



                
            

        

    
    

        🔥 | Latest
    

    
    

        

        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        

            

                




    Family, Friends, and Head: anarchy404x 1d
 You must understand the weird logic of the left. To
 them life is priceless and should always be
 prioritised over property. They would literally let the
 statue of Liberty burn to save one person. Through
 inaction let one person starve? You monster, you
 literally murdered them.
 Reply Vote
tsunderepup:
randomslasher:

pastel-selkie:

lesbianshepard:
stupid leftists and their belief in *checks notes* the intrinsic value of human life

Reblog if you would burn down the statue of liberty to save a life

Here’s the thing, though. If you asked a conservative “Would you let the statue of liberty burn to save one life?” they’d probably scoff and say no, it’s a national landmark, a treasure, a piece of too much historical importance to let it be destroyed for the sake of one measly life. 
But if you asked, “Would you let the statue of liberty burn in order to save your child? your spouse? someone you loved a great deal?” the tune abruptly changes. At the very least, there’s a hesitation. Even if they deny it, I’m willing to bet that gun to their head, the answer would be “yes.”  
The basic problem here is that people have a hard time seeing outside their own sphere of influence, and empathizing beyond the few people who are right in front of them. You’ve got your immediate family, whom you love; your friends, your acquaintances, maybe to a certain degree the people who share a status with you (your religion, your race, etc.)–but beyond that? People aren’t real. They’re theoretical. 
But a national monument? That’s real. It stands for something. The value of a non-realized anonymous life that exists completely outside your sphere of influence is clearly worth less than something that represents freedom and prosperity to a whole nation, right?
People who think like this lack the compassion to realize that everyone is in someone’s immediate sphere of influence–that everyone is someone’s lover, or brother, or parent. Everyone means the world to someone. And it’s the absolute height of selfishness to assume that their lives don’t have value just because they don’t mean the world to you. 
P.S. I would let the statue of liberty burn to save a pigeon. 


    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        

            
            

                
                Family, Friends, and Head: anarchy404x 1d
 You must understand the weird logic of the left. To
 them life is priceless and should always be
 prioritised over property. They would literally let the
 statue of Liberty burn to save one person. Through
 inaction let one person starve? You monster, you
 literally murdered them.
 Reply Vote
tsunderepup:
randomslasher:

pastel-selkie:

lesbianshepard:
stupid leftists and their belief in *checks notes* the intrinsic value of human life

Reblog if you would burn down the statue of liberty to save a life

Here’s the thing, though. If you asked a conservative “Would you let the statue of liberty burn to save one life?” they’d probably scoff and say no, it’s a national landmark, a treasure, a piece of too much historical importance to let it be destroyed for the sake of one measly life. 
But if you asked, “Would you let the statue of liberty burn in order to save your child? your spouse? someone you loved a great deal?” the tune abruptly changes. At the very least, there’s a hesitation. Even if they deny it, I’m willing to bet that gun to their head, the answer would be “yes.”  
The basic problem here is that people have a hard time seeing outside their own sphere of influence, and empathizing beyond the few people who are right in front of them. You’ve got your immediate family, whom you love; your friends, your acquaintances, maybe to a certain degree the people who share a status with you (your religion, your race, etc.)–but beyond that? People aren’t real. They’re theoretical. 
But a national monument? That’s real. It stands for something. The value of a non-realized anonymous life that exists completely outside your sphere of influence is clearly worth less than something that represents freedom and prosperity to a whole nation, right?
People who think like this lack the compassion to realize that everyone is in someone’s immediate sphere of influence–that everyone is someone’s lover, or brother, or parent. Everyone means the world to someone. And it’s the absolute height of selfishness to assume that their lives don’t have value just because they don’t mean the world to you. 
P.S. I would let the statue of liberty burn to save a pigeon. 


                
            

            
            
tsunderepup:
randomslasher:

pastel-selkie:

lesbianshepard:
stupid leftists and their belief in *checks notes* the intrinsic value of human...

