/polpol/ - Politically Incorrect Discussion

>>15551

I believe that Empires and cultures fall, because of economic reasons, foreign invaders and lousy leadership

social reasons just makes the fall faster.

for example, if the usa solved its black, illegal immigrant population problem and on the next day became an empire, it probably could last for atleast a couple hundred years

>>15552

that picture seems more western than the avatars you see on /pol/. I guess thats what sets us apart from them.

>>15552

>Believing an agrarian society is superior to an industrial one

But as far as Evola advocating for a monarchist structure; there are two countries every other country in the world attempts to emulate:

The Roman Republic, and the Roman Empire.

Since you advocate Evola I'm sure you're more interested in the Empire. The Imperial structure works best when the masses are largely ignorant, and the Emperor serves as a patriarchal figure to the people. However, two things to note are:

1) The most successful Roman Emperors were the Five Good Emperors who were unrelated by blood.

2) This goes into the idea that degeneracy comes from firmly rooted dynasties, whether in a democracy/republic or a Empire.

Therefore, an Empire with an ever changing dynasty is ideal for the uneducated lot. However, the Empire will fall as all nations do. Perhaps it can be prolonged with fresh blood, but in the end corruption will defile it.

Therefore, the goal of the Empire should be to raise the masses to such a level where a Platonic Republic or Early Roman Republic can be instituted after the Empire falls.

Only a largely educated electorate can successfully run a republic. Also, education is the enemy of tyranny.

Once the republic falls to mob rule democracy the cycle will begin again with a new Emperor and a new Empire.

I think we're honestly heading towards the second coming, metaphorically if not literally. I've been reading a lot of Spengler, and in his chapters on the middle east, the times of Christ and the eras of man, there's a lot of things that stick out. He talks in detail about the great apocalyptic feelings that dominated the centuries directly before The Lord's coming, as the previous worldview started to fade away and with nothing concrete to replace it, there was a great feeling of cataclysm and wait for the end of days. Endless cults sprang up, prophecies came in every religion and every proto-secular force. Today's similarities are obvious right now in the hall of the happening, and the modern/post-modern mindset of everything being subjective, nothing having meaning and the world consisting solely of whatever your lonely head dreams up is basically the death of worldview weaved with false complexity in hopes of becoming an antithesis. It's been talked about on here before about how there's a general apocalyptic sense going around in the world at large, a seizing up of institutions and political states. People trade prophetic dreams over the midnight oil with a sense of shared loss.

When he came, even to those that did not follow, a new day dawned and the world was forever changed. A new sense of the world came to all, even to those that did not heed his words. The pagan cults of the area, the Mesopotamian and (modern day) Turkish faiths had their religion shifted in different words as a new "Magian" worldview came to be, with existence as a cavernous being and an endless pneuma of spirit occupying the stars.

Whether have faith in The Lord and his teachings or not, I think we're at the edge of a great and fundamental change of how the world is seen and how the ways of man are bound and guided. Only problems is that whilst previously such faiths were able to travel from Nazareth and Jerusalem to the edges of the roman empire, the shores of India and deep into the unknowns of Africa, the whole curvature of our planet is known to man, and that will change things in infinite ways. That and from a christian perspective (of which I am), we still have that sneaky fucking antichrist waiting behind the scenes to make his move, and those following him (primarily kikes) are doing their best to lead as many unto his path, and there will be many revelations and gnashing of teeth as the future glides forward.

TL:DR: It's really happening, in more ways than you could possibly know.

>>15575

>There would still be space flight without civilisation

Something is lost in translation here. Remember kids: sophistry is performed by trained professionals. Do not try this at home.

