PDA

View Full Version : The Second American Revolution



Repeat
08-19-2008, 03:45 PM
Can I get a HEYO!?

pKFKGrmsBDk

Red
08-19-2008, 04:23 PM
Heyo

Italian Jew
08-19-2008, 04:23 PM
Yeah, that guy seems a little ass backwards about somethings, but he did have some relevant material. But he did mention some form of arousal that can only intrigue me further...:rlol: And I did not know they had video back in the day.

He seemed a little too much like an American Hitler for my taste; the kind of guy who really doesn't listen to the other person and thinks he is right.

He mentioned how a multicultural society never flourishes, gee, forgot Rome was just one city of white pasty mother fuckers. You didn't have any other cultures present or as influences. Also would like to mention that there really isn't a set American culture, as we are a country founded on immigrants. The north is different than the south, the east is different from the west. Even cities within the same state are vastly different in cultural terms. Parts of the cities are different even. Why? Because we don't have one set culture. Our culture is everyone else's culture.

If his name is not really Thomas Paine, I foresee a zombie Thomas Paine rising from the grave to beat him.

imkrazie
08-19-2008, 07:08 PM
He mentioned how a multicultural society never flourishes, gee, forgot Rome.
He said not one nation has SURVIVED as a multicultural nation. Rome the city was white, but everywhere else the ethnicity was different (from Africa, to Europe, to the Black Sea/Middle East).


The only bad part about this video is the header which states "The Second American Revolution" which is wrong. In 1776 we fought the War for Independence. We didn't revolutionize anything (Compare to the real revolution that the French had) we just fought for our freedom from a government that was encroaching on our self government that we had for many decades.

Repeat
08-19-2008, 07:17 PM
He said not one nation has SURVIVED as a multicultural nation. Rome the city was white, but everywhere else the ethnicity was different (from Africa, to Europe, to the Black Sea/Middle East).


The only bad part about this video is the header which states "The Second American Revolution" which is wrong. In 1776 we fought the War for Independence. We didn't revolutionize anything (Compare to the real revolution that the French had) we just fought for our freedom from a government that was encroaching on our self government that we had for many decades.

We didn't revolutionize anything, huh? I guess completely changing the way our land was ruled, laying the foundations for the greatest democratic country ever to have existed isn't revolutionizing anything...yeah not at all...

Astrum
08-19-2008, 07:59 PM
Happy birthday, Frankenstein! You're OSI's baby now... When I'm through with you, you'll be a member of the elite agency that's been thanklessly defending this big-ass country since the second American revolution... The invisible one.

Anyway, he has some good points, some not so good points. America is in a sad state at the moment, and it's going to get much worse before it gets better.

Italian Jew
08-19-2008, 09:41 PM
He said not one nation has SURVIVED as a multicultural nation. Rome the city was white, but everywhere else the ethnicity was different (from Africa, to Europe, to the Black Sea/Middle East).

Rome, the republic/empire AND city, was diverse. It was the cultural center of the world at its height. Just about every color, creed, size, shape, ethnicity, etc. of human was there. They became stronger by using outside influences. Rome died out because it changed from a multicultural society to an exclusive one. Look at the rise of Rome during the Republic and early years of the empire compared to the decline once the church took over society. It was catholic or bust during the later years and that is where you see what once was the cosmopolitan city of Rome was then a fucked up mosh pit of greedy shits who were very much alike with one another.

In pre-fucked up times, society was allowed to do whatever it wanted as long as it followed the government. It was certainly more popular to be seen as more "roman" and act "roman", but diversity was necessary for them. During the fucked up times, society had to be homogeneous because the church had control of it. People were taught to be homogeneous and that different was bad; bad enough to where it was convert or die. Rome fell because it could no longer adapt.

Slavic
08-19-2008, 10:14 PM
Rome, the republic/empire AND city, was diverse. It was the cultural center of the world at its height. Just about every color, creed, size, shape, ethnicity, etc. of human was there. They became stronger by using outside influences. Rome died out because it changed from a multicultural society to an exclusive one. Look at the rise of Rome during the Republic and early years of the empire compared to the decline once the church took over society. It was catholic or bust during the later years and that is where you see what once was the cosmopolitan city of Rome was then a fucked up mosh pit of greedy shits who were very much alike with one another.

