What are some good books about Radical Aristocracy?
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
What are some good books about Radical Aristocracy?
What are some good books about Radical Aristocracy?
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
If you have to ask, you'll never know.
Why ?
It would seem that the feud, reward for the work of the war, a shining proof of a happy courage, had everything necessary to reconcile the favors of the public among bellicose races and very sensitive to profit; it was not so. Military service in pay from a leader repulsed many men, especially those of high birth. These arrogant minds found humiliation in receiving gifts from their equals, and sometimes even from those that they regarded as inferiors based on purity of birth. Nor did every conceivable profit blind them to the disadvantage of suspending for a while, if not losing forever, the plenary action of their independence. When they were not called upon to command themselves, by an inability of any kind, they preferred to take part only in truly national expeditions or those that they felt able to undertake with the forces of their odel alone.
It is rather curious to see this feeling anticipate the severe judgment of a learned historian who, in his hatred of the Germanic races, relies mainly on the conditions of military service, and authorises himself to refuse the Goths of Hermanrik, as well as the Franks of the first Merowings, any true notion of political freedom. But he is not less able to see the Anglo-Saxons of today, this one last branch, well disfigured it is true, but still somewhat resembling the ancient Germanic warriors, the undisciplined inhabitants of Kentucky and Alabama, braving at the same time the verdict of their most brave forefathers and that of the learned publisher of Irminon's Polyptique. Without believing to undermine their principles of savage republicanism, they engage crazily in the craze of pioneering in sold for the promise of gaining fortune amidst the milieu of the indigenous people of the New World and in the most dangerous prairies of the West. This certainly a way of giving a satisfying response to the exaggerations of antiquity and modernity (in respect to the pretended lack of discipline among the Germanic tribes).
The aristocracy is typically the opposite of radical in terms of class interests. There is radical theocracy and monarchism and radical labor but radical aristocracy?
There's nothing radical about it. When they do spawn a radical, they're spawning a betrayer of aristocracy. De Sade for instance.
That's why it makes no sense to call some member the oligarchy a communist. Elon Musk or Klaus Schwab are never going to be about dismantling global capitalism and giving power to the people.
Same with monarchism. They're going to be a king that abdicates or they aren't actually radical.
Radical clericsm is when they new prophet wants to lead people away from a state controlled church orthodoxy.
pic unrelated?
Definitely. Smith was a charlatan who aimed to establish a theocracy which would serve up underage wives to him on a silver platter, certainly no aristocrat of any type.
Pdfs available on archive and physical copies found on Amazom.
Daily reminder that the only source of aristocracy is martial leadership. Everything else is simply hanged upon it. If one does not serve in a leadership capacity, specifically that of an officer, you are not nor will ever be aristocratic.
People will use all manner of authors like Evola and his position on aristocracy of the soul/geist/spirit, this can work be useful but it alone is worthless. Even Nietzsche criticized this thinking, and said only Blood can enoble a man, this is also true, but without the martial aspect a aristocrat it does not make.
>picrel had all of it.
>Fencer and foil champion in dueling
>Violently retaliated against a student who struck him in Sandhurt
>Recieved a Commission anyways
>Served in WW1 as a pilot
>Served in WW1 in the trenches as a brave and wreckless leader of men
>From an old family
>Be Oswald Mosley
The very point of aristocracy is that almost nobody is able to become one. Only the best of us.
*reckless
You are unlearned and lacking in aristocratic blood.
Come on now. Post the full account, lies do not become you.
>"... after eventually getting injured and being left with a permanent limp, Mosley spent the remainder of the war completing desk jobs for the British foreign office"
BAHAHAHAHA. Real tough guy.
This.
Except,
>The very point of aristocracy is that almost nobody is able to become one. Only the best of us.
Nobody can because comissioned officers are now meritocratic and follow the same eduactional tunnel as everybody else.
Aristocracy is plainly dead. Pretending to be an aristocrat now is just larping.
Oh, the horrors of a meritocracy.
I didn't imply it's a bad thing. Real meritocratic militaries essentially surpass aristocratic militaries, as examplified in the napoleonic wars.
the problem now is that modern elites don't send their children to war at all. aristocrats had a sense of duty to their countries or kangz.
>Nobody can because commissioned officers are now meritocratic and follow the same educational tunnel as everybody else.
They can for the British Army, and most European armies. Almost every single one has a chronic shortage of officers, this is because most upbringings do not instill the skills needed for a man to lead men in to battle and most will go in as enlisted and enter the NCO corp eventually. The skills needed for aristocracy come largely, but not exclusively, from class upbringing, hence why they are predominately found in old, upper class (Not middle class) families.
There are no barriers to entry in to the officer class, especially in Europe and America. But people still refuse to enter it because there is the understanding that one will have a huge responsibility that most people are incapable of withstanding.
What I said about martial leadership and aristocracy still applies here, the door is open and the offer there but very few people accept it.
The average life has gotten better once the shift changed from aristocracy to democracy
So? It is now getting worse as democracy as been widened to include more and more. When it was a small 'elite' minority it worked well.
>A college degree is a requirement to join the “officer class”, which, by the way, is not remotely synonymous with the aristocracy
A college degree offers a basic minimum standard of quality, you can not make a leader out of a fricking idiot. That serves nobody, not the people nor the military, requiring a higher education level is a means of refusing most applicants without great cost.
>The other anon is just a moronic and associates aristocracy with a hereditary aristocracy, which is simply a mature aristocracy.
You appear to be the moron here, an aristocratic family, ran and lead by one whom himself embodies aristocratic values, chief amongst them being military leadership, massively increases the chances of his children following in his footsteps. This is the basis and justification of an Aristocratic class.
> Aristocracy properly means rule by the best citizens, and best is contextualized by the culture. It doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with heritability and has nothing at all to do with entering some “officer class”.
