One of the best ways to improve your own life is to study the lives of the great men of the past. By emulating their virtues, we can accomplish mighty works. But an equally profitable study is to examine the lives of great, or nearly great, men who failed so that we can avoid making the same mistakes.
Mitt Romney
By looking at his resume, any unbiased person would conclude that Mitt Romney had what it takes to succeed. He was born to a wealthy, powerful family. His father was an automobile exec and later became governor of Michigan at a time when that state was still a manufacturing powerhouse. Romney attended Harvard where he received a joint J.D./M.B.A. His resume also includes starting a highly profitable investing firm and serving as governor of Massachusetts. But to me, his most impressive achievement was assuming leadership of a failing Salt Lake City Olympics and turning it into a success.
Not only was Romney a success at politics and business, but he is also a man of deep faith and strong morals. He is still married to his high school sweetheart, and he is a longtime leader in his Mormon faith. Fit, handsome, smart, and highly trained, Romney’s background should have prepared him to become a new type of American nobility. Yet Romney blew it all because of weakness.
When Romney was running against President Obama in 2012, it looked like Romney would be the easy winner. The US economy was doing poorly, having experienced the slowest recovery of any recession. Race relations were degenerating thanks to the Obama’s administration’s policy of fanning the flame of every racial incident. And the world was a mess due to Obama’s inability to understand any problem that doesn’t involve white on black racism.
Romney got off to a good start. In the first debate he showed that he was sharper and had a better grasp of facts and policy than Obama. The debate was a clear win for Romney and he saw his poll numbers rise because of it. Obama worshipping liberals were on the verge of suicide having seen their idol humiliated. Romney only had to repeat his performance in the next two debates and he would have sealed the deal.
But Romney let weakness get in the way. For some reason he decided to hang back in the next two debates and let Obama pound him. Obama’s attacks went unanswered and Romney lobbed few of his own. The media joyfully declared Obama the winner of the last two debates and Obama went on to win the election by a large margin.
Romney also exhibited weakness in the run-up to the 2016 election. Romney reportedly wanted to run but he learned that Jeb Bush has already gained the support of most of the large donors. Rather than try to run an unconventional campaign that appealed directly to Republican voters, he tucked his tail between his legs and yielded to Jeb who was later destroyed by Donald Trump. Romney continued his losing streak by his last ditch effort to stop the Trump nomination by a long speech arguing that Trump was immoral.
Romney’s weakness stems from his over reliance on “experts” and a lack of boldness. It was experts who advised Romney to soften his tone in the debates as that would have stoked sympathy for Obama. It was experts that told Romney that it was impossible to win an election without the backing of big donors. To avoid Romney’s weaknesses, consult experts but trust your gut. Bold action often wins even when the odds are against you.
Mark Antony
The weakness of Mitt Romney kept him from achieving true greatness. Our next example achieved greatness, but then let weakness destroy him. Mark Antony was a Roman politician and general. He didn’t have the best childhood. He came from a plebian family and Plutarch tells us that his father was incompetent. Antony’s youth was spent drinking, gambling, and chasing girls. He accrued such an enormous debt that he had to flee Rome to escape his creditors. Luckily for him, he made the wise decision to move to Athens to study philosophy and rhetoric—a skill that would later serve him well in politics.
After a year of study, Antony enrolled in the military under Aulus Gabinius, the Proconsul of Syria. As part of this service, Antony participated in a campaign in Egypt where he met the 14-year-old daughter of King Ptolemy XII—Cleopatra. The princess must have been something special because Antony was instantly smitten and remained so for the rest of his life.
Antony’s excellent service eventually got him a position with Julius Caesar, with whom he formed a life-long friendship. Antony benefited from Caesar’s goodwill. Caesar appointed him to the College of Augurs, a religious position that granted Antony prominence in Rome. This led to Antony to the office of Tribune in the Senate.
After Caesar was assassinated, Antony made an alliance with Octavian, Caesar’s adopted son, and Lepidus, another Caesar ally to form a triumvirate—a dictatorship by three men that was supposed to last for five years. The three men divided the Empire between them with Antony receiving the largest share. As part of this division, Antony received Rome’s eastern vassal states, including Egypt.