In pre-fucked up times, society was allowed to do whatever it wanted as long as it followed the government. It was certainly more popular to be seen as more "roman" and act "roman", but diversity was necessary for them. During the fucked up times, society had to be homogeneous because the church had control of it. People were taught to be homogeneous and that different was bad; bad enough to where it was convert or die. Rome fell because it could no longer adapt.

Big problem with that though. Rome was diverse I give you that, but the ruling class was almost entirely Italo/Greeco. Citizenship also followed suit with most non Italo/Greeco being civilians or slaves. Rome was built upon conquest, there was no peaceful merger of nation states of different ethnicity. Rome had many rebellions within its conquered nations; Carthage, Gual, Briton, Egypt, Greek.

Italian Jew
08-19-2008, 11:22 PM
It depends upon the time period. Earlier on, it was frequent for the government to give the Latin Right, which is the country being invaded the option to choose to willingly join Rome, or fall victim to conquest.

Rome itself was founded by Etruscan tribes (mainly the upper class/royalty), the Latins, and the Sabines. This shows their diverse society from the beginning, during the monarchy.

The ruling class was largely Italian/Greco, however you could still see advancement if you were part of a Roman province. You could obtain a seat in public office if you were from Spain, Gaul, or another province a while after the province was established. There is also record of immediate places of positions being placed upon the native populations to show good faith and trust. The ruling class of the city of Rome was entirely Italian for a long period, but for the other cities and provinces, it was varied. The further out from the city of Rome you got, the less homogeneous it got. I am talking about Rome as the entirety of the republic/early empire, not just the city.

It was more common to find non-Italians as business entrepreneurs or other social figures rather than government officials though. This being said, Roman society was divided between the Patricians and Plebeians for freed men. You were either aligned with a wealthy founding family of Rome, or you were a common person. Class was not decided upon ethnicity or origin, neither was slavery. So the basic foundation was slaves, then freed slaves, then the civilians, which were then separated as Plebeians and Patricians. Social status was based more upon wealth than anything else, but only the position of Patrician could be obtained by being related to a founding member of Rome.

The fact that there were rebellions is just nothing more than the way the world has worked since the beginning of civilization; the weak, more threatened or upset, people rise up against the stronger. Rome could deal with these rebellions early on because of its adversity. Rome could often use allies familiar with the area, or even natives of the area, to subdue or persuade the rebellion to cease. If that failed, then they would send in the army, which by the way was compromised by all free citizens and complemented by mercenary units from foreign or provincial lands.

Either through peace, or the more popular choice, war, Rome used adversity to overcome challenges and develop much of their successful culture.

Itendtokill
08-19-2008, 11:54 PM
This guy is a racist, he is old

Repeat
08-20-2008, 06:05 AM
This guy is a racist, he is old

How is wanting to keep illegal immigrants out of your country racist? I don't see how wanting people to assimilate is racist at all.

XeNo
08-20-2008, 06:13 AM
2:42

THIS IS MADNESS

Repeat
08-20-2008, 07:12 AM
2:42

THIS IS MADNESS

Is it bad that I wanted him to say "THIS IS SPARTA!" after that?

LitKey
08-20-2008, 07:20 AM
I don't see how wanting people to assimilate is racist at all.

It's not. Assimilation is about as far as you can get from racism, it's practically the opposite of it.

Slavic
08-20-2008, 05:35 PM
This guy is a racist, he is old

He is referring to illegal actions and burdens of government placed upon the people. The immigrants coming into this country should go through the proper naturalization tests so that they can become a proper legal functioning citizen of the United States. There is nothing racist about that.

When he refers to the Spanish-English divide; he is upset about how the government is handling it. An official language will only benefit the nation as a whole. There is no pogroms to weed out Spanish speakers. That will be decided almost entirely on the market. Example; If it is profitable enough to produce Spanish language documents.