It meant led by the greatest, in war, the very root of the word is traced back to Ancient Greece and their means of leadership. Further, it has everything to do with leadership in military, in Europe all landowning lords were granted their fiefs and lands in order to provide an army for the Monarch, every single aspect of aristocratic stations, of nobility and lordliness is tied exclusively with the expectation of military leadership.
in my country:
>join right after hs
>they will accept literally anyone
>do frick all for 6 years
>get a bachelors, salary, and rank.
>you are now guaranteed to become a senior officer, even if you do frick all.
Since you fail to provide the country, thus suitable context for what you said, i will assume that martial leadership to you means simply telling men to go and fight while you, the supposed Officer class, march around like a Monty Python sketch with a chest festooned with meaningless medals.
Martial leadership is the awakening of duty, honor, willing sacrifice and respect in normal men and having them willingly follow you out of the trench, or across the muddy field, or in to the spearwall, or in to the enemy cavalry and have them stand firm.
Because you have a paper saying you are an officer, is meaningless.
Aristocracy is immediately noticable in men, we see those rare people who command respect and authority without trouble throughout our lives, maybe only a few total. This is in an era of egalitarian behavior, withour structures that are meant to support and uplift natural leaders.
Are you fricking moronic? Show up to an officer recruiting office without a college degree and they’ll tell you flat out that you don’t qualify. I don’t care if you think a degree does or doesn’t have some influence on the candidate. The fact is that you cannot join this “officer class” without a degree. Period.
You’re a typical Evolian that read bad historicity and now thinks aristocracy and military adventurism are synonymous. As a matter of fact, legal clerks were nobles in the Norman system of governance in England after the conquest. But according to you, nobody who wasn’t a military leader was an aristocrat. So take it up with William I guess. Military service is just one of the many obligations for an enshrined political aristocracy for the simple fact that military affairs are necessarily political.
Aristocrat is a political term, and not a military one. It comes from Aristotle, in a work that I know for a fact that you’ve never even read first-hand by the way. Military affairs are always political, but politics are not necessarily military. Saying that being an aristocrat is merely about being a military leader is like saying a human is merely about eating.
Furthermore, we can debate about whether the basis for considering military success a qualifier for aristocracy still even holds today given the radical change in nature that warfare has undergone during the last few centuries, and this was a major point of contention which an aforementioned author, Ernst Jünger.
>The aristocratic soul is bullshit
>You’re a typical Evolian
Anon, what are you talking about?
I did not say “the aristocratic soul” is moronic. I never said that. I don’t even know if I disagree or agree because it’s too vague to pass judgement on. But your view of aristocracy is quite obviously the Evolian one which is pseudo historical at worst and simply not the full story at best.
In what terms, though? Many people live comfortable lives but are depressed and have 0.5 birthrates
We also don't have anything resembling athenian democracy. We actually just have a more inclusive aristocracy since more grifters and bankers can get involved in politcs now than before, while 99,99% of the people can't do shit compared to 20-30% of actual democracy
What the frick are you talking about? A college degree is a requirement to join the “officer class”, which, by the way, is not remotely synonymous with the aristocracy. The other anon is just a moronic and associates aristocracy with a hereditary aristocracy, which is simply a mature aristocracy. Aristocracy properly means rule by the best citizens, and best is contextualized by the culture. It doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with heritability and has nothing at all to do with entering some “officer class”.
Most European armies are a form of welfare for morons.
>I will pay you to perform this duty in preperation for the next global conflict
>this is a form of welfare
You absolute, window-licking, fricking dribbler.
>european army
>conflict
Lolmao
Unless you mean the muzzies they recruit although these mainly become polizei types
Because there is not one now, does not preclude one happening in the future. Frick me, this should not needed to be said.
>But your view of aristocracy is quite obviously the Evolian one which is pseudo historical at worst and simply not the full story at best.
It is not, I've read much of Evola, not all. But nowhere does he support the idea of martial leadership being the single defining characteristic of Aristocracy, his mind is that ones mind and character make one an Aristocrat.
The Evolian view is in direct opposition to mine, you fricking idiot. Mine is based entirely on historical evidence, in all early cultures right up to the collapse of the aristocratic class, the position of an aristocrat was dependant on the ability to raise and lead troops in support of a higher station. From a Duke's Duchy to a Knight's fee.
If you think the historical evidence makes clear that the basis of aristocracy is success in military leadership and nothing else, then you simply haven’t accessed enough historical evidence.
>that the basis of aristocracy is success in military leadership
Success does not enter in to it. Simply the ability to get mem to follow you to war and prosecute one is sufficient. Wars are not won by who is more Aristocratic, further one can be a bad aristocrat, like any other position in society.
Further, I said historically it is true, all other trappings came after it. It even subverted it in places wherein you had aristocrats who were said to be such by virtue of wealth, education, or something else.
I state again, for simplicities sake: The only moral, virtuous and justifiable reason for the establishment of an aristocrat is martial leadership. Throughout history this was the case. Though many times it was not, and thus were not aristocratic in anything but empty name.
You’r a moron honestly. You think you know what you’re talking about, but you and I both know you really don’t.
That’s exactly what Evola believes btw. And you don’t actually know history. You’ve taken a summary of a snapshot of history and taken it as true history, the whole history no less.
No. Its not. Even the evola memes know this. Further one can be aristocratic and not right-wing.
Yes it is. He calls overtly for a military order to form a new aristocracy. He states that a spiritual disposition towards warfare and warfare as a means to transcendence is the aristocratic bearing. It’s his opinion almost exactly. Of course you wouldn’t know that if you only knew memes and not the actual books. But then again, I prefer the books of Aristotle to Evola because I’m not a PSEUD
>>I will pay you to do nothing all day and then send you to retirement early
Ftfy, most European armies aren't preparing to anything.
Eumeswil
In Search of Lost Time
Ernst Jünger is really as radical a proponent of aristocracy as it gets, albeit not in the ways many people might think. I would also recommend his personal favorite novelist, Leon Bloy for similar reasons. There’s a strong affinity between Jünger and Bloy, and both with de Maistre, another proponent of aristocracy.
