The Building of Empires

(I had hoped to make a grand piece of literature, but i ended up with just this thing here)

Inspired by some physical examples and more importantly spiritual examples.
Daniel Reuben Kanarski:

Empires are built upon investment.
A successful investment gives you more energy than it took to establish that process,
changes, or events. Hunting is an example of natural investment.
The animal that can accomidate the widest variety of foods,
will fare much better than animals with a restricted diet.
In civil cases, we buy from the farmer, then re-sell the produce
for an increased price, to produce profit.
Profit is the plus side of investments.

Given what we are born with,
only a certain measure of achievement surrounds an individual’s life.
So we must use our talents in the game of life.
Or, we may, at times, be able to employ our superiors.
How? A gold coin is useless, but to some people,
it is very valuable. So you exchange the value of gold,
for something like work or food, which is worth more.
Not presently, but ideally, gold is only an abstraction.

Trade employs and is based on the principles of investment.
A strong economy has abundant trade.
But, price is not controlled by reason.
Instead, its reason is in itself:
Capitalism formulates value based on what people are willing to pay,
not what is best for the health of the public.
Medicine and food are in the field of public health,
but unhealthy good and drugs are also being supplied.
The phenomenon of street drugs has shown a great
weakness in the moral fabric of capitalism.
This drug is the selling of one’s own altered chemistry.
It is an experience, for sale.

In the later stages of empire,
the prices of commodities are assigned by enlightened governers,
philosophers and priests. This creates a wide gap between
true value and popular value. This gap can lead to even
deeper levels of trade.

Also there is the concept of investing in one’s self.
A healthy empire can invest in its own members and units.
Internal trade.

A healthy empire produces large scale profits for itself.

Once money and economy are no longer problematic,
once can focus all of the energy into new things.
Like the perfection of various arts, for example.

Science serves as an efficiency increaser.
Science promotes profit by making investment
more productive, stream-lined, etc. Example:
Give a tank of gas to a cave man,
and he doesn’t make use of it.
But give a tank of gas to a modern person,
and they are able to more fully use up the commodity.
How much energy you get per transaction,
goes up as the technology increases too.

Love is also a thing that can be perfected,
after the problems of economy are in the past.
We invest our love into the life forms that we favor.

A single culture produces multiple civilizations.
Empires refers to successful civilizations than spanned areas and times beyond its original ambitions.

Civilization is externalized hope - objectives founded on internalized habits - dealing with existential anxieties, i.e., fears. - representing a historical development of a people with their environments.
If this method is successful, it spreads.
Empire is a set of values, principles, morals/ethics, that have been successfully applied in real time.
They spread and dominate unsuccessful applications and alternatives.

Empires have successfully adapted their original ideals to encompass peoples that have not shared in their development, e.g., western, Hellenic, ideals.
In their twilight stage they are infected by viruses and cancerous growths develop. All wish to participate in success, unable to produce one on their own, and by doing so they destroy it.

The main reason is the ravages of time and the gradual deterioration of the original principles - becoming more flexible, lenient, tolerant.

Empires, i.e., superorganisms, follow thew same cycles as do organisms.
Infancy, youth, youth, maturity, old age, and finally death.
What is applicable to genetic reproduction, via physical intercourse, also applies to memetic reproduction, via linguistic intercourse.


At least you read and replied.

The Chinese race has been around for a very long time.
They are an example of a succession of empires.
But I feel it was all quite miss-managed.
Their society didn’t die though,
even though it had a long time to die with.

Your argument that empires die over time…
it seems both true and untrue.

Cultures are long lived, if they have any merit, civilizations come and go.
Cultures can go extinct the strong ones evolve producing multiple civilizations…like the ancestor of primates produced multiple species.
Empires change, becoming something else.
Like when Rome became the Holy Roman Empire and Byzantium.
In a way Rome is still around but in a warped form that does not remind us of its past…just as the Greeks are still around, infected by Abrahamism.

