PDA

View Full Version : I Was Thinking About Something



Sigyn
Wednesday, September 7th, 2011, 06:59 PM
Today, I was reading a history book, so I'm sitting here and thinking about something.

All the big civilizations have their downfall sooner or later, but the interesting thing is why do they decline?

I'm sure the Romans viewed the Germanics as "inferior", because their civilization was less advanced at the time. The Germanics, in turn, viewed the Huns as "inferior" to themselves. When the Europeans explored the world, then viewed the non-white people as "inferior". But the paradox is, it's usually the uncivilized people who win in the end.

If I apply this idea to our immigration problem right now, that means that the Arab and African immigrants will soon outnumber us, on our own continents. But doesn't that show that are is no "superior" or "inferior" races?

What do you think about this?

Linden
Wednesday, September 7th, 2011, 07:02 PM
No, I disagree...it simply shows that multi-culturalism can ruin even the greatest civilisations.

Wychaert
Wednesday, September 7th, 2011, 07:08 PM
No it means that they're like parasites, If a country have a good economy, Good welfare, freedom, easy money and all the things alike, they will invade and rule out the Superior with numbers.

:thumbdown

MCP3
Wednesday, September 7th, 2011, 07:24 PM
Today, I was reading a history book, so I'm sitting here and thinking about something.

All the big civilizations have their downfall sooner or later, but the interesting thing is why do they decline?

I'm sure the Romans viewed the Germanics as "inferior", because their civilization was less advanced at the time. The Germanics, in turn, viewed the Huns as "inferior" to themselves. When the Europeans explored the world, then viewed the non-white people as "inferior". But the paradox is, it's usually the uncivilized people who win in the end.

If I apply this idea to our immigration problem right now, that means that the Arab and African immigrants will soon outnumber us, on our own continents. But doesn't that show that are is no "superior" or "inferior" races?

What do you think about this?

Interesting observation. It has to do with the slackening of the imperial force, idea, culture or race after some time. In consequence there is corruption, decadence, decline and the raise of parasite elements inside the society.

Lady Vengeance
Wednesday, September 7th, 2011, 07:29 PM
This is my two cents on this topic:

I really don’t care if we’re “superior” or not. And no, I don’t go around imagining that Swedes are some master race. “Superiority” and “inferiority” has nothing to do with this, even though I sometimes feel a natural contempt for the IQ-liberated tropical races. :P But I’m a fan of global human diversity. It's really important for us to preserve our own race and culture.


But the paradox is, it's usually the uncivilized people who win in the end.

Civilizations come and go, y'know. There’s many reasons why they collapse in the end. Wars, environmental disasters, epidemics, and so on. The big weakness of civilization is that stupid and weak people – who would’ve been purged out by nature – are living and reproducing like germs in a civilized society. Usually, at the expense of the smart and successful people. This creates a HUGE imbalance. Also, the high standard of living and ultra-comfy lifestyle makes it much less important to reproduce, so the smartest people in a civilization will soon have less and less kids. High civilizations are also magnets for immigrants from dirt-poor countries. They often push away the original natives and erode their culture, and so they speed up the civilization’s collapse down the toilet.

So yeah, I want to preserve our unique and beautiful race. I don't believe there are any "evil races”, but every race is optimized for its own culture and system. Mixing the races will just create a bastardized coffee-brown race that has ZERO culture and can only agree on the lowest common denominator…earning money and spending it on plastic garbage.