At the time, Egypt was being ruled by Cleopatra. Antony summoned her, ostensibly to cement Rome’s alliance with Egypt and to proclaim Caesarion, Julius Caesar’s son by Cleopatra, to be king of Egypt. Of course, Cleopatra used the meeting to seduce Antony who fell completely in her thrall.
Cleopatra and Antony started a torrid love affair. Cleopatra was a brilliant strategist and she used Antony to eliminate her political enemies. Unfortunately, because Antony was away from Rome, it allowed Octavian to stir up the Roman public against Antony. The Romans began to think that Antony had more loyalty to a foreign power than he did to Rome.
Cleopatra wasn’t an Egyptian. She was a Greek, like this girl.
Antony was so bewitched by Cleopatra’s charms that he made a critical error: He declared her son Caesarion to not only be king of Egypt but also Caesar’s rightful heir. This was a direct attack on Octavian’s claim to authority. Octavian used it as pretext to attack Antony and Cleopatra.
At one point during the battle, Antony came to believe that Cleopatra had been killed by Roman forces. In true omega male fashion, Antony committed suicide by stabbing himself. As he lay dying, he found out that Cleopatra was alive after all.
Unlike the biblical King David who allowed lust to drive him to make bad decisions, Antony’s weakness was that he let the woman he loved dominate him completely even to the point where he did stupid things that destroyed both of them.
Cicero
The final example is another great man who was ultimately undone by his weakness. Marcus Tullius Cicero was a Roman lawyer, philosopher, orator, and statesman who was a contemporary of Mark Antony. It would not be an exaggeration to say that Cicero’s excellent prose indirectly influences writers to the present day. But the biggest gem for modern men is his practical philosophy. I’ve been reading Quintus Curtius’ masterful translation of Cicero’s On Duties, and I can attest to its usefulness in daily life.
Cicero lived at a time of great change in Roman politics. The old Republic was governed by two consuls who were elected by the citizens and advised by the Senate, which was appointed. But the Republic was dying. While there were many factors for its decline a significant reason was that voters had figured out how to get free stuff from the political system—in the case of the Republic it involved taking away land from the aristocrats and distributing it to the plebs. This led to chaos within the Republic.
The only hope for an effective government to restore order was a dictatorship. Julius Caesar was one of the first of these dictators. After his assassination, this role was assumed by the triumvirate of Antony, Octavian, and Lepidus. One of Cicero’s weaknesses was that he was unable to discern that times had changed. He was still attached to the old Republic and its unwritten constitution. In a way, Cicero was like the “true conservatives” of today who stubbornly hold erroneous ideas that undermine there own opportunity to assume power.
Cicero had an aversion to the dictatorship because he saw it as the demise of his beloved Republic. He opposed Julius and he later opposed the triumvirate, especially Antony. He set off to write and speak in the Senate against Antony. During the course of a year he delivered 14 speeches, entitled the Philippics, condemning Antony.
Here we see another weakness of Cicero: He didn’t know when to quit. There is a time and a place for criticism and there is a time for keeping one’s mouth shut. Cicero’s tirades earned Antony’s ire, and Antony got the triumvirs to issue the death penalty for Cicero. Antony was so incensed by Cicero’s opposition that he had the statesmen’s head and hands (because he had used them to pen the Philippics) nailed to a door in Rome. There is a story that Cicero’s widow drove a nail in the dead man’s tongue to express her sadness at how much trouble his speeches had caused her.
Thus, even wise men such as Cicero must be on guard from being overly passionate and from being overly attached to outdated ways.
Conclusion
If there is one lesson we can learn from the lives of all three of these men it is that we cannot be too attached to anything whether that is a woman, the advice of experts, or a particular political institution.
Sounds like a call to embrace the expediency and efficiency of fascism, a call to shut the fuck up once Hillary Clinton becomes dear leader. It even uses progressive terms like outdated ways. Silly ideas of individual liberty and the like. Embrace the national collective instead.
A Republic, while allowing the maximum potential for growth for a time at least, is endemic to corruption and therefore impossible to guard against entropy.
USA would’ve been going strong still if the Constitution had been protected against Progressive revisionism and/or if the states would stop being “gammas” to the feds’ alpha.