            
            
        

    



            

        

        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        

            

                




    Apparently, Definitely, and Family: Me [25F] with my boyfriend [25M] of seven months. He has VERY bizarre opinions
 and I want help understanding him, and getting him to understand how others see
 him Relationships
 submitted 7 hours ago by throwaway47273747483
 have been with my boyfriend, Henry, for around 7 months now, and he's an amazing guy etc.
 I really see this developing into a long and very serious relationship. There are no big
 problems or red flags.
 One thing that gets me though, are his political opinions. They are esoteric, somewhat
 incomprehensible, and frankly, bizarre. He is an ardent monarchist (we are in the UK) but not
 in the typical use of the word (ie liking the Queen being an impartial head of state), he literally
 believes in the divine right of kings and that it is the only natural form of government. He
 claims to recognise no monarch since James ll, and apparently the real legitimate successor
 is some guy called Francis who I've never heard of, who is also supposedly the rightful king of
 France and Greece. He never votes, saying he has no desire to assist his monarch in their
 choice of servants (which is technically how the UK government works, the Queen "chooses"
 whoever wins the election). He expressed disgust at Prince Harry's recent engagement, I
 pressed him as to why (I was slightly worried it was racist in nature) and he said both Meghan
 Markle and Kate Middleton are commoners who have no business marrying royalty, then made
 some remark about the Royal Family being a "ghastly bunch of arriviste Germans anyway, so I
 suppose it doesn't matter". It's just strange. It's like his worldview is so odd and so far removed
 from anything I can even begin to understand. I can name the current major Royals and a few
 of the more important historical ones, whereas he is an absolute expert.
 He will passionately debate anyone who wants to, though again it just makes him look strange.
 Friends at dinner will be discussing normal, contemporary political issues, and he will interject
 and go on some tangent about how this all relates to "King John's submission to Papal
 authority in 1213". He does seem to genuinely believe this stuff, but it gives an odd impression
 to those around us. No one can really reply beecause they don't know what he's talking about
 so he definitely gets the feeling he's winning these debates (he's far too well-mannered to be
 rude about it, but it's certainly an unspoken truth in his view)
tikkunolamorgtfo:
TFW your boyfriend is a 17th Century Catholic vampire who is NOT OVER™ the Glorious Revolution of 1688.
    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        

            
            

                
                Apparently, Definitely, and Family: Me [25F] with my boyfriend [25M] of seven months. He has VERY bizarre opinions
 and I want help understanding him, and getting him to understand how others see
 him Relationships
 submitted 7 hours ago by throwaway47273747483
 have been with my boyfriend, Henry, for around 7 months now, and he's an amazing guy etc.
 I really see this developing into a long and very serious relationship. There are no big
 problems or red flags.
 One thing that gets me though, are his political opinions. They are esoteric, somewhat
 incomprehensible, and frankly, bizarre. He is an ardent monarchist (we are in the UK) but not
 in the typical use of the word (ie liking the Queen being an impartial head of state), he literally
 believes in the divine right of kings and that it is the only natural form of government. He
 claims to recognise no monarch since James ll, and apparently the real legitimate successor
 is some guy called Francis who I've never heard of, who is also supposedly the rightful king of
 France and Greece. He never votes, saying he has no desire to assist his monarch in their
 choice of servants (which is technically how the UK government works, the Queen "chooses"
 whoever wins the election). He expressed disgust at Prince Harry's recent engagement, I
 pressed him as to why (I was slightly worried it was racist in nature) and he said both Meghan
 Markle and Kate Middleton are commoners who have no business marrying royalty, then made
 some remark about the Royal Family being a "ghastly bunch of arriviste Germans anyway, so I
 suppose it doesn't matter". It's just strange. It's like his worldview is so odd and so far removed
 from anything I can even begin to understand. I can name the current major Royals and a few
 of the more important historical ones, whereas he is an absolute expert.
 He will passionately debate anyone who wants to, though again it just makes him look strange.
 Friends at dinner will be discussing normal, contemporary political issues, and he will interject
 and go on some tangent about how this all relates to "King John's submission to Papal
 authority in 1213". He does seem to genuinely believe this stuff, but it gives an odd impression
 to those around us. No one can really reply beecause they don't know what he's talking about
 so he definitely gets the feeling he's winning these debates (he's far too well-mannered to be
 rude about it, but it's certainly an unspoken truth in his view)
tikkunolamorgtfo:
TFW your boyfriend is a 17th Century Catholic vampire who is NOT OVER™ the Glorious Revolution of 1688.
                