Theognis
.
Imagine thinking like this, to wish life were over without having experienced it fully.
Generally speaking, I think he's right. There is always a lot of unnecessary pain among humans, and also pain caused by them to other species that reduces everything of value that life has to offer to a negative value.
My diary tbh
I have been taking this question rather seriously for years now and the obvious best answer is The Prince by Machiavelli but something that most people would overlook is the Rule of Saint Benedict which is the important other half to aristocracy.
It's one thing to be a psychopath that can be singularly focused on consolidating power but it's also important to be able to convince everyone else to be as empathetic and obedient as possible.
In a world of democracy and disillusionment about leaders it is going to be basically impossible to convince people to give up all of their rights and trust someone that's willing to kill them just because he can.
Another good book for aristocracy based on this "humbling the masses" part of the process is probably "Sayings of the Desert Fathers"
Manusmṛiti.
>Radical Aristocracy
It's time for guillotine,isn't it?
The semantic drift of aristocracy has been a disaster for the concept.
Aristocracy at this point is more a signifier you are some marginal dissident than anything.
Aristocrats aren't radical, they are the opposite of radical, burghers are radical, maybe. But burghers aren't aristocratic.
Unless you mean it as literally a rule of the excellent. In which case the question would be "Excellent in what?". That can change wildly what you mean.
If you are of Germanic descendance you are an aristocrat by default, and with no need to elaborate further.
The near totally of Germanics ancestors were peasants.
If a Southern 'planter' is a peasant by definition then yes.
Based.
Southern planters weren't noblemen in the european sense, even if they like to compare themselves to them. Nobility in Europe was born out of the privatization of legitimate violence ie the state by a military caste.
Planters were just landowners in a republic where slavery was legal.
They were part of the Southern gentry.
> people of good social position, specifically the class of people next below the nobility in position and birth.
It must also be said that a considerable number of the people who settled America were political nobilities fleeing from the social revolutions in mainland Europe. Or, I find no other explanation for how a nation of such a seemingly poor human capital supply could have possibly become one of the leading nations of the world.
Legally speaking all whites were equal in the American republic and legal violence was entirely in the hands of the state. At this point it's absurd to talk about nobility as an order.
>Or, I find no other explanation for how a nation of such a seemingly poor human capital supply could have possibly become one of the leading nations of the world.
Precisely because it was an orderly bourgeois republic from the start, running straight into industrialization and technical progress and hadn't to deal with an ancient military caste and a priestly caste shackling innovation, science and so on.
People should stop thinking nobility is something aesthetic, it was fundamentally a military caste privatizing violence. The closest example of feudalism in our days is Somalia I think.
> Legally speaking all whites were equal in the American republic
I said the plantocrats were what the primitive Germanics lived like. When they went to make farms larger than the extent of their own needs they went to buying slaves or servants from other tribes or right out conquer-jailing them and taking them forcibly to their farms. You are right in saying that the planters were not nobles, neither did the first rich Germanics explicitly call themselves nobilities.
Made up bullshit.
Primitive Germanics weren't living in republics with three branches of government and newspapers. There's no comparison.
Well if that was the case the founding stock of America would be full of noble names, but that's not the case. It's overwhelmingly basic english names.
> Primitive Germanics weren't living in republics with three branches of government and newspapers. There's no comparison
Primitive Germanic society or US?
> A well-known warrior appeared at the general assembly, and proposed himself to command the planned expedition. Sometimes, especially in cases of aggression, he even revealed the first idea. In other circumstances, he merely submitted a plan of his own that he applied to the situation. This candidate for command was careful to base his claims on his earlier exploits, and to make use of his tried and tested ability; but, above all else, the means of seduction which he could employ most happily, and which assured him of preference over his competitors, was the offer and guarantee, for all those who come to fight under his command, that they will be assured individual advantages worthy of their courage and covetousness. There was thus a debate and an overbidding between the candidates and the warriors. It was only by conviction or seduction that they could be led to engage with the entrepreneur of exploits, glory and spoils.
It is understood that much eloquence and a somewhat esteemable past were absolutely necessary for those who wanted to command. They were not asked, as the robbers or graffs, for the greatness of birth; but what they absolutely needed was military talent, and even more boundless liberality towards the soldier, for there would have been only dangers to follow their flag with no hope of victory or reward.
Source they were not nobility descended?
Source they were?
Common sense?
> nobility is about the hereditary privilege to command
I said that primitive Germanic society looked no different from modern US.
Nobility is family-owned land passed to the descendants together with the title of nobility, wich until 13th Century Europe meant nothing else than having 16 noble grand-grand-grand parents. Kinda autistic, but it shows the liberality with wich one could declare oneself a nobleman in early medieval society.
what people are telling you is that the vast majority of people weren't nobles.
it's not hard to understand.
how can you prove that? in the ancient time everyone was noble. that was the law of the golden age, fool.
thanks for wasting everyone's time
ye of little faith, you have no time. all your time is false. all your thoughts are useless spam.
> what people are telling you is that the vast majority of people weren't nobles
And? Where did I say everyone was a noble?
>I said that primitive Germanic society looked no different from modern US.
Maybe from the militias formed during the revolution, but after that the US military looked nothing like a militia, it's a modern, meritocratic mititary like everywhere on earth.
>Nobility is family-owned land passed to the descendants together with the title of nobility
Nobility wasn't about owning land, but hereditary privileges tied to the land, allowing legal violence and privatized attributes of the state, especially justice.
>Kinda autistic, but it shows the liberality with wich one could declare oneself a nobleman in early medieval society.
It's just what happen when the state crumbles and military chiefs privatize its attributes, but when the situation stabilized it became increasingly difficult to become noble, until sovereign became strong enough to create titles and retake state attributes after which title slowly lost substance. In the XVIIIth century the privileges of the nobility were the shadow of what they were in th early middle ages, and a good part of the nobility wanted to diminish the king. There's an overlooked connection between aristocracy and liberalism.