If only POTUS McKinley hadn’t been whacked…
Democracy ends when the voters realize that they can vote in their personal interest. Masquerading as progress, voters slowly and steadily increase their power from generation to generation, striking down any laws that might inhibit them.
We’re not supposed to have a democracy.
Seems to me that the USA didn’t go into decline because its democracy ended but because its republic was devolved into democracy, starting with the aftermath of the Civil War but really kicking into high gear in the 20th Century
The Republic suffers from the same flaws though. Replace voters with lawmakers, and you get the same issue.
Our biggest problem is that the people in charge can do whatever they want, get rich in the meantime, then die long before the consequences from their actions are felt.
The original US gov’t under the Constitution was supposed to stop that and it, until populist progressive reform started, did.
When having a stake in affairs is required to participate in politics, when “political careers” were an impossibility and when politicians actually bore responsibility, politics wasn’t “venality” defined.
The problem is that those reforms are inevitable. Human nature. It’s the very corruption that makes Democracy/The Republic unsustainable for more than a short span of time.
The Constitution was the first step in the shell game used to run a snow-job on Americans.
IMO the first step was all the Amendments between the 12th and the 27th-no good has come from any of them-the Constitution itself was a solid, earnest idea.
It was an idea that was for sure. But there were better ones.
If there are, besides the Constitution of the CSA, which covered some of the chinks in the armor of the original that leftists of the day were exploiting, none come to mind.
There was no alternative to a abysmal failure like the Constitution? How about instead of a liberal limited government, just no government at all. No need for a constitution then.
The state of no government cannot exist.
But… that was the state of humanity for about 97% of its history…
No government only existed for a miniscule fraction of human history, if it ever did.
Anarchy cannot exist.
But… anarchy does exist. You have the state of anarchy between nations for example. And many parts of the world are effectively anarchic.
You think that 97% of human history is miniscule? Hmm.
You’re grasping at straws here. Why?
Nope, anarchy doesn’t exist. It never really has and never will. It simply cannot.
Even if two nations existed within a vacuum, the stronger nation dominates the weak. Thus no anarchy.
Straws?! LOL! I just told you that we have lived in a state of anarchy for the vast majority of human history! That’s a pretty fucking big straw. But I see from your sentence on nations that you don’t actually know what anarchy is.
We have not lived in anarchy for the vast majority of human history, that’s a risible assertion.
Even if your supposition that a relationship between two nations can be an example of anarchy-which it is not-for that situation to exist there would have to be 2 nations, invalidating it.
To have 2 nations requires two governments, and that means there’s no anarchy there. If anarchy could only exist by having two governments, then it doesn’t exist.
Tell me about all of the governments that were around 10,000 years ago. Human beings have existed for about 200, 000 years.
You don’t understand what anarchy is. Anarchy is the absence of government. There is no overarching government governing the relations between two nations. Ergo, they exist in a state of anarchy relative to each other.
And this is besides the people living today in stateless societies.
I’m humoring you here since I am confident that you are not really this stupid. Clearly you have an agenda.
And the same goes for Dictatorship. In fact, Fascism or it’s more inclusive name, Socialism, is the endgame of a Republic.
Fascism isn’t particularly efficient or expedient though. As its inventor stated, it’s rather synonymous with “Corporatism” and we pretty much have that today in the USA and “gridlocked” and “venal” pretty much sum up the current US gov’t.
It isn’t, I was simply deploying the language used to sell it to make my point. The quote from Mussolini is actually at best a creative interpretation of something he wrote. Not that it isn’t fitting, but he never said or wrote it.
Apocryphal quotes are too often the best quotes.
Lenin’s “useful idiots”, Stalin’s thoughts on voters, Oscar Wilde’s quip about wallpaper.
It depends on who is running the show.
Corporatism = inefficiency.
A state run by cartels and, eventually, monopolies via corruption will stagnate.
There is a strong element of Socialism and Liberalism running through some of the articles here on RoK. Well done on pointing this out. The weeds of Socialism must be pulled out wherever we find them.
Amen
The part regarding Cicero indeed looks almost like a veiled threat as to what may happen if someone dares to oppose the establishment:
“One of Cicero’s weaknesses was that he was unable to discern that times had changed.”