Memes, like genes, combine, mutate, and splinter into multiple directions.
Memes are extensions of genes…unless they are nihilistic, then they become their antithesis, their nullification, their contradiction, their inversion.
Do you see it in the US and how it is rejecting its past…short as it is?
Do you see it in France where its longer heritage is being usurped and replaced by Americanism?

Put it in movie lore contexts…when a family member - a father or mother - are infected by the Zombie parasite, are they the same?
Their physical forms have been infected by a mental parasite…they no longer identify with it - they’ve been ‘possessed’ by some external will.

An ideological parasite infects European man…one with distinct symptoms:
Mind/Body dissonance, part of a larger existential rejection of the past, of nature - as the sum of all past nurturing.
Another is a desire to disappear within collectives, within an-otherness - denying our participation in what is being determined…a desire to be purified, liberated from responsibility, from our will - salvation.
An imaginary return to innocence, with no shame, no regrets, no guilt…no culpability - a theoretical solution to natural selection.

Thanks for your replies.

However, I am referring to the good / best Empire.
Not the most common, most likely Empire.
A rare, lucky process of investment and great returns.

There’s no such thing as “best” nor “good” anything.
All value-judgments are evaluations in relation to a subjective objective.
The consequences reveal its accuracy.

In regard to cultures producing Empires, then each is evaluated by the type of man it idealizes relative to the type of man it actualizes.

Intentions are one thing, actions are another.

Then we can call it the most preferred.

Preference as a word, relates to what we want as persons.

I’m not talking about an absolute reality.

I’m trying to talk about things that have use.

If we had no good and bad, we’d lack a dimension of our being.

By who and why is it preferred?

Persons prefer different things at different times, for different reasons.
People prefer things that are unrealizable fantasies… irrational.
What is preferred is not always attainable, or logical, or even useful…since the collateral effects are never acknowledged by the majority,

Good/Bad, good/evil…in relation to what?

The objective determines if an act is good or bad.
No universals, no absolutes.
If my objective is to procreate then homosexuality is bad; if my objective is to pass my life in pleasure, then any sexual fetish is good, any vice will suffice.
But beyond human delusions and projections, what are the consequences in real time…both short and long-term, to human objectives?

Like I said…a culture has specific ideals, and these shape the individuals that adhere to them.
So, every culture has its own ideal man, and its own actualized man, because many ideals are not based in reality but in fantasy.
All value judgements are triangulations: subject/objective/movement-effort.
Good/Bad refers to the subject’s imagining attaining its objectives…versus the subject experiencing the attainment of its objectives.
If the subject’s judgements are poor - overly optimistic, naïve - then the imagined ‘good’ may shift to being an actualized ‘bad.’

All life evaluates good/bad primarily by using survival as the standard - simplified as the sensation of pleasure. A few use other standards, separating the mediocre masses - manimals - from the noble; the subjective/intersubjective from the objective.

To simplify…
Good/Bad refers to one of the three parts of the triangulation:

Subject <> Effort/Distance/Movement <> Objective

Depending on which part you are evaluating, your judgements adjust from an estimation of the expected ([size=80]desirable[/size]) to an analysis of the consequences, relative to the expected, integrating the unexpected, the undesirable collateral effects etc.
If the analysis remains subjective - emotional, naive, idealistic - then it can never accurately understand what went wrong, so it will not be able to adjust and succeed.
Schopenhauer equated objectivity with genius, and genius is rare.
The mediocre masses can only remain subjective, compensating by advancing towards collectivized intersubjectivity, reducing the costs/risks to manageable levels.

If all life forms could talk, they would mostly say they don’t want to die or be eaten.
Self valuing / life valuing is one of the natural corner stones of existence.

When I say good, i mean what a common good would look like.
And then a rare super minority of goods above lesser goods.

It’s not that hard.

