Yet it appears to be the want of at least a subset of the super-smart to steer the demographic might of the dullards in the pursuit of total control.

Aside, ask most people who should have the vote and they will either say "everyone" or they'll give a runaround answer that equates to "nobody dumber than me". I suppose it doesn't really occur to them that the 95IQ set don't want the 90IQ set voting, nor do the 100IQ set want the 95IQ set to be a part of the franchise either, etc etc.

On top of that, automation is turning formerly "industrious" people into parasites by sheer job loss. Most work in the world used to be farm work that you could be a dumb shit and still wrap your head around. Now a lot of that work is much more technical, and what's left is extremely scarce. Get rid of all the government make-work jobs plus the jobs that flowed on from that make-work and you'd have fully 50% of any western nation that was relegated to "parasite" status.

Nothing but hard-eugenics (or a more random die-off) and a restructuring of society around a presumably diminishing population could stop that. Something that not even the Romans had to contend with.

Quote: (01-30-2018 05:06 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Can an institution be inclusive, charitable AND survivable or will such an organisation be hollowed out by opportunists who have no true allegiance to that institution?
In my opinion this is the most fundamental question in regards to the survivability of the West and the people contained there. It is the most fundamental question in regards to what lessons must be learned if we get a chance to survive this insanity and rebuild.
At what saturation point does racial inclusivity doom a society (give examples)?
At what saturation point does political inclusivity doom a society (give examples)?
At what saturation point does religious inclusivity doom a society (give examples)?
At what saturation point does national inclusivity doom a society (give examples)?
What are examples of highly survivable demographics? What can we attribute this to?

As an institution the Christian Church is probably the greatest example of inclusivity working. Even as we speak the most orthodox and conservative churches in the nation are also the most racially diverse and inclusive. Christianity has in the past had the power to bridge gaps between all groups. Islam has never done this because it has Arab supremacy built into it where all must convert to Arabic culture to fit it.

In regards to nations. The Austro-Hungarian Empire is probably the best example of a country being dragged apart by ethnic rivalries. At one point this was the strongest nation in the world... the issue being it's strength was military and when that failed so did the nation.

If you look at history and people and you ask yourself what does it take for two different groups of people to live side by side and get along... it's really simple. All ethnicities will move towards blending together when living in a shared space as long as they are not allowed to fight each other for political benefit.

The point is that "multiculturalism" only works under dictatorship. I don't think this is lost on it's proponents. They know the examples of Saddam Hussein, Tito.... and all the other strong men whose tyranny kept a lid on ethnic conflicts. I think their goal in importing ethnicities is to incite conflict and create a situation where they will be required to play that Strong Tyrant role.

It is my personal belief that the goal of Progressive Liberalism is to make the West resemble North Korea in terms of government structure.

Quote: (02-01-2018 04:39 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

If Rome had abolished slavery, ushered in public elementary school education for everyone, amped up their universities giving every genius out there born in any class the means to study and contribute, then Rome would have had an industrial revolution going on around the year 100. They could have conquered the world with tanks around the year 500.

He isn't exaggerating. Even in RL, 1st Century scientist Heron of Alexandria invented rudimentary clockwork and steam machinery.

http://www.historyofinformation.com/expanded.php?id=16

Quote: (02-01-2018 09:02 AM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  

Inclined to think it's not so much a matter of colour, creed or culture. Rather - civility.

If your society is comprised of people industrious enough & intelligent enough; that society should prosper.
On the flip side, once you have too many parasites. The host will die.

Yes, and don't forget that up to 50% of Europeans died in the Black Plague --- a group already more intrinsically gifted in many ways than most others (at least at building and explanding civilization, which is empirically true given what we already know is reality today). That was around 100-200 years before 1492 and the "renaissance."

Not coincidental.

Quote: (02-01-2018 05:52 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  

Yes, and don't forget that up to 50% of Europeans died in the Black Plague --- a group already more intrinsically gifted in many ways than most others (at least at building and explanding civilization, which is empirically true given what we already know is reality today). That was around 100-200 years before 1492 and the "renaissance."

Not coincidental.

I would say the Europeans of the ~1300's were not intelligent enough to realize the benefits of basic hygiene & medical practices.

What you want are people that are intelligent / wise enough to be able to foster the core tenants of a functioning society.
Even a 'society' of folk fiercely libertarian.
As long as they realize & have a fundamental understanding that their safety & security is tied into personal responsibility & distinct civility.

However, once you have too many people that are too selfish, too self-centred or too lazy, it will simply be a waiting game before the house of cards collapses.

This is a powerful thread that raises very important questions. The question covers any religion or culture but I feel the most relevance to the question of modern Christianity and modern Christians in a world where 'multicultural' marxist values have been promoted for several decades through ideological subversion. I never imagined in my four decades of life I'd see the US change so severely that saying 'It's okay to be white' would create an uproar, but it has. How do we deal with it? CAN we deal with it? And if so, can solutions be implemented without great suffering (physical displacement, deprivations, or death)?

I personally believe the true Christian spirit is not about being weak, but being wise. But the problem, as I've heard in spiritual circles, is when you promote the behaviors of a 'stupid saint,' someone who has more love in their heart than wisdom in their brain. Someone who mindlessly extends aid (financial, physical, emotional) to anyone regardless of the long-term cost to the giver, and without some condition or requirement for reform or change on the part of the receiver. Without accountability, aid continually offered becomes obligation and a noose. The democrats knew this well when they created welfare and destroyed the blossoming black community. What an utter fucking travesty.

Extending kindness to someone disadvantaged is only truly loving if that recipient intends to and commits to change their life to later become FREE of requiring help. All animals prefer to do the least possible - that's energy efficiency. As thinking beings, with animalistic inclinations, we must motivate each other to rise above baser instincts. To 'teach a man to fish' instead of constantly giving them fish. But the corruption of 'kindness' that's run through many churches and government agencies, coupled with the demonization of men's necessary roles as the head of the household was removed. When there used to be a watchful, stern, yet fair masculine requirement of wisdom and personal responsibility overall society thrived. But that's shifted in favor of feel-good, care-based, non-judgemental feminine inclusiveness, acceptance, and unending generosity. Self-reliance vs. forced dependence. The latter always destroys civilizations as history shows time and time again.

An individual's initiation into Christianity and promise to adhere to society-building and family-strengthening Commandments is a way to extend membership to any individual of worthy character into a greater tribe where K-type strategies (high-investment parenting, wise resource use, long-term planning, in-group preference, skepticism of strangers, etc.) are valued and r-type strategies (short-term, instant-gratification, openness to strangers) are demonized. We innately organize along hierarchical lines and we reward merit as well as chastise sloth.

