Welcome to our New Forums!

Our forums have been upgraded and expanded!

Welcome to Our New Forums

  • Our forums have been upgraded! You can read about this HERE

On Power

Sunny

New member
Joined
Nov 16, 2019
Messages
2,208
I want to say something about power in general. Democracy must be there but to reign so little, is unfair and definitely a weak power.

Hierarchy is true and natural but in today's society, it seems to be stuck to a certain point. What is wrong with reigning for life and with hereditary succession?

The hierarchy is there because it is not a worker or a taxi driver who runs for deputy, minister, prime minister, president, etc., but rich people. What would wealth be like if it was a joke like most of the current governments?

Today one is a millionaire, after five years we take their wealth and lower it to worker level, and his wealth we give to a taxi driver and then the taxi driver becomes an entrepreneur and then we take his business and his wealth and give it to someone random with jackpot elections and the cycle of the weak continues.

I don't think the ancient Greeks meant this kind of democracy, the current Greeks and others can't get beyond a point because they don't advance spiritually. So literally the richest are in low and equal levels and to rule longer, they either have to be tyrannical or it will be unfair if any of those equals rule a while.

Communism, xianism and islam are obviously jewish tyranny and nothing more.

The best government or kingdom I believe is democracy put together with true nobility and aristocracy that is, the best beings, more advanced and developed intellectually, spiritually and materially and therefore divine.

What do you think?
 
Master said:
I want to say something about power in general. Democracy must be there but to reign so little, is unfair and definitely a weak power.

Hierarchy is true and natural but in today's society, it seems to be stuck to a certain point. What is wrong with reigning for life and with hereditary succession?

The hierarchy is there because it is not a worker or a taxi driver who runs for deputy, minister, prime minister, president, etc., but rich people. What would wealth be like if it was a joke like most of the current governments?

Today one is a millionaire, after five years we take their wealth and lower it to worker level, and his wealth we give to a taxi driver and then the taxi driver becomes an entrepreneur and then we take his business and his wealth and give it to someone random with jackpot elections and the cycle of the weak continues.

I don't think the ancient Greeks meant this kind of democracy, the current Greeks and others can't get beyond a point because they don't advance spiritually. So literally the richest are in low and equal levels and to rule longer, they either have to be tyrannical or it will be unfair if any of those equals rule a while.

Communism, xianism and islam are obviously jewish tyranny and nothing more.

The best government or kingdom I believe is democracy put together with true nobility and aristocracy that is, the best beings, more advanced and developed intellectually, spiritually and materially and therefore divine.

What do you think?

I personally believe democracies will eventually become dictatorships eventually in that all the higher positions will be taken by the spiritually advanced, rich, powerful families who have all formed a super elite ring of monopolisation of basically everything regardless, so really you don't have to worry if you believe this is for the best.

Due to these factors I honestly don't see the point of having a democracy, just do a dictatorship, at least that way your being more honest as to how the country operates rather than creating the false illusion that 'your vote counts' when all the spiritually advanced, rich and powerful families 'golden spoon kids' monopolise everything no matter what the 'new rich' and the common folk actually demand.

Even Satan is best described as a dictator or King, even he may be classified as a 'golden spoon kid' if I'm not mistaken.

TL DR Democracies will always become dictatorships whether a gentile democracy or a Jewish democracy
 
AgniCosmos said:
Master said:
I want to say something about power in general. Democracy must be there but to reign so little, is unfair and definitely a weak power.

Hierarchy is true and natural but in today's society, it seems to be stuck to a certain point. What is wrong with reigning for life and with hereditary succession?

The hierarchy is there because it is not a worker or a taxi driver who runs for deputy, minister, prime minister, president, etc., but rich people. What would wealth be like if it was a joke like most of the current governments?

Today one is a millionaire, after five years we take their wealth and lower it to worker level, and his wealth we give to a taxi driver and then the taxi driver becomes an entrepreneur and then we take his business and his wealth and give it to someone random with jackpot elections and the cycle of the weak continues.

I don't think the ancient Greeks meant this kind of democracy, the current Greeks and others can't get beyond a point because they don't advance spiritually. So literally the richest are in low and equal levels and to rule longer, they either have to be tyrannical or it will be unfair if any of those equals rule a while.