“Here we see another weakness of Cicero: He didn’t know when to quit. There is a time and a place for criticism and there is a time for keeping one’s mouth shut.”
A Republic only works with an educated populace. We are at the tipping point with that
Republics have never worked anywhere. They always turn into corrupt dictatorships.
I have always admired Cato the Elder who died for his ideals and the Republic he loved rather than live in the darkness in which Caesar wrought. He didn’t quit until the day he died.
Darkness?
Julius and Octavian ushered in the longest period of world peace and prosperity in recorded history!!
With or without them Peace was coming as by the time they came to power Rome had wiped out nearly all of her enemies with Caesar crushing Gaul and decimating the Germans and Augustus putting an end to the Ptolemies but the price to liberty was too high. Still in many ways it is the Peace of Rome that ultimately killed Rome for under the Peace of Rome Roman turned upon Roman stealing from each other conspiring against each other while wasting their lives away in idleness as they no longer needed each other to keep each other safe until they became so weak that the Barbarians came in upon them with ease.
There were always conspiracies in Rome. Rome fell for many reasons. It is not as simple as you describe it
Actually it is for as Rome no longer had any enemies to threaten them Romans turned upon Romans and those intrigues that lead to the ruin of the Republic were nothing compared to those of the Imperial times not to mention the decline of public morals that the peace allowed, that plus the large class of Idle Poor who lived off the largess of the state are what ultimately brought Rome down. One need only look outside at the world today to see the same factors in play wreaking havoc in our own world like a cancer to understand what brought down Rome.
The Roman Civil War wasn’t an intrigue… The society crumbled because aristocratic positions could now be purchased. The original Roman virtues disappeared along with any real sense of societal order beyond money. The largess of the state you speak of is directly coming from these novus homo leaders. It is a corrupted patronage system and not the state.
Perhaps… better minds than ours have wrestled with this for centuries.
I tend to the view that the late republic was *so* corrupt it was ripe for civil wars and tearing itself apart (yes, I know that was the Caesarian parties view). It needed the strong patriarchal system the Emperors brought to sustain it. And yes there were some nut-jobs, but there were also rulers of genius like Octavian himself, and Marcus Aurelius.
Downfall of Rome? It’s arguable Christianity has quite some role in that apart from the factors you mention…
I disagree with you on that as most of the Roman emperors were mediocre especially after Commodus. Augustus was a great emperor probably the best but after him we have Tiberius who was a debauched fiend and Caligula who was nuts thanks to Tiberius. After them we get Claudius who was good but after him we get Nero and the Civil war after that we get Vespasian and his son Titus who were good but after that we get vile Domitian then we get the Five Good Emperors but even though the Adoptive system worked Rome’s establishment then went back to Heredity and there they went down until the first Christian Emperor Constantine but by that time well I pretty much pointed to the Rot that set in thanks to lack of exorcising the mental political body and the abandonment of Virtue. Christianity had nothing to do with the fall of the Roman Empire, they kept the Eastern Half of it alive as the Byzantines until the Turks conquered them.
I said it was the *system* the emperors brought (i.e. the political balance brought in by Octavian/Augustus), though I will happily concede your point about mediocre (and worse!) emperors.
I find it a bit of a stretch that Christianity had *nothing* to do with the fall, so I’m going to disagree with you there…
And massive, unchecked immigration.
” As part of this service, Antony participated in a campaign in Egypt
where he met the 14-year-old daughter of King Ptolemy XII—Cleopatra. The
princess must have been something special because Antony was instantly
smitten”
Sure, she had something real special…tight, young, you know what…
“Cleopatra was a brilliant strategist”.. I have a less charitable interpretation. She was “brilliant” in that she was well aware of her paralleled SMV.. young, fertile, beautiful, and heir to a throne. Plus, her innate privilege of being born into the highest family brought her into contact with the most powerful men of her world. With all these advantages, a girl would have to be one chromosome too many to *not* reach the exalted position that Cleopatra did. OTOH a middle-aged man would have to either queer or dead not to gobble that sweet cherry, especially if it meant a precious male heir in the mix.
