When did you finally realize that history is over?

We have a 25 year rule not to avoid political discussion, but because nothing of any historical relevance has occurred since the fall of the Soviet Union

Fukuyama was already retarded to believe this when he said it, but you would have to be beyond retarded to believe it now.

Christianity has been dead since the 19th century. With the advent of liberalism the West has been slowly sleepwalking into insanity. Stagnation is not surprising in the slightest.

History is pretty much nearing it's end, technological singularity will be here soon

He declared history was dead in 1992.
He was correct. That's the true red pill about our 25 year rule.

>9/11 is not history
>Global crisis of 2008 is not history
>Arab spring is not history
>Syrian war is not history
>Migrant crisis and great replacement of the european population since 30 years are not history
>Global terrorism and rise of Islam are not history
Kys

It stems from the view of "modernity" as being a separate place detached from the past. Proponents of "modernity" view learning about "pre-modern" society is like learning about another country.

Even Fukuyama said that The End Of History was stupid.

We are in a "factors leading to" era. The 50's were fucking boring as were the 20's and etc. Today is the interbellum of our time; and one day people will look back and wonder:
>"Jesus, were all those people autistic or what?"

Just like 9/11 wrecked everyone's dreams of the 21st Century being some utopian time where everyone gets along and we all live peacefully and in prosperity, something will happen to wreck this nonsense too.

This x 1,000,000.
It's like everyone believed and still believes the year 2000 was some paradigm-changing switch that automatically differentiated us with the past. Everything before that was alien and they view it the same way we should be viewing ancient civilizations. Suddenly, even 20 years ago is some backwater time period where we all stood around and banged one another's head with clubs. That's why I cringe when I hear someone say "it's fucking 2017," to prove why their stance is correct. History isn't some line of progress, it has it's ups and downs, and claiming that has all ended because we reached some arbitrary point in time seems like a farce to make people feel superior to their ancestors or just better about themselves.

>still believing this

Can someone tell me what exaclty the '25 year rule' is?
thanks in afterhand

>future historians will have the piss easy job of documenting the post-internet world

Veeky Forums‘s rule between history and politics

Anything that happened less than 25 is politics and cannot be considered history on this board

anything older is history and can be discussed here.

Example: Reagan can be discussed here but the first WE president is not history, since it happened >25 years ago

oh fuck I mean’t “

alright, thanks for explaining

>Implying they won't argue about how the statistics were actually changed by programmers to revision the truth.

>The Influence of Sea Power upon History
>The Party Decides
>The End of History
What other books (that quickly became "Bibles"
for the elites but where almost immediately
proven to be spectacularly wrong) like this?

>want to talk about the 2000s
>can't do it here because muh 25 year rule
>can't do it on /pol/ because muh jooos

This
Even Bloch said that it's nonsensical to assume that man made time scales somehow dictate or perfectly separate History, as if the change from a century to another means that suddenly we have flying cars or some shit.

history began and ends with time

history did not end with the fall of rome

i do not know why anyone would think otherwise

>history is over

the sheer arrogance of this statement.

history before Joseph Scalinger, or Jose de Acosta is still unknown as fuck.

half of what you people consider history is made up for political purposes and to create social order

Kek somebody buy this man a drink

>nothing of any historical relevance has occurred since the Soviet Union's fall
how can one be this ignorant of the present... did your AP Euro class not cover post-Soviet Europe and you think history ended because of this?

there's no way to answer this post except with derision and a request to further educate yourself

>technological singularity will be here soon
1. this wouldn't be the end of human history unless you really believe skynet could exist which is a whole other thing. I posted a huge response to someone about how skynet/similar AIs wouldn't exist so I could post it if you want
2. the singularity is probably going to happen >75 years from now, we haven't invented partial sentience yet (similar to other mammals) and AI development is primitive
>inb4 chatbots
they are programmed to mimic in an intelligent fashion, parrots/ravens/other intelligent birds are far smarter
3. human history doesn't end with humans if our works are still active

"Wow, there's no more forests around anymore. All I see is stupid trees"
Nice job retard

>History isn't some line of progress, it has it's ups and downs

The reason people see it as a line is because there is no one alive today that has ever personally seen civilization collapse and humanity go backwards.

No one said that it will be a utopia. The point is that social, technological, and political change will eventually reach a plateau. Obviously, Fukuyama was dead wrong 25 years ago, but it wouldn't be surprising if the rapid advancement of AI creates an "end of history" scenario in the future.