Communism, xianism and islam are obviously jewish tyranny and nothing more.

The best government or kingdom I believe is democracy put together with true nobility and aristocracy that is, the best beings, more advanced and developed intellectually, spiritually and materially and therefore divine.

What do you think?

I personally believe democracies will eventually become dictatorships eventually in that all the higher positions will be taken by the spiritually advanced, rich, powerful families who have all formed a super elite ring of monopolisation of basically everything regardless, so really you don't have to worry if you believe this is for the best.

Due to these factors I honestly don't see the point of having a democracy, just do a dictatorship, at least that way your being more honest as to how the country operates rather than creating the false illusion that 'your vote counts' when all the spiritually advanced, rich and powerful families 'golden spoon kids' monopolise everything no matter what the 'new rich' and the common folk actually demand.

Even Satan is best described as a dictator or King, even he may be classified as a 'golden spoon kid' if I'm not mistaken.

TL DR Democracies will always become dictatorships whether a gentile democracy or a Jewish democracy

The dictatorship can be a form authoritarian or totalitarian of government which, in its modern sense, centralizes the power in one body, if not in the hands of only the dictator , not limited by laws , constitutions , or other political factors and social interiors at State . [1] [2]

In a broad sense, dictatorship therefore has the meaning of absolute and largely uncontrollable dominance of an individual (or a small group of people) who holds a power imposed by force. In this sense, dictatorship often coincides with authoritarianism and totalitarianism . Its characteristic is also the denial of freedom of expression and of the press. Dictatorship is considered the opposite of democracy . It must also be said that the dictator can also come to power through democratic means (the example of Adolf Hitler , whose party achieved the relative majority of votes in the elections of July and November 1932, applies ).

The rise to power of a dictatorship is often favored by situations of severe economic crisis (for example following a war), by social difficulties (class struggles), by the instability of the existing regime or by continuity with a pre-existing dictatorial regime.

I was mostly referring to an example like the UK.
 
Master said:
The best government or kingdom I believe is democracy put together with true nobility and aristocracy that is, the best beings, more advanced and developed intellectually, spiritually and materially and therefore divine.

What do you think?

In my view, democracy is polite anarchism with extra steps and also a total illusion. There is no real democracy, only eventually the rule of the masses in bloodshed until they've got a fake or actual leader then it's no longer.

Democracy doesn't and can't exist in the way you think. "Real democracy" is where everyone has a right to be a leader, not the right to "vote" for some "party" which then takes the reigns and does the individual administrating and taxes for you. In a "real democracy" everyone even a baby is supposed to go to a political bureau, a legal jury and do the taxes to "be a part of the DEmoCrAtiC pRoCesS" or something, so the whole thing really is just not ordained by nature. That's why you hear the US is actually a republic, with its bureaucratic process that individual people abuse. it's like when we say its the human SPECIES not "human race".

What you're describing is a spiritual oligarchic type divine order. Where every region is ruled by the person "at the top" who has been given leadership over one county/province/continent, then one of the Earth, for this given generational cycle. It wouldn't be a modern definition "democracy" and when we get there it'll most likely be called some other term in another language because it takes on an entirely new state of being for humanity, where leadership is in light of how the ages can change and transform things from one lifetime to the next. Previously like in the feudal time, this involved a lot of death and struggle whenever that happened which now because of current advancements, will be made redundant due to awakened consciousness and preservation of knowledge.

-isms and -cys are dated and redundant in Satanama Dharma and the National Socialist/Third Position type ideological ends because they naturally undo what we know as "ideology" (essentially the pigeonhole of consciousness ordained by the jewish authority which has long been fading now)

Things like the Fuhrerprinzip or Leadership Principle is essentially summarising our "take" on a system for the world. Where a local all the way to the global leader, gives out orders which ring out across the other leaders in the chain, and the single leader through this has his Will enacted everywhere necessary in a rapid pace. In the case of NS Germany obviously it was rapid because of the war, but the Will of a leader being enacted under Satan will take on a whole new feeling and be of an awesome dimension. Those at the top of this have a massive weight of responsibility, and should care and understand from the very core and family level, what the people are- like Hitler did.

