LOL

LOL

Attached: clHqkvm.jpg (640x585, 68K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_Rothschild
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

what a shitty meme.

>leftists' historical ignorance makes them project the present onto the past, and ALL points in the past

Medieval lords were obliged to go to war if war broke out, and could not marry freely. Meanwhile the peasants got tons of days off and had no obligation to go to war

actualy in late medieal europe the payment cost of life balance was best in recorded history
keings had only little power and where constraint by the council of their lords and the parliaments
a king couldn't even raise taxes without the parliaments consent in most european monarchys
the tax rate was WIDE UNDER TODAYS TAX RATE
social cohesionw as a thing
and new inventions and tactics espacialy in the late middleages and the early modern persion allowed more and more vistoires against overwhelming islamic majoritys
in fact the fight against muslim atacks was even considered a honorable cause for upper class men so they joined the monastic orders and commited their lfie to defend the christians against pagan and islamic hostilitys.
also most officials on the village level were ELECTED by the commoners and peasents
yes even the peasents
and judges were appointed in consent with the population. so they could be removed.

you see feudal society wasn't perfect but it had very many certain benefits compared to our society
also free men were allowed to carry sowrds which is a right we lack in many modern western states which seriously disturbs me
also meat consumption around 1500 was higher than today because people had relativly mroe money to pay lifecosts

history student btw

actualy the right of lords to marry their peasents(or subjects) to each other like the wanted was only used very rarely so rarely that when it was tried to use it again in germany usualy riotes would follow
i would prefer to be a german farmer in the 15th century by far
lower taxes , instact society structure , pride, familys still intact. everythign was a lot cheaper than today etc

>actualy the right of lords to marry their peasents(or subjects) to each other like the wanted was only used very rarely so rarely that when it was tried to use it again in germany usualy riotes would follow
What the fuck are you talking about?
Are you completely illiterate or something?

the lords actualy worked hard if you know how aristocracy came into place in europe
those was the european upper class it ofiginates fromt eh BEST of the coutnry that were cosulted by kings and such in how to govern their realm for their actualy merit
if your family accomplished to stay the dominant economical force in a region over generations your genes are probably damn good.

the left can't may may

>Medieval lords were obliged to go to war if war broke out, and could not marry freely. Meanwhile the peasants got tons of days off and had no obligation to go to war
>canadian education

Attached: laughing-pepe.jpg (399x385, 27K)

>peasants had no obligation to go to war
You memeing me here, m8?

not my mother tongue i might expressed it a bit more misunderstandable


ok there was a right of lords to make their subjects marry another person (that's also their subject)
but this right wasn't realy used that often and in fact most european people in the middleages married freely who ever they likes because it was not well recepted by the lower classes when the lords used that right and it was then abondonedfor example in the 16th century germany per forma

>actualy the right of lords to marry their peasents(or subjects) to each other like the wanted was only used very rarely so rarely that when it was tried to use it again in germany usualy riotes would follow

I meant that the lords generally had to accept arranged marriages that they went into for political purposes

But yeah, the Medieval Holy Roman Empire was a pretty comfy place

>also meat consumption around 1500 was higher than today

Bullshit.

>hehe GAY of thrones is real history!

literally no. Medieval armies don't exist in a scale we can even imagine most of the time today. A force of a few thousand was a reckoning in the middle ages. These few thousand would be a rediculously small portion of the general population. We're talking about a medieval army using maybe 0.00001% of the general population, while a Napoleonic used about 5% of the general population, and by WW1, WW2, 30-50% of the general population.

game of plebs was the worst thing to ever happen

Is this a shot at capitalism? Because even the feudal lords make bank off of capitalism like everybody else did. I never heard of a lord wanting to be a communist now have we?

