Entertainment is the core value of the plebs; bread and circus. But the Intellect is the value of the Aristocracy.
“Greatness” is surely attractive but what Im talking about is more fundamental; a structural integrity. A future earthly society will either be hell or rest on the most formidable Constitution. Greatness can only come about on such a foundation.
I thus advocate a return to Rome’s Republican Constitution; a leadership of Consuls, a system of representation involving Tribunes, a re-introduction of and very strict observation of proper religious rites and festivals, and many more sane forms of managing human affairs that we’ve abandoned to the effeminate follies of monarchs and monotheists.
We have a model that worked in Rome for five centuries, and the American model, not too shabby itself, clearly modeled after the Roman one, can be amended so as to more properly reflect human nature and in general the will to power; a proper estimation of the nature of value.
Plebs shall be fed and entertained. Do not worry about that.
All of that is fine except that you left out a very important piece of a just society - Democracy. A strict republic is not a democracy. And without “parties” with different values - there can be no democracy. Political parties become corrupt - but what political thing doesn’t?
In a beginning having only a small sign of democracy is probably a requirement (a small business would not be able to function like a democracy) - but large corporations and unions could (and should). There must be a separation of thought and values else a dictatorship arises - Caesar.
Rome became horribly corrupt and eventually annihilated for a reason - not merely a purpose.
I think mice should tread softly and quietly in the presents of cats and rats.
Rather, parties are the negation of the power of the demos and designed to be.
In the worlds first democracy, that of Athens, one voted for specific humans, i.e. actual beings, rather than some void ideological pamphlet.
One should never vote for an ideology, always for a person.
President Trump has extreme integrity and intelligence, that is why we support him - not because he belongs to the utterly corrupt “republican party”.
The donkey and elephant are symbols designed to represent the stubborn, ‘backwards’ nature of the masses and the slavery of the masses respectively, and this ignoble distinction is what the two parties are designed to make use of. These are the values used in America to divide and conquer.
“Information is power” - the control of it is supremacy
When you have only one party - you have only one media - from which all information is regulated. And so when any voting is to take place - look to Stalin - the “democratic citizens” will vote on only the choices they are given and only by the information given.
That is not democracy - at all.
The US Republican Party’s elephant represents remembering the ways and errors of the past.- the more conservative". Nothing at all to do with slavery. The party of slavery was the Southern Democrats - the KKK and plantation owners. And that is why the US Democrat party today is actually an authoritarian party - wanting to enslave everyone into their “plantation”. - “The South Rises Again!”
Just look at Ms Pelosi and how she disallows votes on what she wants to directly control - or OBiden writing over 40 edicts as executive orders - completely overriding constitutional law - “Democrat” party.
As the administrative liberality introduced into the military-bureaucratic protocols corrupted the Republics machinery, so the total liberality to which the approach of emperors to their military descended brought ruin on the empire.
Severus, Caracalla.
Symptom of the decline was blatantly shown in the venerated fool Marcus Aurelius, who had the insolence of demanding that the Senate proclaim his wife a goddess, to be venerated with Venus, Juno, Vesta, Ceres, and consequently showed his stupidity in transferring the Empire into the hands of his worthless son.
A very far cry from the profound religion of Caesar, who started his career as a Flamen of Quirinus, and whose pick of successor was based on thorough examination of character, merit.
But the decline had set in even with them; Both Caesar and his adopted son were on their death deified. The introduction of the practice of deifying humans very swiftly annihilated the worth of the Roman culture, and paved the way for the invention of Christianity.
“The introduction of the practice of deifying humans very swiftly annihilated the worth of the Roman culture”
If that’s true I imagine Rome would have ended the moment it began, because nearly two generations before Aurelius the first emporer Augustus established the ‘imperial cult of Rome’ - a nice little spin convincing everyone that the rulers had divine authority.
So it was already part of roman culture for the elite to associate themselves with gods and demigods and to believe they even possessed divine power (they do this when a lucky guess wins a battle, for example. It was general so and sos great call that won the war, and that great call was divinely inspired, etc.).
So now what? Does this fact change ur whole shit up, or is it only a minor inaccuracy. I guess my question is, does it even matter if u were wrong?
There is a slight distinction between Rex and Imperator. No, he did not declare himself a king. Consider Napoleon, who executed a similar act: he was not a king, but rather as Imperator set up kings or democracies as it suited him in the different provinces he anexed. An imperator is a very different thing, because he does not rule over a tribe. He rules over a res publica.
Res publica does not mean state. Let us not allow google translate to determine what things mean.
The distinction is very important. Without understanding it, there is no hope of understanding, for example, the Russian and generally Eastern European mentality. Even Stalin was never regarded as a king in any sense. Not by the Russians anyway.
Now. The difference between a state, or a tribe, or a nation, and a res publica is important, if impossible to understand for members of the former who have not experienced the latter. Indeed, it has no necessary correlation with any style of government.
On the contrary, Augustus established a balance of power. One that would last to our days.
But even this is not linked to the res publica in any necessary way. This was the genius of Cesar, and of Octavian, as a team. Not for nothing the two prettier months bear their name.
The wisdom was that the personal nature of a mission did not negate the sociatel nature of its effect. That something was personal, for the ancients (and many not so ancients), did in no way constitute a contradiction or hypocrisy regarding societal aims, political aims. Even Margaret Thatcher openly spoke about this, if already on the defensive.
