← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Hugh Lincoln
Thread ID: 9609 | Posts: 17 | Started: 2003-09-07
2003-09-07 23:50 | User Profile
The history of the White race seems to have running through it tension between the peaceful farmer and the empire-builder. In early America, Jefferson like the idea of the former, idealizing the "Germanic tribes" that ran around the British Isles before the administrative Normans ruined everything with taxes and last names. As I delve into the history of Rome and Greece, I see more of the "farmer" business with Greece and more of the "empire" business with Rome - though I could be wrong.
Thoughts?
2003-09-08 00:44 | User Profile
Hugh Lincoln,
Ancient Greece or the Roman Empire, which is the better model for a society?
Roman Empire bad; Roman Republic good. Ancient Greece one can have mixed feelings about, they had many forms government, but one does like idea of the city state.
You might rember America is still using the "Germanic tribes" laws and government in thoery(in name only I know now).
2003-09-08 00:46 | User Profile
Good question.
Whatever stray and skewed readings of history I've read in my life, they all point to this:
Civilization with an agrarian social base starts with Sumer and the Nile valley, and both of them produced a "model". The model was copied best by the post-Myceneaen Greeks and can best be described as decentralized confederation.
Every history book about Egypt says somebody named Narmer "unified" the kingdom in the late Rock Age. There is almost no evidence for that and history actually says the opposite. Till her late Dynasties, Egypt was a loose collection of city-states ("Nomes") that worked together now and then but mostly kept themselves to themselves, the lords in the manors and the plowmen in the fields.
Example: When the Great Pyramid was nearly completed, some sort of emergency ensued and the fellas went back to the farm, leaving it forever undone. No kidding. They could centralize. But they most often didn't.
What mechanism let that system work for nearly 2,000 years nobody knows.
Everybody knows when it ended: The Hyksos invaders took the Delta and held it for several generations, during which lots of Dukes and Grandees cut a deal with the foreign overlords. When the Theban pharaoh Ahmose finally launched the war that threw the foreign kings out, he also threw the treacherous gentry off their lands and confiscated the old estates. From then on, the pharaoh owned the land.
The two lessons of Egypt:
Work together but never, never make it permanent and
If you want an Agrarian social order, you gotta have the landed gentry. The Lord in His Manor is good for the plowman. When Ahmose hung the lords, the farmers became peasants.
2003-09-08 15:52 | User Profile
Ancient Greece one can have mixed feelings about, they had many forms government, but one does like idea of the city state.
Yes the main dispute was between the two major powers in Greece, Sparta and Athens. Athens was a democracy while Sparta was a militaristic authoritarian society. And intellectuals both in Ancient Greece and since then have debated which form of government was better, with strong proponents on both sides.
Now contrary to popular myth, the Founding fathers did not look to Athens for inspiration but actually to Sparta. Interesting since now many scholars today like to compare Sparta to "totalitarian regimes" like Nazi Germany and the USSR. Ironically feminists also look to Sparta, because of supposed "equality" between genders(which wasn't the real case).
2003-09-08 16:30 | User Profile
Didn't know all that. I thought it was Sparta that stood athwart pretty much the rest of Greece. But maybe Athens WAS the rest of Greece.
What I'm looking for is the society that cultivates the finer things best. The multiracial society obviously fails in this regard.
Speaking of that, anyone know about the racial mix (or lack thereof) of the ancient world? Roman Empire must have had some.
2003-09-09 09:57 | User Profile
Speaking of that, anyone know about the racial mix (or lack thereof) of the ancient world? Roman Empire must have had some.
It had quite a mix but I am not familiar with any sources that dabble with statistics concerned with racial breakdown of the Empire. We get tidbits about the vices of this or that nation making its presence known, but never any numbers. E. Gibbon, for instance, felt that the presence of the following groups, apparently already considerable by the time of Hadrian, merited special mention:
ââ¬ÅThe intemperance of the Gauls, the cunning and levity of the Greeks, the savage obstinancy of the Egyptians and Jews, the servile temper of the Asiatics, and the dissolute, effeminate prostitution of the Syrians, were mingled in the various multitude, which, under the proud and false denomination of Romansââ¬Â¦Ã¢â¬Â
There are still older (uncastrated) Italians who are fond of saying that Africa begins South of Rome, so it may not be complete waste of time to gauge the level of Romeââ¬â¢s multiculturalism (degeneracy) by examining the physical features of its descendants in the Southern half of the country. (The North, having been colonized by the Germanic tribes following the conquest, is of no use.) Even this restriction is not especially helpful since it is said that liberality, debt and usury had decimated the population. Then there is the normal course of the better part of two millennia worth of intermingling to consider. Not exactly factors that lend themselves to attaching meaning to racial characteristics of long-dead Romans, but one tries.