they had and theorethical obligation but that was not used because of the introduction of the feudal system
which started when instead of rising a farmer army the kings ordered that each vilalge should send their best men with familys as ministerials(servants) to train them as professional soldiers
the fields of these soldiers was then caredfor by the other farmers so these people these servants were also used as well administrials in the region they came from etc
the english word"knight" still shows this it is derived from the same root as the german "kneacht" which literaly means "servant"
so you see instead of peasents fighting the war some peasents trained as elite soldiers fought the war + other that were risen more on short term demand as knights got more and more costly as their armor and weaponry were improved.

then later in the late middleages actualy Free Townsmen dominated the european battlefield
because the evergrowing towns produced an overpopulation of well fed young men with less expectation of finding a licence in in their craft in their hometome or just with some abenteuerlust
so they joined the mercenary armys
or evven the towns themself conscripted their citiziens to fulfil some mercenary contract that was made between some other town of lord and the actual town (e.g. the swiss towns)
most peasents staed on their fields during war time because agriculture became more intensive in the middleages(starting in the high middleages )so they couldn't leave theri fields like the did in the early middleages

also noblemen were expected to perform dangerous tasks and lead from the front. even into the 18th century and later.

>Trying to equate/shoehorn restoration era (17th century) social philosophy into middle ages (9th-15th century) legal and military customs to propagate a mutation of modern US liberalism.

This is why no one likes Americans.

Attached: 12269236_f520.jpg (520x300, 68K)

i study history
i saw the statistics
look it UP
IT IS RIGHT
THE MEAT PRICE WAS LOW AF AND TODAY IT IS ACTUALY LOWER LOOK IT UP FAGGOT

>give king money
>He gets rich and decides to spend his wealth by starting a few wars for you to fight in.

Yeah sounds great.

>we called them lords then
>you call them undocumented immigrants now

BOOM

The left truly can't meme.
Who wants a bigger government? The left.
Who wants (others) to pay more taxes for nigger gibbs? The left.
Who bows to autority and demands to cut freedoms for his fellow people? The left.
Who doesn't respect hard work and private property? The left.

not how it works european kings simply couldn't do this they had to ask parliament to get more taxes and then sacrifice other royal rights to get the tax rise,
so king generally tried to get around raising taxes

Attached: 1520527829771.gif (69x120, 49K)

Are you retarded? This is a shot at poor conservatives voting for the interest of the wealthy. It's the simplest joke

I saw it on a fictional jew tv show so it must be true and accurate.

Attached: 1518025101944.jpg (900x750, 83K)

The very same image can be edited to apply to modern communism

>the Lords worked hard to get where they are.
Businessmen do not use "Lordly" coercion to get you to buy their products.
>They shouldn't have ot pay taxes to the king.
Nobody should.
>If they had more gold, then we would too, it's common sense.
I assume this means, if they had more money they would spend that money. The truth of the matter regarding their money is that it is their money, so mind your own business, and if you have an idea to treat your workers better - create your business, you will steal his workers, and you will make more money, the workers will have better conditions, and everyone wins.

pretty funny

post the other peasant meme

the badass farmer guy

that one is hilarious

That one is good.
We need more peasant memes in general

But that's true. As the lords thrived more, they could build better and safer castle walls and roads and help conquer more land that peasants could expand into.

Back when we could still support the lower classes.

Attached: peasant-coming-through.jpg (720x608, 57K)

Since when is voting for less taxes an interest of the wealthy and since when are people who happen to be wealthy in your group a bigger enemy to you than outsiders?

It makes no sense at all. Especially considering it was capitalism that made the world better for peasants in the first place.

Essentially its retarded marxist bullshit trying to spin history into a struggle of class.

Hol up
So u be sayin liek
So hol up
U b sayin like, so wait
Luk luuk
So u was sayin
Lemme ax u tho

>memecreator.com
Jesus fucking christ this is pathetic.

Attached: 51384dd3db7be3f5a13c59573eafe9fa719c863d4a1896731c4414e591f5f934.jpg (1080x584, 118K)

Voting, and supporting trickle down economics. This has been a consistent move for conservatives. The tax breaks are for the rich.
This is not a commentary on capitalism. It's just showing the argument for voting for the rich having more money in different scenery. Nowhere does it say anything about communism.