Elessar
Wednesday, September 7th, 2011, 07:49 PM
History of Man has been about survival of the fittest, whether we're talking about Homo Sapiens v Neanderthals, Rome v Barbarian, or Immigrant v Host Country, and mother nature doesn't exactly differentiate between "fittest" and "noblest" (or who "deserves" to live if you will). Whoever can manipulate their environment to fit their special survival wins. We Men are incredibly racist beings, intrinsically. We cater to our own. Those who stick together win, no matter who you are, as is shown with the current demographic statistics in Europa.
Take away the value of Family, Folk, and Religion, and what do you have? Western Modernity implanted with exotic displacement (invasive species, i.e the dreaded Multiculturalism), and that's working with great success, huh? Just as it's a dirty word here, Secular Individualism is a sin everywhere else.

velvet
Wednesday, September 7th, 2011, 08:13 PM
Civilizations come and go, y'know. There’s many reasons why they collapse in the end. Wars, environmental disasters, epidemics, and so on. The big weakness of civilization is that stupid and weak people – who would’ve been purged out by nature – are living and reproducing like germs in a civilized society. Usually, at the expense of the smart and successful people. This creates a HUGE imbalance. Also, the high standard of living and ultra-comfy lifestyle makes it much less important to reproduce, so the smartest people in a civilization will soon have less and less kids. High civilizations are also magnets for immigrants from dirt-poor countries. They often push away the original natives and erode their culture, and so they speed up the civilization’s collapse down the toilet.

This is well observed.

The paradoxical thing is that the imbalance is actually the precondition on which a civilisation grows, can possibly grow. As long as everyone is busy with mere survival, civilisation is by necessity rather limited, there simply are no options. When a group of people manages to free up time for some who can then go on and use this free time to think, to invent, to organise, it is this were civilisation propells. It will continue to free up time for this or that, allowing specialisation and also is the point where the civilisation is a self-runner, but at one point will free up so much time that there is also room for "degenaration" in the widest sense. Lazyness, crazy ideas, political utopias, only-mothers, breadwinners, kindergardens, whatever, all of this is a degeneration of the "way of survival", because it delegates the task of survival to others, systems, mechanisms, the society and civilisation itself.

It is a paradoxon that a civilisation must handle in order to survive this almost natural law of the rise and fall of civilisations.

Great civilisations / empires had died from the inside, on the desease of multiculturalism (divide and conquer), corruption and decadence, and indeed, on parasitic elements that loot the rests. They have been rarely wiped off by natural catastrophes. The Chinese managed their civilisation for 3000 years and kept foreigners ruthlessly out, and only trashed it themselves when they adopted communism.

SwedishThinkTank
Wednesday, September 7th, 2011, 08:17 PM
No it means that they're like parasites, If a country have a good economy, Good welfare, freedom, easy money and all the things alike, they will invade and rule out the Superior with numbers.

:thumbdown

This is entirely true here in America, coupled with the propagation of multi-culturalism. We're losing our national identity at an alarming rate now, while political correctness and an increasingly controlling, Leninist-leaning government (with the mainstream media in its back pocket) have done much to stifle any reasonable debate or challenge to this trend. If you speak out against the dismantling of American culture, the current administration's numerous Constitutional violations, or illegal immigration, you are shouted down and branded a crazy, racist, conspiracy theorist (and lately as a "terrorist"). Yet, a careful study of our history proves otherwise.

Meanwhile, many illegal immigrants in this country have boldly proclaimed, "We're going to outbreed 'whitey' and take our land back." The sad truth is that our current political climate is enabling them to do just that, with the aid of my hard-earned tax dollars. The illegal immigrants and their children actually enjoy better benefits and more preferential treatment than natural-born residents of this country.

In addition, our universities no longer teach critical thinking skills, but instead indoctrinate our children into self-loathing and anti-Constitutional views. We've learned nothing from the Roman Empire, whose parallel bent toward multi-culturalism and a "free lunch" for everyone led to its eventual destruction.

Hersir
Wednesday, September 7th, 2011, 08:18 PM
Societies die from the inside

Huginn ok Muninn
Thursday, September 8th, 2011, 12:27 AM
When the idea of getting married and having children becomes something that is merely thought about and not DONE, it's only a matter of time.

Hersir
Thursday, September 8th, 2011, 02:35 AM
I'm sure the Romans viewed the Germanics as "inferior", because their civilization was less advanced at the time.