Leadership is something that won't disappear when we wake up next morning, just like gravity won't all of a sudden reverse itself. Hereditary succession disappeared recently though, because xian kings who were by that point very inbred, shouldn't have been ruling anything. What we have now is actually way better, and makes sense given the change of the abilities of mass communication in our lands. Things are always administered by the people anyway, and the people are strong in themselves.
 
13th_Wolf said:
Master said:
The best government or kingdom I believe is democracy put together with true nobility and aristocracy that is, the best beings, more advanced and developed intellectually, spiritually and materially and therefore divine.

What do you think?

In my view, democracy is polite anarchism with extra steps and also a total illusion. There is no real democracy, only eventually the rule of the masses in bloodshed until they've got a fake or actual leader then it's no longer.

Democracy doesn't and can't exist in the way you think. "Real democracy" is where everyone has a right to be a leader, not the right to "vote" for some "party" which then takes the reigns and does the individual administrating and taxes for you. In a "real democracy" everyone even a baby is supposed to go to a political bureau, a legal jury and do the taxes to "be a part of the DEmoCrAtiC pRoCesS" or something, so the whole thing really is just not ordained by nature. That's why you hear the US is actually a republic, with its bureaucratic process that individual people abuse. it's like when we say its the human SPECIES not "human race".

What you're describing is a spiritual oligarchic type divine order. Where every region is ruled by the person "at the top" who has been given leadership over one county/province/continent, then one of the Earth, for this given generational cycle. It wouldn't be a modern definition "democracy" and when we get there it'll most likely be called some other term in another language because it takes on an entirely new state of being for humanity, where leadership is in light of how the ages can change and transform things from one lifetime to the next. Previously like in the feudal time, this involved a lot of death and struggle whenever that happened which now because of current advancements, will be made redundant due to awakened consciousness and preservation of knowledge.

-isms and -cys are dated and redundant in Satanama Dharma and the National Socialist/Third Position type ideological ends because they naturally undo what we know as "ideology" (essentially the pigeonhole of consciousness ordained by the jewish authority which has long been fading now)

Things like the Fuhrerprinzip or Leadership Principle is essentially summarising our "take" on a system for the world. Where a local all the way to the global leader, gives out orders which ring out across the other leaders in the chain, and the single leader through this has his Will enacted everywhere necessary in a rapid pace. In the case of NS Germany obviously it was rapid because of the war, but the Will of a leader being enacted under Satan will take on a whole new feeling and be of an awesome dimension. Those at the top of this have a massive weight of responsibility, and should care and understand from the very core and family level, what the people are- like Hitler did.

Leadership is something that won't disappear when we wake up next morning, just like gravity won't all of a sudden reverse itself. Hereditary succession disappeared recently though, because xian kings who were by that point very inbred, shouldn't have been ruling anything. What we have now is actually way better, and makes sense given the change of the abilities of mass communication in our lands. Things are always administered by the people anyway, and the people are strong in themselves.

Democracy is about freedom. Freedom of thought, speech and power. It is the exact opposite of communism, xianism and islam.

The enemy has ruined democracy both directly and indirectly. He is trying to make freedom seem like a problem by corrupting order, justice, meritocracy, etc., and then offering us slavery as the solution.
 
Master said:
13th_Wolf said:
Master said:
The best government or kingdom I believe is democracy put together with true nobility and aristocracy that is, the best beings, more advanced and developed intellectually, spiritually and materially and therefore divine.

What do you think?

In my view, democracy is polite anarchism with extra steps and also a total illusion. There is no real democracy, only eventually the rule of the masses in bloodshed until they've got a fake or actual leader then it's no longer.

Democracy doesn't and can't exist in the way you think. "Real democracy" is where everyone has a right to be a leader, not the right to "vote" for some "party" which then takes the reigns and does the individual administrating and taxes for you. In a "real democracy" everyone even a baby is supposed to go to a political bureau, a legal jury and do the taxes to "be a part of the DEmoCrAtiC pRoCesS" or something, so the whole thing really is just not ordained by nature. That's why you hear the US is actually a republic, with its bureaucratic process that individual people abuse. it's like when we say its the human SPECIES not "human race".