> Maybe from the militias formed during the revolution, but after that the US military looked nothing like a militia, it's a modern, meritocratic mititary like everywhere on earth.
Early Germanics had a general assembly.
> meritocratic
Nobility of birth was only required for becoming Drottinn, the elected chief of the odels (private land lots) associated to each other.
To become commander, King of an expedition military experience was enough.
> Nobility wasn't about owning land, but hereditary privileges tied to the land, allowing legal violence and privatized attributes of the state, especially justice
Nobility was about nothing. You just were noble, like someone is am Irishman, an Englishman, with no further obligations whatsoever, and abstractively considered, some social privileges came in hand with it, but not necessarily.
> It's just what happen when the state crumbles and military chiefs privatize its attributes,
There's a straight line from primitive Germanic society to Middle Ages. Primitive Germanics were divided into Jarls, the nobles proper, Karls, the freemen, and after that, the slaves and the servants. Now the Jarls were just Germanics, the Karls non-Germanics who through merit or marriage became associated with Germanic society, the slaves and the servants, non-Germanics.
>Early Germanics had a general assembly.
They formed warriors assemblies which elected a warchief but hadn't a state.
>There's a straight line from primitive Germanic society to Middle Ages.
Not at all. The nobility emerged when the carolingian empire crumbled and its public administration were privatized by military leaders. Counts, dukes, were late roman military functions that became hereditary privileges.
That's not at all the assembly system of primitive germanics, as it existed in Tacitus' Germanics or among Anglo-saxons or Icelanders.
> They formed warriors assemblies which elected a warchief but hadn't a state
In state of peace the owners of the Odels chose an elected master, the Drottinn or Graff.
> . The nobility emerged when the carolingian empire crumbled and its public administration were privatized by military leaders. Counts, dukes, were late roman military functions that became hereditary privileges
The nobility had been around for at least five generations before the fall of the Carolingian empire. To be noble until the 13th Century one had to have proof of descendance from 16 noble grand-grand parents.
> That's not at all the assembly system of primitive germanics, as it existed in Tacitus' Germanics or among Anglo-saxons or Icelanders
No, the Thing only exists in the homelands of the Germanics (Scandinavia, Iceland, etc.), while the rest of Europe was conquered by military leaders elected in the general assembly, who would, in successful military campaigns, become the hereditary King. The rest of the participating warriors received a Feud in recompense for their military merits. Thus, King and feudal lords directly or indirectly descend from conquering Germanics, while the conquered, servile population was mostly non-Germanic.
i think the franks specifically invented genealogies to prove their roman descent and connect themselves to the institutions of the empire.
the development was more or less latifundia -> manoralism -> feudalism.
Maybe, the point still stands. Germanic = nobility.
Mate you have to stop that cope. If you have no noble title, you are not noble period. Fake nobles are ridiculous.
> If you have no noble title, you are not noble period
It's just the reality. Nobility is a Germanic institution, like it or not.
> gaul and other regions of the western empire were pretty decimated so it probably wasn't just the nobility that was germanic
They became conquered serfs.
was the nobility of east asia or the middle east germanic too?
> was the nobility of east asia or the middle east germanic too?
Short answer: No. That nobility was based on ethnic relationships though, there is no doubt.
> Person pretending he has a title of nobility he has not.
And if someone has swaths of land, a castle, a mansion, horses, swords, armour, money, what does he lack to buy a title of nobility?
> Again, they never conquered the roman empire, they became the main military force of Rome and when the imperial title was devoided of any reality they established various states on the empire.
They became fighters for the Roman Empire after taking a great deal from the Roman Empire (especially in Northern France and South Germany). If you had read history you would know the Romans were constantly fighting against Germanic tribes around their borders, sometimes the Germanics winning a battle, sometimes the Romans.
> Genobaud, the leader of the Franks was beaten by Maximian Hercules and submitted to him, in exchange he received land west of the Rhine.
Tell tale stories.
> That's how the Franks became foederati
How did they get there if the land they were in was Roman before the appearance of the Franks? They fell in, besieged the cities, fought the armies that were there and then the Romans had to settle for a compromise.
>And if someone has swaths of land, a castle, a mansion, horses, swords, armour, money, what does he lack to buy a title of nobility?
You can today have all that and that won't make you a noble because you won't have any of the privileges of a nobleman.
>How did they get there if the land they were in was Roman before the appearance of the Franks? They fell in, besieged the cities, fought the armies that were there and then the Romans had to settle for a compromise.
I already show it iterally never happened,and the Franks were just laeti but now you're basically faking history so I won't debate your fantasies.
> You can today have all that and that won't make you a noble because you won't have any of the privileges of a nobleman
Well, nobility is politically dead nowadays, but nice try.
> I already show it iterally never happened
So the Germanics attacking the Romans at the borders of the Empire are all fake. Source: trust me bro.
> First it false, and secondly it doesn't imply that all germanics are noblemen. The vast majority of germanics are commoners, that's a fact
Well, I don't want to make a no true Scotsman argument because the nations that were/are majority Germanic could not see the establishment of a noble class. The reason for this is that noble classes could only emerge were there was a majority population of inferiors of non-Germanic descendance. In the Germanic lands proper, establishing authority over another was impossible because he would pre-dispose over the same social and material faculties to not let that happen.
>Well, nobility is politically dead nowadays, but nice try.
That's the point.
>
So the Germanics attacking the Romans at the borders of the Empire are all fake. Source: trust me bro.
The germanic tribed often raided the empire to plunder, but as a matter of fact, the Franks never conquered the roman empire. They were beaten by Maximian, became laeti, and later foederati integrated in the roman army.
>Well, I don't want to make a no true Scotsman argument because the nations that were/are majority Germanic could not see the establishment of a noble class.
