"The world before nationalism and democracy was a world of mild wars, small and effective governments, personal freedom...

"The world before nationalism and democracy was a world of mild wars, small and effective governments, personal freedom, and civilized high culture."

Was he right?

Attached: Mencius_Moldbug.jpg (220x207, 9K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nora_Kovach
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Soviet_and_Eastern_Bloc_defectors
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Generally, yes.

ridiculous generalization

Objectively yes.

Define personal freedom. Many countries still had church attendance duty.

Otherwise yes, but personal freedom was inexistent. Even members of nobility were chained to a very rigid set of rules how you were able to act, who you were allowed to marry, what things were acceptable for a member of your rank.

>mild wars
Nope. Most wars were only 'mild' in comparison to those of the 20th century because of technology.

>personal freedom
Nope. Not really outside Britain did personal freedom exist. And British freedoms were born of the English civil war and parliamentary democracy.

>effective government
Define 'effective'.

>civilized high culture
Probably true among elites. Or at least moreso than today's elites - celebrities, sports stars etc.

Define "before nationalism"

Even the Ancient Greeks and Roman were nationalistic as fuck in modern sence.

>mild wars
12 of the deadliest 20 wars happened in China before nationalization took place. The mongols anal raped their way across the world, the Assyrians were fucked up, the Punic wars were the WW2 of the ancient world, etc.
Governments were generally smaller because populations were lower. They were only "more effective" because most governments ruled over small duchies or kingdoms. Personal freedom? no not at all, most people were tied to the land of their lords, had to choose from a handful of professions, and were incapable of travel.
Idk what the fuck "civilized high culture" is but modern people have way more access to both pop and high culture and have way more time to actually enjoy it too.
The statement is so generalized and asinine it should really discredit anyone who said it.

>civilized high culture
t.butthurt romantic
Everything was shit and so people had low expectations of government

I think he meant after nationalism

The world before that was constant wars and feudalism

Moldbug is such a faggot.

"And the worst thing about white nationalism, in my opinion, is just that it's nationalism. Nationalism is really another word for democracy - the concept of democracy makes no sense except as an algorithm for determining the General Will of the People, that is, the Nation. And whatever its electoral formula or lack thereof, every nationalist government has seen itself as in some sense a representative of the Volk.

Compare this to the world of the ancien regime, in which French aristocrats had far more in common with Russian aristocrats than with French peasants. The world before nationalism and democracy was a world of mild wars, small and effective governments, personal freedom, and civilized high culture. Let architecture be the judge: all buildings from the 18th century are treasures. So are most from the 19th. The 20th was the age of nationalism, democracy, tyranny, mass murder, and gigantic concrete eyesores. (I live within walking distance of not one but two hospitals which are dead ringers for any Bulgarian secret-police headquarters. Although on reflection this is probably an insult to Bulgaria.)

Note that, before the coming of nationalist democracy, it was actually not a problem at all for wealthy, high-IQ people to live in the same society as poor, low-IQ people. It worked just fine. The latter served the former. They got paid. No one starved. If the mob wanted to riot, there were more than enough Swiss Guards to handle them. It was not Louis XVI's fictitious oppressions that doomed him to the implacable vengeance of the People, but his irresolution and gullibility that drew him to the deadly Anglo-American fad of popular government. (Try this history if you're unconvinced.)"

This. You can't just make these sorts of broad sweeping claims about such a massive span of history.

>Nope. Most wars were only 'mild' in comparison to those of the 20th century because of technology.
tard detected
>Nope. Not really outside Britain did personal freedom exist. And British freedoms were born of the English civil war and parliamentary democracy.
>implying anyone excercises le freedomz
>Probably true among elites. Or at least moreso than today's elites - celebrities, sports stars etc.
The elites are the only part capable of high culture. To say our elites aren't capable of it is to say we have none. Which is the case.

He is idealizing as fuck.

Autocracy/Absolutism was neither low government, nor with mild wars, nor of any success.

He forgets that both Russian Autocracy and the French Absolutism literally fell because they were unsuccesful.

>personal freedom
You mean, except for like 95% of the population?

>Let architecture be the judge

Attached: brainlet3.jpg (216x233, 6K)

>the concept of democracy makes no sense except as an algorithm for determining the General Will of the People
as opposed to what? the whims of a single leader or group of oligarchs vying for power? What's his point exactly?