It’s ironic that feminists/women today laud Cleopatra as some kind of “amazing woman” who “made it in a man’s world”.. when:
a. She used only what Ra gave her, i.e. pussy, womb, and feminine wiles (with a healthy dose of male shaming and nagging). And she used those tools exactly as a “patriarchal” society would expect her to.
b. As queen, she really did fuck-all for the betterment of her people; indeed, she only brought ruination in the form of war with Rome.
c. She was born into privilege and entitlement.. something which resonates with feminist women today.
d. She murdered her own male sibling to secure the throne.. something which also resonates with feminists I’m sure.
Since she’s Greek, did Ra give her anything?
Wasn’t Cleopatra supposed to be fugly and her attractiveness based solely upon her status, ie: the Chelsea Clinton of her day? Or was that just a historical revision to make the Romans look better?
One can never tell with Royalty. Vocal and literary records have them all as the most beautiful people ever, and paintings are dramatically embellished.
In Cleopatra’s case though, historical accounts and artifacts “by the bushel” depict her as being unattractive physically.
I’m seeing a range that goes from “Chelsea Clinton” to “Mrs. Rand Paul”, to compare to modern political figures.
The bust of her depicted on her Wikipedia page kinda looks like a male.
This is the closest I can find to a reconstruction. I can see why the Romans might find her appealing, even if we wouldn’t. Very Greek features.
…I haven’t seen a schnoz like that since I had the misfortune of seeing Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo.
If that’s indeed Cleopatra then I’m getting some semblance of perhaps why Milo Yiannopoulos would serve as a representative sample of the Greek people for any point over the last thousand+ years.
She might have had a cracking body and probably did anal. Romans would have liked that….
Romans aren’t the only ones.
she looks Fucking gross
Yeah I’ve heard that revisionist version as well, probably from a feminist historian.. woops I mean “herstorian”.
Extant portraits and statues depict her as very plain….
She wielded incredible power however… a point not lost on either Julius, Antony, *or* Octavian!
And… she was Macedonian…
Exactly. According to ancient sources, she was not that attractive but she knew how to insinuate herself.
Only James Bond can get away with letting his dick call the shots.
Lets not forget Adam, the man who walked with God, allowed a woman to trick him into kicking humanity out of paradise.
No more kratom for Adam.
That’s what becomes of letting a chick partake of the holy fruit of the Kratom tree.
He should have denied her his precious bodily fluids.
Eating from the tree of Kratom is a nono
I basically earn about $6.000-$8.000 on monthly basis doing an online job. For those of you who are ready to do easy computer-based jobs for 2-5 hours a day from your living room and earn valuable paycheck while doing it… This is a job for you… http://self49.com
xvx45gds
Supposedly that is actually an older story simply referring to the fact that hunter gatherers once they go to farming never go back(and life as a hunter garherer is more enjoyable)
That’s right, they never go back. They go forward and look what a success we have made of ourselves. We have made farming easy and now we can procure all the food we need with a mere tap on a smartphone.
“Supposedly”, that is, by anthropologists (read: pseudo-scientists) several thousand years removed from the stories they speak on behalf of, influenced by 18th century modernism that decidedly takes anything religious — especially Christian — with a grain of salt, because any knowledge older than a few hundred years is complete and utter myth. Apparently, we should know better.
Then I realised we have scientists being dead serious about multiverses. And then I thought two first parents in a heavenly garden wasn’t such a farfetched idea, all things considered.
The religious stories have the same problem. Trying to figure out what was true long ago will always be problematic.
Would it be fair to assume that if God does exist that He would have enough interest in humanity to take personal interest in making sure that what got written thousands of years ago would be handed down to us today without any signifcant corruption?
Yes it would. Would it be fair to assume because these writings and interpretations have changed drastically (for example the misinterpretation of the ‘virgin mary’) that there is no god?
Yes it would. Now do you have strong evidence that the scriptures have change any more or less than copies of other ancient manuscripts? And also to what level of change of the scriptural manuscripts have to change before you would conclude that there is no God?
He willingly went along even though he knew it was wrong.
Shoulda stuck with Lilith. She was at least upfront about what she wanted.
“Love is the Law, Love under Will”
Lilith was the first feminist. She refused to submit to him.