What you're describing is a spiritual oligarchic type divine order. Where every region is ruled by the person "at the top" who has been given leadership over one county/province/continent, then one of the Earth, for this given generational cycle. It wouldn't be a modern definition "democracy" and when we get there it'll most likely be called some other term in another language because it takes on an entirely new state of being for humanity, where leadership is in light of how the ages can change and transform things from one lifetime to the next. Previously like in the feudal time, this involved a lot of death and struggle whenever that happened which now because of current advancements, will be made redundant due to awakened consciousness and preservation of knowledge.

-isms and -cys are dated and redundant in Satanama Dharma and the National Socialist/Third Position type ideological ends because they naturally undo what we know as "ideology" (essentially the pigeonhole of consciousness ordained by the jewish authority which has long been fading now)

Things like the Fuhrerprinzip or Leadership Principle is essentially summarising our "take" on a system for the world. Where a local all the way to the global leader, gives out orders which ring out across the other leaders in the chain, and the single leader through this has his Will enacted everywhere necessary in a rapid pace. In the case of NS Germany obviously it was rapid because of the war, but the Will of a leader being enacted under Satan will take on a whole new feeling and be of an awesome dimension. Those at the top of this have a massive weight of responsibility, and should care and understand from the very core and family level, what the people are- like Hitler did.

Leadership is something that won't disappear when we wake up next morning, just like gravity won't all of a sudden reverse itself. Hereditary succession disappeared recently though, because xian kings who were by that point very inbred, shouldn't have been ruling anything. What we have now is actually way better, and makes sense given the change of the abilities of mass communication in our lands. Things are always administered by the people anyway, and the people are strong in themselves.

Democracy is about freedom. Freedom of thought, speech and power. It is the exact opposite of communism, xianism and islam.

The enemy has ruined democracy both directly and indirectly. He is trying to make freedom seem like a problem by corrupting order, justice, meritocracy, etc., and then offering us slavery as the solution.

What I wanted to say about the best kind of government is with the eternal values and powers we've been talking about plus the eternal value of true democracy which is the freedom of the people, which we fight for. That is the only true democracy and not that silly one, that we are all equal and we can be president for a year.

Today's perception of democracy is very twisted and corrupt. This is because in these times, people's awareness and understanding is very low and consequently they are very inferior.
 
Democracy is a Jewish construct. Most people are not equipped to make their own personal decisions much less the decisions of their volk. The original American nation was a Constitutional Republic not a democracy. Most people weren't able to vote. The only people who were able to vote were White men with land. If you remove the Jews from this world, then the system of national Socialism would be the best with a meritocratic society but with a top down hierarchical system, based on competence.
 
In my opinion it should be a racial meritocracy. Doesn't matter if your family has been there for generations if someone else within your racial group can do a better job. All the family thing does is give you an edge but if someone else can do the job better, they deserve it. If I wanted to live under kings and queens I'd move to a country where that's still a thing and look, they got corrupt regardless. Meritocracy is the way to go. However, at least in America, nepotism is the thing that rules. Their networks are created while they're getting their education/indoctrination and then from there is how these positions are filled. Every job except for one (which I had to blemish my resume for) I got in because I had friends on the inside. Also, I witnessed it being done for other people as well while in these jobs. They'd still have their period of recruitment and a handful or two of interviews but at the end of the day they already had their pick because of insider recommendation. They literally go through the song and dance for "official" purposes which is retarded. They waste both their and the job seeker's time. These are the kinds of people in government because while the taxi driver isn't the governor they come from the same pool of people who grew up with the same influences in the air.
 
Jack said:
Democracy is a Jewish construct. Most people are not equipped to make their own personal decisions much less the decisions of their volk. The original American nation was a Constitutional Republic not a democracy. Most people weren't able to vote. The only people who were able to vote were White men with land. If you remove the Jews from this world, then the system of national Socialism would be the best with a meritocratic society but with a top down hierarchical system, based on competence.