How can he be so wrong about so many things? Class warfare has existed for forever. Genocides and tyranny has existed for forever. He seems to equate greater death toles with more bad happenings, as if older regimes wouldn't commit terrible things if they didn't have massive populations to control and the industrial capacity for doing so.
>No one starved.
lmao, LMAO
>If the mob wanted to riot, there were more than enough Swiss Guards to handle them.
AHAHAHAHHAHHA

The 19 th century was the age of nationalism and all the beautiful romantic art and revival architecture is from this period

And what personal freedom was there in the ancien regime? What does he mean by that?

Democracy happened because it has inbuilt error correction system. Monarchy is doomed to degenerate.
Nobility in the age of William the Conqueror might have been absolute übermensch compared to the lower castes, but in 18th century France most capable people were found among bourgeoise.

Meant for

>The 19 th century was the age of nationalism and all the beautiful romantic art and revival architecture is from this period
This, his argument is just "I like x, so x was better".

And he misses the fact that 19th century was also an age of great literature in nearly every European country.

>Class warfare
Marxist horseshit

>Democracy happened because it has inbuilt error correction system.
oh my sweet summer child

Agreed, golden age of literature

>because it has inbuilt error correction system

>error correction

If you take the childish impulses and immature responses of the masses as correcting errors when they throw tantrums to be 'correcting' then maybe.

The only real benefit democracy bought was the chance for peaceful transition of power. Otherwise you may end up in an oscillating scenario between two incompetent governments looking to engineer a successful election through social conditioning and money and woo the majority simply to get in power. Before democracy there were still 'correction measures' in place but they tended to be more brutal and violent but at least that in itself was more likely to result in a measure of competency in the successor if only because they had to demonstrate the necessary shrewdness, political and social maneuvering, and ability to challenge the established rulers/government to achieve their aim rather than the incompetent half-wits who know merely how to game the system or naively put themselves forwards as 'representatives of the people' but lack any competence or ability to achieving what they make in their election promises.

You should give Pobedonostsev and Spengler a read. It should be obvious why democratic governance is, in their view, unacceptable and, in the general view, at the very least not what it purports to be.

Basically it's like this. The masses do not have political opinions. They're not interested enough or invested enough in political philosophy to read the great economic tracts from Smith to Galbraith or the political tracts from Thucydides to Mearsheimer. They're uninformed and, just as importantly, they don't really care where they get their information from either.

The central fact of democracy is that the people will be provided an opinion. An opinion produced in a competitive marketplace of political candidates and news sources. This is what is meant by the subversion of the Ancien Regime and its replacement with a commercial order. Because the vote is transformed into a commodity, it must be pleasing to the voter; It must flatter and pander and create victims. But because it is also the primary currency of power, it must also be pleasing to its producer; it must provide monopolistic privileges and otherwise. Therefore either the policies implemented or the structure of power itself must always tend toward the extremities of deception.

The effects on society are far-reaching and not easily defined. At the very least, what is promised and what is done necessarily diverge at an increasing pace.

Basically it places governance in the hands of the mercantile class but percolated through the prejudices and fantasies of the proletariat. This, instead of governance in the hands of an educated hereditary elite.

t. classcuck

>personal attacks
>implying implications

Not arguments.

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.

You assume education is enough to guarantee superior government when compared with with whims of the mob. But politics and economics are far too complex for even anyone - even with genius abilities and perfect knowledge of political theory/history. It's all guesswork.

The only way to judge the success or failure of political systems is their result in practice. The fact is autocracy has a poor track record when compared with democracy, in terms of material wealth, liberty, war.

The problem with democracy today is that it is unrestrained and centralized. It moves to quickly.

A balanced constitution where the monarch has the ability - and uses his or her ability - to block new laws, dissolve parliament and call new elections is best; along with a hereditary upper house.

I also believe in limiting the franchise, or giving worthy citizens - those who have raised children to 16 without getting divorced, those who have done great deeds and so on - more votes.

Local people should also have greater powers of veto - to block the construction of new buildings or to prevent the housing of refugees in their town.