Morality has a foundation.
It isn’t a meme or a fantasy someone dreamed up.

That would be the manimal stage.
As the aristocratic ethos evolves, personal existence is secondary.

You ask for an Abrahamic/Marxist ideal…that is contradicted by nature.
Nature offers a ‘common good’ which is contrary to individual ‘good’.
Universal salvation, eternal life…peace on earth…nobody suffers, nobody is unloved…no injustices…the stuff of fantasy; a naive utopia…a paradise.
I gave you an answer, but you were not satisfied because you want an answer that you can practice in your own life.
An answer that benefits you, and harms no one.

Sorry buddy, your naivete makes probing questions, implying answers that cannot be justified.
No such thing as universal good.

Anything identified as ‘super’ cannot be part of a majority, unless it seeks its superiority outside causality, or in the human mind where such absolutes can exist.
In nature what makes the ‘superior’ is also what condemns it to be replaced.

If it is easy then why don’t you answer it for us?
Why ask it at all?

What is it then?

I gave you my evolutionary explanation…what’s yours?

Pleasure is a rewarding system.
One part of the system rewards another part for the “good”.
Being alive is majority pleasant.
We are rewarded for things that are good for the species.
Sex is a reward system as an example.

-I want to feel pleasure- leads to -I want to live-

Because we evolved from common ancestors,
this pattern has been carrying on in most forms of life on earth.
Therefor we have a common ground.
We can agree, if we had the means, to promote life.

Positivity and joy and pro-life-ism,
are the results of a guidance system that tries
to preserve itself through the natural chaos of the
unknown outside world.

Pro-life-ism is the basis of moral code.
Memes built by the feelings and instincts of human life.

Repeating investment : life.

A hedonist.
Pleasure = truth.

Manimals…like animals cannot think, so they use their evolved methods of motivating them, like pleasure.
An animal doesn’t know why sex feels good, or why it evolved…all it knows it feels good.
Selfish genes…lead to selfish memes.
A Chirstian doesn’t know what his beliefs are based on or what they produce, all he knows is it feels good when he practices them.

Being alive is pleasent…mostly?
Spoken like a sheltered man who has never experienced life outside manmade environments.
I return to Schoepnhauer…pleasure is a negative state, relative to the positive state of suffering, which is the experience of existing.
Suffering, this constant war, is an organism struggling to maintain and grow whatever order it has inherited…
Life is a pendulum between stress and boredom…especially for simpler minds with no distractions or objectives outside their pleasures and survival.

What if someone feels pleasure by making you suffer?
Life can be unbearable in a state of constant pain and suffering.
A few consider a life lived unfree or with no dignity to be equally unbearable.
There are things more valuable than your life.

Our common ground, as living organisms, is that we suffer, and that we find relief in pleasure.

Morality has to be differentiated from ethics - as one must differentiate between natural and manmade, i.e., artificial, environments.

Moral behaviours - actions - evolve to aid cooperative survival and reproductive strategies.
Ethics are human amendments aiding the expansion of these moral behaviours to make civilizations and empires possible.
Mosaic laws were the encoding of ethical laws that made individuals self-regulating, suing the fear of god.
In natural societies everyone knew everyone…there was reputation - karma - that regulated behaviours, nobody could get away with bullshyte for long…whereas in modern systems of millions and where all are strangers, god is invented to be the self-regulatory entity - god’s will speaking as your conscience; fear of being discovered by the collective becoming fear of god’s all-seeing wrath.

Morals evolved to preserve group cohesion and wellbeing; manmade ethics were created to do the same, in reference to a collective ideal, cultivating a specific kind of man and demeanour.

Moral: why is male homosexuality rejection by men living in natural environments?
Why is it encoded as a sin?
Because it has detrimental effects of a group’s demographics - its ability to compete with other groups; because it is a symbolic behaviour of dominance, and reaffirming group hierarchies, reducing intergroup tensions.
This is why no system has ever developed that has made homosexuality a virtue and heterosexuality a vice.