Then women were given the vote (you can blame anyone you want, but it was a bad decision). All the ancient warnings were ignored and the West's organizations have largely spiraled downhill since then. Well, this was largely within the context of the beginning of this 80 year saeculum, a period containing all four turnings. Previously, within a patriarchy, men could exert enough control over those they have responsibility for, and conservative values arose first in the home and radiated into community and society at large. But the adoption and acceleration of female suffrage, birth control, no-fault divorce, equal outcomes, the Divorce Corp., etc. have made Western men temporary guests in the houses they largely pay for - able to remain as long as their women are content with the arrangement. The ability to divorce without fault was a terrible blow to men's authority and an affront to Christian values. The subversion of religious authority in favor of greater state control. Much of this was predicted and implemented through the communist subversion of America, as Yuri Bezmenov detailed in his videos and books.

Jesus was no pussy. He understood the full spectrum of human experience, from our highest aspirations to our darkest impulses. He reminded us of our Divinity and freed us from blind adherence to dead rituals and convenient priestly interpretations. Instead, he demonstrated how through word, deed, and contemplation we could cultivate a uniquely individual and meaningful relationship with our Creator, our Highest Self. To understand the authority he took in his own life you need to look at the full context of the parables and stories of his life, not stick to miss-translations of single phrases like 'the meek shall inherit the earth.'* To become a Christian, one is given an opportunity to demonstrate their devotion to God, family, community, and most important, living a moral life. God may be too amorphous a concept for many people and I tend to agree. I feel God in a way that's difficult to explain, but has become clearer and brighter as I move through life, spend time in Nature, examine my inner working, and feel immense gratitude for this gift of life. I know that life and my loved ones and even my dreams are a great gift and precious opportunity. I know that love between people who care for each other is the most powerful force in the universe. I know that miracles can and do happen when love, prayer, and community join together. 'Where two are more are joined and agree, it shall be done.' Christianity, to me, is truly practiced on an individual or small group level, not as some tool for social control. I think the founding fathers got this very clearly, in the separation of church and state but in acknowledging the divinity of all men.

*Note: I heard Jordan Peterson address that comment, where he said in his own research a more accurate translation was 'those who have swords and know how to use but don't unless necessary shall inherit the earth.' It's also rather disturbing to remember that English is a Germanic-derived language, and we can see how a sort of 'black or white' thought process has infected the German culture which is now self-destructing before our eyes. I wouldn't take anything translated into English at face value without looking at the original roots, the meaning, and the intention. This makes our job more difficult in terms of convincing people but let's us know why we need to question convenient (but incorrect) interpretations of what Christianity was and should be.

However, all institutions (and I'd argue even individuals) are subject to O'Sullivan's Law. Unless a Christian (or any religious or public body) begins and commits to remaining conservative (and more K-strategist), they / it will shift toward liberalism as we've all witnessed. Without sufficient resistance to that process, there ain't no brakes on that crazy train. Christianity (and you could say Buddhism to some degree but much less so) are organizing structures to provide healthy individuals a framework to see the world and explore their own spirituality. Church communities create places for everyone from children to adults to interact in honest and healthy ways, with shared values. That was the original intention at least. But, with so much inclusiveness and permissiveness the left-ward shift has gotten so bad I don't know what groups or churches I can trust aren't infected with marxism.

I saw a video today of an 'adult' man claim to be (IIRC) an 8 years old girl, and wanted to live as a girl. 'She' was adopted by 'new parents' who were fine with 'her' trans-ageism. 'She' now has an 7 year old sister, but that biological 7 yr old girl wanted a younger sister. So, 'she' decided 'she' would now be a 6 year old. That individual needs therapy, and would have received it in the 60's or even 70's, but it's the new 'almost-normal' now. How can a society which does not honesty address such dysfunction remain itself functional for decade upon decade? I don't think it can, without reaching a tipping point. Either the body has to hit a high temperature fever with sufficient antibodies to purge the virus, or the body dies. Perhaps, a third option of extended infection lasting indefinitely is possible, but what happens to anybody suffering years of illness? They become dis-formed and unable to function. As a body, a society filled even to a large minority of such individual cells will prove toxic to the majority of healthy cells. The question is whether the healthy cells have the means and energy to fight the infection.

It appears we're entering the critical region of a saddle point in terms of social and cultural conflict. Are we turning more conservative or more liberal? Is society becoming more Functional / Generate or more Dys-Functional / De-Generate? It's not really clear right now but at least in American the populist movement seems more toward K-type conservatism with vocal opposition from the minority r-types (and their globalist handlers). We're appearing to be a beacon for weary conservative, moderates, and even frustrated liberals around the world and thank God for that!

Saddle points (the unstable apex or 'center of the riding saddle' at the center of the graph) are unstable. You can only sit comfortably on an actual horse's saddle because you're leveraging both legs to keep you upright (and you're using stirrups in some cases), but even that effort to stay on a horse takes work. Nature always seeks a minimum, systems tend to move toward increasing disorder via the 2nd law of thermodynamics ('the amount of disorder in a closed system will tend to increase over time.'). The yellow segments show the path of the green marble placed at the saddle point - it naturally falls (and accelerates) downward toward oblivion (or the next stable equilibrium). I'd say that liberalism and marxism and communism and socialism and transgenderism and fat acceptance and all other fringe movements are attends to continually increase the DYS-functional DIS-order in an Functional and Orderly society, and there is NO stable equilibrium that can result when those forces are given power.

We could argue whether the planet is a closed system (it's not energetically, but I believe we see entropy happening all the time so let's assume the 2nd law applies to civilizations). This increase in DISORDER is especially true if there isn't sufficient ORDER created to move that system to a higher state of function. Things either get better through focused collective effort (even if it's a small but effective minority) or they get worse (also through the effort of a small but powerful minority). These are the competing forces of ORDER and CHAOS. Chaos is easy - chaos is 'Idiocracy.' Order takes effort, and care, and attention, and love, and persistence, and is NOT easy. Again, hat tip to Jordan Peterson for elucidating the ways you can 'sort yourself out' if you choose to. He's not the end all and be all, but I've started his Self Authoring/Future Authoring program and it's really helped me clarify where I want to go and what's motivating me.

