Agreed, though I suppose I’d word it more extremely. Just noticed the footer with McGilchrist…I loved The Master and his Emissary.
And why are Europeans “white” in USA and the Americas?
Why and how does a Norwegian stop being a Norwegian?
Or an Irish stop being an Irish?
Or an Italian stop being an Italian?
Or a Slovakian stop being a Slovakian?
Explain the process of ‘Americanization’.
Then we have something in common. I think that above the word entitlement would have been a better word than privilege.
I didn’t say anything about people stopping being their ethnic backgrounds. But in the context of a thread about timocracy, I can’t see how Aristotle’s ideas of how democracy can work being relavent to most of the people in this forum, unless, the Norweigians here are planning to move back to Norway. I suppose there might be a Greek here on the way back to Greece or even living there and perhaps you are Norwegian writing from Norway, but I’d guess most people are in the US or UK, so Aristotle’s sense of what is necessary for a democracy is utterly useless unless they are repatriating.
What country are you in and what’s your ethnicity and how are you going to apply Aristotle’s sense in making a Timocracy where you are or where you are going?
Are you somehow heading for the monoethnic dream of that photo of the redheads a few posts earlier? How so?
Sure, we can whip out Aristotle, but what relevance does his very specific sense of the necessary non-diverse base for democracy have? Perhaps it does have relevance in a forum that’s aimed broadly at a mixed group of people with a variety of European backgrounds that he would have considered way, way, way too diverse to be functional. But let me know how.
I didn’t say that you did say that; I merely asked the question. And why do Norwegians, Irish, Italians, Slovaks, Greeks, need to ‘Return’ to their origin, in order to maintain their Ethnicty? Do they not maintain their culture in the Americas? What is “white” and “whitewashing”? Is it not a forceful integration of European ethnic-cultures into the broader political designation of ‘American-Anglo’? Does not President Joe Biden claim to be Irish? Does that have any relevance to anything?
The point being: people carry their culture with them, even or especially, into strange new lands and worlds. Sometimes, if a culture is strong, Dominant, it resists assimilation and overpowers a weaker civilization or culture.
I’m in the United States; I consider myself ethnically Prussian. I believe ‘Timocracy’ has already come and gone, in Americas, when the early British Colonialists limited voting-rights to white land-owning males. That was, effectively, Timocratic. Should civilization return to that? I don’t know if it can, until new Frontiers and Frontier Societies are established (in space). Maybe in two or three centuries, Timocratic governments will become effective once again.
I do think it’s preferable to be surrounded and birthed into a society of genetically similar or the same quality of people, yes.
I do not enjoy the multi-ethnic, multia-racial, multi-kulti American experience. Too much crime, paranoia, distrust, and uncertainty/chaos, to raise children comfortably anymore.
Europeans were already forcibly integrated into the ‘White’, “Anglo” Colonies in the 1700s and 1800s. Irish were treated as second-class citizens by the American-Anglos, English, Germans, and Italians, throughout the East Coast. They were considered “off-white”, practically “colored”.
This history has already transpired. I want to look to the Future, not the Past.
Your problems are specifically American, although ethnicity plays a role in the number of refugees that are lining up in Europe too, but for the following reasons.
Just as Aristotle’s problem with ethnicity was that there were more cultural differences connected with ethnicity then than today, I think today these are mostly “quirks” or habits, but will grow out over time. The diversity of appearance, subcultural interests, and eating habits are at least realisable in a global economy, for as long as it is possible.
What is a problem today is that societies are facing a flood of culturally and ethically diverse people, whose integration is either neglected or opposed, which can then cause the problems that Aristotle was concerned about. Ghettos can be caused by pushing people into a homogenous area, or by people seeking homogeneity, both making integration difficult.
Where integration is welcomed and embraced, the ethnic problems are just a matter of time. Bigots have always been with us, so we just have to keep their numbers small.
Then they’re not “specifically American”, are they? They’re now Globalist, problems. Europeans, Canadians, East Asians, all have problems of 3rd-world immigrants flooding into them, to reap in the rewards that they did not produce, and cannot produce themselves. As-if they’re entitled to those rewards?
Culture is Genetic, it cannot be “grown out of over time”, unless genetics are diluted or washed away (race-mixing).
And that’s your subjective interpretation of culture, and it is a lowly opinion. As-if “eating habits” are the extent of culture?
As opposed to…one’s Rationality? One’s Thoughts? One’s Philosophy?