            

            
            
tikkunolamorgtfo:
TFW your boyfriend is a 17th Century Catholic vampire who is NOT OVER™ the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

            
            
        

    



            

        

        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        

            

                




    9/11, America, and Bad: CAN
 Following
 @CNN
 Former President George W Bush said he is
 "disturbed" by the immigration deba taking
 place in the United States because it
 "undermines the goodness of America." cnn.it
 /2uhH6uB
 6:31 PM - 12 Jul 2018
 730 Retweets 3,902 Likes

 Brotha EB
 @BlakeDontCrack
 Following
 George Bush literally created ICE
 CNN@CNN
 Former President George W Bush said he is "disturbed" by the
 immigration debate taking place in the United States because it
 undermines the goodness of America." cnn.it/2uhH6uB
 9:35 PM-12 Jul 2018
 391 Retweets 903 Likes
c-bassmeow:

n0rdicalien:

c-bassmeow:
sodomymcscurvylegs:

whyyoustabbedme:

whyyoustabbedme:
Dropping bombs on major cities full of civilians because you thought they had “weapons of mass destruction” (and they didn’t) undermined our goodness too.
Bottom line about Bush and immigration is that post 9/11 immigration policies rarely if ever caught any potential terrorists but it did spike the number of deportations with the creation of ICE. 
http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/260/

This is all correct and this dude is a war criminal, but imagine how bad things are that the dude that used the death of thousands of Americans to invade the wrong country for oil and subsequently kill thousands on both sides on one of America’s shitty wars looks at the current dude in power and is flabbergasted. Like, straight up: “this is too fucked up even for me.”

nah Bush was shit and so far he is worse than Trump. Obviously Trump has been in office for less time and can def outdo Bush but bush is still far worse and far more authoritarian than Trump. 
Not only did Bush create ICE he also sent us to two wars built on false pretenses that have cost us TRILLIONS of dollars AND didn’t kill thousands, it killed MILLIONS of innocent Iraqi’s and other peoples. Trump’s death toll isn’t even close. So far obviously. 
Then he ruined our education system and put even worse economic incentives on it with the no child left behind act. 
He stripped us of several civil liberties that newer generations now take for granted such as privacy with the patriot act. 
The NSA was created to spy on US citizens despite intelligence agencies (which liberals now adore since Trump attacked their “integrity) lying to our faces under oath (which is super illegal) that they weren’t doing so. 
so no…. Bush is trying to make himself feel good by being ant-Trump. He is more than just a war criminal and frankly so far, again, he was much worse. We cannot let historical amnesia take over. He gave Trump all the tools to be an authoritarian monster, tools that Obama, mind you, never disbanded. 

Trump is a piece of shit and again can very well outdo Bush but Bush and his administration  were literally evil and so far have been way worse. The post 9/11 political and economic trauma we have all experienced were his administrations fault. oh yeah also the crash of the economy and the lost livelihoods of MILLIONS of people including my mother who couldn’t find a job for ages was his administrations doing.  

Do not rehabilitate this man. Please. 

i heard ICE also prevents child/human trafficking. Is that true?