Solaris Serpent said:
In my opinion it should be a racial meritocracy. Doesn't matter if your family has been there for generations if someone else within your racial group can do a better job. All the family thing does is give you an edge but if someone else can do the job better, they deserve it. If I wanted to live under kings and queens I'd move to a country where that's still a thing and look, they got corrupt regardless. Meritocracy is the way to go. However, at least in America, nepotism is the thing that rules. Their networks are created while they're getting their education/indoctrination and then from there is how these positions are filled. Every job except for one (which I had to blemish my resume for) I got in because I had friends on the inside. Also, I witnessed it being done for other people as well while in these jobs. They'd still have their period of recruitment and a handful or two of interviews but at the end of the day they already had their pick because of insider recommendation. They literally go through the song and dance for "official" purposes which is retarded. They waste both their and the job seeker's time. These are the kinds of people in government because while the taxi driver isn't the governor they come from the same pool of people who grew up with the same influences in the air.

Very true, they are literally incapable of such responsibility. If it weren't for that rotten enemy, with the pace of development and understanding we had with our Gods, who knows how far ahead we would be now.

But we're fixing things and we're doing great. As we and our Gods guide, bless and enlighten humanity from above, you can be sure others will do the rest.

The so-called democracy is just a jewish corruption and degeneration, the Ancient Greeks would never have invented such a stupid thing.

The Greek philosopher Aristotle formulated a well-established terminological distinction between three forms of government: monarchy, aristocracy and polytia[3]. In principle, none of these forms of government is incompatible with the Republic, although a republic is properly understood as a form of government that is an aristocracy or a polity (and their respective degenerations: oligarchy and democracy, the latter understood as a government of the people that, neglecting the common good, aims to unduly favor the poorer classes), rather than a monarchy (and its degeneration, tyranny). Principally, the republic is expressed by the election of the organs of political leadership, which remain in office for a fixed time, after which the political system provides for a new election. Some lifetime offices are also possible (such as U.S. Supreme Judges and Italian Senators for life), but only if not hereditary.

The term republic, like its Greek equivalent politeia, essentially refers to the political organization of society in a general sense, and the use of the term by classical authors (e.g., in Plato's Republic) should not necessarily be considered as a reference to a particular type of political institution. The Republic, for the ancients, was nothing more than the interest in the good of the community, in the polis, the state. The article in the constitution of the Weimar Republic, "The German Reich is a Republic," is exemplary.

The republics, in fact, are not necessarily democratic: for example in antiquity, think of the Roman Republic, full citizenship was denied to slaves or women; or we can refer to the Republic of Venice, which, in the second phase of its history, was an oligarchic republic in which the people were excluded from the government of public affairs, but where the head of state (the doge) was chosen with a complex system of vote-lottery among the members of the noble class.

On the other hand not all democratic states are republics, for example the United Kingdom, although democratic is not a republic, but a parliamentary monarchy, in which there is a lower house, the House of Commons, directly elected by the citizens, but the head of state (the king or queen) is chosen according to a rigid hereditary criterion. Over the centuries, the "Republic" has been increasingly characterized as a purely democratic system, as an institutional system in which the heads of state are not chosen by hereditary.[4] Rather than between monarchy and republic, the distinction has increasingly become between republic and "monarchy or noble oligarchy".

If the head of state of a republic is also the head of government, this system is called presidential. In other states, the role of the president is almost purely ceremonial and represents national unity; these states are called parliamentary republics. Finally, semi-presidential republics have a president as an active head of state with important powers, but they also have a prime minister as head of government with important powers (e.g., in France).
 
Master said:
I want to say something about power in general. Democracy must be there but to reign so little, is unfair and definitely a weak power.

Hierarchy is true and natural but in today's society, it seems to be stuck to a certain point. What is wrong with reigning for life and with hereditary succession?

The hierarchy is there because it is not a worker or a taxi driver who runs for deputy, minister, prime minister, president, etc., but rich people. What would wealth be like if it was a joke like most of the current governments?

Today one is a millionaire, after five years we take their wealth and lower it to worker level, and his wealth we give to a taxi driver and then the taxi driver becomes an entrepreneur and then we take his business and his wealth and give it to someone random with jackpot elections and the cycle of the weak continues.