That is why Liberalism is bad and flawed, yet you participate in Liberal ideologies, don’t you?
Or, they destroy First World societies, communities, families, countries, etc.
Ah yes, your main concern and “your” problem, as a Liberal-Leftist.
Like clockwork.
I didn’t say that either. The post I referred to was about what kind of democracy can function. See what Aristotle says there. Forming a democracy. See the OP.
If the thread and that post was about maintaining one’s ethnicity, well, that’s another can of coup.
So, if one were to follow Aristotle’s conclusions/assertions, where does your democracy/Timocracy exist or where could it be formed?
Is an appeal going out into a bunch of potentially sympathetic readers using Aristotle who would not see that group as a group?
I think a lot of them chose to enter that and chose integration, to varying degrees, and felt aligned with a kind of pragmatic, less class-based ad hoc culture. Perhaps were wrong, but I don’t think it helps to categorize it as forcibly integrated. At best it’s a misleading oversimplification.
Sure.
Well, then maybe Aristotle isn’t so much help with this. He’s past to the past of that past your mentioning.
You seem to have missed the part where I claimed that Timocracy has already transpired in the (East Coast) American Colonies, for a short while, and is ideal for Frontier Societies where such laws and governments can be easily implemented without Globalist-Marxist-Zionist control which specifically aims to destroy Timocratic systems. In the early Americas, this was the original difference between ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ politics. Liberals wanted to integrate non-Anglo, off-white Europeans, into their political system—while Conservatives did not. Eventually, Liberalism “won”, more and more, to the point of today, where women and blacks have the “right to vote”. Keep in mind this was/is recent, back in the 1950s. Until then, women and blacks, in America could not vote.
And has it improved Western society? Has it helped? Has it made things better?
Arguably, not at all for white land-owning males…the original Anglo-Americans. So, who benefits? Who benefits from destroying the original Anglo-American colonies?
Miscegenation has proceeded uninterrupted…especially in the US.
That’s why American of primarily European descent call themselves “white”.
Aristotle’s comment does not apply only to the Greeks.
The issue is this: life is the all-encompassing category; species is a subcategory of life; race (subspecies) is a subcategory of species; ethnicity/tribe is a subcategory of race; family is a subcategory of ethnicity/tribe; individual is a subcategory of family.
Place miscegenation within these contexts, with the motive being not to overly dilute what has evolved - not to lose diversity.
Americanisms proposes the globalizing model.
See the thread Americanism.
Americanism = Globalism = New World Order
Americanism proposes a melting-pot eradication of all human biodiversity, including sex/gender and race/ethnicity, and the reduction of culture to nothing more than another product/service to be bought and self on the open markets, in a world with no borders, allowing the free flow of goods and peoples.
Yet, they deny Americanism is globalism.
You will see Americans promoting pseudo-diversity and rejecting actual diversity.
They are brainwashed hypocrites.
They also believe the US is a democracy…when they only have two indistinguishable parties, that differ only on minor policy details, but not on the fundamentals. Essentially the US is a uniparty plutocracy.
An Empire of Lies.
Do Americans care?
Nope…as long as you keep Americans fed and entertained, they don’t give a flying fuck about anything.
They’re modern, progressive lifestyles are based on the exploitation of other nation’s natural and human resources and they’ve been lied to consistently…to justify pillaging foreign natural wealth…
Do you see them troubled?
No…they will repeat that they are the best nation in the history of the world. An indispensable nation…a nation with a divine mission.
America is an example of how far human husbandry has advanced.
I am struggling to find any reason why Anglo-American empires should go any different than empires in the past. Do you believe that their exploitive, colonising enslavement of other cultures is superior to other exploitive colonising empires? It was at least more widespread and caused a general disruption in the ability of other cultures to feed themselves and enjoy their own resources. It caused numerous wars and conflicts, but so have others, and in the end, it has suffered the consequences.
Historically, American culture is an infant, still aspiring to prove itself mature, but has managed to mess things up considerably in the process. Britain has suffered the rule of despotic regimes and stubborn traditionalism, retained its class system, whilst adding a few classes on - towards the “untouchable” area that India hasn’t managed to overcome. The “upper class” are educated idiots, so I fail to see why these in any constellation should last.
Rome suffered the same “consequences”. They, like the Anglo-Americans, attempted to integrate their conquered, foreign slaves, into their Senate. They, also, attempted to integrate Judeans conquered, enslaved, and brought in from Jerusalem.