Even if it does that’s a smokescreen to distract us from how evil it is. The US military sometimes does “good” by giving aide to famished countries yet often it’s the one creating the famines lol We can have a non militarized agency that deals with human trafficking without ripping children from their families and without being hostile to brown immigrants who are often fleeing extreme violence and penury some caused by the US. Also for those who are concerned about border security…… we had border security before ICE was invented. ICE is not needed at all. Plus the border security BS is overrated since immigrants commit less crimes than non immigrants and if we legalize drugs and regulated them and taxed them gang violence and Mafia like activity that occurs on the border will cease to exist. We are the cause of a lot of this. We create a problem and then make it worse by our militarized non-solutions. Lastly, if my sources are correct ICE has lost many children who have possibly been lost to human traffickers so …. some job they’re doing. 
    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        

            
            

                
                9/11, America, and Bad: CAN
 Following
 @CNN
 Former President George W Bush said he is
 "disturbed" by the immigration deba taking
 place in the United States because it
 "undermines the goodness of America." cnn.it
 /2uhH6uB
 6:31 PM - 12 Jul 2018
 730 Retweets 3,902 Likes

 Brotha EB
 @BlakeDontCrack
 Following
 George Bush literally created ICE
 CNN@CNN
 Former President George W Bush said he is "disturbed" by the
 immigration debate taking place in the United States because it
 undermines the goodness of America." cnn.it/2uhH6uB
 9:35 PM-12 Jul 2018
 391 Retweets 903 Likes
c-bassmeow:

n0rdicalien:

c-bassmeow:
sodomymcscurvylegs:

whyyoustabbedme:

whyyoustabbedme:
Dropping bombs on major cities full of civilians because you thought they had “weapons of mass destruction” (and they didn’t) undermined our goodness too.
Bottom line about Bush and immigration is that post 9/11 immigration policies rarely if ever caught any potential terrorists but it did spike the number of deportations with the creation of ICE. 
http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/260/

This is all correct and this dude is a war criminal, but imagine how bad things are that the dude that used the death of thousands of Americans to invade the wrong country for oil and subsequently kill thousands on both sides on one of America’s shitty wars looks at the current dude in power and is flabbergasted. Like, straight up: “this is too fucked up even for me.”

nah Bush was shit and so far he is worse than Trump. Obviously Trump has been in office for less time and can def outdo Bush but bush is still far worse and far more authoritarian than Trump. 
Not only did Bush create ICE he also sent us to two wars built on false pretenses that have cost us TRILLIONS of dollars AND didn’t kill thousands, it killed MILLIONS of innocent Iraqi’s and other peoples. Trump’s death toll isn’t even close. So far obviously. 
Then he ruined our education system and put even worse economic incentives on it with the no child left behind act. 
He stripped us of several civil liberties that newer generations now take for granted such as privacy with the patriot act. 
The NSA was created to spy on US citizens despite intelligence agencies (which liberals now adore since Trump attacked their “integrity) lying to our faces under oath (which is super illegal) that they weren’t doing so. 
so no…. Bush is trying to make himself feel good by being ant-Trump. He is more than just a war criminal and frankly so far, again, he was much worse. We cannot let historical amnesia take over. He gave Trump all the tools to be an authoritarian monster, tools that Obama, mind you, never disbanded. 

Trump is a piece of shit and again can very well outdo Bush but Bush and his administration  were literally evil and so far have been way worse. The post 9/11 political and economic trauma we have all experienced were his administrations fault. oh yeah also the crash of the economy and the lost livelihoods of MILLIONS of people including my mother who couldn’t find a job for ages was his administrations doing.  

Do not rehabilitate this man. Please. 

i heard ICE also prevents child/human trafficking. Is that true?