I don't think the ancient Greeks meant this kind of democracy, the current Greeks and others can't get beyond a point because they don't advance spiritually. So literally the richest are in low and equal levels and to rule longer, they either have to be tyrannical or it will be unfair if any of those equals rule a while.

Communism, xianism and islam are obviously jewish tyranny and nothing more.

The best government or kingdom I believe is democracy put together with true nobility and aristocracy that is, the best beings, more advanced and developed intellectually, spiritually and materially and therefore divine.

What do you think?

The man who coined the term Democracy, was Plato. He called it mob rule. Greece tried it, they went back to an Empire. It was stated to only work with a population of 10k or less.
 
https://ancient-forums.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=41430&p=167636&hilit=democracy#p167636

This is a good post that explains it well ^
 
Aquarius said:
https://ancient-forums.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=41430&p=167636&hilit=democracy#p167636

This is a good post that explains it well ^

Thanks for reminding me, I will read it again.
 
Aldrick said:
Master said:
I want to say something about power in general. Democracy must be there but to reign so little, is unfair and definitely a weak power.

Hierarchy is true and natural but in today's society, it seems to be stuck to a certain point. What is wrong with reigning for life and with hereditary succession?

The hierarchy is there because it is not a worker or a taxi driver who runs for deputy, minister, prime minister, president, etc., but rich people. What would wealth be like if it was a joke like most of the current governments?

Today one is a millionaire, after five years we take their wealth and lower it to worker level, and his wealth we give to a taxi driver and then the taxi driver becomes an entrepreneur and then we take his business and his wealth and give it to someone random with jackpot elections and the cycle of the weak continues.

I don't think the ancient Greeks meant this kind of democracy, the current Greeks and others can't get beyond a point because they don't advance spiritually. So literally the richest are in low and equal levels and to rule longer, they either have to be tyrannical or it will be unfair if any of those equals rule a while.

Communism, xianism and islam are obviously jewish tyranny and nothing more.

The best government or kingdom I believe is democracy put together with true nobility and aristocracy that is, the best beings, more advanced and developed intellectually, spiritually and materially and therefore divine.

What do you think?

The man who coined the term Democracy, was Plato. He called it mob rule. Greece tried it, they went back to an Empire. It was stated to only work with a population of 10k or less.

Power is not only in numbers but it is also in the numbers. The Greeks understood this but could not get more territories on this planet.

Assimilation is a slave thing and therefore not a compatible thing to conquer territories. This has been done in history and it works up to a certain point but it is not the best thing to do.

The best thing to do is to conquer a territory and put only your people there. If you make such a war, it is better to completely destroy the opposing people instead of partially destroying them in the hope of assimilating them.

In fact, destroying the past, history, culture and so on of a people in order to assimilate it, is as I said in the previous paragraph, partial destruction of a people. In the case of slaves, this will clearly succeed. In the case of free beings, if there is not enough loss, the conquered could return to their origins and the war in question would not only be counterproductive but also dangerous.

But there is more to it than that, the genetic heritage. If this is altered and replaced, then this is great loss and also an advanced form of destruction.

Clearly, this is undesirable and unacceptable for one people by another. This should not be our main focus, but we must engage more in positive affairs and interactions for the good of all involved. Of course, one cannot be an ally or an enemy to everyone.
 
Master said:
Aldrick said:
Master said:
I want to say something about power in general. Democracy must be there but to reign so little, is unfair and definitely a weak power.

Hierarchy is true and natural but in today's society, it seems to be stuck to a certain point. What is wrong with reigning for life and with hereditary succession?

The hierarchy is there because it is not a worker or a taxi driver who runs for deputy, minister, prime minister, president, etc., but rich people. What would wealth be like if it was a joke like most of the current governments?

Today one is a millionaire, after five years we take their wealth and lower it to worker level, and his wealth we give to a taxi driver and then the taxi driver becomes an entrepreneur and then we take his business and his wealth and give it to someone random with jackpot elections and the cycle of the weak continues.