>implying the richest people in the world pay any taxes

People obviously didn't get fucking rich by giving their money away.

You think fucking bill gates has a bank account with 60 billion in it? Of course not. It's all tied up in assets, which means the taxes he has to pay whatever the tax plan is basically nothing.

>the Lords worked hard to get where they are
Likely an objective fact, considering how potentially deadly it was to become a feudal lord in that time. You literally had to kill and risk death, even from your own family, constantly.
>they shouldn't have to pay taxes to the king
Well, no one likes taxes right? If the Lords didn't have to pay taxes, that'd be one less excuse they had for taxing the peasants, right? Where do you thinking taxes actually come from that Lords send to kings (its the peasants, stupid).
>if they had more gold than we would too
Well, what's the point of having gold if you don't spend it? If the Lord's had more gold to spend, they'd let more peasants become artisans. We would need fewer peasants for crops, since we wouldn't need to grow more crops than we needed to eat. That seems like common sense.

Seriously tho, the Left can't fucking meme.

Attached: file.png (778x658, 366K)

The tax breaks are for the rich because they pay more taxes and use less public services moron. Why do you think taxes arent opt-out?

More like "If we don't work we'll be slaughtered and used to fertilize these very crops."

It depends on the country. The steep feudalism of France did not require peasants to fight.. That was a major reason for the Vandee rebellion - when the french revolutionaries introduced conscription and the deepy conservative/reactionary catholic peasants chimped out.

England was a bit different, it was a society of free men from the beggining, i believe they had an obligation to serve their liege for 3 months if required. But in short no, the massive huge conscripted armies of WW1, WW2 etc is a modernity thing. Something like that was unimaginable to the medievals. Medieval peasants had to work like ~150 days per year, they pretty much had the 1/3 of the year off.

The slandering of our history as if it was some endless suffering of the poor opressed peasants until the (((revolutionaries))) came along and fixed everything is one of those lies.

Attached: middleagesromanticism.jpg (1600x1440, 236K)

>modern communist
LOL

Attached: image.jpg (444x602, 87K)

Hey you brain dead retard, I didn't write the joke, I'm explaining it. Do you understand the difference between those two things? Are you drunk or something?

Ok, what's your stance on tax cuts and the meaning of this image?

>this thread, not one edit
get your shit together faggots

Attached: Pastoral scene, ink on parchment circa 1450.png (1084x820, 881K)

I explained what the creator's obvious intent with the image is, I'm not going to type it out again for you because you can't follow replies.
Taxes are a complicated topic, it depends on a lot of factors like how they motivate, where the taxes go, the payers mobility etc.
However, I vote for my own self interest.

What's actually funny about the "snarkument" the meme expresses, is that Leftoids harbor a dogma that lower class interests have nothing to do with upper class interests. This error lead early Marxists to believe that the working class would unify across national boundaries, and rise up in a global revolution to create and international workers dictatorship. In reality, workers were conservative and saw their conservative wealthy leaders as having MORE VITAL interests in terms of traditional religious, ethnic, and racial identity. Invading powers tend to replace all the Y chromosomes after an invasion, disrupting the values or erasing the culture completely. Men seem to have an aversion to that programmed into them on an unconscious level. Also, the current leaders have a vested interest in preserving the lifestyles of their laborers, on average, more often than progressive social reformers who want to completely and radically re-engineer society.

To this day, leftists routinely expect the working class to side with them, without realizing that they're upper middle class people with no interests in common betweent their progressive utopianism, and the traditional identities of most laborers. Soyboys and Longshoremen have nothing in common, least of all racial or gender identities.

Attached: 1520664179415.jpg (480x529, 56K)

What I asked was, what's your stance about the intent of this image. Do you belive that conservatives actually belive in "trickle down economics", a leftist-made term? Do you support Trump's tax cuts?

Medevial liberals. We need the serfs who else will pick our crops

There are some that still believe in the concept, I don't think they do so much anymore, but the last time I heard it pushed by the voting base of the right was during Bush. I imagine there's some that believe in it still.
For what I know about Trump's tax cuts I'm for them. Can't say I know all the details though.