There are nobilities in Germany and Scandinavia and the vast majority of their inhabitants were commoners who hadn't the same right as the nobles. You're just ignorant at this point.
> plunder, but as a matter of fact, the Franks never conquered the roman empire
I never said that.
> integrated in the roman army
Who takes military losers into his army? Let's be serious here.
> inhabitants were commoners who hadn't the same right as the nobles
They are of non-Germanic descendance.
> You're just ignorant at this point
Explain how unequal relationships of noble and ignoble come to happen between peoples of the same tribe. It just doesn't happen. No one puts an own familiar into submission, and where it happens, among individuals, punishment is the consequence.
>Who takes military losers into his army? Let's be serious here.
Very common practice in the late roman army.
>They are of non-Germanic descendance.
Alright so what are we talking about there, actual primitive germanics or space nazis from hyperborea?
> Very common practice in the late roman army
To give other examples such as..?
> Alright so what are we talking about there, actual primitive germanics or space nazis from hyperborea?
The nobilities have always been said to speak in a different way than the lower classes considered vulgar. One might see here the consequences of being raised in different social conditions, I see nothing but the aftermaths of an older distinction based on ethnicity. The lower classes then, thus, descend from a people that spoke a different language that the one that was imposed by the upper ones.
And no, there's clear evidence of there being the precense of other, non-Germanic peoples in Scandinavia, chiefly the Finnish peoples.
Individualists as the Germanic people were, it's not hard to foresee the appearance of Finnish serfs among their populations, each one working his odel, the private property on land, if not not to work less and become able to fulfill more needs, simply not to be despised by their neighbours and relatives as dirty peasants. Now, this could be seen as an early social distinctions were the Germanics who owned serfs began to exercise some sort of oppression on the Germanics who did not take serfs. However, this social stratification is only of second order and the non-serf holding Germanics could fall to the condition of a burgeois at worst.
>To give other examples such as..?
Bruh the roman army at this point consisted of basically every ethnicity of the ancient world but Romans.
>The nobilities have always been said to speak in a different way than the lower classes considered vulgar. One might see here the consequences of being raised in different social conditions, I see nothing but the aftermaths of an older distinction based on ethnicity. The lower classes then, thus, descend from a people that spoke a different language that the one that was imposed by the upper ones.
And no, there's clear evidence of there being the precense of other, non-Germanic peoples in Scandinavia, chiefly the Finnish peoples.
Individualists as the Germanic people were, it's not hard to foresee the appearance of Finnish serfs among their populations, each one working his odel, the private property on land, if not not to work less and become able to fulfill more needs, simply not to be despised by their neighbours and relatives as dirty peasants. Now, this could be seen as an early social distinctions were the Germanics who owned serfs began to exercise some sort of oppression on the Germanics who did not take serfs. However, this social stratification is only of second order and the non-serf holding Germanics could fall to the condition of a burgeois at worst.
So what does that mean, that the near totally of Germanics are actually finnish slaves?
> Bruh the roman army at this point consisted of basically every ethnicity of the ancient world but Romans
Except Roman is not an ethnicity but just ownership of Roman citizenship? Wtf is your point here?
> So what does that mean, that the near totally of Germanics are actually finnish slaves?
Depends on the geographical location and other factors.
> you can't think of homogenous societies wherin people were unequal
Unequal where the political leadership is concentrated into the hands of one person? Yes. Unequal where one part of the population treats the other part of the population like shit and makes them do the most repulsive labours at the threat of brutal punishment, and their complete exclusion from participating in politics? No.
> he usually recommendation would be to read a book but your case might be hopeless
Care to give one example?
>Except Roman is not an ethnicity but just ownership of Roman citizenship? Wtf is your point here?
That the roman army was manned with people conquered by Rome for centuries, there was absolutely nothing new with integrating the vanquished Franks as laeti.
>Depends on the geographical location and other factors.
You told me that all non-noble germanics are actually finnish slaves, since 98% of germanics are commoners, that implies that 98% of germanics are actually finnish slaves.
> That the roman army was manned with people conquered by Rome for centuries, there was absolutely nothing new with integrating the vanquished Franks as laeti
Ok.
> You told me that all non-noble germanics are actually finnish slaves, since 98% of germanics are commoners, that implies that 98% of germanics are actually finnish slaves
Hmm, this sounds like made up bullshit. The Odel still exists as an institution in some Scandinavian countries, it's not like the private property on lans is divided into a small number of giant feuds like it is or was in other parts of mainland Europe. The private owners on land, although not necessarily Jarls, the nobles, can be considered as Karls, the freemen of old Germanic society.
But yeah, the Scandinavian nations can be looked at as corrupted and degenerated at the hands of the Finnish serfs who one day had to become the heirs and the new masters of a land and a language that is not theirs.
It only lasted in Iceland and that's ironic because Icelanders are descended like 30% from celtic slaves.
There was a privileged nobility instituted in Scandinavia, I look up the numbers for Sweden and only 2% of Swedes have nobility titles. Does that mean that 98% of Swedes are actually finnish slaves? Who the hell is even germanic then?
> Does that mean that 98% of Swedes are actually finnish slaves? Who the hell is even germanic then?
Sweden counts among the homeland of the Germanics. Where the population was 100% Germanic, 70% Germanic, 50% Germanic, nobility could not form.
> Iceland and that's ironic because Icelanders are descended like 30% from celtic slaves.
To be fair, we don't know the age of those Celtic admixtures. Could date after the take of Island, could date before the take of Iceland.
> A germanic institution using a Latin word for its name.
Yet the German word for it is Edel, a word closely related to Odel, but also Ydyll, Idyll.
> It's one of the characteristics of empire-building, incorporating defeated foes into your army. The Incas did it, for example.
Ok, but the Franks still took Gaule from the Romans. No matter wether they were defeated after the Romans sent new military supplies.
> they had more access to culture.
Why did they have more access to culture?