Those of us who sort ourselves out, discover our purpose, and choose to live productively want to see the fruit of our efforts to invent, work, create, save, collaborate, and celebrate. We men, through a silent and distant assent, determine to advance to greater heights - to push Society up the steep hill of Nature and Chaos - through our collective effort. We do not all need to agree on every detail, but we agree to take responsibility for our endeavors and to enjoy the fruits of our labors. This is why, as Jordan Peterson points out, it's so amazing and wonderful that in a high-trust society, something like eBay works so amazingly well. We trust that the person on the other end will fulfill their end of the contract. We are pushing against entropy and chaos to elevate ourselves and our Neighbors to higher and higher levels of creativity, love, intellect, celebration, genius. This is an Herculean effort and one that can only exist within the confines of certain societal constraints and protections. Even on eBay, you have a rating. It's insane to operate as though individual decisions, or decisions of groups (based on race, IQ, religion) collectively don't matter. They bear consideration when you're examining whether a high-trust, highly-creative, highly-productive society can succeed with a large, unexamined influx of individuals who do not share those values and are not VETTED without ensuring they do share those values - not just saying they do, but measuring and observing them over a period of time. Without the protection of men having dominion and say over their homes, the incentives to resist entropy are removed and the slip backward and downward toward decadence, chaos, nihilism and hedonism take hold. Those men also have less interest in protecting a society that shifts toward liberal views because they rightly ask the question 'what's in it for me?' Other than darker-skinned pussy with accents, indeed, what IS in it for you, long-term?

If any organization values openness, blind inclusiveness, and 'feels' over discernment, functionality, and order, then that organization is clearly doomed to fail. Either fail, or be replaced by an organization / civilization with greater chastity and civilization-building energy (J.D. Unwin's work on sex and culure, the forces behind the cycles of civilizational rise and collapse). Without the effort to exert more order, by default the degree of disorder will increase. For example, to prevent massive raging fires (as hit northern and southern California), sensible policies to increase order (by removing and cleaning disorderly growth) were necessary, but those were prevented due to short-sighted virtue signaling. How many people suffered as a result? How much money, land, time, energy was wasted and still are yet to be needed to rebuild?

Liberalism pushes all organizations toward a necessary purge (the mouse utopia experiment) and at least in those areas which celebrate dysfunctional values, such a purge can't be prevented. I feel many people have sensed in their souls some great social upheaval coming. I am not a gloom and doomer, but I do believe (and historical surveys like The Fourth Turning by Strauss and Howe have demonstrated the periodicity) that we're certainly in a Fourth Turning / Crisis phase now. Trump is our Grey Champion, and we have serious business at hand. I'm moving to a more conservative state in large part because the California I grew up in has long since become a hell-hole of chaos, disorder, and hedonism. I'm not saying a red state would be paradise, but from what I've seen, at least I'll be in overall better company with a much higher degree of community cohesion. I'm looking forward to the process of making real friends again.

In summary, I don't think 'modern' Christianity, or current Western culture, with the marxist shift toward dysfunctional, chaotic, unjust, anti-family, and anti-male laws is capable of surviving as-is. If 2,000 years, give or take, is the life-span for the current incarnation of Christianity, with lots of missteps along the way but much light shone upon the world also, then that's a really good run. But rational and loving men must adapt to the times they're in. The fundamental values that created America as enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights haven't changed but how we articulate and embody them in this world of the 21st century must change.

What arises, in terms of functional hierarchical structures, from this Crisis period will almost certainly be a novel and necessary, though fundamentally sound, religion / philosophy / code of being as Christianity was. As with those who lived in and through the American Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and the Great War, the world before and after those conflicts were incredibly different. My Dad lived during WW2, and my Mom was born right after it half-way around the world. Their perspectives hugely influenced the person I've become although I've come to understand the correctness of conservative values to create a functional and trust-worthy society. I'm very prepared to defend myself and my loved ones from outside threats. The ideological ones are the most challenging to defend against but we have in our community and at large, capable warriors advancing those causes.

Further, I believe many of us are putting ourselves in a position to survive and thrive. However, we have to become more self-reliant and to create strong local communities rather than to rely on distant organizations for aid. The decades of dysfunctional r-strategies run amok through our institutions will necessitate a return to K-type living so the healthy human communities can purge the infection. What I see Trump doing is empowering individuals to take dominion over their lives. I wish we could see national attention to the plight of men in family court, child support, and child custody agreements. So much suffering has been caused by this and it has broken the spirits (and literally ended the lives) of far too many men. We can't ignore this problem and maintain or rebuild a functional society.

I fervently pray Trump and all the white hats can continue draining the swamp and restoring order and trust in the government. I am no Pollyanna - for me it's 'Wait and See' plus 'Plan and Act.' Many others have said Trump has bought us time. I'm doing my best to make the most of it, and hope to continue engaging in the process of articulating our values and beliefs that I can share with and learn from my brothers in-person and on-line.

Theorycrafting aside, if only non-white votes were counted Donald Trump would not have received one electoral point.

https://heartiste.files.wordpress.com/20...ly-bmp.jpg

What exactly is the proper level of merit based immigration is a tough question.

Quote: (02-02-2018 06:58 PM)Enoch Wrote:  

Theorycrafting aside, if only non-white votes were counted Donald Trump would not have received one electoral point.

https://heartiste.files.wordpress.com/20...ly-bmp.jpg

What exactly is the proper level of merit based immigration is a tough question.

I think the economic status, and that of the people you surround yourself with, plays a role too.
Many immigrants (or children of immigrants) are relatively poor, so they obviously vote for the party that gives them more freebies.

Macron (french president) played damn good, because he made enough promises about helping the poor, and France pulling its weight for immigration (getting him the left vote), while also promoting a right policy (investments, tax cut for wealthy people, etc). And of course Le Pen failed to prove herself on economical questions (disastrous debate against Macron).

Personally I cannot comprehend why the descendants of immigrants already in France don't understand that more immigration (from undeserving people) works against THEM. I can give a pass to people who succeeded economically, and have proven that they are deep ingrained in french culture, however I sure wouldn't like to see illiterate or degenered migrants get citizenship. And I do agree that the vetting process is quite difficult. However, solutions can be found IF the question is put on the table (hint: it won't, even if the immigrant themselves ask for it. Makes me remember all the times I talked about not accepting refugies, or the necessity for real integration in France society, only to be seen as a racist, or simply ignored).

How are 85-IQ Muslims and 80-70 IQ Africans going to compete in the 100-IQ French economy? Do they all want to scrub toilets at McDonalds?

There is no integration for those groups.

Quote: (02-03-2018 05:52 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

How are 85-IQ Muslims and 80-70 IQ Africans going to compete in the 100-IQ French economy? Do they all want to scrub toilets at McDonalds?

There is no integration for those groups.

Je suis d'accord.

I am all for raising the threshold on the IQ minimum. However a key point is that even scrubbing toilets at Mcdo (as we call it) is way more than the average wage in Africa.

As an example: my mother had a job where the pay was relatively high enough to leave comfortably in Senegal. Here, the minimum wage (SMIC, roughly 1300 euros before tax) is way higher than what she earned.