Take away the recent arrivals, the Gypsies, and the Nomadic types and the average Southern Italian that remains is not drastically different from the modern European archetype. To be sure, there is an almost total absence of light hair and eyes and the skin shade is more olive, but otherwise the differences are not terribly pronounced. This leads me to believe that the non-Aryan contingent of classical Rome was nowhere near the one third non-White population that the US is presently saddled with. The number may have been closer to the 10%, a figure that some Western Europeans are presently giddy with pride over. It could not have been much more since we must allow for greater reproductive rates of the lower classes, the stratum where the overwhelming bulk of non-Aryans would have resided, before complete miscegenation rendered racial differences mute. Of course, all this assumes that the remnants of classical Rome were not completely extinguished, as is sometimes posited, in which case the contribution of the conquering Aryans and other latter arrivals renders these musings even more irrelevant.
The history of the White race seems to have running through it tension between the peaceful farmer and the empire-builder. In early America, Jefferson like the idea of the former, idealizing the "Germanic tribes" that ran around the British Isles before the administrative Normans ruined everything with taxes and last names.
The debate of the honest farmer versus the profit-minded empire-builder is, in my mind, a subset, one of many, residing under the heading of the price of civilization. The human cost, or sacrifice -- especially, the one having to do with individuality and our precious ââ¬Åfreedomsââ¬Â -- is higher the greater the complexity of the civilization. Division of labour is a prerequisite for civilization, yet, the greater the division of labour the greater the opportunities and manoeuvring room for undue exploitation of fellow man. No such opportunities existed within hunting and gathering bands, where members were interchangeable cogs with only the leader enjoying the benefits accompanying a title (initially attained through prowess in the art of acquisition of necessities, later via heredity) but this was temporary and there was no major distinction in chores performed by men. But, alas, no true civilization came of such system. Division of labour brought with it two necessities: 1) Greater reliance, by an order of magnitude, on money to make up shortfalls when bartering, and 2) middle men to facilitate exchanges and to make ventures comprised of different specialists work for the benefit of participants. The ruling class, formally kept in place by muscle, superstitious beliefs on the part of masses, or a combination of both soon found the middleman indispensable for preserving their position. A marriage was entered into and a path on which we find ourselves was taken. For his part, the middleman saw his influence grow and in time found he could supplant the ruler openly. For reasons having to do with excessive attention (not to mention the odd revolution) this option was seldom exercised. Nor is it necessary for puppets are aplenty.
I suspect that fond memory of Jeffersonââ¬â¢s prescription for the Republic is really an appreciation of the times, that particular point in the development of Western civilization and the variant briefly practiced on this continent -- a constitutional Republic with limited suffrage.
A state based on a collection of farming communities whose members harbour no exterior designs, no matter how otherwise prosperous, is at the mercy of a proximal state whose ruling class thinks differently than TJ. Moreover, the allure of a benevolent Republic of farmers is amusing in light of the circumstances following English acceptance of American succession. A state with no obvious rival in its hemisphere, having to content with mere bands of savages, and generally free to exploit and nourish its newborn appetite with virgin territory abundant in size and riches. In such context, the luxury of fancying oneââ¬â¢s efforts as non-imperial is indeed possible, but it should not be overlooked that similar activities elsewhere would attract a terrible price, of which the imperial label would be the least worrisome.
Interpretations aside, the point is that state development must, in some fashion at least, keep up with that of its neighbours/rivals. Development of course implies increasing specialization or division of labour which in turn brings up problems such as increasing stratification of social classes, greater income disparities, and diminishing citizensââ¬â¢ rights ââ¬â inevitable as society attempts to cope with these trends, further aided by growing and compacting populations. Failure to maintain roughly similar development results in conquest, in the traditional sense, or economic and cultural usurpation, i.e., conquest just the same.
All this is a very convoluted ways of saying that examples of what we think to be attractive societies are useful only if we are aiming for, or have reason to believe that ours will at some point revert to, a society of similar technological level of sophistication. I personally have few doubts of the inevitability of the latter, hence my participation here.
2003-09-09 19:27 | User Profile
Sisyfos I thought your above response was one of the most thoughtful I have read on OD. I remember Jefferson as stating the tree of Liberty must be watered every generation by the blood of tyrants. He took great pains to insure that none of the blood would be his.