As for the image I do find it funny how people will concern themselves with making sure the top bracket maintains their wealth and well being, when the reality is, it's not going to change your life. You're a peasant either way

This is literally a medley of strawmen wrapped up in a false equivalence. It's like a burrito of logical fallacy.

Attached: 1429745718633.jpg (661x821, 82K)

I disagree, the books are phenomenal.
The retarded made for cable tv diversityfest sucks.

You seem pretty chill man, I just hate anytime you say something positive about tax cuts the left comes saying "muh trickle down" like retards. They fucking have the same taking points always.

Attached: Just another day at the plantaion farm.png (1084x820, 768K)

this Hans knows what he is talking about

Wasn't the merchant class able to buy itself into nobility in France and England?

Just England

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_Rothschild

Population sizes were small back then. An army of a few thousand was a sizeable portion of the population. Cities were just a few hundred or thousand people at most back then not like the millions we crowd in to today.

Do these peasants think they're going to get more gold if the king takes MORE of the lord's income? How would that work?

Life was so good in the dark ages, ruling class had to erase it completely from history.

Thanks. Yeah I agree. There's always going to be a reaction to letting the rich hoard more stuff, on a visceral level, which the left will use. It's certainly justified to be skeptical about policy like that, but of course you have to look at what it's trying to accomplish down the road.

Attached: this_kills_capitalists.jpg (1762x946, 148K)

Most people confuse peasants with industrial revolution working class.

>I can't even into pareto distribution

Try again at basic economics Bernie.

Attached: 1112.jpg (270x187, 6K)

it was higher back in rome too

Giving that much wealth to the class that takes the worst economic decisions would just make the money go to the top very quickly again.

and such money gets reinvested into their businesses and them making big money spendings. But yet its going to off shore accounts and kept in their wallets cus why not even though they can take a fuck ton of financial blows and be perfectly fine.

I love these

Attached: 1314967307946365834.jpg (1031x640, 171K)

Fucking newfag

newfag spotted

>Population sizes were small back then. An army of a few thousand was a sizeable portion of the population. Cities were just a few hundred or thousand people at most back then not like the millions we crowd in to today.

Attached: 1520231207501.jpg (550x543, 83K)

>I'm wrong and have no counter argument so have this meme instead

Kek, the lords never would have proposed that they "earned" their positions, and they wouldn't have looked for valdiation from anyone that they did. The person who made this travesty clearly knows fuck all about anything older than Looney Tunes

i mean by logic stances, you're not wrong. However to say such kingdoms dont have hundreds of thousands of people or even millions is completely wrong due to the estimate of around 6 trillion people dying before us.

but yeah. Medieval armies were small af compared to our double digit million soldiers

>Feudalism
>Capitalism
Pick one and only one faggot. You're comparing apples and oranges.

Also, 1 post by this ID

sage

>no one needs a sword
>the lords will protect me

>Never heard of Guilds
Some of them where more powerful than a margrave.

Well pretty much any margrave could knight you.
So if you keep pleasing him by funding some of hes campaigns.
You could always "Buy" yourself into nobility.

But feudalism was basically proto-socialism.

they still had millions of people they could potentially recruit from, but armies were small and a war could be decided by a single large battle. napoleon changed the way war works when he started recruiting heavily from common people and was able to declare he could lose 30,000 men every month without breaking his army

>they pretty much had the 1/3 of the year off
Off from farming. They still needed to work to produce other necessities like clothing, house goods, repairs, etc.
Not to mention all the food production unrelated to agriculture. You can't stop taking care of your animals just because it's a holiday, you know. And them grapes and olives ain't gonna press themselves. Your flax won't clothe you in its just harvested form either.
And let's not forget that at least since the 14th century peasants were commonly hired in their offseason by city merchants looking for cheap manpower: particularly common in the textile business, where there was plenty of unskilled work that could easily be done in a hut in winter.