Any proposition on using IQ as a metric for immigration will fail before even being presented to Parliament.

As someone who has lived as a minority in two european countries, I have simple thoughts on this. I won't wade into the whole Judaism/Christianity/Islam debate as in my eyes and beliefs, all of those religions come from the same roots but each one was a new 'invention' of the one before in a way to control the populace (I believe monotheism is the best way to control a population due a fear of God (and what he can do to you in the afterlife) being instilled).

Can an institution be inclusive, charitable AND survivable or will such an organisation be hollowed out by opportunists who have no true allegiance to that institution? No, there will be opportunists from all races within such an institution. There will be those from the majority that look to obtain wealth and influence by feigning to be heroes for the minorities. There will be those from the minorities that will do the same and pretend to be pushing policies to help minorities but their ultimate aim is their own elevation in societal class. This is basically traitorous subversion from both groups and a clear undermining of that institution.
In my opinion this is the most fundamental question in regards to the survivability of the West and the people contained there. It is the most fundamental question in regards to what lessons must be learned if we get a chance to survive this insanity and rebuild.

At what saturation point does racial inclusivity doom a society (give examples)? I personally believe a society will start fail once minorities start to become a large enough minority to start influencing politics and having an impact on culture. You can see this happening across Western Europe. In the UK, our capital has a muslim mayor now. Between the two censuses conducted in 2001 and 2011, the Muslim population doubled (God knows what it is now). However the Hindu, Sikh and Jewish populations remained pretty constant. The latter 3 rarely push for any cultural or political changes because they are happy being small minorities. In fact as a small minority you get treated much better by the racial majority as you don't really pose a threat, also those 3 religious groups actually do contribute to a nation (in terms of tax vs welfare recipient and earning above the average). However the Muslim population doubling and taking up political positions due to this doubling means they are starting to see much more hate towards them (notwithstanding internal(terror attacks/rape gangs) and external events outside the UK (terror attacks, middle east shite etc) - they are a threat.
Another point I should add is that India (in it's current form) was one of the only states that fell under Muslim control (quite a few centuries too) to not become a Muslim majority country. They didn't breed as quick as the Hindus despite killing over 100 million of them. It was established as a secular country upon independence from the UK however it is only in recent years that there is racial tension between Muslims and Hindus despite Muslims having been in top positions of Government for many years. One only has to look at the census figures for India between 1951 and 2011 to see why. Even beyond the religious part in India and this is purely because I'm taking it down a level beyond it just being full of Indians. The subcontinent is actually full of smaller groups similar to Europe who really fucking hate each other. Gujaratis are despised in other areas of India purely because of their business acumen (most of india's richest have gujarati roots). You have the indo-aryans north of the Deccan, the south has the dravidians and the north east has the austroasiatics and sino-tibetans. Federalism at the moment holds all these little shitstorms together, in the past before Muslim conquests, they all killed each other for fun since the Aryan invasion. They all vote as a block too


From an anecdotal perspective, living in Poland as a small minority has been perfectly fine, the Polish don't consider me a threat as long as they believe I am not a Muslim.

At what saturation point does political inclusivity doom a society (give examples)? For me this depends on the culture of the majority that is being governed. Is democracy the best? is autocracy the best? This really is down to cultures, values, religion and history. For example, it seems that every single time democracy is introduced into an Muslim majority country (whether through an Arab spring, a coup or death of a tyrant) when the people are given a vote, they vote in a islamic party who thereupon embarks on dismantling democracy, in most of these countries this is followed by a coup by the military to protect 'minorities' (political/racial/religious in this case). I guess I do not really know the saturation point for this. It seems Singapore thrived on political exclusivity.

At what saturation point does religious inclusivity doom a society (give examples)? Unfortunately or fortunately the west has embraced secular states that promote inclusivity. It's fortunate if you are from a religious minority, unfortunate if you are from a religious majority. I believe this has led to a drop in faith for Christianity. I'm not sure how low the figure of believers in Christianity has to go before it's sidelined. This is really difficult to judge purely because secularism has had a stronghold in Western European civilisation for quite some time now. Long before the rest of the world started to wean off their own religious exclusivity. For me the ideal would be for a country to still say it's a christian nation and for it not to allowed places of worship for small religions to be built at will. Immigrants faith is stronger than the natives, this is something most immigrants are holding onto because it is something from home that they can keep.
At what saturation point does national inclusivity doom a society (give examples)? Nationalism/patriotism is essential for the survival of a nation. What is the point of a state if its own populace do not believe in it. This is where secessionist movements start.

The demographic part I don't think a decline signals doom, it's only doom if the government decides to stop the decline by importing people. For example I believe Japan's population decline is natural purely because they have reached maximum capacity for their islands.

My 130+ IQ mother also scrubbed toilets at times despite being an educated constructional engineer.

Also the globalist elite want the European IQs to go down to 90 and that is one of the reasons they give express shuttle service to 68-IQ Somalis vs. 120-IQ Nigerian doctors.

Ethnonationalists mention Japan and the multiracialists mention Singapore a lot during these debates. Here's a few aspects they might be missing.

Japan is monoracial and also deeply monocultural they absolutely step on sub ethnic uprisings in their society and have always done so. They may let certain groups flourish in the underworld as Burakumin but there's still a certain order there which is ancient. Profitable degeneracy which doesn't threaten the overall power structure is also allowed. They had hundreds of years to hash that out with their different ethnic groups. Japanese aren't special. I can name other northeast asian and southeast asian groups who did exactly the same.

On the multicultural spectrum:

Singapore is multi-ethnic in the sense that Chinese control and guide overall development and progress. It's entirely Chinese culturally speaking. I know a shitload of Singaporeans and they all say it's still a vast majority Chinese culturally and socially. Singapore is also not too different from modern Hong Kong, Taiwan, Korea, or even Japan from an infrastructure point of view. Why is that?

Lee Kuan Yew was an ethnnationalist but saw the necessity of growing this small dying former colony and understood the racial issues.

Singapore is an example that a majority people guiding very different people racial and ethnic lines can still work together under a stringent authoritarian system. The dominate "glue" ethnic group can at least perceive social and economic reality under those circumstances.

This is why Singapore has survived up until now but will it survive? I don't think so really. The same reason I don't think the U.S. will survive.

Canada will fall. Australia will fall. The major western European nations who have adopted this multiracial/multicultural nonsense will also not survive. They have taken on ideologies which are harmful, decadent, and are a form of anarcho-primitivism couched under civilization.

This isn't rocket science.

This is why people from more advanced cultures and races have disdain for more seemingly "primitive" cultures until they they can prove themselves.