I don't think the ancient Greeks meant this kind of democracy, the current Greeks and others can't get beyond a point because they don't advance spiritually. So literally the richest are in low and equal levels and to rule longer, they either have to be tyrannical or it will be unfair if any of those equals rule a while.

Communism, xianism and islam are obviously jewish tyranny and nothing more.

The best government or kingdom I believe is democracy put together with true nobility and aristocracy that is, the best beings, more advanced and developed intellectually, spiritually and materially and therefore divine.

What do you think?

The man who coined the term Democracy, was Plato. He called it mob rule. Greece tried it, they went back to an Empire. It was stated to only work with a population of 10k or less.

Power is not only in numbers but it is also in the numbers. The Greeks understood this but could not get more territories on this planet.

Assimilation is a slave thing and therefore not a compatible thing to conquer territories. This has been done in history and it works up to a certain point but it is not the best thing to do.

The best thing to do is to conquer a territory and put only your people there. If you make such a war, it is better to completely destroy the opposing people instead of partially destroying them in the hope of assimilating them.

In fact, destroying the past, history, culture and so on of a people in order to assimilate it, is as I said in the previous paragraph, partial destruction of a people. In the case of slaves, this will clearly succeed. In the case of free beings, if there is not enough loss, the conquered could return to their origins and the war in question would not only be counterproductive but also dangerous.

But there is more to it than that, the genetic heritage. If this is altered and replaced, then this is great loss and also an advanced form of destruction.

Clearly, this is undesirable and unacceptable for one people by another. This should not be our main focus, but we must engage more in positive affairs and interactions for the good of all involved. Of course, one cannot be an ally or an enemy to everyone.

Your first sentence....I have no idea what you mean lol.
 
Aldrick said:
Master said:
Aldrick said:
The man who coined the term Democracy, was Plato. He called it mob rule. Greece tried it, they went back to an Empire. It was stated to only work with a population of 10k or less.

Power is not only in numbers but it is also in the numbers. The Greeks understood this but could not get more territories on this planet.

Assimilation is a slave thing and therefore not a compatible thing to conquer territories. This has been done in history and it works up to a certain point but it is not the best thing to do.

The best thing to do is to conquer a territory and put only your people there. If you make such a war, it is better to completely destroy the opposing people instead of partially destroying them in the hope of assimilating them.

In fact, destroying the past, history, culture and so on of a people in order to assimilate it, is as I said in the previous paragraph, partial destruction of a people. In the case of slaves, this will clearly succeed. In the case of free beings, if there is not enough loss, the conquered could return to their origins and the war in question would not only be counterproductive but also dangerous.

But there is more to it than that, the genetic heritage. If this is altered and replaced, then this is great loss and also an advanced form of destruction.

Clearly, this is undesirable and unacceptable for one people by another. This should not be our main focus, but we must engage more in positive affairs and interactions for the good of all involved. Of course, one cannot be an ally or an enemy to everyone.

Your first sentence....I have no idea what you mean lol.

A people with a population of a billion, if they are very underdeveloped and if they do not develop, they can be defeated in many ways. Nuclear and laser weapons are not like the old cannons and bombs.

A large primitive army is not a problem if a nuclear missile can hit it. Likewise they can be defeated economically, intellectually, spiritually and so on.

But the power is definitely also in the numbers because the union makes the strength. What one hundred thousand researchers can do, one hundred researchers cannot. What ten thousand souls can do, ten souls cannot.

If you have little land, you will have few resources and little space. Where will you build plantations, industries, houses and other constructions?

In my opinion, to be somewhat rich and powerful, you must have at least a territory like Italy, France, Germany and other nations with similar size of territory. Nations like Russia, China, Canada, USA and others with such territories are obviously even better, richer and more powerful.

Look at Russia and China, that's how the Americas were supposed to be colonized but it's done now. The British, Italians and Spanish were to take the Americas for themselves and not to share them with anyone else. Territories had to be conquered and earned.

But they didn't know what they were doing and as if that wasn't enough, the stupid and degenerate jews were also present. These slaves and enslavers must be stopped, they must not ruin and enslave humanity.
 

Al Jilwah: Chapter IV

"It is my desire that all my followers unite in a bond of unity, lest those who are without prevail against them." - Satan

Back
Top