No rabbi I consulted could produce a single source for Lilith playing professional victim and whining to Jehovah about trigger-free safe spaces He owed her after she bailed on Adam, nor did she apparently attempt to cry-bully the heavenly host into financially supporting her demon brood, so I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say Lilith was no feminist.
She didn’t trick him. God told Adam knew about the forbidden tree even before Eve was made. When she went full dumbass, he was present and not only didn’t stop her, but ate what she handed him. If anything I think this is an example of how women NEED strong righteous men to curb the urge to act selfish and childish, and Adam failed. The fact he caved without so much as a word otherwise despite Gods commandment doesn’t rank Adam as a “powerful man” like the article states, imo. We can say its her fault for offering, but did you expect her to be more logical than Adam? We could just as easily say he was at fault for not slapping the fruit right out of her mouth and snapping the snakes neck like a bullwhip.
True say, i guess tempt was the word i was looking for. God did encourage men to be the authority figure in relationships, so Adam should have laid the smackdown on her.
Whether you believe it or think Adam and Eve are a myth, isn’t the parallel with the nature of modern women amazing?
It is because I don’t believe it ever changed. I think thats the reason the serpent approached Eve first. She ruined it by putting herself above God, and Adam put more trust in her than Him. Never understood the thought process behind those two, even more baffled by examples like David. So many devout men let themselves be ruined by pagan whores and wives, it always ends in despair or occasionally, being thrown off a tower and eaten by dogs. Scary ass words of warning.
David was an outright scoundrel. I never understood why he was so favored by the Almighty. If there is redemption for him, truly there is redemption for the rest of us.
The serpent as Satan’s mouthpiece was able to appeal to the hypergamous nature of the woman by offering her higher status “You will be like God…” For the manospherian of today there is the first of many red pill moments in the bible.
Read the psalm he wrote right after that incident. You will see true repentance right there. The utmost scoundrel who truly repents will be forgiven. That’s why there’s hope for us all.
Remember when Satan tempted Eve with an apple? That STUPID BITCH!
If he had been using his own judgment, he would have eaten the snake instead of the apple.
Romney was only weak in the general election. In the 012 primary he ruthlessly savaged his GOP competition.
But I disagree that he didn’t succeed as he was never “in it to win it” in 2012. The Mitt documentary makes no bones about his lack of desire to become President
As does his current position as the de facto leader of #neverTrump; he’s showing much the same strength that he used to subjugate NAFTA Newt in 2012 against Trump in 2016, strength that he completely suppressed in the 2012 general.
Mitt wasn’t weak or a failure, he set out to take a dive and be the “spoiler candidate” and he succeeded admirably at that 🙁
Romney was complacent. I believe he was so caught up in himself after the first debate that he took it for granted that he had already won. His retreat made McClellan look like an aggressor.
Yet his attack on NAFTA Newt (et al) in 2012 look like the aftermath of Sherman’s march to the sea and his attacks on Trump in 2016 are have the same ferocity.
I wouldn’t call what Romney was in the 2012 general complacency, it was fecklessness. Feigned fecklessness. Similar to his father’s.
Romney could be summed up by the “I coulda been a contender” speech from On the Waterfront.
Wouldn’t that come full circle though, and mean he was weak after all?
Except in 2008 it seems that Romney has always gotten what he wanted.
Unlike, say, Jebra, he can willfully toggle his fecklessness.
Dunno if Romney can be weak by any definition though as he had the strength to personally knife 60,933,500 people in the back in 2012…
To what purpose? There had to be one.
To get 0bama reelected.
The GOP in power get to continue their token efforts to stymie him, in order to get reelected by their (duped) base, while the goals of their donors-which are 0bama’s goals-are furthered.
If Romney had won, what excuse would the GOP have for not repealing 0bamacare or for letting 0bamatrade through?
Countries are only good before they stop serving the interests of the nation that created them and that they were made for. As we see with the betrayal of white people in the United States. A dictatorship is needed to further the interests of the nation.
Wrong.
So do you have a rebuttal? You seem like an intelligent guy I’m sure you have reasons for disagreeing with me.
Every dictatorship in modern times that popped up to “serve the interests of the nation” have ended in poverty, death and tragedy. The only semi-exception I can think of is Pinochet, and that’s debatable regarding being an actual true dictatorship insofar as he surrendered power peacefully via election.