Thus far the recent subcontinent, middle eastern, african, and latin/south American people have not proven they can form a lasting and productive civilization. They can cling on and destroy existing civilization but they are parasites and the very acknowledgment of that fact appears to be a transgression against humanity itself.

I know for certain that even southeast asians consider subcontinentals to be parasitic in nature. How is that that certain groups who score so high in IQ tests in the west and various white shitlib charts are considered geniuses and do so well are considered parasitic?

Because they bring nothing to the culture except misery and destruction as proven over the centuries. They are an engine of destruction. Whether it be social, financial, or even down to the gender dynamics.


Maybe these same westerners should perhaps wonder why Jews run your fucking countries?

People don't see the deeper implications because it's not really obvious.

black and whitew, black and asian, latino and black. None of these groups can really work together over a long period of times to create a lasting civilization. Honestly everything black or "AFRO AMERICAN" is from white people. Without white people they would be dead.

Latinos on the other hand are an invasive species from an entirely different land with different cultural values of which white America still hasn't pieced together yet.

That's one hell a realization.

Part of the problem is that when you have a multi-whatever society you don't need to face up to your own shortcomings. It's easier to blame it on some other outgroup.

In America whites blame blacks and latinos for their problems, latinos blame whites and blacks, and blacks blame latinos and whites.

Monoethnic societies are not utopias but at least there is a general sense that when shit is going wrong we've got nobody to blame but ourselves. I live in a fairly monoethnic state of Australia and when we have bad outcomes we don't have any choice but to look at our politics. We might still disagree on how to go forward but for the most part there is no "us vs them" mentality that has infected places like America.

That is a good point El Chinito - especially Singapore is telling. It's not a multicultural bullshit. It is a clear authoritarian Chinese tribe ruling with an iron fist over everyone else. If they had half the shit going on with Muslims as in France, then Singapore would start to move hard against them - even evicting most of them or banning it in their country.

I know there is a millennia difference here, but how would you analyze these mechanics in the height of the Roman Republic/empire (shortly after the fall of Carthage to the Claudia Dynasty)?

For one,the Romans ruled (or rather taxed?) over a very wide variety of different people/tribes.
Other than respecting the imperial authority,structure and taxes (specially taxes) did they largely let said people/tribes organize themselves around their own tradition?

This is excellent reading for anyone not thoroughly versed in the downfall of the Roman Empire.

The parallels drawn to the American Empire are astounding.

If you like it jump to the link but be forewarned, it's lengthy.

http://www.socialmatter.net/2018/02/02/america-as-rome/

Quote:Quote:

America As Rome

Frederick Franz

The history of the Roman Republic and Empire looms large in Western consciousness. Its existence marked the creation of a European civilization and the spread of Hellenic thought, which would become the intellectual foundation of the entire occidental world. Roman civilization’s ruins are spectacular, and its achievements incredible. We look back fondly at that height of civilization and civic virtue, as we consciously model our governments and societies on that of Rome.

The fall of the Roman Empire was lamented even by its contemporaries. Odoacer, the Ostrogothic King who deposed the last Roman Emperor in the West, wanted to claim the mantle himself and aped as many of the conventions of Rome as he, a foreigner, could. In fact, Gothic Kings pledged fealty to the Eastern Roman Emperor in Constantinople and ruled ostensibly as Byzantine officials. But this was, over time, an elaborate fiction. Rome was dead. A city of over one million people at its Augustan height fell to only ten thousand by 1000 AD. The people who lived in Rome lived among ruins; the aqueducts lay dormant, while people lived in their own filth. Literacy was non-existent where once a center of culture housed Cicero, Virgil, Ovid, and Horace. The change happened gradually, without anyone really understanding what was going on. But something had happened; something profoundly tragic. The question of what happened has haunted the collective western consciousness for the millennia and a half since the collapse.

America was clearly founded as a new Rome. This was done consciously by the intellectual class and was meant as more than a simple homage. Intellectuals in the new America wanted to create a republic to emulate and surpass the glory of Rome. Any walk down the Washington D.C. Mall will show they were more than moderately successful. Not coincidentally, the first modern historical text about Rome was published in 1776 by Edward Gibbon. Gibbon’s history graced the bookshelves of Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington. The book, entitled The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ensured that America’s founders did a fair amount of navel-gazing in trying to prevent the fall of this New Rome.

Gibbon’s explanation for the fall of the Roman Empire was shocking and scandalous at the time. He laid the blame squarely at the foot of the Christian church, the inheritor of the Roman bureaucracy. Gibbons asserted that the cultural introduction of Christianity into the Roman Empire degraded the army’s martial spirit, as well as the intellectual curiosity of its lower classes and ensured the intelligentsia cloistered themselves in monasteries, concerned with spiritual rather than worldly problems. All of this served to hollow Rome out and accelerate its fall.

The history left quite an impression on the American Founders. The First Amendment of the Constitution was created to avoid the merger of church and state, which in their eyes transformed the Roman Empire into medieval Europe. They also created a Senate of enlightened aristocrats who governed for the glory of the country, rather than their own venal pursuits. George Washington styled himself after the Roman leader Cincinnatus, who possessed the ability to claim kingship, but declined and returned to his humble farm a citizen. The ideal was no man above any other man, a society of equals dedicated to the civic virtue of civilization against the kings and barbarians of the past. America’s Founding Fathers thought they emulated Rome’s virtues and avoided its problems. But 250 years later, history has not vindicated their propositions.

It’s my belief that we’ve fallen into the exact same trap as the Roman Empire. The founders did more than a wonderful job in recreating Roman government and society, but did an extremely poor job in creating safeguards which would insulate the new Republic from the decline and fall of government and society. We already have all of the symptoms of decline and it seems to me irreversible.

I agree with Edward Gibbon that the religion of Christianity was certainly a factor in the decline, but the fact that Christianity was a religion was unimportant in and of itself. What was important about Christianity was its nature. Christianity was a viral ideology that changed society into something which ensured that Roman civil society would vanish. Modern society is already infected by a viral ideology that avoids all of the conventional trappings of a religion while still being as corrosive to American society as Christianity was to Rome. That ideology is progressivism. In an America where all the fashionable and most moderately intelligent people in our nation are unabashedly progressive, it seems like we are quite far down the path of decline indeed.

Modern historians follow Gibbon’s example and take things one step further, presenting Rome as a secular, multicultural paradise which only fell due to the pernicious influence of Christianity. Given America’s intended status as the cultural inheritor of classical Roman virtue, these historians need to present the current state of America as analogous to the height of Rome and the opponents of progressivism as the forces which brought about its downfall. A more accurate reading of Roman history, however, can present a picture where the opposite is the case.

You can date the start of the cultural decline of the Roman Empire further back than most historians, even before its generally accepted civilizational height of Augustus Caesar.

