History Western Civilization, Rome and Cyclical History

[Simonbob]

Yeah, because in your right, white minds, we colored people are just a bunch of uneducated, dumb savages that can only be used for menial labour.

As far as I can tell, that's what you're saying.

There's a reason why I'm so supprised at your words.


And annoyed, but I'm used to people blaming random historical groups for their own shortcomings.

 

[King Arts]

How many trade depots do the monks own and control? How many banks do the monks own? How many monks are employed as bankers, industrialists, entrepreneurs, and traders? And most important, how many factories do the monks own? NONE whatsoever. As I said, the monks taught the natives how to work, but never taught them the necessity of wealth accumulation. That alone should tell you something, and the natives of the New World are condemned to become the source of cheap labor for American firms in the modern day period.

The Anglophone countries are only successful because they had a glut of people that they can use as settlers, as opposed to the Iberians who had to screw with local women there.

I'm proud of being educated in secular run schools than church run schools, as the former is quite cheap. You on the other hand, are an example of why Catholics as a whole do not deserve any kind of respect, let alone human decency.

I don’t know man you could just as easily argue the reason Spanish colonies failed was because the Spanish did not wipe out the natives like the English did in the Americas, and Canada. So some would argue that the natives were of “lesser stock” than Europeans. I don’t think it’s likely but it’s a more logical argument than Catholicism theology causing backwardness.

No the truth is geography and the benefits certain lands had for their inhabitants.


After all Canada used to be French which is Catholic did the English really improve it that much?

 

[Navarro]

Latin America was basically colonised as a gold mining area for the benefit of Spain, the Thirteen Colonies actually created an independent economy.

 

[Simonbob]

Latin America was basically colonised as a gold mining area for the benefit of Spain

Whom the locals lept at with a desperate passion.

They knew a good deal when they saw it.

 

[Crom's Black Blade]

I think this is the source of our differing view. I could argue the other points, but that would either be a re-hashing of what's been said already, or a case of me saying "I actually agree with your moral opinion, but I think that what I'm outlining is the best that will be attainable, and we may count ourselves lucky that it will be attained".

But here's the crux, for me: freedom relies on order. It is chaos that presages authoritarian force. After an age of chaos, which is brutally managed (in the face of all pre-existing authority's effective collapse) through charismatic populism and naked force of arms... the answer to both chaos and tyranny is the blessed liberty that can only exist in a well-ordered world.

This is not the perfect and complete liberty that an idealist would most ardently desire -- and at heart I am such an idealist -- but it is the closest sustainable (large-scale) approximation of it. The perfect being the enemy of the good, I'm willing to be satisfied with something less than perfect, if it drags the world out of hell.

I don't think the disagreement is in "order". There must always be order for any system to function pretty much by definition. Chaos being the rejection of a system. On the subject I think "Order" and "Security" are required just as "Liberty" is required. To have more of one will, by necessity, weaken the other and thus ideally there must always be a balance. Rather ironic considering my avatar is Elric of Melnibone but I digress.

And the society you describe, one which craves security above all else, would hardly be the ones to argue against the blanket of State security. They'd likely champion such abuse of power because it delivers what they desire.

I do disagree "chaos" uniquely presages authoritarian force. Oh it certainly can, authoritarians will point towards it as good as any other reason to justify giving them more power to deal with things, but the authoritarian impulse is inherently human in nature. As a good point of reference the United States enjoyed a fairly prosperous and orderly 20th century post WW2 by comparisons to most other times on Earth yet the moral and political rot, the authoritarian impulses of our government, sprouted from that era spawning the chaos we now deal with. As such I can't agree Chaos and Tyranny are linked. Indeed I would say chaos typically presages tyranny as people get desperate to have order, any order, restored to the situation.

Another point of contention is, I imagine, we rather disagree on what "Freedom" or "Liberty" is. You, if you'll forgive the comparison, appear more to favor the Doctor Doom version of liberty. Namely that as long as a government more often than not makes the correct decisions to prevent detrimental actions and the broad outcome results in prosperous citizens safe to go about from home to work then that is "liberty" or a close enough approximation. Or as you say elsewhere "results matter".