It wasn't less advanced.

Ediruc
Thursday, September 8th, 2011, 02:41 AM
Superiority doesn't imply invincibility. The Roman Empire killed itself from the inside out, and that's how it is going to be with its descendant, the western white states.

GroeneWolf
Thursday, September 8th, 2011, 05:29 AM
Today, I was reading a history book, so I'm sitting here and thinking about something.

All the big civilizations have their downfall sooner or later, but the interesting thing is why do they decline?

Oswald Spengler had written about this subject. Actually he is most know for his theory for why cultures eventually crumble. But I would have to reread it to get most of his points back in to my memory.

But to give my own ideas. It happens when the a significant part of the population no longer cares about the foundations of their culture and refuse to defend it. In the case of Rome, the Romans where no longer willing to serve in the military and let the fighting over to foreigners (and more specific Germanics) and went for a life of decadence and hardly reproduced anymore.

Meister
Thursday, September 8th, 2011, 06:00 AM
The problem is the generations who build the Empire/Nation die off and the following ones either lose faith, start feeling guilty or simply have it to good and are apathetic about what has been built for them by previous generations.

In other words they are like spoilt children who have had everything handed to them rather than worked for anything. They don't care about their culture or history, they don't care and in fact have been taught not to have any pride in their heritage.

They are soft and idealistic, and of course as we have seen get raped and assaulted by the immigrants who are coming from cultures that have a very strong animal instinct, I don't use the the term animal instinct negatively here either. Racial others generally come from very harsh cultures/societies and have no time for the political correctness and social justice that the left wing spew out. They will take the best of it while raping and assaulting the very people who allowed and possibly even fought to let them in.

So I agree Empires/Civilizations fall from the inside because subsequent generations who only know the good become apathetic and idealistic and think it would be great to share some of their wealth with the less fortunate. In other words Socialism.

We are seeing the multi cult experiement fail and it will be up to us and future generations to fix it up and ensure it never happens again.

Patrioten
Thursday, September 8th, 2011, 11:55 AM
Today, I was reading a history book, so I'm sitting here and thinking about something.

All the big civilizations have their downfall sooner or later, but the interesting thing is why do they decline?

I'm sure the Romans viewed the Germanics as "inferior", because their civilization was less advanced at the time. The Germanics, in turn, viewed the Huns as "inferior" to themselves. When the Europeans explored the world, then viewed the non-white people as "inferior". But the paradox is, it's usually the uncivilized people who win in the end.

If I apply this idea to our immigration problem right now, that means that the Arab and African immigrants will soon outnumber us, on our own continents. But doesn't that show that are is no "superior" or "inferior" races?

What do you think about this?This supposes that civilizations can only be destroyed by superior races, when the opposite is more likely. It does not take a genius to destroy something great or to facilitate its undoing.

Civilizations can be defeated by other, more superior races, as happened with most of the non-European races and people. And Rome was in my opinion defeated, Europe today on the other hand is being destroyed. There's a difference there and the factors at play are different. As Rome was defeated, Germania rose to prominence. There wont emerge a great civilization out of the ruins of Europe. The very foundation is being eroded, the multicultural, multiracial society is a society built upon sand rather than bedrock. The end result, or product, will be inferior to what once was.

A better comparison would be the fate of South Africa and Zimbabwe.

Sigyn
Thursday, September 8th, 2011, 02:41 PM
Thank you for the answers.

I tend to agree with Elessar's post, that nature doesn't care for moral superiority. Brute force and large numbers is what matters, in the end. We may be the most advanced and the most morally superior, but we're not the "fittest" in the natural sense.


It wasn't less advanced.
In many ways, it was. The Roman Empire had large cities, public baths, cement, water aqueducts, Roman roads, steam power, and so on. The Dark Ages were a descent into ignorance.