Indeed, a Roman is likely to say, what can fuel a societal mission but personal aims? Some persons, they probably would say, are simply superior.
The power struggles of the elite, including Cesar and Octavian, as well as the generals and aristocrats you mention, do not constitute the res publica, the res publica indeed is not a state, though on the results of these does depend its future.
Again, I am not refering to expansion of a state, or a tribe, but of the res publica.
No, it was not.
In modern times, too, Indians are carefully and admiringly studied, including by the very first missionary priests and monks.
I believe you are referring to the Senate.
The res publica is neither sacred nor heretical nor mundane.
What can a Roman do but smile. Still, this was largely of a retaliatory nature. A son guarding his father’s legacy against his assassins.
This goes under the discussion about personal versus societal we are having.
I believe modern politicians are unable to hold both because they are not individuals. They are members of a party, servants. A servant, of course, cannot have any personal motivations.
Apparently we are still caught in the jaws of the conflict between the Mediterranean Europeans and the Northern Europeans.
The Romans and consequently the Cristians keep referring to any other nation and peoples but themselves as barbarians, even to this date, historians often use that name (hence my own monicker barbarian horde, meaning, translated from Imperialistic language, tribe of free humans, non-fascists, non-slaves) - and we know that late Imperial Rome and Christianity excelled above all things in one thing: the destruction of happy ancient cultures. The burning down of the library of Alexandria is just one example.
It is unfortunate that this fact casts such a shadow on the name of Rome and obscures its noble Republican origins.
Rome is an example of how power overpowers its own values. It is an indication that power hasn’t been understood well enough - that the aspect of power that is value, which is its fundamental aspect (what is power if it is not valuable? Surely not power) has not been integrated into the conquest-driven behavior of mankind.
Conquest has usually been coupled with destruction of what is conquered. This is silly. It is an insult to ones own strength.
Note, it is not Rome or its might that I object to (that would be ridiculous, especially as I am high priest of its chief deity) but moderners random notions of its structure, institutions, ethics; in teaching them a bit about the actual nature of Rome I sometimes lose my patience with the boastfulness of their ignorance. This boastful ignorance is definitively not Roman; quite simply because the stakes at Rome were immensely high, ignorance was punished. I may seem harsh and unreasonable in dishing out my punishments but believe me, I am very mild by Roman standards.
Good friend, if you had addressed any of the points that were raised or in any way continued the discussion, I would answer in that vain.
However, you answer with some kind of moralistic complaint about the course of history, which I cannot relate to, nor have any interest in. As I wrote elsewhere, many neo communist and neo nazi organizations will be happy to accommodate you.
I will say that your interpretation of Rome seems to be confused, wavering from high praise to bitter reproach, from being described as the pinnacle of culture to dumb savages. This cannot be countered in discourse. Some of the specific points we raised could be, but you show no intrest in those. One conjectures it is either because they are beyond your current reach of understanding, or your bitter emotions of being the victim of Rome blind you, as bitter emotions will, to any kind of detailed and nuanced discussion of an interesting topic.
I will also add that this is a characteristic of Goth peoples.
And it is due to reasons I have stated. I have also provided possible solutions, like leaving your Gothic comfort zone and immersing yourself in a civilized culture, or, really, any culture other than your own.
When one leaves the civilized confines of a Roman land and enters a predominantly Gothic realm, the difference is palpable. Barbaric constructs like race and ethnicity, obviously the same thing, dominate every discussion. The way a Goth walks down the streets in a predominantly Gothic land reeks of self-isolation, of having no contact with the danger that comes with the wonder of mixing with other peoples. Every person exists in their own category, and deviation is strenuously criticized. The exception is Republicans, who were noble enough to take a Roman name, and have no shame in exhibiting pride in their inheritance, as they are aware of populating a world where many exist, and are subject to mixing. Compare president Trump’s rhetoric regarding Arabs and Iranians, always wanting to do business, to mix, without deluding himself that they are all the same, to Mr Biden’s and that of other racist Goths, focused on isolating and preserving the differences between peoples, keeping inferior peoples, like the Arabs (in his savage view) safe.
I did not wish to draw any correlations with modern politics, as it requires a nuance that is even far greater than the nuance required to discuss the topics I have raised which are much more separated from modern times. However, I no longer hold much faith that either will be possible. My intention in writing here, in any case, is to record some interesting thoughts, and discuss them. The nature and condition of those that discuss with me are not my concern.
I think FC’s complaint is actually about political monopolies. It is monopolies that destroy democracies. When there is only one monopoly you have socialism - a type of autocratic dictatorship.
Most pseudo-democratic nations have many political parties and that makes them a little more democratic - but not much more. The US has 3 registered parties - Republican, Democrat (socialist now), and Independent (totally ineffectual) but they also have monopoly unions, media cabal, and corporations - each a type of monopoly. So even in the US there are actually many political parties but most are not called a “party”.
The biggest mistake that the US has ever made is allowing unions to not be separation of power constitutional entities (as they did for their States). They allowed socialism and other monopolies to grow like cancers within their body. Now the cancer is festering and killing the body.
And what both share in common – in my own opinion of course – is the fact they employ ponderous intellectual contraptions in order to avoid references to reality out in the world of actual human interactions that precipitate conflicting points of view about any number of things.
Unless of course either here or there they might be willing to focus in on a particular set of circumstances and exchange components of their own moral and political and philosophical TOE.