I begin with the Gracchi brothers.

Rome had just won the ancient version of World War II, the Third Punic War. In that war, Rome devastated its rival, Carthage, and remade it in Rome’s image. General Lucius D. Clay, deputy to General Eisenhower and in 1945, the Military Governor of U.S.-Occupied Germany, was the first to compare the events.[1] If anyone was in a position to make the comparison, it would be him. The Punic Wars were defensive in nature, fought to protect Rome from the Carthaginian menace. In the process, Rome conquered the known world in a single generation. Does that ring any bells? Conquering the world in self-defense? The Founding Fathers really had no idea how much their copy of Rome would replay its history.

In the aftermath of the Punic Wars, Rome gained untold amounts of wealth which established it as the financial center of the Western Mediterranean world. When the Romans brought the wealth of the Carthaginians back home, it was concentrated in a few individuals. Most Romans found themselves poorer than they were before the wars.

Tiberius Gracchus was the first Roman politician to really address the political issue of financial inequality. Furthermore, he argued for granting citizenship to the Italic peoples that the Romans formerly held as slaves. His solution was land reform, progressive taxation, and the establishment of free food for the poor. Tiberius would be murdered for his suggestions, but his work marked the establishment of a political movement known as the Populares.

There are specific details which I could add, but the parallels between the establishment of political progressivism in the wake of World War I and II and the rise of the Populares in the wake of the Punic Wars are clear.

After the assassination of the Gracchi Brothers, there were a series of civil wars between the Populares (progressives) and Optimates (conservatives). While the Optimates put up a good fight; slowly, over time, every single piece of the Populares platform became Roman law: progressive taxation, government seizure and redistribution of land, the grain dole for the poor, and the expansion of citizenship (voting rights) to millions of disenfranchised former slaves.[2]

Does that sound at all similar to the political history of America in any way? Before you say, “We have not had a war pitting the progressives against the conservatives,” tell that to the Haymarket Square strikers, the Bonus Army, and the victims of the Weather Underground bombings. America isn’t immune to paramilitary political violence. The fact that there was comparatively little killing just means that our conservatives couldn’t hold a candle to the Roman Optimates. If Nixon had wanted to be Lucius Cornelius Sulla, he’d have had to dial up Kent State a thousand times and aim the tanks at Harvard Yard. See, that would be a real checkmate to the progressives. Seems unlikely, though, doesn’t it? That might suggest that the real ideological civil war ended before 1970.

The Roman Civil Wars were ended in 27 BCE, by a man of whom even the most historically illiterate know. He was born as Gaius Octavius to a relatively illustrious Roman family, but his real claim to fame was being the great nephew and heir to Gaius Julius Caesar. Caesar’s policies were extensions of the Gracchi Brothers’ platform and many in the senate had him murdered because of his success and popularity among the people. In the anarchy afterwards, Octavius managed to finally subdue the Senate and convince the remaining Optimates to support his dictatorship as the first Roman Emperor, ruling as Augustus. The policies he put in place would dominate the operation of the Roman Empire for the 650 years.

Let’s talk about these policies.

The most important policy change affecting the long-term health of the Roman society was the grain dole. ‘Grain dole’ is a misnomer, as over the course of the Roman Empire, the dole grew more elaborate, with olive oil, meats, and dairy added by Trajan and Diocletian. But at the Empire’s demographic height, over 300,000 Roman residents were on the grain dole out of a population of 1 million. An interestingly parallel: today, 21.3 percent of Americans are on various welfare programs.[3]

These 300,000 Roman people bear more than a little resemblance to our welfare underclass in behavior and values. Infanticide, which was legal under Roman law, was practiced frequently, and normal family life was basically impossible. Crime was rampant. Augustus viewed the population on state programs as a security risk and attempted to reduce the welfare population down to 200,000 people. He was only temporarily successful. Augustus is considered the most powerful Roman Emperor. It’s remarkable, then, that he couldn’t combat the power of the grain dole. The establishment of our welfare state seems irreversible, and if the Roman grain dole is anything to go by policy-wise, that assessment seems to be correct.

The other most important policy program of the Roman Empire was the maintenance and growth of the security forces. The Roman legions need no introduction. Their excellence in combat allowed Rome to best all of their Mediterranean rivals and create the Empire. But their role in the Civil Wars were also incredibly important. Gaius Marius, a famous general and the uncle of Julius Caesar, initiated an important reform which both increased the strength of the army and set a dangerous precedent. Originally, Rome did not have a standing army. The civic duty of the citizens were to leave their farms and families to fight. There was a property and tax-paying requirement, and they also had to purchase and bring their own weapons. This citizen-volunteer soldier motif was the central idea behind the prohibition of a standing army in the American Constitution. The Second Amendment was created so that American citizen soldiers would bring their own arms to battle. But just like the American prohibition on standing armies, it wouldn’t last past the conquest of the known world.

Due to the constant fighting against Carthage and its allies, Rome’s conception of the army became impossible. The number of landowners shrunk and the cost of maintaining their own arms meant that there was an extreme shortage of manpower. Marius instituted a series of reforms. The first was the removal of the property and citizenship requirement, as well as the addition of a promise of citizenship to those who served for a long enough period of time. The second was the establishment of a spoils system, which was necessary as these men had no wealth to go back to. They only were paid if they collected enough bounty. This made them independent of the Senate and ensured they would not disband easily. The legions supported the wars of Marius, Sulla, Caesar, Pompey, and Augustus because of this system, and this support did not cease when Augustus completed the transition from Republic to Empire.[4]

In the creation of these legions, the Roman elite created a system where a large permanent army existed and the only way to continue to employ them was to launch wars against their neighbors, leading to large engagements with no clear objective. Augustus spent decades in the forests of Germany, Trajan spent years in Mesopotamia, and Marcus Aurelius spent his entire life in Dacia (Romania). None of these regions became integral parts of the Roman Empire, but existed as a money and manpower sink for the Roman legions to do something.

In other words, they created a military-industrial complex after a world war, which necessitated global interventions for questionable purposes at great expense to the taxpayer. This should start to sound familiar. Ultimately, when we look at the real financial makeup of the Roman government, we see two important cost centers. First, we see massive military expenditures punctuated by expensive preemptive wars against groups who posed no real existential danger to Rome. Second, we see large wealth redistribution programs which are permanent and expanding. Seeing the parallels to the United States budget is just a matter of looking at the Congressional Budget Office’s website. We have early Rome’s constitution, but we have late Rome’s bureaucracy and entitlements.

