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.
Why is the second copy paste regarding Satyr in this thread when it has NOTHING to do with Rome?
[/quote]
Let’s just say that we all connect the dots here differently.
[/quote]
Only a horses ass would be contemptuous enough to connect those dots in a mean spirited advertisement.
Come on, Wendy, most of threads here are like the game “telephone”. There’s the OP and then the last post. You tell me: How many times has the latter bore almost no resemblance to the former?
You may not see the dots I’m connecting but if Satyr and Fixed Cross think long and hard enough, they might. As I noted, it can be about Rome or any number of things. It’s not the points being raised but how far up into the clouds they are being hoisted. One of my own “things” here.
Wendy, it’s a good thing that iambiguous has finally found his way into the sewer, it was about time. Predictably, he relishes its “meaning”.
Thats not wrong. Not precisely what I mean but close enough, and given the abysmal intellectual level of the average reader here it would count as remarkably accurate.
But what is most problematic about political parties is that they guarantee deception in terms of agenda - most of all, their self-deception. A political party can never understand its own motives, other than the obvious one of primitive dominion. So you get a monopoly of entities which are forced by the factor of power and their own lack of structural integrity to deceive themselves.
I see this differently. Rome was highly complex at first, but the monopolies represented by the Caesars found this complexity burdensome.
_
Rome’s power dissolved for the same reason that Alexander the Great’s did… and of whom the latter never did conquer India, save for only the most north-western aspects of its territories, in the Indus Valley Basin.
Alexander’s power did not dissolve.
He died and his generals carried on their separate kingdoms formed from the empire. This formed the Hellenistic world, which dominated until Rome replaced it.
Rome’s fall was utterly different and would take several pages of explanation to show how it was invaded, changed, divided recombined, evolved, and survives today in the Vatican which is the last place that shows a contiunous link back to the Ponfiex Maximus of Caesar.
His generals descended into civil war and lost control of large swathes of their territories as well as their army, following the untimely death of Alexander… he didn’t conquer India for the same reason that Rome’s empire became curtailed over time.
You have decided (presumed) that I know nothing of Roman history… dude, that’s the first thing we study in History class here… that, and the Norman conquest… amongst a few other pivotal battles in British-historical time.
Alexander was a person, Rome is a city.
You may be thinking of Caesar, who was also a person.
Still, big differences.
Rome is actually rather complex, I disagree with observer on that. Their political system was more complex than the American one, it had more different kinds of offices for the people’s representation than the US does, at least per its constitution.
I intentionally mentioned Rome and Alexander in the same breath, for a very specific reason… that of which why both their military advancements collapsed.
If I was thinking of a Caesar, I would have mentioned a Caesar… I was obviously not thinking of a Caesar, but of the Roman Empire as a unit, in comparison to Alexander as a unit.
In my view, Alexanders might fell apart as soon as he died, the Alexandrian might didn’t really form ‘a thing’, it was just him. His friends were asked to divide his legacy and they failed him.
Rome on the other hand got slowly overtaken by the army, who, from around the time of Severus onward basically controlled who would be emperor.
There were several emperors who attempted to bring them back into some form of discipline, but they murdered all of them. The army just murdered every emperor that tried to reverse their decadence and re-introduce some form of ethics.
Basically my objection to your statement is that Rome’s might lasted well over a thousand years, and its decay was very slow and painful, humiliating for the Romans and for all of Europe in fact. But Alexanders might just … vanished. (I understand he tried to slip into the Euphrates the night he died, so that his servants would think he had ascended as a god. His wife supposedly dragged him back to bed.)