I think that's ascribing the victories of science and reason to Democracy.
The reason we have fewer wars today isn't because our leaders are so much more enlightened. It's because we have nuclear weapons that threaten the elites with total annihilation alongside their formerly expendable subjects.
Material wealth has been multiplied not by democracy, but by capitalism, and the industrial revolution. If you believe that autocracy is incompatible with capitalism, then I would encourage you to look to China, Singapore, Dubai, and the Saudis. These are all autocratic countries with healthy and growing capitalist economies.
Yes, these spurts in growth coincided with democracy. But correlation is not causation. We have much more reason to believe that rationalism gave birth to the wonders of modern science. And rationalism is not dependent on democracy.
Liberty is the only debateable one, as I see it. And frankly, it's hard to say how invasive the Hellenistic world was, or many other ancient regimes. If your government is run effectively and people are living comfortably, then there really is little reason to demand a voice beyond the ability to petition your sovereign.

I take your points except this one: 'If your government is run effectively and people are living comfortably, then there really is little reason to demand a voice beyond the ability to petition your sovereign.'

There's more to liberty than that. Liberty is about protecting individuals from arbitrary state power. In which political systems has liberty thrived? I would argue the mixed systems of the British and the American best protected citizens from arbitrary state power. Both systems had limited franchises and a hereditary upper house, but they were democracies.

No. Wars were bloody, governments were neither small nor effective, there was no personal freedom like there is today, and most people were kept illiterate on purpose.

>A balanced constitution where the monarch has the ability

Or just get rid of the monarch and have a balanced constitution and some kind of knowledge and mental exam which any political aspirant must pass before they can take office be in effect. Nothing wrong with longer terms either or needing to step down after a minimum X terms in power.

>China
Shithole the chinese are fleeing out of, only rich because they steal intellectual property from the West and western businessowners are greedy and dumb enough to set up their assembly plants there (though that's ending too see China's GDP taking a nosedive eheh) Chinese are buying up homes in the West and driving the housing market to insane levels in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the East Coast
>Singapore
Too small to be relevant
>Dubai
Same as China on a smaller scale, arabs send their kids to the West, lives off tourism
>the Saudis
Oppressive shithole nobody wants to get in, they pay expats so high because they know nobody wants to live under their shitslam bullshit... undergoing a series of reforms exactly because the people are fed up with religious oppression... also about to lose their wealth as the West moves to renewable energy and abandons oil and they NOTHING besides oil

>These are all autocratic countries with healthy and growing capitalist economies
>healthy
>growing
HAHAHAHA all of them depend on the West to keep their wealth and the West is cutting them off like the parasites they are

I think the best proposed answer to that conundrum is the corporate microstate, and Free Exit, which most Dark Enlightenment philosophers would like to consider the only human right. You have no voice in government or the affairs of governance, but you're free to choose where to live.
Their argument is that this is why Singapore and Dubai are relatively nice places to live, with relatively low levels of political freedom.
I think that Egypt might also be a case study for it. The Egyptian army is heavily involved in many businesses, especially realestate. They want foreigners to bring their money to buy land and bring their money to Egypt. That is why the army has repeatedly ousted the extremist Islamic retards elected by the retarded public - that sort of insanity is bad for business. And it works, because they know they can take it elsewhere.
I'm on the fence about the whole thing. I think there's been genuinely benevolent aristocracies, loads of decent ones, and downright malevolent ones. I think it's completely possible to live a perfectly happy life under such a form of government. It just hasn't been attempted in the modern era, with modern technology. And it probably never will.

No, they weren't. Nationalism is a 19th Century concept. They were just xenophobic.

No, there was definitely still an "in-group" of the kind that was associated with nationalism. However, it was NOT nationalism. Nationalism would be an anachronism.
Group identity was more complicated. Speaking in the broadest of terms, it was a much more local in-group, nested within a larger in-group, then the out-group.
Reduced to its simplest form, there's "us" and "everyone who speaks like us and shares (most of) our customs" and "everyone else."
Let's take the Greeks for example. For the Greeks, there's "the polis," then "the Greek speaking world" then "barbarians," who by the definition of Aristotle weren't even human.

>Nationalism is a 19th Century concept
Everybody repeats that as a dogma, yet they miss that the Romans and Greeks had all nationalistic chracteristics as well.

Nationalism is just a ressurected tribal/ethnic pride.