This grand explanation of Rome’s political formula is a Rorschach test for modern Americans. Those on the Left believe that it was the military adventurism that led to Rome’s downfall and the Right believe that it was the increase in bureaucracy and reliance on welfare was unsustainable. I argue both of them are unsustainable. I believe them both to be a symptom of progressivism. On the Left, it is the wealth transfer programs and bureaucracy. On the Right, it is the desire to spread democracy militarily throughout the world. Both of these ideas were foreign to both political parties in 1900. We are only 100 years into our current progressive experiment.

The really interesting question is how Rome made it financially sustainable for 700 years. How they did it varied by the Emperor, but the method they most commonly employed is my real explanation as why Rome became ripe for collapse.

The answer is monetary policy.

Over time, Roman emperors found it impossible to continue to increase taxes on wealthy Romans as they began to leave the cities in massive numbers, so they had to turn to money-printing as their only way to make up the budget shortfall. But given that fiat paper currency had yet to be invented, they had to resort to a practice called debasing the mint. This process involved taking in coins with a certain amount of precious metals in them and reissuing them with a smaller amount of those precious metals. In order to understand the gravity of this practice, you need to understand some minutiae about Roman currency.

Originally, there was only a gold currency called the Aureus and two denominations of silver currency called the Denarius and the Sestertius. Think of Aurei as dollars, Denarii as quarters and Sestertii as pennies. It was at tight as money goes at the time of Julius Caesar. In 33 BC, Aurei were weighted at eight grams of gold, Denarii were weighted at 10 grams of silver and Sestertii were weighted at 2.5 grams of silver. By Nero (68 AD), the mass of Aurei were decreased to 7.4 grams of gold. By Caracalla (217 AD), it was 6.5 grams. Diocletian (305 AD) introduced the Solidus to replace it, which was weighed at 5.5 grams. By this time, the Denarii was set at 1/1000th of a Solidus. Constantine (337 AD) rebased it to 4.5 grams of gold, and by this time it was worth 275,000 denarii. So, over the course of 400 years, the accumulated wealth of the richest Romans was halved, and the accumulated wealth of poorer Romans was annihilated to a fraction of its former value.[5]

In this economic situation, any wealth created by plebeians would evaporate within their lifetimes. The people who lived in this world began to have a very difficult calculus to make in creating a life and a family. Many sold themselves in bondage and became serfs, and still more decided against having children. Many Roman historians describe a general feeling of malaise among the inhabitants. The demography of the Roman Empire was marked by a severe decline in birthrates starting during the Roman Empire. In the year 100 AD, the Empire reached the peak of its population at 60 million inhabitants. By the year 300 AD, the population had declined to 40 million people even after the inclusion of Germanic settlers.[6]

The inherently short-term frame that unemployment is more important than inflation is indicative of a fundamentally unsustainable governmental system. Being able to print money is the only way our government can promise to pay for the ever increasing military and welfare state while not raising taxes on a majority of America. It is simply political anathema to suggest anything otherwise. It represents a failure state much like the irreversible economic decline of Rome.

Mainstream economic thinking is to accept inflation as standard in our economy. The last time in which we experienced any deflation was the year 1950. For 65 years, we have had varying amounts of inflation, but the average yearly inflation rate is roughly 4 percent. For perspective, if you put one dollar underneath your mattress in 1950, today it would only be worth seven cents. This has been incredibly destructive to America’s collective economic strength, a hollowing out of our society much like what happened to the Romans.[7]

The economic thinking among the Romans in the late Empire and America today is very similar.

By the late 200s, the Romans, like the Americans and Europeans, thought that this system of taxation was simply unsustainable. Population declines and public misery was at an all-time high. But since the entire economic and political system of Rome was propped up by this, hundreds of thousands of alien Germanic settlers were invited to immigrate. These groups had no incentives to follow Roman culture and a half-baked assimilation would only occur hundreds of years after the Empire’s demise. Through a series of wars and political compromises, Belgica became Burgundy, Gaul became France, Northern Italia became Lombardy, Moesia became Bulgaria, Illyria became Croatia, and so on. The Empire was so exhausted and empty that these people simply assumed their posts as leaders. They could not retain Roman civilization but merely marvel at its decaying ruins and use what still worked.

While late Roman society had no innate civic desire to continue the lineage of large families, Christians inherited sexual and familial development practices from the Jews. This ensured that a demographic shift continued to take place. Traditional pagan families had fewer children than Christian ones, and thus Christians grew in proportion to the Roman population. It was the thread that continued Roman tradition, even as it began to collapse. It civilized the barbarians, and thus the Roman Empire became Christendom. It managed keep the flame of Hellenic knowledge and memory of the glory of antiquity alive.

In short, Rome and America share the same problems and same terrible solutions which hollow out its population. This makes them susceptible to ideologies which prey on despair, hopelessness and envy. Rome, poisoned by its own political and economic failures, killed itself and invited in its replacements. America appears poised to do the same. It is our job to weather the storm and restore a Golden Age.

^ Good read.

Quote:Quote:

The other most important policy program of the Roman Empire was the maintenance and growth of the security forces. The Roman legions need no introduction. Their excellence in combat allowed Rome to best all of their Mediterranean rivals and create the Empire. But their role in the Civil Wars were also incredibly important. Gaius Marius, a famous general and the uncle of Julius Caesar, initiated an important reform which both increased the strength of the army and set a dangerous precedent. Originally, Rome did not have a standing army. The civic duty of the citizens were to leave their farms and families to fight. There was a property and tax-paying requirement, and they also had to purchase and bring their own weapons. This citizen-volunteer soldier motif was the central idea behind the prohibition of a standing army in the American Constitution. The Second Amendment was created so that American citizen soldiers would bring their own arms to battle. But just like the American prohibition on standing armies, it wouldn’t last past the conquest of the known world.

Due to the constant fighting against Carthage and its allies, Rome’s conception of the army became impossible. The number of landowners shrunk and the cost of maintaining their own arms meant that there was an extreme shortage of manpower. Marius instituted a series of reforms. The first was the removal of the property and citizenship requirement, as well as the addition of a promise of citizenship to those who served for a long enough period of time. The second was the establishment of a spoils system, which was necessary as these men had no wealth to go back to. They only were paid if they collected enough bounty. This made them independent of the Senate and ensured they would not disband easily. The legions supported the wars of Marius, Sulla, Caesar, Pompey, and Augustus because of this system, and this support did not cease when Augustus completed the transition from Republic to Empire.

While the comparison of America to Rome is interesting and in a general way correct, it's important to observe the differences which are inherent in the bit I've bolded.

This indicates two things:
(1) "Service guarantees citizenship" right out of Starship Troopers. This requirement was completely undermined by the Edict of Caracalla in 212 where Caracalla, trying to widen the Roman tax base, declared all free men in the Roman Empire to be Roman citizens. That, in turn, eroded the character of the legions, since then you would be picking from the worst of the Empire, not the best: if every free man was already a Roman citizen, logically only foreigners or slaves could reach citizenship by service in the Roman legions.

