You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
6
fourleaved on scored.co
1 year ago6 points(+0/-0/+6Score on mirror)1 child
The Indians were inferior and weaker than their competition. They could have painted themselves White and penned a constitution, that wouldn't make them any less than what they were.
It wasn't their ways that killed them, it was their nature.
1 year ago3 points(+0/-0/+3Score on mirror)1 child
Was it in the 'nature' of the Roman to fall to the Goths?
Aristotle was Greek. Greece used to be at the forefront of all science, civilization, and technology. But then what happened?
Rome progressed. Greece didn't. The Romans created the Byzantine Empire out of Greece. The Ottomans progressed. The Byzantine Empire didn't.
***"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:***
***Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"***
*Nothing beside remains. Round the decay*
*Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare*
*The lone and level sands stretch far away.*
1 year ago2 points(+0/-0/+2Score on mirror)1 child
Part of what killed Rome was that their geography outstretched their sphere of influence. They were multicultural to a fault, having no shared history and no social cohesion brought on partly, as you described, a corrupt and aristocratic Senate and government that cared more about its own intrigue than serving its people.
It was both a lack of tradition (which creates a shared/common identity) and a lack of progress. "You stand together or you fall apart." When Whites band together by shared ancestry (and thus shared customs and practices, aka *traditions*), we fly to the moon and shit. When we stick to our traditions too tightly and balkanize (yet still progress), we kill some 80 million of ourselves and give the jews land in the Middle East.
Aristotle is right (again). You need an appropriate mix of tradition (common customs and practices, "common sense") that unites you as a people, but once united as a people you need to not stagnate and sit on your laurels lest you be overrun.
Aristotle basically described evolution but on a cultural level. A species that is the master of its domain, hyper-specialized, will die when an invasive species arrives, or there's a global cooling, or something. It's why mammals took over after the dinosaurs, they were too specialized, mammals were more adaptable, able to weather the K-T global catastrophe.
It wasn't their ways that killed them, it was their nature.
Aristotle was Greek. Greece used to be at the forefront of all science, civilization, and technology. But then what happened?
Rome progressed. Greece didn't. The Romans created the Byzantine Empire out of Greece. The Ottomans progressed. The Byzantine Empire didn't.
***"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:***
***Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"***
*Nothing beside remains. Round the decay*
*Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare*
*The lone and level sands stretch far away.*
It was both a lack of tradition (which creates a shared/common identity) and a lack of progress. "You stand together or you fall apart." When Whites band together by shared ancestry (and thus shared customs and practices, aka *traditions*), we fly to the moon and shit. When we stick to our traditions too tightly and balkanize (yet still progress), we kill some 80 million of ourselves and give the jews land in the Middle East.
Aristotle is right (again). You need an appropriate mix of tradition (common customs and practices, "common sense") that unites you as a people, but once united as a people you need to not stagnate and sit on your laurels lest you be overrun.