Ethics: why is adultery a sin?
Homo sapiens are not a monogamous species, so why is adultery unethical?
Because it reduces the amount of males that can be integrated into a system; because it decreases group cohesion by increasing male sexual conflicts; because it makes most males uninvested in a group’s welfare; because it destroys the foundation of successful civilizations, the traditional family - source of population growth and the institution propagating shared ideals, values, traditions…

The former does not require a god, the latter does.

I don’t find your idea of life being based in suffering, a good enough argument.

Pain has to do with damage, needs, and fear also has to do with fight or flight.
But life is not dominated with these things.
They come up, but are not always present.

Humans have all kinds of mind suffering garbage.
They need all kinds of items and friends and stuff.
Animal existence is much simpler.

Nature is cruel, also.
Suffering is common, but average pleasant feelings are more common.

Sheltering cultivates naivete and sensitivities that cannot endure anything real, above the level of the individual’s inherited and cultivated constitution.

Why do butterflies exist if [the weak] they can’t endure anything real?

Short r-strategies.

Consider the effects of domestication on any species.
Can a cow, born and raised on a fenced farm, have any chance surviving outside the fencing?
Can a dog, bred or adopted to be raised within a manmade sheltering environment have much hope in surviving outside of its protective, regimented certainties?

How many moderns can endure any talk of reality as indifferent and harsh, when they have been protected from it for generations?
They take it for granted that their manmade upbringings are the real, and if not then they ought to be the real.

Speak of anything that challenges their manmade shelter, about race, gender, homosexuality, free-will, or anything that hints at injustice, division, personal suffering, responsibility, uncertainty, and their defensiveness unites them into a uniform herd, confronted by some outcast predator exposing them to a world they wish to forget exists outside their shared walls.

Do you identify with a butterfly’s delicate beauty, its fragility?
Are you a caterpillar awaiting the time to be born as an ephemeral butterfly?
Are you a soap bubble, or a unique snowflake hovering in the air, before it bursts and is swept away by the winds, or tumbles and becomes part of the snowbank waiting for spring’s thaw?

What does your personal conditions have to do with the world?
Does existence care about your…happiness?


You’re right about domestication.

If I was off my anti depressants, id probably be thinking about
life more like you are now.

Reality doesn’t give a shit if humanity nukes itself.

Most species that used to exist are now extinct.

No more dinosaurs.

So, even non-domesticated life gets wiped.

Therefore, sheltering, domestication, civilization, is a double-edged sword…it has obvious benefits we can all appreciate and costs the majority prefer to ignore or dismiss as inconsequential.

Domestication necessitates a power to stand before the domesticated and the world beyond - a farmer, offering his services at a price.
But what happens when farmer is so successful that he begins to believe his own methods are divine and his own lies, told to the herd he’s domesticated, are actually true?
Will a farmer who has domesticated himself to the point where he’s lost contact with the world outside his fenced farm, be able to maintain his shelter?

Yes, those sensitive types who can’t bear the sight of a gay/trans pride parade. The reality here? One has to wonder…


Your fascination with that movie and the concept of projecting a repressed sexuality as disapproval, to explain what threatens you, is revealing.
You repeat it, as if it is the only thing you know.
Are you trying to tell the world something? I sense a message being projected, like a hope that another shares your personal dilemma.

But who can’t “bear the sight” of a gay parade?
I’ve been to a few.
I’ve also been to a trans performance, back when it wasn’t such a big deal.
Can I bear the sight of a necrophile fucking a cadaver?
Can I bear the sight of someone eating out another’s asshole?
Can I bear the sight of a five-year-old being raped?
Can I bear the sight of someone having intercourse with an animal?
Maybe I’m hiding something …you know like you are.

That you are so protective of specific sexual fetishes, as if any critique of them must conceal a secret motive, tells me you are concealing a secret motive.