He may have agonized over slavery, but did not free his slaves. I regard him as being an excellent wordsmith, but one who comes up short on actions. In many ways he is the first American liberal.
2003-09-09 23:24 | User Profile
Sisyfos
[color=red]There are still older (uncastrated) Italians who are fond of saying that Africa begins South of Rome[/color], so it may not be complete waste of time to gauge the level of Romeââ¬â¢s multiculturalism (degeneracy) by examining the physical features of its descendants in the Southern half of the country. (The North, having been colonized by the Germanic tribes following the conquest, is of no use.) Even this restriction is not especially helpful since it is said that liberality, debt and usury had decimated the population. Then there is the normal course of the better part of two millennia worth of intermingling to consider. Not exactly factors that lend themselves to attaching meaning to racial characteristics of long-dead Romans, but one tries.
In the above post I wrote somewhat in haste. I have found Italian-Americans descended from Italy south of Rome to be some of the most stand-up and tougher people I know. Our cause will really need them.
2003-09-10 08:34 | User Profile
You are too charitable, EG, even when not in haste.
You are of course correct about the potential worthiness of Southern Italians to our cause. However, ours is a different conversation altogether. It so happens that whenever a question concerning the racial composition of the decaying Roman Empire comes up, the regionââ¬â¢s present inhabitants are the logical starting point when attempting to furnish an educated guess. Since comparisons between Rome and America are popular, and likely to be more so with each passing decade, an examination of the phenotypes of people inhabiting 'The Bootââ¬â¢ seems warranted. Otherwise there is no need consider this particular group because there is no shortage of European nations that fit the bill when racial intermixing comes up. To be even more fair, Iââ¬â¢ll add that I believe many of our own descendents will be subject to similar scrutiny by future historians, doubtless seeking to supplement popular but not entirely satisfactory explanations for the fall of the American Empire. Accordingly, the ââ¬Ådegeneracyââ¬Â I spoke of is best reserved for populations that instigate and propagate multiculturalism and the like, not the unfortunate products of their fatuity.
Race and nationalism are peculiar things in that we believe strongly in both, but are probably more comfortable tackling them separately, for honest observation forces us to temper them both whenever they are considered at the same instance. Though proud of my people, my race, and my culture traveling never fails to impress upon me the volume of quality people (not always of European extraction) that I would not mine calling my own, substituting them for the scum that nevertheless is closer to myself by way of bloodlines.
The strength of a particular culture, that which binds a group of people, fluctuates over time and cannot be trusted to preserver a society by itself. For this we have genetics to provide something of a baseline, to ensure that we cannot sink beyond a certain point so long as there is no dilution of bloodlines. It always helps to be conscious of this point whenever the aforementioned allure of foreign blood gains strength. No doubt the Brahmins, for example, are a proud people, aware of the importance of race in relation to culture, but from the European standpoint this has not been especially helpful in preserving for them the kind of culture we would be comfortable in. Their genetic baseline has been too diluted for them to develop a technological civilization, though they may be able to maintain one for a prolonged period. They are a monument to what not to do.
Closer to home, it may be worthwhile to consider why the Renaissance in Italy was largely a Northern phenomenon. Iââ¬â¢ll grant that proximity of cities such Florence and Milan to other Europeans centres of learning may have been a factor. But were there other factorsââ¬Â¦
2003-09-10 11:38 | User Profile
I do feel its rather presumptuos to say that South Italians are some type of lower Italians. Certainly they form a diferentiated group from the nothern ones yet they seem to be genetically closer to the ancient Greeks than something else. All of South Italy was known as Magna Greece and was colonitzed by Greeks all the way to Capua including Sicilly. What people tend to use for Italyôs diversiviness is this supposed mixing in the South. But I ask, with whom? If we check back on our history books we will see that apart of massive slave imports out of wars there was hardly any other population influx in these areas. Those slaves were actually mostly of northern stock or at least in the same numbers than others. Middle eastern slaves were not common and mostly only attached to the early eastern expansion into Anatolia and Syria. After that the wast majority of slaves came from the northern borders. Nubians and other exotic slaves were very rare and not used for such labor in mines or land. While certainly there has to have been mixing South Italians are pretty much what you would have found when the first romans marched in after Hannibalôs wake of destruction. Italy was and is a diverse nation, no need to look for mass gang banging and mixing which could have taken place in the same manner north of the Imperial Capitol than south of it. People just did not mix as much as we want to believe.
2003-09-10 11:47 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Sisyfos@Sep 10 2003, 02:34 * ** You are too charitable, EG, even when not in haste.