Even if it does that’s a smokescreen to distract us from how evil it is. The US military sometimes does “good” by giving aide to famished countries yet often it’s the one creating the famines lol We can have a non militarized agency that deals with human trafficking without ripping children from their families and without being hostile to brown immigrants who are often fleeing extreme violence and penury some caused by the US. Also for those who are concerned about border security…… we had border security before ICE was invented. ICE is not needed at all. Plus the border security BS is overrated since immigrants commit less crimes than non immigrants and if we legalize drugs and regulated them and taxed them gang violence and Mafia like activity that occurs on the border will cease to exist. We are the cause of a lot of this. We create a problem and then make it worse by our militarized non-solutions. Lastly, if my sources are correct ICE has lost many children who have possibly been lost to human traffickers so …. some job they’re doing. 
                
            

            
            
c-bassmeow:

n0rdicalien:

c-bassmeow:
sodomymcscurvylegs:

whyyoustabbedme:

whyyoustabbedme:
Dropping bombs on major cities full of civili...

            
            
        

    



            

        

        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        

            

                




    80s, Apparently, and Books: ladylisa:
gemfyre:

lauralandons:

thereadersmuse:

jehovahhthickness:

lightning-st0rm:

pearlmito:

smootymormonhelldream:

stripedsilverfeline:

anti-clerical:

ramirezbundydahmer:

When the Nazi concentration camps were liberated by the Allies, it was a time of great jubilation for the tens of thousands of people incarcerated in them. But an often forgotten fact of this time is that prisoners who happened to be wearing the pink triangle (the Nazis’ way of marking and identifying homosexuals) were forced to serve out the rest of their sentence. This was due to a part of German law simply known as “Paragraph 175” which criminalized homosexuality. The law wasn’t repealed until 1969.

This should be required learning, internationally. 

You need to know this. You need to remember this. This is not something to swept under the carpet nor be forgotten. 
Never. Too many have died for the way they have loved. That needs stop now. 
Make it stop? 

I did a report on this in my World History class my sophomore year of high school. It was incredibly unsettling.

My teacher shown the class this. Mostly everyone in the class felt uncomfortable. 

I have reblogged this in the past, but it is so ironic that it comes across my dash right now. I a currently working as a docent at my city’s Holocaust Education Center (( I say currently because I’ve also done research and translation for them )) and out current exhibit is one on loan from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum ((USHMM)). This is a little known historical fact that Paragraph 175 was not repealed after the war and those convicted under Nazi laws as a danger to society because they were gay were not released because they had be convicted in a court of law. There was no liberation or justice for them as they weren’t considered criminals, or even victims for that matter. They were criminals who remained persecuted and ostracized and kept on the fringes of society for decades after the war had been won. Paragraph175 wasn’t actually repealed until 1994. And it was only in May 2002, that the German parliament completed legislation to pardon all homosexuals convicted under Paragraph175 during the Nazi era. History has forgotten about these men and women — please educate yourselves so this does not happen again. Remember this history. Remember them.

@mindlesshumor ok how the fuck did I miss this when I’ve studied The Holocaust like nobody’s business??? wtf

Because the history we have left regarding it is literally the contents of this first hand account.
It is a thin little book.
When I first opened it, I wondered why it was so thin.
Why there wasn’t other books like it.
Other first hand accounts.
By the time I finished it, I didn’t wonder anymore.

Further reading:
I, Pierre Seel, Deported Homosexual: A Memoir of Nazi Terror by Pierre Seel
An Underground Life: Memoirs of a Gay Jew in Nazi Berlin by Gad Beck
The Pink Triangle: The Nazi War Against Homosexuals by Richard Plant
Branded By The Pink Triangle by Ken Setterington
Bent by Martin Sherman (fiction; however, it’s often credited with bringing attention to gay Holocaust victims for the first time since the war ended)

This is one of the memorial sculptures in Dachau.  It was erected in the early 60s and is missing the pink triangles.  Because in the early 60s, homosexuality was still a crime in most of the world.Our tour guide explained why the pink triangles have not been added later - if they were, then folks would assume that they had always been there.  This way people ask “why aren’t there pink triangles?” and somebody can explain why - because in some ways, the rest of the world was as bass-ackwards as Nazi Germany.