The rest of Europe didn't rise up to that level until several centuries later.


When the idea of getting married and having children becomes something that is merely thought about and not DONE, it's only a matter of time.
What are you on about?

When did I ever mention having children???

Huginn ok Muninn
Tuesday, September 13th, 2011, 07:59 AM
What are you on about?

When did I ever mention having children???

A civilization is made up of people, is it not? When we fail to reproduce in numbers, our civilization will die. We are failing to reproduce in numbers. If only the Turks in Europe reproduce in numbers, what about the future Europe will be European? Nothing! Whether we solve this problem in our lifetimes or not, there must be future generations to pass our culture down to, and they must be our blood descendants.

When did you ever mention having children? You didn't. Did you fail to understand that the future of our civilization requires them? That the future of our civilization is our children? Apparently so.

There was no more Rome when there were no more Romans.. when they became corrupted to the point that producing new generations of their own seemed less important to them than indulging in the luxuries of the present.

The "fittest" is also a mentality and a value system, and people like the Amish, who base their existence upon family and clan and the love of same, tend to survive, while those who think our "civilization" is based upon material things and do not have children, or have fewer later in life, tend to lose everything they have. That is what is happening to us now. We have succumbed to the pied piper of mammon and left our families to die out.

Hersir
Tuesday, September 13th, 2011, 10:40 AM
TBrute force and large numbers is what matters, in the end. We may be the most advanced and the most morally superior, but we're not the "fittest" in the natural sense.


In many ways, it was. The Roman Empire had large cities, public baths, cement, water aqueducts, Roman roads, steam power, and so on. The Dark Ages were a descent into ignorance.

The rest of Europe didn't rise up to that level until several centuries later.


Survival of the fittest does not mean those with the most brute force survives. It means those who is able to adapt the best has the most chance of survival.

The celts had roads before the romans, aqueducts wern't a roman invention, and so on. I think you are pretty biased. The celts had better metalworking than the romans, thats' why the romans "stole" their famous short sword from the celts. Germanic societies was much higher adapted when it came to civil rights, with our "tings" etc.

Celts, Vandals, Persians and Goths were technologically, economically and intellectually sophisticated, but were on the wrong side of history.

Plutarch's figure claims that Julius Caesar slaughtered a million Gauls, very civilized indeed. Far from civilizing the societies they conquered the Romans often destroyed much of what they found.

Halfr
Tuesday, September 13th, 2011, 10:56 AM
The Germanics, in turn, viewed the Huns as "inferior" to themselves.

I see. That sure explains why certain germanic tribes started picking up hunnic symbolism, artistic influence and customs (such as proof of head binding in certain migration era graves). Not to mention rallying up with them on raids and making a legendary figure out of Atilla himself, that lived on in myth, legend and poetry for well over half a century in an oral society.

Alfadur
Tuesday, September 13th, 2011, 11:28 AM
Celts, Vandals, Persians and Goths were technologically, economically and intellectually sophisticated, but were on the wrong side of history.
The Germanics started out on "the wrong side of history", but didn't stay there. ;)

Some civilizations just are successful, others aren't. The Ancient Greeks began with a motley collection of rocky islands as their homeland and had every odds against them, yet they created one of the greatest civilizations in history. Same with the Romans and the Anglo-Saxons.


Plutarch's figure claims that Julius Caesar slaughtered a million Gauls, very civilized indeed. Far from civilizing the societies they conquered the Romans often destroyed much of what they found.
Well, that's what imperialism looks like. I seriously doubt that other tribes at that time would've been any nicer, if they had the same tremendous power. It's the same situation as the English settlers wiping out the Red Indians. You can't really blame an empire for being too successful.

From my Social Darwinist point of view, I can't see the point of feeling moral outrage about this natural process.

Sigurd
Wednesday, September 14th, 2011, 07:10 PM
In many ways, it was. The Roman Empire had large cities, public baths, cement, water aqueducts, Roman roads, steam power, and so on. The Dark Ages were a descent into ignorance.