>You have no voice in government or the affairs of governance, but you're free to choose where to live

Are you also supplying the money and means to adequately (ie upper class) live everywhere in the world, or are you just dumping people on boats and telling them to GTFO if they don't like it? If you aren't giving everyone money and means to live adequately anywhere you're just performing ethnic cleansing. And you wonder why people prefer human rights.
>Singapore and Dubai are relatively nice places to live
No they're not, too many retarded laws based on pisslam that violate personal freedom. They're nice places to visit for a week or so if you have money, but live? No way.
Also if a low class immigrant, life is absolutely hell. Your employer can detain you and not pay you as long as he likes. That's why low class workers in Dubai come exclusively from poor shitholes with no other choice while westerners either are a super-protected handful or don't migrate there at all, and even the super-protected handful can't take for more than a few years, their spouses reportedly being very unhappy with the shitslam life there. The rich arabs all have a second home in the West where they regularly move to, sounds like personal freedom is a need too after all.

It was probably something like this:

>Before feudalism
Ethnic and tribal tribe
>After feudalism
Pride was lost due to the most of people having extremely limited controll, and religion became more important for the elites
>19th century
Nationalism

>Are you also supplying the money and means to adequately (ie upper class) live everywhere in the world, or are you just dumping people on boats and telling them to GTFO if they don't like it?
I would personally assume that the state would cover at least a portion of travel expenses - they're saving in the long run by not having a dissident. But you'd have to ask individual Dark Enlightenment scholars. I'm just going off of what I've read from Moldbug and Nick Land.
>No they're not, too many retarded laws based on pisslam that violate personal freedom
It sounds to me like Islam is more of a problem than the autocracy. Subtract the mind virus, and suddenly they have much less reason to dictate your thoughts and behavior, no?

Now let's see an historic example:

>The emigrants tended to be young and well educated, leading to the brain drain feared by officials in East Germany. Yuri Andropov, then the CPSU Director on Relations with Communist and Workers Parties of Socialist Countries wrote an urgent letter, in August 28, 1958, to the Central Committee about the significant 50% increase in the number of East German intelligentsia among the refugees. Andropov reported that, while the East German leadership stated that they were leaving for economic reasons, testimony from refugees indicated that the reasons were more political than material.[68] He stated "the flight of the intelligentsia has reached a particularly critical phase."SED leader Walter Ulbricht saw not only a problem from "brain drain", but also the Grenzgänger problem of 50,000 East Berliners working in West Berlin. Rural citizens disaffected after collectivization campaigns also caused the flight of tens of thousands of farmers, including one third of the wealthier farmers, leaving over 10% of East Germany's arable land fallow and resulting in food shortages. The farmers that remained were disinclined to do more than produce for their own needs because fixed procurement prices meant little profit, and conspicuous production invited hasty inclusion in a collective or state farm. The exodus intensified existing shortages of goods and services in the shortage economy.

>By 1960, the combination of World War II and the massive emigration westward left East Germany with only 61% of its population of working age, compared to 70.5% before the war. The loss was disproportionately heavy among professionals—engineers, technicians, physicians, teachers, lawyers and skilled workers. The direct cost of manpower losses has been estimated at $7 billion to $9 billion, with East German party leader Walter Ulbricht later claiming that West Germany owed him $17 billion in compensation, including reparations as well as manpower losses. In addition, the drain of East Germany's young population potentially cost it over 22.5 billion marks in lost educational investment. The brain drain of professionals had become so damaging to the political credibility and economic viability of East Germany that the re-securing of the Soviet imperial frontier was imperative.

>I would personally assume that the state would cover at least a portion of travel expenses
HAHAHAHAHA yeah nigger until you see nobody wants to live in your shithole and you gotta build Berlin Wall 2.0 to keep people in. Fuck no.

less horseshit that "no one starved, everyone was paid and worked happily for the faggots on top".

>It sounds to me like Islam is more of a problem than the autocracy

Yet people have preferred personal freedom no matter the autocracy.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nora_Kovach

>Nora Kovach (13 June 1931 – 18 January 2009) was a Hungarian ballerina who defected in 1953 together with her husband and fellow ballet dancer Istvan Rabovsky, the first highly publicized defection of individuals in the field of dance to the West from the Soviet bloc.

>Interviewed by Time magazine a few months after her defection, Kovach described the struggles in her mind after her defection, stating she couldn't sleep for two nights after her departure to the West "because I was thinking of mother, home, family. It's a very big problem. But freedom is better."

>The couple traveled to the United States, arriving in Hoboken, New Jersey on the SS Nieuw Amsterdam on November 13, 1953. In an interview with The New York Times upon their arrival in the U.S., Kovach described how their position as dancers with the Leningrad ballet meant that they "were members of the privileged class and had money, an automobile and a nice home but never what we wanted most — Freedom".