Apparently, this wasnt taught in schools in the 70s-80s, cuz when I mentioned it to my mom, she had no idea that gays were held in concentration camps. She thought it was just jewish people. 

    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        

            
            

                
                80s, Apparently, and Books: ladylisa:
gemfyre:

lauralandons:

thereadersmuse:

jehovahhthickness:

lightning-st0rm:

pearlmito:

smootymormonhelldream:

stripedsilverfeline:

anti-clerical:

ramirezbundydahmer:

When the Nazi concentration camps were liberated by the Allies, it was a time of great jubilation for the tens of thousands of people incarcerated in them. But an often forgotten fact of this time is that prisoners who happened to be wearing the pink triangle (the Nazis’ way of marking and identifying homosexuals) were forced to serve out the rest of their sentence. This was due to a part of German law simply known as “Paragraph 175” which criminalized homosexuality. The law wasn’t repealed until 1969.

This should be required learning, internationally. 

You need to know this. You need to remember this. This is not something to swept under the carpet nor be forgotten. 
Never. Too many have died for the way they have loved. That needs stop now. 
Make it stop? 

I did a report on this in my World History class my sophomore year of high school. It was incredibly unsettling.

My teacher shown the class this. Mostly everyone in the class felt uncomfortable. 

I have reblogged this in the past, but it is so ironic that it comes across my dash right now. I a currently working as a docent at my city’s Holocaust Education Center (( I say currently because I’ve also done research and translation for them )) and out current exhibit is one on loan from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum ((USHMM)). This is a little known historical fact that Paragraph 175 was not repealed after the war and those convicted under Nazi laws as a danger to society because they were gay were not released because they had be convicted in a court of law. There was no liberation or justice for them as they weren’t considered criminals, or even victims for that matter. They were criminals who remained persecuted and ostracized and kept on the fringes of society for decades after the war had been won. Paragraph175 wasn’t actually repealed until 1994. And it was only in May 2002, that the German parliament completed legislation to pardon all homosexuals convicted under Paragraph175 during the Nazi era. History has forgotten about these men and women — please educate yourselves so this does not happen again. Remember this history. Remember them.

@mindlesshumor ok how the fuck did I miss this when I’ve studied The Holocaust like nobody’s business??? wtf

Because the history we have left regarding it is literally the contents of this first hand account.
It is a thin little book.
When I first opened it, I wondered why it was so thin.
Why there wasn’t other books like it.
Other first hand accounts.
By the time I finished it, I didn’t wonder anymore.

Further reading:
I, Pierre Seel, Deported Homosexual: A Memoir of Nazi Terror by Pierre Seel
An Underground Life: Memoirs of a Gay Jew in Nazi Berlin by Gad Beck
The Pink Triangle: The Nazi War Against Homosexuals by Richard Plant
Branded By The Pink Triangle by Ken Setterington
Bent by Martin Sherman (fiction; however, it’s often credited with bringing attention to gay Holocaust victims for the first time since the war ended)

This is one of the memorial sculptures in Dachau.  It was erected in the early 60s and is missing the pink triangles.  Because in the early 60s, homosexuality was still a crime in most of the world.Our tour guide explained why the pink triangles have not been added later - if they were, then folks would assume that they had always been there.  This way people ask “why aren’t there pink triangles?” and somebody can explain why - because in some ways, the rest of the world was as bass-ackwards as Nazi Germany.


Apparently, this wasnt taught in schools in the 70s-80s, cuz when I mentioned it to my mom, she had no idea that gays were held in concentration camps. She thought it was just jewish people. 

                
            

            
            
ladylisa:
gemfyre:

lauralandons:

thereadersmuse:

jehovahhthickness:

lightning-st0rm:

pearlmito:

smootymormonhelldream:

stripedsilverf...