>>15584

Explain to me how civilization created space flight? Sure without hundreds of thousands of people being allocated by the United States government it would have been hard to go to the moon, but the technology to go to space didn't need as much involvement. Rocket testing didn't involve hundreds of thousands of people, but the resource intensive construction of rockets did need many people. Since civilization benefits population growth it can be said civilization would benefit the construction of space flight materials, but that does not mean civilization was beneficial to space flight discovery. Surely during the space race it was, but civilization can be restrictive more often than not, because was NASA was gutted private space companies began to take over. Now private space agencies are doing more space flight programs than NASA.

Even so, we do not know how space flight would have been effected without a civilization, so I grant you we cannot prove the argument 100% sound, but then again we are speaking about the theoretical. On the other hand my argument has no non-sequitur:

If Civilization mainly serves to increase population, then technological progress is not its main goal.

If technological progress is not the main goal, then space flight research can proceed without aid.

Civilization mainly serves to protect and grow citizens. Therefore, space flight can research can proceed without civilization.

There's nothing misleading about that argument, unless you believe civilization is absolutely required to research space flight. Or you believe the argument is saying that space flight is inhibited by civilization; whereas shown space flight can benefit or be harmed by civilization.

Lastly the argument against civilization is not an argument against societies. Societies are necessary for people; and by societies I refer to smaller communities rather than the larger more complex civilizations/ countries.

If you believe this argument to be more sophistry then I expect evidence to the contrary.

>>15582

I think the fundamental change is going to be more along the lines of the public taking off the blinders and seeing clearly for the first time in a while, rather than a fundamental discovery such as (to use your example) The Lord's first coming.

The masses will realize that there are barbarians at the gates and that Rome will fall as the politicians are too feckless to do anything other than benefit themselves.

Maybe you're right and there will be a great and fundamental change, time will tell. But, until then I'd place my bet on history repeating rather than a historically unique event.

>>15591

I think before we go forward you should explain to us exactly what you define as civilization, and what the life of an average man (a peasant, if you will) would be like sans civilization. Because I have the feeling something is getting lost in translation.

>>15594

1 A society is simply a group of people involved in a community. This can range from the smallest groups to the largest of nations/empires.

2 A civilization is a complex society consisting of many thousands of individuals. The smallest civilizations would be your largest city-states and then everything above that is a civilization. You can think of a civilization as equal to a country/nation/empire. A civilization needs certain things to be called a civilization, it needs laws, a well established bureaucracy, and social strata. These are the bare essentials, and I would say the establishment of a bureaucracy is what sets the civilization apart from smaller societies, it also sets apart civilized societies apart from barbarian ones.

2(1) Bureaucracy in this instance refers to the administration of government. In smaller or uncivilized societies it is seen as unnecessary and thus avoided. But, given that barbaric societies have never lasted long due to power consolidation in a few people, and then mismanagement it is clear that at large scale bureaucracy is needed in some form.

2(2) Barbaric societies refer to large societies that are of civilization population size but lack the sophisticated structure. The Celtic hordes and German hordes were largely barbaric and nomadic, they did not have a tax system and all the other functions of a large civilization. On the other hand, the Inca, the Maya, and the Aztecs would be called civilizations. Regardless of any European sensibilities regarding morality, they did have a sophisticated governmental structure with a bureaucracy of some sort.

3 Without civilization can refer to many different types of situations, it can refer to the barbaric states such as above, or to small states which have not yet become civilizations.

3(1) Any society will eventually become a civilization as long as it keeps growing. The necessary functions to regulate such a large amount of people results in civilization being necessary.

4 Life for the average person without civilization would largely depend on the size of the society they are in. At the barbaric levels it would be

>nasty, brutish and short.

This largely results from child mortality rates, and the low number of men in particular that make it to 35. At smaller levels life becomes, normal for a lack of a better word. In small towns life would not be much different then it is today since the level of bureaucracy needed to manage them is small. Most people would in fact know the Mayor meaning the leaders of the town would be personally held in check, but this is not the focus of power should we use my model which I suppose is your main question.