The dark ages were not a descent into ignorance because of Germanics ruling the world, it was a descent into dark ages largely because the church forbade as much scientific progress and thought as possible, until well beyond the late medieval, through some the renaissance and until we entered the enlightenment.

What devastating effects the church, especially where it is strong - completely regardless of whether Catholic or Orthodox (Protestantism entered too late, too close to the enlightenment) - can have is shown amongst other classical societies that are often used as the showcase of how 'superior' Mediterranean Europe was to Northern Europe, such as Greece.

When we think of Ancient Greece, we think of all the philosophers, the mathematicians, the high culture. When we think of Medieval Greece, we think of nothing, perhaps of at best the Ottomans holding it down further. When we think of Modern Greece, we think of a corrupt people that can't even run its own business aptly, let alone make any news-breaking discoveries! ;)


The celts had better metalworking than the romans, thats' why the romans "stole" their famous short sword from the celts.

Also we must not forget the wealth, especially that the fact that Gaul alone had over 400 gold mines whilst Rome had almost none on home territory, and that this was a chief reason for Caesar's venture out there also being popular with the Roman masses. His success was less one of military force, but of strategic cleverness, knowing that the Celts were very federally-tribally organised and constantly feuding with each other, this helped his cause.

On the metal working, it must be mentioned that they traded much of their metalworking, Celtic iron tools were a favourite with Roman traders, as were weapons.

As regards infrastructure, it is known that at least a dozen Celtic towns possess high stone walls rivalling those of Rome at the time, some of them up to 5 km (just over 3 miles) long, a particularly famous example thereof was found at the Celtic town near present-day Manching in Bavaria.

Also, as regarded them, their pre-Roman calendar is commonly deemed to be importantly more accurate than the Roman one, and is indeed deemed to rival, if not surpass the accuracy of the Gregorian calendar we use (considering we still nead leap years and all).

Romans more advanced and civilised than the "Barbarians"? Certainly not. ;)

Bernhard
Wednesday, September 14th, 2011, 07:32 PM
The dark ages were not a descent into ignorance because of Germanics ruling the world, it was a descent into dark ages largely because the church forbade as much scientific progress and thought as possible, until well beyond the late medieval, through some the renaissance and until we entered the enlightenment.

It's quite evident that the collapse of the Roman Empire and the fact that the Germanic tribes lived a somewhat nomadic lifestyle has led to a period which one might call a dark age. After a period of destruction the Germanic tribes had to bring the land to order again, which of course took a while. This natural development did not need Christianity for that.
And even well within the "dark ages" philosophy and science played an important role again. Think of the Karolingian Renaissance for example. Charlemagne the Christian imperialist surely hadn't done anything to stop the progress of scientific and philosophical thought? On the contrary! I think I've discussed this in another thread before, but it's rather a modern (Enlightenment) invention that the dark ages were actually dark because of the reign of (Christian) religion. Have a look at how medieval universities were organized and you can discover that it's quite a different story.


What devastating effects the church, especially where it is strong - completely regardless of whether Catholic or Orthodox (Protestantism entered too late, too close to the enlightenment) - can have is shown amongst other classical societies that are often used as the showcase of how 'superior' Mediterranean Europe was to Northern Europe, such as Greece.

When we think of Ancient Greece, we think of all the philosophers, the mathematicians, the high culture. When we think of Medieval Greece, we think of nothing, perhaps of at best the Ottomans holding it down further. When we think of Modern Greece, we think of a corrupt people that can't even run its own business aptly, let alone make any news-breaking discoveries! ;)


Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. It's well known that there have been other major influential changes in the classical world besides the emergence of the Christian cult. Considering the fact that Northern Europe was christianized as well and managed to maintain a high culture the causes for the decline of the Mediterranean world clearly have to be sought elsewhere.