In contrast I take the stance "freedom" is a government who allows no one, by they group or individual, to unjustly interfere with my pursuit of happiness or by extension my neighbors. That I am free not only from having my skull cracked in by wayward bandits but that I am free to make mistakes both actual and those merely in the eyes of my leaders. That results matter less than the process we used to obtain them.

The issue isn't so much perfection or complete liberty, after all any societal agreement of two or more people will involve some compromise to some extent, as differing views of the proper sphere of government.

If someone's so good at making the world believe a traditionalist narrative that it actually results in a triumph of traditionalism... then that's all to the good.

I wouldn't say "traditionalism" is a triumph or a good in and of itself however. Traditions, yes, since they represent millennias of people bashing their head up against age old problems and thus rather than one's own limited viewpoint and intellect you are treated to a breadth of knowledge. A tradition astroturfed into existence to support a pragmatic ruler's right to rule doesn't necessarily have that benefit.

Its like how Leftists are very much in favor of traditionalism, fanatical even, with the most fervent bible-thumping of their dogma. Its just that their traditional beliefs are of more recent and indeed pragmatic vintage and tend towards making things worse rather than better.

And the same goes for our "Augustus". His traditions may be good or they may be bad but they will be shaped by him for his own, pragmatic, ends. So any tradition of limited-government, and how that's defined, will be by his directive.

It's just that he's also -- perhaps more than anything else -- an ice cold pragmatist.

The fact he's, above all else, a pragmatist, as opposed to creature of principal, is exactly why I fear he'd give into his darker impulses because a pragmatist will do what is easiest solution in the moment. And it is very hard to pragmatically argue that everyone must do X or die, such as join the Imperial Cult, and stop there.

The genuine pragmatist will see the obvious outcome of that cycle, and seek to avoid it.

I would have to disagree. Its not a question on if the "Augustus" will impose his will on others. His very nature is to do that. He simply does it more effectively, and exploits people desperate for security and stability, by creating a false foundation upon which to justify his rule from traditions to religions. Which certainly will involve "compromise" but at his whim and obviously not against anything he truly cares about.

The only question is to what extent is "despotic power" needed. You and @Cherico argue it will be limited in scope while I argue the "Augustus" has already made the Faustian bargain of crushing the rights of the individual for the collective good as he sees it. So the only restraints are practical ones. How much the populace will endure before they revolt, how effective are the tools of the State. The latter offer a degree of control undreamt of even a couple of centuries prior let alone when Augustus was still around. The former may very well prefer security over liberty.

The best way to explain it is this.


Much fewer rules but the ones that remain are ruthlessly enforced.

Forgive me, but that's not an explanation. That is a summary of your belief.

While I disagree with it, I certainly understand the concept being expressed by both you and @Skallagrim. It is the "good dictator" philosophy. That the "Augustus", due to elements of his character and upbringing, will intervene and use tyrannical power only for good ends at least more often than not. That he'll step up and sweep all those bad people away and force everyone else to come to the table and behave.

Now if we're only talking about a functional state that makes the train run on times, there is more than a element of truth to the above. Chaos begs for order after all and whatever my misgivings bringing order out of chaos is more or less what defines the "Augustus" more than anything else.

This issue, if I understood precisely what you were responding too, falls more along the lines of the scope of these "despotic powers" and how limited, if any, said government can said to be. In the particular section I referenced you while responding to Skallagrim, I was responding to his assertion that the people would have developed a distrust of an "abusive" state. In brief my position was that a society that had "seen enough trouble for several lifetimes, and they'll want no more of it" as Skallagrim had previously alleged, and which mirrors similar statements made by you, are likely to favor security over their own freedom and liberty, such as joining the astroturfed Imperial cult, and are unlikely to bat an eye at an "abusive state" directed against people they don't like.