Same problems, same consequences, as today.
And again, your running far away from Aristotle. Artistotle, which I mention in the very part you quote, was talking about radically more focused ethnic groups. You can look a few images up to another of Lorikeets photos, where there are a bunch of pale skinned redheads. The white people you contrast with the non-whites, they already have a diversity way outside what Aristotle is proposing is necessary.
Well,not quite, but sure in historical terms, recent yeah.
Well, Anglo american could sort of include Prussians, but then the English immigrants would also have a mix of European roots and Greek roots, the ones Aristotle is talking about, would be just a dash of genetic material in the whole thing. Anglos coming from English would have French, German, Italian, probably dashes of Dutch and other things. All parts of a very multiculty mix for someone like Aristotle. Already a problem for democracy. Throw in some Irish and slavic people, Scandanavians and so on and we just keep moving further away from something it was already very far from before coming to the New World.
The question is whether the integration or the conquering is the problem.
Right, I wasn’t assuming that. But it would apply to such specific groups if not more so. So, in a thread aimed at what to Aristotle would have considered way too motley for democracy, I don’t get the point.
OK, well I’m looking at forms of government and placing the quote from Aristotle in that context, here being presented to the mixed ethnic backgrounds that get batched under white. That mix of ethnic groups is already way to diverse should Aristotle be correct.
Sure, I think the US is a kind of disorganized oligarchy though I’m not sure nation states really exist anymore.
But I am taking the introduction of Artistotle into a thread on the form of government seriously and reading it in the context of the likely mixed members of this forum, even just thinking of whatever Euroamericans are here. England while part of Europe was already unbelievably multiculty, by Aristotle’s criteria, before colonizing what became the US and Canada.
Aristotle and Plato did not indicate “how pure” the ethnic/racial/genetic composition of society must be, in order to qualify as Homogeneous. But the Rule is clear—what would USA look like if Congress, Senate, Presidency were majority-black and non-white, instead of white? Would USA be better or worse off?
Arguing about the Senate being 95% “white” is different than arguing about the Senate being 75% “white”.
European history is clearer though: Monarchies and Nobles, European ethnicities: Irish, Norwegian, Italian, Slovaks, etc. were homogeneous for thousands of years. That’s the distinction of why they’re not “just white” in the Americas. They are distinct. Different languages, different cultures, different histories.
You’re skipping over these facts. What’s your agenda?
The integration is the problem.
I’m fine with conquering. You claim not to be…yet you reap the rewards of Conquering on your behalf, which is the immoral, hypocrisy, double-standard of you Liberal-Leftists.
Your morality is based on a contradiction. Mine, isn’t.
The conquering went on before I was born, and I started noticing the consequences when conquered people with a British passport came to the UK ten years after I was born. I heard their stories, read their history, and befriended them. There is no contradiction.
On the other hand, being an aggressive bigot who claims the right to conquer other people, now there is a problem!
Aristotle would have been aghast at including the barbarian northerners like yourself in his ethnic group.
Yeah, and I still haven’t said they’re just white. And you’re still not reacting to the context of the OP, the quote by Aristotle here in this thread with these readers.
Yup, I know that. In fact, that is MY point. So, what the hell do we do with Aristotle’s position in a thread on how to form a government given that the discussion is aimed at the array of readers here?
Telling me that Slovaks, for example have their own specific culture/ethnicity supports what I am pointing out.
I’m not skipping over that those are different groups, that’s part of what I’m saying.
What does this thread have to do with the quote about society?
Does Aristotle speak about human intercourse, or human order?
What does the ethnicity of Aristotle, or Plato being “aghast” have to do with Timocracy and homogeneity?
Really?
Japan.
Hungary.
Iceland.
Poland
Greece
Italy
All still relatively homogeneous nation-states.
ILP is a microcosm of the American model.
Even the prevailing ideals here are Liberalism, and postmodernism…with some Abrahamic mixed in.
England, France, are gone…they adopted the American model and committed cultural suicide.
Western Europe, and every nation that adopts the American model will follow down the same path.
Sweden being a recent example.
Watch the seven part BBC documentary I posted An Ocean Apart.
Here it is:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oq8KHnmEHIw&list=PLwOdBR6SDRHTScoFtrSdKheMiZdqJtV7w[/youtube]
Read Heisman explanation in his Suicide Note, as to why Anglo-Saxons committed cultural suicide.