> Nobility in the ex-Roman Empire incorporated Roman aristocrats, Celts in Britain, slavs in Slavland
Ok.
> You need to provide more evidence
I gave you already the evidence that socially it does not happen. It can happen between individuals, but socially, never has one half of the population randomly said to it's other: I subjugate you, and the other giving in.
>Ok, but the Franks still took Gaule from the Romans. No matter wether they were defeated after the Romans sent new military supplies.
The Franks never attacked the Roman army, for the good reason they were part of the Roman army. What happened is the empired crumbled and they filled the void.
> The Franks never attacked the Roman army, for the good reason they were part of the Roman army
I mean before that. Gaul wasn't always inhabitated by the Franks.
Before that, as I already showed you, they were vanquished by Maximian, became laeti and were transferred to the west bank of the Rhine. There never was a frankish conquest of Rome.
No, not of Rome, of Gaul proper.
Rome = the empire of Rome, Gallia included.
> Although the Frankish name does not appear until the 3rd century, at least some of the original Frankish tribes had long been known to the Romans under their own names, both as allies providing soldiers, and as enemies. The Franks were first reported as working together to raid Roman territory
And then they were beaten by the Romans, and transfered to the west bank of the Rhine. They never conquered the roman empire.
I don't disagree, neither do I agree.
>Yet the German word for it is Edel, a word closely related to Odel, but also Ydyll, Idyll.
The structure is still closer to roman norms than anything Iron Age Germanics had. But fair point.
>Ok, but the Franks still took Gaule from the Romans
No, they didn't, they never occupied all of Gaul before the 700s-800s. Regardless, this doesn't really preclude them from losing. Losing and winning is not an absolute binary, if you lose once you can win later.
>Why did they have more access to culture?
Better economic and social position as well as leisure time. This doesn't really imply an ethnic origin or difference.
>I gave you already the evidence that socially it does not happen.
I am not the other guy.
>never has one half of the population randomly said to it's other: I subjugate you
It seems to escape you that this process could have occurred naturally over several generations of people consolidating power and wealth over others. Doesn't have to happen all in one day.
>
>The Proto-Saami language appears to have first evolved somewhere in the Lakeland of southern Finland and Karelia in the Early Iron Age. A broad body of evidence points to the conclusion that the Middle Iron Age (ca. 300–800 AD) in Lapland ha been a period of radical ethnic, social, and linguistic change: in this period the Proto-Saami language spread to the area from the south and Saami ethnicities formed.
Source is An essay on Saami ethnolinguistic prehistory by LSS Ánte
>We show that the genetic makeup of northern Europe was shaped by migrations from Siberia that began at least 3500 years ago. This Siberian ancestry was subsequently admixed into many modern populations in the region, particularly into populations speaking Uralic languages today.
Source is: Ancient Fennoscandian genomes reveal origin and spread of Siberian ancestry in Europe
Your philology from 1745 ain't shit compared to modern sources homosexual.
Finns inhabited the area below Finland and the Sapmi lived in the lakeland around the time of Tacitus.
Meanwhile, the Germans have lived in Scandinavia since before Mycenean Greece.
> naturally over several generations of people consolidating power and wealth over others. Doesn't have to happen all in one day
Yeah, of course there's differences of power within an ethnicity, but it never goes to such a degree that one group can oppress those who hadn't to shit. It just doesn't happen socially. Slavery has always been an inter-ethnic relationship.
> Finns inhabited the area below Finland and the Sapmi lived in the lakeland around the time of Tacitus.
Meanwhile, the Germans have lived in Scandinavia since before Mycenean Greece.
It was the other way around. There's no reason to believe there was no hunter-gatherers in Scandinavia before the arrival of the agricultural, cattle-herding Germanics. The antiquity of the word Finn, Gnome and Gen/Fen/Faunus/pygmee is indisputable, it exists from Spain to the eastern-most Slavs and the memory of the nains has remained the most present where the basis of the population has remained the most purely Celtic and Slav.
The Finns are also the ones behind Dolmen culture and this fact becomes even more interesting considering the fact that Dolmen culture stretches from Spain over Siberia just until the Missisippi, regions where the IE-languages mostly are historically non-existant.
It is by nothing but ignorance that the Whites are believed to have been the first inhabitants of Europe.
Genetics is severely flawed btw, it's like calculating with variables and pretending that there's actual meaning behind the arbitrary letters themselves.
most swedes have paternal descent from the indigenous hunter gatherers, so they probably cucked the germanic-speaking immigrants a bit.
>but it never goes to such a degree that one group can oppress those who hadn't to shit.
Yes, it does, just look at Africa. Also, I suspect your reasoning might be circular.
>Slavery has always been an inter-ethnic relationship.
Serfdom isn't slavery and intra-ethnic slavery exists.
>There's no reason to believe there was no hunter-gatherers in Scandinavia before the arrival of the agricultural, cattle-herding Germanics.
Those hunter-gatherers weren't Finnish They didn't speak Finnish, they had nothing in common with finns. We are talking about different people.
>The Finns are also the ones behind Dolmen culture and this fact becomes even more interesting considering the fact that Dolmen culture stretches from Spain over Siberia just until the Missisippi, regions where the IE-languages mostly are historically non-existent.
Why do you presuppose a rather simple structure (dolmens) implies a single culture building them all?
>Genetics is severely flawed btw, it's like calculating with variables and pretending that there's actual meaning behind the arbitrary letters themselves.
Fair point, you have your language games, I have my genetic chickenbone oracles.
>Unequal where one part of the population treats the other part of the population like shit and makes them do the most repulsive labours at the threat of brutal punishment, and their complete exclusion from participating in politics? No.
moron, who do you think filled the lowly occupations in homogenous societies?
i live just a few km from the puported proto-germanic homeland and my ancestors have been peasants since time immemorial.