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Soviet_and_Eastern_Bloc_defectors

All people from the intelligentsia. You don't keep the intelligentsia without personal rights and freedom, and a nation can't sustain itself without intelligentsia. All the examples you mentioned leech off the West, guess what happens when the West cuts them off?

> The world before nationalism and democracy was a world of mild wars, small and effective governments, personal freedom, and civilized high culture
>Let architecture be the judge
> it was actually not a problem at all for wealthy, high-IQ people to live in the same society as poor, low-IQ people.
>The latter served the former. They got paid. No one starved.
> If the mob wanted to riot,

Let me ask, is it just characteristic for Warsaw pact "intellectuals" to be that delusional regarding aristocracy, or it's just coincidence?
Also, let me ask, does the "Poorfags should live in shit and work all their life for 2% elite... wait, why are they rioting? FUKKEN JEWS, POORFAGS SHOULD BE HAPPY TO LICK MY BOOT" line of thought being considered as a sign of "high-IQ"? Because in my book, it's actually opposite, since only clinically dumb faggot should force the nation live in shit conditions and expect them to be grateful to you because you are so awesome and posh.

And people ask why commies were killing this people: you really think you can negotiate with a faggot, who thinks that not only "bydlo" living in shit is some sort of divine order, but actually thinks that said bydlo not only should, actually IS happy about living in shit and serving aristocrat degenerates?
No wonder reds went batshit on them. Hell, the plebs went batshit on the pseudoaristocrats before even commies sent their representatives to the villages.

But you fail to address that the example you are drawing off of, and indeed the flaws you've pointed out in existing autocracies, is that they're ideologically driven. The USSR was trying to advance the cause of communism, and the parasitic dendrites of Islam infect the minds of legislators in modern autocracies. Their power becomes a weapon, leveled at the populace, to advance their ideology, as opposed to a tool to ensure profitable rule.
A national ideology could certainly be advanced, because it has utility in forging group loyalty and group identity. But is that not something democratic nations do already?
I'd like you to keep in mind that I'm not particularly equipped to argue specifics about laws or statistics, so you're dumping information I can't really engage with - I don't want you to waste your time. The extent of my knowledge on Dark Enlightenment arguments is limited to Moldbug and Land, and I'm still in the process of reading Moldbug. I'm only a shitty devil's advocate at this juncture.
I think their analysis of the failings of democracy is quite sound, but like most political philosophers, their proposed solution leaves much to be desired. The crux of moldbugs argument is (paraphrasing) "when it is acknowledged that a sovereign is propped up solely by force, and not by public opinion, it has no reason to try to tell them what to think." In a rational sense, this is true. But humans aren't rational creatures. Telling the populace what to think provides stability. That's where he loses me, personally.

>You don't keep the intelligentsia

Intelligentsia is a cancer. Most of them are not smart, want gibs, and think of themselves as the elite, while in the reality they are dumb, useless, and degenerate in any aspect - be it morality, friendship or relationships.
Should I fucking mention that it's intelligentsia who LOVED writing anonymous letters and snitching on each other to NKVD/KGB in USSR.

>nation can't sustain itself without intelligentsia.

It actually can, especially without some couple jews who wants to feel special but, in reality, can't do shit without nanny state kicking them every time they come up with something degenerate.

You are aware the Bolsheviks overthrew the provisional government, not the Tsar? 'Dark Enlightenment' tards are clearly tards, but communism was legitimately worse than feudalism and there can be no justification for commie crimes.

>Romans and Greeks had all nationalistic chracteristics as well.
Except Roman and Greek pride & identity was civic and didn't go beyond including the whole race.

The only thing equivalent is "Hellenism" but even then there's nothing about it that says "We must unite becuz we wuz all hellenes!" More like "Our culture is pretty great."

>It actually can
History says nope. It can't. Not even hitler could build a sustainable economy, that's why he built a war economy that backfired on him ridiculously. Why do you people learn fucking nothing?

China

China steals intellectual property from the West and it's losing its economy quickly now that the western industries have started to move away from it.

Way to go miss his point, fuckface.

Attached: Chinese democratic process.jpg (1000x506, 178K)

>Except Roman and Greek pride & identity was civic
Not really, they were often referring to themselves as "sons of X", which is not civic, but in fact ethno.