4(1) Life without civilization in my model of government would result in the larger more powerful families having control over a lot of area. Smaller families would attempt to ally with the larger more powerful ones. You may say that this begins to sound like feudalism, the thing is it more reflects the situation with the patricians and the plebs in the Early-Mid Roman Republic– Imperial Rome had a different structure altogether. The plebs in the era without civilization would form the backbone of society, from farmers to wealthy traders, the status of plebeian has nothing to do with wealth. Of course there will be other families doing other similar things. Therefore, you may have in a 1000km^2 area several thousand communities. Eventually power would consolidate under a hundred or so families dependent on the situation etc. These families could then form a civilization with them being the electorate.

>>15595

So life for the average person would be the same, they would work, and they would indulge in pleasures. About their rights being protected, on a smaller scale that's not as much as an issue since the patrician class can't abuse power as much since they would be limit on how many they can influence. Of course you will probably have patricians that execute some people that speak out against them, but if it goes to far the plebs will revolt and the situation will reset. So in the town sized population levels you may see some instability. But, as the patricians create civilization the rule of law can be established.

What about upward mobility? Most people think they care about politics, but really they are simply power hungry. I.E. go ask your average person about the political situation and they would probably say they want someone else to make the change, if they say they want to change things you should press harder to see whom their changes actually benefit. But, for the "noble plebs" there must be a way to allow them upward mobility so that a dynasty cannot be firmly rooted.

However, there are problems with how to allow them to be inducted. A test proves nothing, voting amongst current patricians would most likely lead to idea stagnation. As for voting amongst the plebs this can lead to mob rule where demagogues and the popular but vain are the elected. I'll finish this later, but if you have an idea to put here you can go ahead.

>>15591

I think it may have been an unique situation, but all the cards are lining up for something of the same form to repeat again. You look at the situation and the attitudes of before his coming, and you realize that we are in that exact moment right now, just before its apex.

I'd also say that on a different level, we're seeing a fast fulfillment of biblical prophecy.

The fast encroachment of tracking and currency technologies, the world religious meetings taking place in the the center of the main continental group, Kazakhstan, with judeomasonic (basically antichristian) architecture and ideology in tow. The encroachment of the UN and it's literal creation and support by luceferians and people obsessed with the biblical New World Order, and basically everything the current pope has said since his inauguration. The direct signs don't come from a lot of directions, but the image is emerging everywhere, and I think we're really geared for the final battle between Christ and Antichrist.

>>15603

There are a lot of signs from Revelations occurring but those same signs are present throughout history, or I should say similar signs and other signs from Revelations. 30 Years' War, fall of the Roman Empire, time during the Black Death, etc.

The book (Bible not Revelations) itself says:

>But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

>So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.

So just because times are bad doesn't necessarily mean the Second Coming will occur, but:

>For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

It would be foolish to assume that we live in such great times in which the Second Coming occurs. That doesn't mean you cannot hope, it simply means that we shouldn't assume this to be the end of days. Regardless of whether the time is now or further in the future, we have work to do:

>Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time?

>It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns.

>>15591

>>15595

Let me get this straight. This is a semantic difference?

>>15609

The point is that it is not a semantic difference. Why would I change the definition for the first paragraph when asked to define certain terminology.

There is a slight semantic difference when compared to the dictionary definition of certain words as I add on qualifiers to further define civilization in particular. This helps create a semantic difference between other societies and also the dictionary definition of civilization.

>>15608

I'll admit some of this is probably due to one's sense of historical self-importance, and I'll agree that faith should never be temporal. But don't knock me for pointing out the signs as I see them.

>>15618

I'm not knocking you for that, it's a warning because if you look at groups such as the Millerites and others who believed they lived in the time of the Second Coming they abandoned their responsibilities in order to wait as though it were Christmas.

So you can sharpen your sword in wait, but do not sharpen it for Armageddon, for there are battles here on Earth to be fought. For as these great and mighty beasts die their death rattles will cause wars to occur. During any time a power vacuum appears the amount of conflict increases.