You are right, however, republics can do the same, as we see with the United States, and if it weren’t for the roman republics growing weakness it wouldn’t have been conquered by caesar. We also see a lot of republcan corruption happening in europe, where plenty of monarchies have been transformed into the liberal hellholes often mentioned on this site.
And the soviet union was the union of soviet socialist republics which soon became a much worse place to live than Tsar’s Russia.
If the problems of feminism are to be corrected, then a coalition of politicians being elected by majority female voters won’t solve it, and we can’t vote feminism out vote because of this.
When I think of a good dictatorship, I think of Cincinnatus who relinquished his power after his need as dictator was gone, or the kings of ancient germany who stepped down in peace after being elected to preside over the nation at war.
The Nazis would be the exception if they hadn’t tried to take on 53 countries single-handedly.
It wasn’t single handedly. They were a part of the axis powers, countries where the government wasn’t corrupted by international jewery
Italy was useless militarily. Japan was on the other side of the world fighting a completely different war.
Opinions vary. This population can’t function in a Republic. See my comments above.
Therefore Romney was not outfitted with the necessary capacity to be president.
And we were spared his failed presidency.
If he couldn’t “beat” Obama’s political machine and made this magnitude of errors, the better political machine won.
Say what you will about the Democrats, but they do politics very well. They don’t try to “educate” the voters. They are simply in it to win it.
Not so sure about this. Mitt Romney is an outstanding success by any normal standard. He went up against the CIA and lost. He has good company there.
It does seem that Mark Antony fucked up in an epic way (btw it is far from clear that Cleopatra was thoroughbred Greek – or Macedonian – as there was a lot of mixing in the Med in those days).
Cicero stuck to his principles? Accused of adhering to old ways? This is a weakness? Sounds to me like he would fit in perfectly on RoK…
On the ethics side Cicero would have fit in perfectly yes….
He also goes down as the first man in recorded history to be infatuated with his wife and was utterly devoted to his daughter.
Definitely not the usual ‘hard’ Roman attitude towards women, so maybe a bit off in that respect…
His plebeian ancestry showing maybe?
Yes… I think so… a very likely factor
I also find it fascinating how he strove to epitomise and represent the Patrician class given his ancestry…
His weakness is not knowing when to keep his mouth shut. Or using his speech effectively that would survive his death.
He went too far went to much on offense sealing his fate. Failing to change his approach and moderate himself to accomplish his objectives.
Men afraid to open their mouths are men with a vagina in place of cock and balls.
That’s fine if one wants to be martyr. But if one wants to live one must have strategic sense and pursue a different angle to achieve his principles he can have just as much impact.
He opened his mouth and was beheaded and had hands nailed to the door.
Yeah that sucked but life was rough back then.
No doubt you are right.
There’s a way to be smart about it. Dead men don’t win.
We’re still talking about Cicero aren’t we? He was renowned as one of the greatest political thinkers of all time. What is Mark Antony known for? I say he won and everyone has to die of something.
This dead man tells tales.
I never said it was a choice between Cicero and Mark Antony. Not quite sure how you pulled that one out of your ass. Strawman much?
Nobody said you did say that. Strawman much?
Mark Antony was the man who had Cicero killed. Consider what you say before you start looking silly.
OK, I get it. You’re a fucking Troll. Moving on now.
Also, I really don’t think you know what a strawman is. If anybody was using one, it was you.
OK this debate has just veered into the realm of high school bickering. I’ll leave you to it.
I suspect a moderate opposition to Antony would have been overlooked (or overruled by Octavian), but writing an extensive character assassination in the style of a modern ‘Philippics’ was very over the top, not to mention suicidal.
No way was Antony not going to react to that.
Cicero was no stranger to this game himself – in fact he said of the 19 year old Octavian “That boy must be praised and raised up” with the distinct connotations of “raised up to heaven” i.e. assassinated.
His death was pretty inevitable really…
Okay. Then Cicero should be aware and ready to be a martyr preparing himself accordingly
Or he could pursue other avenues that would have just as much impact.