> moron, who do you think filled the lowly occupations in homogenous societies
What filled the lowly occupations in the Wild West of the 19th Century? There were none. These societies btw. perfectly resemble the Germanic society of old. Everyone being equal, no one can impose a permanent authority over another, and no one works for someone else except for humongous recompenses. Infights and shootings between individuals a daily occurrence, and the inhabitants of the place concerned with nothing but the next quarrel with another and the next conquest of land to be enterprised.
>thinking medieval nobility were cow herders shooting each other in the saloon
American nordicism is an error
>What filled the lowly occupations in the Wild West of the 19th Century? There were none.
yeah, because america was egalitarian, so what would have been a lowly occupations in europe didn't carry the same stigma there. in europe things like leather working, grave digging, acting was reserved for the scum.
All work actually, nobles were expected not to work and if they needed to, that meant they losed their titles.
true, the american ideal of the yeoman farmer for example probably wouldn't have seemed very respectable to a european noble.
> yeah, because america was egalitarian
Doubt, more like telling someone to mop your floor in the Wild West would most likely get you shot. It's not like the developped cities indeed had lowly occupations, there was enough supply for that there. The settlers of the Wild West, mostly Alabamians and Kentucky of old stock.
ok so who made the boots, dug the graves, cleaned the floors?
Everyone himself. Or imported by train. Or someone sold them expensively.
>Everyone himself.
yeah because they were basically refuse by european standards.
The point is that no one wanted to work for someone else because the society as a mass was more or less ethnically homogenous.
no brainlet, their only motivation was the unclaimed land in the west. a european noble or a member of the high bourgeoisie wouldn't be willing to live in shit and fight indians just to be rewarded with a family farm.
Yeah, the Wild West was in the 19th Century, not during the colonial era. Those of the Wild West as a miniature of the first Scandinavian Germanics, the plantocracy the first Germanic aristocracies.
proto-germanic jastorf culture was already quite stratified & complex, that's why there are proto-germanic terms for king, realm etc. (although many of these are borrowed from celtic).
>Explain how unequal relationships of noble and ignoble come to happen between peoples of the same tribe. It just doesn't happen.
actual 85IQ right here.
> no argument detected
> ad hominems
you can't think of homogenous societies wherin people were unequal? the usually recommendation would be to read a book but your case might be hopeless.
>It's just the reality. Nobility is a Germanic institution, like it or not.
I already show you it's not and anyway, the vast majority of germanics don't have noble titles.
> the vast majority of germanics don't have noble titles
All nations of Europe, including Russia, besides a few exceptions in the Balkans that did not fall under the Germanic range of influence, had hereditary nobilities. They were all of Germanic descendance.
First it false, and secondly it doesn't imply that all germanics are noblemen. The vast majority of germanics are commoners, that's a fact.
poland, czechia, hungary also had native nobilities.
and the eastern germanics themselves had a hunnic elite.
> poland, czechia, hungary also had native nobilities
They did, but it wasn't long for them to become Germanized through intermarriage. That or they had been Germanic all along, like in Russia. The Rus are literally a Germanic tribe that descends from the inhabitants of Eastern Sweden, there's still places there named after them that are older than Russia.
> eastern germanics themselves had a hunnic elite
Dead like an Avarian, without children and without heirs.
> Nobility is a Germanic institution, like it or not.
A germanic institution using a Latin word for its name. Latin words for basically all titles below king and a structure slightly more reminiscent of Rome (while still being different) than anything you'd see in Beowulf.
>Who takes military losers into his army?
Basically everyone.
It's one of the characteristics of empire-building, incorporating defeated foes into your army. The Incas did it, for example.
>They are of non-Germanic descendance.
>The commoners of Germany and Scandinavia are not actually germanic
We will ignore this.
Nobility in the ex-Roman Empire incorporated Roman aristocrats, Celts in Britain, slavs in Slavland, and even in the places they conquered. The medieval nobility was rather diverse. Prussian nobles were often of bohemian origin (deep in history) for example.
>The nobilities have always been said to speak in a different way than the lower classes considered vulgar.
Almost every higher class in every civilization ever spoke in a more refined way than the commoners, they had more access to culture.
> I see nothing but the aftermaths of an older distinction based on ethnicity.
You need to provide more evidence.
>And no, there's clear evidence of there being the precense of other, non-Germanic peoples in Scandinavia, chiefly the Finnish peoples.
Did you just accidentally fall in from 1850? The Finno-Ugrics in Scandinavia are a very new development that post-dates the first Germanic speakers in Scandinavia by a long time.
To answer your diatribe about the ancient Germanics and their serfs. Serf is a Latin word obtained from a French source.
> Finno-Ugrics in Scandinavia are a very new development that post-dates the first Germanic speakers in Scandinavia by a long time
"[...] of the wandering Finns hiding in the rocks and the caverns.
Perhaps it is more difficult to fully analyze the word fad. One must believe that, mutilated as is pit-goma, by the need to make a root of it, it lost the part that the gnome had preserved, and rejected the part that the latter word had retained. In this hypothesis, fad would be nothing but pit, by virtue of mutations which were all the more permissible since the vowel, being long in the Sanskrit form, was fully prepared to receive a wider pronunciation at the will of another dialect.
With the word gen or gan or khorr, the same transformation modification occurs as in gnome. The primitive sense is simply the offspring, race, men, gender. It may also be that the question is not as easy to resolve, and that instead of mutilation, it is a contraction, which is now hardly visible, yet which is conceivable. The affinity of the sounds p, f, w, g, ou, d allows us to understand the following progression:
pit-gen,
fit-gen,
fi-gen,
fi-ouen,
gaen,
finn and fen
This last word has nothing mythological, it is the only ancient name of the true and natural Finns, and Tacitus testifies to this, not only by the use he makes of it, but also by the physical and moral description he gives of the people who wear it. His words are worthy of being quoted: "Among the Finns," he says, "surprising savagery, hideous misery; no weapons, no horses, no houses." For food, grass; for clothing, hides; for bed, the sun. The only resource is the arrows that, for lack of iron, they arm with bones. And hunting also pays off men and women. They don't quit, and each takes his share of the spoils. For children, there is no other refuge from beasts and rains other than the branches. Here go the young, here retire the old."
i think the populations gaul and other regions of the western empire were pretty decimated so it probably wasn't just the nobility that was germanic.