You are of course correct about the potential worthiness of Southern Italians to our cause. However, ours is a different conversation altogether. It so happens that whenever a question concerning the racial composition of the decaying Roman Empire comes up, the regionââ¬â¢s present inhabitants are the logical starting point when attempting to furnish an educated guess. Since comparisons between Rome and America are popular, and likely to be more so with each passing decade, an examination of the phenotypes of people inhabiting 'The Bootââ¬â¢ seems warranted. Otherwise there is no need consider this particular group because there is no shortage of European nations that fit the bill when racial intermixing comes up. To be even more fair, Iââ¬â¢ll add that I believe many of our own descendents will be subject to similar scrutiny by future historians, doubtless seeking to supplement popular but not entirely satisfactory explanations for the fall of the American Empire. Accordingly, the ââ¬Ådegeneracyââ¬Â I spoke of is best reserved for populations that instigate and propagate multiculturalism and the like, not the unfortunate products of their fatuity.
Race and nationalism are peculiar things in that we believe strongly in both, but are probably more comfortable tackling them separately, for honest observation forces us to temper them both whenever they are considered at the same instance. Though proud of my people, my race, and my culture traveling never fails to impress upon me the volume of quality people (not always of European extraction) that I would not mine calling my own, substituting them for the scum that nevertheless is closer to myself by way of bloodlines.
The strength of a particular culture, that which binds a group of people, fluctuates over time and cannot be trusted to preserver a society by itself. For this we have genetics to provide something of a baseline, to ensure that we cannot sink beyond a certain point so long as there is no dilution of bloodlines. It always helps to be conscious of this point whenever the aforementioned allure of foreign blood gains strength. No doubt the Brahmins, for example, are a proud people, aware of the importance of race in relation to culture, but from the European standpoint this has not been especially helpful in preserving for them the kind of culture we would be comfortable in. Their genetic baseline has been too diluted for them to develop a technological civilization, though they may be able to maintain one for a prolonged period. They are a monument to what not to do.
**
Closer to home, it may be worthwhile to consider why the Renaissance in Italy was largely a Northern phenomenon. Iââ¬â¢ll grant that proximity of cities such Florence and Milan to other Europeans centres of learning may have been a factor. But were there other factorsââ¬Â¦
That just does not follow, diferent geographical areas had diferent "golden ages" and while you choose the Renaissance as an example of north Italian genetic "superiority" during the very decadent Roman times this thread is about this very area so flilled with those "nordish" better stock as a total Italian backwater while the industry was concentrated in the South. IMHO, people have read way to much "The March of the Titans" and taken hold of those biased writtings. The very notion that some people have in secret is that swarthy looking europeans have to be hidding some type of negro in their bloodline is all to common.
2003-09-10 13:02 | User Profile
There is no "Republic vs. Empire"
Republic becomes Empire - Roman, Macedonian, Lincolnian.
2003-09-10 19:35 | User Profile
However, there is still quite a bit of difference between the two groups, and if we are to judge by the accomplishments of the two, the Germanic is the superior.
However, both of these points are rather uncertain. We need more genetic and intelligence testing.
Between Athens and Sparta, we see a range of amazing culture that provides us with an immense font of culture. Aristotle and the Greek Stoics in particular provide us with a pre-Christian mode of thought that corrects some of the more dangerously self-denying forms of Christianity.
The Ancient Greeks are also a good example for present-day whites because they were conquered by the Turks, such that Germans and Celts may justly claim to be better heirs of the ancient Greek people than are modern Greeks.
2003-09-10 21:36 | User Profile
I am submitting this thread for one hour of credit toward my degree in history.
2003-09-11 09:54 | User Profile
**1. I think it is fair to suppose that the Southern Italians are closely related to the ancient Romans. And I think it is also fair to suppose that the ancient Romans and the Ancient Germans were fairly closely related.