So as long as Augustus can frame any intrusion into their lives as Daddy government protecting them, the people likely will tolerate it as long as they have food over their heads and food on the table.

So the only limits are those Augustus himself imposes or practical considerations such as the tools of the State. The latter are incredibly effective compared to previous eras allowing a degree of micromanaging at the Augustus's fingertips should he desire it that would make him god like compared to rules of previous eras. And the Augustus, by his nature, has already accepted the individual has no rights compared to the collective. You will join or you will die, for the greater good of course.

I would consider that a recipe for nothing good, liberty-wise, but I figure there's a pretty simple test. Assume Obama/Biden/Hillary as the Augustus. If you'd feel as safe opposing them as Emperor as you would as President then truly it is a free and liberty filled Empire.

 

[ATP]

Yeah, because in your right, white minds, we colored people are just a bunch of uneducated, dumb savages that can only be used for menial labour.

I do agree however, that this is indeed getting out of control.

What I am actually accusing ATP and possibly the Catholic majority here, is of being a Catholic supremacist.

Becouse i stated facts? if protestants you love so much come to your country you would not exist,becouse indians would be wiped out.
And only reason why you are fucked are old stupid spanish kings,and later USA and masons.
Not catholics.Christieros fought not only for God,but also for free market state.
And USA and masons destroyed that chance for Mexico.

 

[TheRomanSlayer]

Becouse i stated facts? if protestants you love so much come to your country you would not exist,becouse indians would be wiped out.
And only reason why you are fucked are old stupid spanish kings,and later USA and masons.
Not catholics.Christieros fought not only for God,but also for free market state.
And USA and masons destroyed that chance for Mexico.

Spanish Kings are Catholics, so they still get the blame. And I will state the same thing I have always said: Catholics like you who are always acting so smug and superior are disgusting creatures that don’t deserve respect and human decency. So if you subhuman scum are gonna cry out about being persecuted, you and your kind deserve it. I have lost any kind of empathy for Catholics like you who look down on “heathens, schismatics, and heretics” and think you have a moral high ground when defending your atrocious actions. Guess what? It only affirms my views of Catholics being natural supremacists that eventually get their just desserts down the road.

It’s also better to be dead than to be poor, because being poor generation by generation can be soul crushing. Not really a spiritual salvation, isn’t it?

At the very least, I can respect Protestants for being vicious, greedy, bloodthirsty assholes, because at the very least they’re fighting for their own survival. Hell, Poland going Protestant would have been a small improvement if they did after all.

So yeah. That’s it. I'm a Mongoloid Austronesian, not the 'Indian' of the New World. I'm proud of my own racial origin, and take pride being an Asiatic, Mongoloid, 'shitskin'.

 

[ATP]

Spanish Kings are Catholics, so they still get the blame. And I will state the same thing I have always said: Catholics like you who are always acting so smug and superior are disgusting creatures that don’t deserve respect and human decency. So if you subhuman scum are gonna cry out about being persecuted, you and your kind deserve it. I have lost any kind of empathy for Catholics like you who look down on “heathens, schismatics, and heretics” and think you have a moral high ground when defending your atrocious actions. Guess what? It only affirms my views of Catholics being natural supremacists that eventually get their just desserts down the road.

It’s also better to be dead than to be poor, because being poor generation by generation can be soul crushing. Not really a spiritual salvation, isn’t it?

At the very least, I can respect Protestants for being vicious, greedy, bloodthirsty assholes, because at the very least they’re fighting for their own survival. Hell, Poland going Protestant would have been a small improvement if they did after all.

So yeah. That’s it. I'm a Mongoloid Austronesian, not the 'Indian' of the New World. I'm proud of my own racial origin, and take pride being an Asiatic, Mongoloid, 'shitskin'.

Are you trolling us,or...you could not be that stupid,right? please,tell me that it is sick joke!
I refuse to belive,that human beings could be as stupid as you.
Yes,you must be good troll.

 

[Skallagrim]

Please take this dumb, off-topic fight elsewhere. Start your own thread for that nonsense.