>The nobility had been around for at least five generations before the fall of the Carolingian empire. To be noble until the 13th Century one had to have proof of descendance from 16 noble grand-grand parents.
Not at all, Charlemagne granted land to those who served him but he could retake them as well. Nobles hadn't privatized states attributes yet. The carolingian empire was the same as the late roman empire.
And the four quarters of nobility as a practice appeared during the XVth century, because of how many fake nobles there were around.
>No, the Thing only exists in the homelands of the Germanics (Scandinavia, Iceland, etc.), while the rest of Europe was conquered by military leaders elected in the general assembly, who would, in successful military campaigns, become the hereditary King. The rest of the participating warriors received a Feud in recompense for their military merits. Thus, King and feudal lords directly or indirectly descend from conquering Germanics, while the conquered, servile population was mostly non-Germanic.
Germanics never conquered the roman army, they became the roman army. That's especially true of the Franks who were foederati settled west of the Rhine by Rome. When Charlemagne was crowned emperor, the elective system of warchiefs was long dead among them, as were frankish customs.
> Not at all, Charlemagne granted land to those who served him but he could retake them as well. Nobles hadn't privatized states attributes yet. The carolingian empire was the same as the late roman empire
Ok.
> because of how many fake nobles there were around
Define 'fake noble'
> Germanics never conquered the roman army
They conquered the populations formerly associated with the Roman empire. It was a gradual process.
> That's especially true of the Franks who were foederati settled west of the Rhine by Rome
More like the population that inhabitated the Western Rhine, formerly Galls, fell under the Roman Empire and then was taken by Franks who fell in, taking Northern France from Rome, and then the Romans trying to settle a compromise with the new leaders of Gaule.
>Define 'fake noble'
Person pretending he has a title of nobility he has not.
>They conquered the populations formerly associated with the Roman empire. It was a gradual process.
Again, they never conquered the roman empire, they became the main military force of Rome and when the imperial title was devoided of any reality they established various states on the empire.
>More like the population that inhabitated the Western Rhine, formerly Galls, fell under the Roman Empire and then was taken by Franks who fell in, taking Northern France from Rome, and then the Romans trying to settle a compromise with the new leaders of Gaule.
It didn't happened that way. Genobaud, the leader of the Franks was beaten by Maximian Hercules and submitted to him, in exchange he received land west of the Rhine. That's how the Franks became foederati.
Nobility is precisely not being elected as the chief of a militia and dismissed afterwards, nobility is about the hereditary privilege to command.
>Source they were not nobility descended?
Just look at the names of the founding fathers.
What do you mean by aestheticization of nobility?
>it was fundamentally a military caste privatizing violence
Yes, and?
I mean being noble wasn't about sovl or having good manners as some tradlords fancy today, it was a hereditary caste. You can't meme yourself into a noble because you want to, especially since it disappeared.
Kek they really believe this? First of all that's fricking gay, second of all it was just the late decadent """aristo"""cracy of france
It should, if you had any idea what europe's centralized power structure and 90% of people are like
>Kek they really believe this? First of all that's fricking gay, second of all it was just the late decadent """aristo"""cracy of france
I also include Nietzsche and Evola and BAPists with them. Basically anybody spiritualizing aristocracy and thinking there's more to it than a military caste miss the point.
> Planters were just landowners in a republic where slavery was legal.
Where did the money for the investments come from? Admit it, they descended from upper burgeois/nobility families from Europe.
Well except political and religious refugees of the english civil war, most american colonists went there precisely because they hadn't much capital in England. They built their own wealth.
why would european nobles go to america brainlet?
Some did though.
maybe, but i cant think of many prominent american families that were of noble descent.
When a nobleman had, say, 13 healthy children in adulthood, a few would inherit the land they had in Europe while the others had to gain lands somewhere else or expected to get some honorable job like military officer or professor. Going to the Americas as a nobleman gave you social credit by default and made it easier to get things like loans for the construction of some cotton factory somewhere in the swamps, especially in the pre-independization eras.
ok nice theory but if you read about the family histories of for instance the early virginia 'gentry' you'll find that not many of them were of noble descent.
Of course they were, there's no reason to deny that they were not. Buying slaves and pumping money into the construction of some planting lot needed money.
ok moron, so they just gave up their titles and changed their surnames?
Oh okay good to know I’m aristocratic by Germanic descent and surname despite being 3/4 Slav, israelite, and Gypsy
A real Russian.
>What are some good books about Radical Aristocracy?
ITT: morons.
Mass literacy allows stupid plebeians to debate what it means to be a real aristocrat and drag down superior authors down to the level of the mob. Embarrassing.
Charlemagne was illiterate.
Unfortunately for you, however, you are not Charlemagne.
Point is that literacy is a bourgeois value. Being noble wasn't about being literate.
You do realise that Charlemagne was a major proponent of literacy and scholarship, correct? And that he was trying to learn reading and writing all his life - the former successfully? What you say is absurd. And if we can acknowledge Charlemagne as a great man, that is because he is Charlemagne, not because he is illiterate.
Now literacy in itself is not the sole indicator of intelligence or wisdom, but in the modern world there is no excuse for being a book dumb.
Being part of a military caste has nothing to do with intelligence and wisdom. Aristocratic education, even until the XVIIIth century, was pretty unintellectual and centered on skills pertaining to war, especially horsemanship.
If you had a smidgen of historical education you wouldn't say such absurdly stupid things. Do you reckon the education of a medieval Mongol aristocrat and that of a medieval Chinese aristocrat would be the same? Or that of a Roman like Cato the Younger would be identical to that of an early modern Brandenburgian robber baron?