However, there is still quite a bit of difference between the two groups, and if we are to judge by the accomplishments of the two, the Germanic is the superior. **
But who is to say what part of Roman acomplishments comes from this supposed "Germanic" influence and which from their native Mediterranean group? To fall into the easy and biased trap set by the Pan-Germanic historiography of the XIX Century were barbarian chieftains were raised to the leverl of Emperors and their humble dwellings equaled to the marble splendor of Rome is very poor objective way to approach this issue not very far from reknown "blond is beautiful" writer Kempf in his ridiculous March of the Titans. This search to fit a pre-conceived idea of history into what really happened is a very poor performance for the white race as a whole. To see ancient Greeks as blond demigods who like the Romans fell into decay once they "mixed" is absurd. I refered above that there is no telling diference between the ancient Republican Roman and the actual Italian nonwithstanding the continuos moves to find some "sense" in why the south is today less productive than the north. Sure this very same logic will make Egypt an African Sweden much like the high civilizations of Babilon or Carthage. Why is it so hard to accept that Mediterraneans are as creative or more than their nothern brothers? How would a central european feel if with this same twisted logic some would say that Germans or Anglos are more primitive because while Meds created civilization the others were living in mud huts in the forrest. Genetic studies from South Italy. Sicilly included show an extreme closeness with the actual Grece and such is logic too since Grece colonized the whole South Italian boot. Now if they are basically the same and some say actual greeks look like they do because of some, no existant, race mixing with their occupying Turkish conquerors and South Italy was never taken by Turks...how can you explain that other than admiting that some people have based their ideas more in "intuition" and wishful history rather than fact?
The Ancient Greeks are also a good example for present-day whites because they were conquered by the Turks, such that Germans and Celts may justly claim to be better heirs of the ancient Greek people than are modern Greeks.
An important issue people tend to forget is that race mixing is not such an absolute term like some try to make out of it. Greece was not colonitzed by Turks but got occupied by them and there is a big difference. Spain was conquered by the Arabs in 711 from their Visigoth overlords but contrary to them they did not repoblate the land with moor colonists but rather had the ancient Hispano-Roman population convert to Islam, very much like Bosnia is not Turkish but rather Slavic-Muslim. Greece, like Spain or Bosnia did not change ethnically but religiously and while surely some degree of mixing must have happened between populations it was not suficient as to change the general genetic makeup of the land. Yes folks, It might be hard but the same people who show up in the ancient greek vases with dark hair might just be the people we see today there and not some German or Celtic people.
2003-09-11 10:28 | User Profile
--I think most historians could say that Roman accomplishments, by which people mean the accomplishments of the Romans of the Republic and the Empire before these both crumbled, had little to do with Germanic influences.
--Yes, Romans liked blonds, but this aspect of their culture is overemphasized today for ideological reasons. Contemporary obsession with blondes spring centrally from the blond character of the northern European peoples, and our accomplishments.
--Obviously, I was not claiming that the Greeks were some Germanic or Celtic people. Don't be a f*cking idiot. As to your claims that the Turkish didn't mix with the Greeks significantly during their 'occupation': me thinks you doth protest too much.
2003-09-11 10:48 | User Profile
*Originally posted by iwannabeanarchy@Sep 11 2003, 11:28 * ** --I think most historians could say that Roman accomplishments, by which people mean the accomplishments of the Romans of the Republic and the Empire before these both crumbled, had little to do with Germanic influences.
--Yes, Romans liked blonds, but this aspect of their culture is overemphasized today for ideological reasons. Contemporary obsession with blondes spring centrally from the blond character of the northern European peoples, and our accomplishments.
--Obviously, I was not claiming that the Greeks were some Germanic or Celtic people. Don't be a f*cking idiot. As to your claims that the Turkish didn't mix with the Greeks significantly during their 'occupation': me thinks you doth protest too much. **
*--Obviously, I was not claiming that the Greeks were some Germanic or Celtic people. Don't be a fcking idiot. As to your claims that the Turkish didn't mix with the Greeks significantly during their 'occupation': me thinks you doth protest too much. **
First off, I did not insult you so I would have expected the same type of considerate treatment amongst civilitzed people.
One falls way to easy into the idea that military conquest equals population migration which is not true. The Visigoths came to Spain as a whole population marching to find better lands to settle in. They came and took over and eventually integrated with the ancient Hispano-Roman population. When the Moors conquered Spain in turn they did so as a military force and not as a population. They took the goverment positions and eventually mixed but did not bring Morroco to live to Spain or exterminate the 4 Million of Hispano-Roman-Visigoth native population there. The population massively converted to Islam much like the native Slavic population of Bosnia did convert to Islam under Turkish occupation or like the Greek population did after Turkish occupation of their land. Keep in mind that Greeks could be effectively found till the 1930ôin the Anatolian peninsula till they were expelled as a ethic group by the Turks much like the Greek did to the small population group of Turks around Salonika. The Turks did not come to Greece to repoblate it like some Celtic migration but only to occupy it, levy taxes and eventually convert as many as possible. Keep in mind that the US of A itself has been living even under harsher mixed population conditions in the last two centuries with great non-white population groups co-exiting but has not turned into a great brown mongrell mass one would expect to find when following such simplistic logics of interacial mixing which is way smaller than some want to believe as to try to explain why Meds have dark hair and alike.