Also they were describing the entire tribal groups phenotypically, like Germanics were blond and tall, and so were Sarmatians, while more southern tribes were described as dark, et cetera. They saw themselves as somewhat in between.

>china
>mild wars
>small government
>personal freedom

Are you retarded?

Note: Romans were more ethno-leaning, Greeks were more civic-leaning.

>Gens
>Ethnic
Its more clannish and tribal rather than National.

Nationalism isn't simply tribalism considering it goes beyond tribe and posits that there is a bigger identity defined as a "race" that one ought to be part of.

Did you read OP's post?

>Nationalism isn't simply tribalism considering it goes beyond tribe and posits that there is a bigger identity defined as a "race" that one ought to be part of.
You are mistaking nationalism with racism.

And Romans were classifying (especially other) peoples by their race, so what's your point?

Race is an essential part of national identity. Anything else then we'd be talking about Civic or Imperial Identity.
>And Romans were classifying (especially other) peoples by their race, so what's your point?
Race =/= the state of those peoples. Sure there were such a race as "Gauls" but they knew they were divided into numerous tribes and polities.

>History says nope. It can't.

Logic says yes, it can. Ballet dancers and literature critics can burn in the oven with virtually no dent on the economy.

Are you aware of that little thing called Russian Civil war?

Yeah. China had no mild wars, no small government, and no personal freedom. High culture only partially, as 95% of the population was illiterate, a problem they left the fucking communists to deal with because the emperors were too retarded.

>Engineers, scientists, technicians and assorted skilled labour are not important for the economy
The absolute state of darkcucks

Hi Pol Pot. That's not logic, that's stupidity. Ballet dancers and literature critics contribute to the economy too, and furthermore, they contribute to the intellectual capital and soft power of a nation. Killing them off is how you and the rest of your commie cronies made your countries poor shitholes to be exploited while the US dominates the world with its culture exports.

Please don't conflate him with the rest of us.
The DE is such a mixed bag. Some only buy into the historical analysis. Others take it even further. Some are weirdo cathocucks, others propse what nearly amounts to ancap meme of a corporate state, and others are unironic monarchist.
What this nigga is saying points fascist to me, desu.

>What this nigga is saying points fascist to me, desu.
Even fascism is less retarded, since at least they recognize that technicians and shit to actually run the nation, even if the fascist leader does a lot of dumb shit like fucking their mistresses rather than reading the tank projects and end up choosing it at random, and it just happen to be the worst model out of the bunch.

Celebrities and athletes arent elites

>libcucks defending fucking feudalism

Attached: 162.jpg (260x194, 12K)

>Moldbug
>Warsaw pact
He's a Jew from California.

if you live in a world where Lebron James can be considered one of "the elites" it's proof such a world needs to be destroyed and burned to ashes.

>mild wars
The Punic wars were "mild"? The Thirty Years war was "mild"? Wew lad.

Not really.

>mild wars
The Thirty Years' War, Albigensian Crusade, French Wars of Religion, English Civil War, and basically every war China took part in disagree.

>No one starved.
lol

Despite the sheer number of bodies and attrocities, neither the Soviets or the Germans salted enemy cities and enslaved the entire populations.

Absolutely not.

This. Also, without dedicated logistical systems, early modern and pre-modern armies had tactics centered around raiding and brigandage. If you consider the low level of agricultural development of that period, this is incredibly devastating. Moldbug seems the sort who has a broad notion of history but is painfully short on knowing the details or is just a disingenuous asshole.

>mild wars
The 30 years war killed almost the same amount percentage of Europe's population as World War I. In 1960, Germans still rated it the greatest catastrophe in German history, even greater than WWII.
>effective governments
Are you fucking kidding me?

>the germans didn't enslave entire population

The absolute state of this board

>monarchy only existed for 5700 years lol democracy is so much more stable

Bump

Nationalism couldnt exist due to the material conditions. You needed faster transportation and information flow. The hellenic city states were essentially nations unto themselves however. Proto-nations if you will

A world before nationalism and democracy was a world without significant populations or civilizations.

This man must really adore the accomplishments of house rats or the wild boar.

"The world before America was a world of mild wars, small and effective governments, personal freedom, and civilized high culture."

t. Julian Assange

Was he right?

Attached: 1521138326497.png (2618x3453, 3.99M)