The US at least is not entirely like this because while naturalization is available through military service, it doesn't seem to be taken up very much: indeed the numbers of 'service guarantees citizenship' cases have been dropping over the past five years, according to that page, to less than one thousand per year.

(2) The Romans had a bounty system, i.e. the legionaries only got paid if they looted and pillaged enough. That's what made the legions independent of the Senate -- because they were, in effect, mercenary armies. They made their own pay this way and a legion's commanders were antifragile as Taleb would describe it: if the legion had a good campaign and collected a lot of shit, the commanders could keep the profits over and above the costs of paying and keeping the men armed. If they had a bad campaign and didn't collect enough booty from it, the legion's expenses were less than usual because they didn't have to pay their men. They had all upside and little to no downside, the very expression of an antifragile organism that, like a Hydra, profits from its own harm: cut off one head and two more shall appear.

Instead, it would appear they transferred most of the fragility down to the poor bastards who had to fight for them, because a Roman soldier was fragile to a sudden decrease in bounty, a sudden decrease in war. The legions were not armies, based on this setup they were more like limited-liability corporations. And the Senate couldn't control them because their leaders were antifragile to disapproval of government activity; they didn't depend on money from the state.

The US is fundamentally different on that score because the US armed forces are paid directly by the government, i.e. the Senate. It was the legions' independence from the government system that made them dangerous and influential on Roman politics. By contrast, the US armed forces' utter dependence on pay from the government makes that military fragile to economic downturns, since the government is necessarily fragile to a loss of tax. That is to say: the 7th Fleet blockading the East Coast and landing Marines on the steps of Congress anytime soon. They aren't independent enough to do that. The corporations that supply the US armed forces are also fragile to an outbreak of peace, which is why they constantly set themselves up in positions where war is likely, encouraged, agitated for, or desired - because they are not robust. They are not structured to profit from peacetime, they are not structured to handle the harm that a drop in profits because of peace amounts to.

This is an important distinction to understand, because the whole "Is America Rome?" question is something of a moot point. Whatever solution the Romans might have tried to solve their problems, it isn't going to work in present-day America because you're not Romans. Better would be to wholly understand the systems and incentives at play in the United States today, and then see if those can be addressed.

That said, I don't believe they can be. Fragility in a sense only breeds more fragility, because once an organisation recognises it'll collapse if its source of fragility detonates, that organisation will be much more likely to try and hold onto that same source of fragility than attempt to prepare for an event that causes that fragility. This is why arms corporations agitate for war: because, knowing peace would hit their stock options heavily, they naturally push for the type of activity that keeps that incident away ... and make themselves even more fragile, because the only way to develop robustness or antifragility is to accept your water source will -- not may -- will become poisoned one day, and start digging wells elsewhere in preparation for that day.

Part of the Roman collapse is only applicable to our own system.

Rome has of course certain similarities, but many aspects now are different.

But fact is that their culture was destroyed by a thousand cuts - just over a longer period.

This vid is quite telling what happens in Sweden:







It shows how Sweden hires a Pakistani Muslim immigrant who only studied Arabic as the Swedish Cultural Heritage Director!

The only positive thing about our current system is that it is widely spread across the world and China, Hong Kong, Korea, Taiwan and Japan could continue modern civilzation even if the West collapses under an uncontrollable sea of low-IQ enrichers and their progressive enablers.

I would like also to mention that is is likely that humanity has already had Rome-level peaks of civlization in the past. There are only legends left and old accounts of Egyptian sources telling the Romans that they have no idea how old humanity truly is.

There are accounts of Ancient Lemuria existing in the years 120.000 to 90.000 BC. It was supposed to exist on vast lands that are now the current Hawaii. The dominating race were the Polynesians and they created a culture on the level of Rome. After some major cataclysms most of the lands went under and only the few remaining islands of Hawaii were left.

Atlantis is another place that supposedly existed some 60.000-30.000 BC on a different island around the gulf of Mexico. The dominating race were the North American Indians. It also was supposed to have reached a high level of civilization and also went under via earth quakes. Their descendants moved to North America and partly to South America - the tribes of America are like degenerate dumbed-down savages compared to what they had been before.

It would not surprise me if that were true - I am certain that in the galaxy there are case of inter-galactic civilizations which devolved to the middle ages again. Systems can evolve or devolve over the centuries and millennia.

For example we see ever more how dogma and progressivism enters and dictates science. Only good thing is that some countries don't want to share that trajectory.

Quote: (02-05-2018 04:49 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

...
This vid is quite telling what happens in Sweden:

...

It shows how Sweden hires a Pakistani Muslim immigrant who only studied Arabic as the Swedish Cultural Heritage Director!
...

Stupid bullshit like this is what's going to reignite the foundation of ethnic cultural awareness.

"Diversity is great!"
OK.
"Discrimination is bad!"
OK.
"The new Swedish Cultural Heritage Director is of Pakistani origin."
Umm, what?
"What's the problem?"
I don't think he's qualified.
"Are you a racist?"
No, it's just that our history is centuries old and he's only been here seven or eight weeks.
"Swedish is Swedish. He has a Swedish passport. Ergo he is as Swedish as your great grandfather, racist."
That reminds me, I really need to go dig up that old fellow's service rifle.

Yes,

Only under Christianity not Catholicism/Muslim/Etc, the United States has proven it.

The United States economic system was and were developed by Christian beliefs. For example, free will and the free market. Therefore Christian leaders gave birth to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, which are the block-chains for economic freedom and escape from the Global elites.

Its 2018, we have learn from numerous mistakes and now realize, Christianity is the answer and the block-chain for economic freedom and success.

What belief systems do Christian nations have to refuse refuse entry to non-Christians or regulate the rise of Atheism or other belief systems within their nations.

How can Christianity be the answer if it got us here in the first place?

Race? Definitely. War brides from other countries have been giving dudes happa kids since times immemorial. I suspect it has more to do with the culture you raise happas under and less to do with their DNA. Shit, I mean, I'm technically Black and White, but raised black and I have 0 identity issues because I was never told anything else.

America is a reasonable example of this. If you bring your non-European kid to America and raise him as an American he'll probably slip right into listening to rock, driving fast cars and all the other American things.

Nation? Yes if you require that all immigrants take on your culture and your rules it seems to work out. China does this reasonably well. The immigrants here enjoy a good life as long as they don't fuck around with the Government.

Political structure? I'm not really sure. What would an inclusive political structure entail? Do you mean a political structure that allows more than 1 viewpoint or do you mean something else? I need more info.