Romney tried to be a statesman. The time of gentleman politics is past. He had many successes in other areas, but ran a shitty presidential campaign.
I’m sure you’ve succeeded at everything you’ve tried.
You are missing the point.
Clearly. What’s the point?
He lost because he ran his campaign like it was 1984. He ran an outdated, shitty campaign. The fact that everyone fails sometimes is irrelevant. My post was discussing why he failed that time.
My post was discussing the reinterpretation of successful people into failures. Its a very negative approach to life and not one I endorse. Successful people tend to fail way more than unsuccessful people. That’s because they do not let failure define them.
If you can get to the point where you “fail” at being the Republican Nominee then I think you can consider yourself a huge success. Very few people get that far in life.
Second place is just the first loser. No matter what a sjw would have you believe there are no prizes for second place. Life isn’t a sport, no rematches, survival of the fittest. Better to know your limitations and be a big fish in a small pond than bait in the ocean.
Mate you are like a squashed gnat on the windshield of Mitt Romney’s career.
Speaking of Cicero and Mark Antony:
“If I ever again hear your name connected with murmurs of treachery, I will cut off these soft, pink hands and nail them to the senate door.” (3:30)
Damn, I miss that show!
Yep. Some of the best television ever created.
Best depiction of Antony in film *ever*….
Definitely.
hgbdvgbugbji efyeuvbukbv
“In a way, Cicero was like the “true conservatives” of today who stubbornly hold erroneous ideas that undermine there own opportunity to assume power.”
…
*their own opportunity.
Yes Antony fucked up big time, and over the Macedonian pussy…
What makes it worse is that by his reckoning (and most contemporaries) he should have won!
He got by far the best deal out of the Triumvirs – Lepidus was irrelevant, and Octavian got the ‘poor’ half of the Empire.
It took a long time manoeuvring from perhaps the greatest political genius in history (Octavian, known posthumously as Augustus, founder of the Empire who achieved what the Great Julius couldn’t) to malign Antony, who was actually well loved in Rome and across the empire.
In fact perhaps his biggest error was getting rid of his Roman wife Flavia, after underestimating the ‘boy’ Octavian of course (a mistake also made by Cicero).
Apart from the weakness for pussy Antony was one of Rome’s finest Generals, Dictators, and Orators…
I think leaving octavia for cleopatra was a terrible decision too, if not the worst decision he ever made.
Absolutely. Politically *disastrous*…
The Roman public loved him (way more than Octavian in the early years!) and easily forgave him his many many affairs. Leaving his pious Roman wife for an ‘Eastern Whore’ gave Octavian exactly the right publicity lever he needed to break Antony’s charismatic spell over the Western Empire and ultimately lead to his downfall (*no way* the army would have moved against him without this, even under the leadership of Agrippa).
Chasing pussy over principals.
What’s an ‘expert’ anyway?
Someone from at least 100 miles away carrying a briefcase.
“Cleopatra wasn’t an Egyptian. She was a Greek, like this girl.”
Egyptians were also caucasian…….
And the darker hues of the southern Europeans is most likely a legacy of the Roman slave trade (Northern Italians look almost like Germans).
Northern Italians look almost like Germans).
I think that’s the Lombard influence, most likely.
Almost certainly… many consider themselves culturally separate too!
Yes I have heard of them being mentioned as if the people were significantly seperate, it affects culture too, I remember a family guy episode where Peter moves to italy and they make a joke of a “southern italy peter” who is of significantly darker hue. This is surey atleast partially due to the hotter climate of the south but it could have more factors involved. Such as possibly the arab invasion of Sicily in the 9th century.
I also wonder about the nationalist political party focused around northern italy, Lega Nord, is it a group based around northern italian ancestry?
Yes it is, absolutely!
Like most countries it has it’s internal politics and its regions…
The North-South divide in Italy is stark and glaring however (industrial north, criminal (oops! I meant ‘rural’) south) and is emphasised by the political centre being in the… um…. centre
Different divides between people are interesting, such as the difference between english and southerners. Climates and religions heavily affect countries and nations and can divide them. I do also know that venetian is a language spoken in the north which could perhaps accenuate the differences.
Yes they are.
In terms of Italy it is easy to forget how young a country it is, an arbitrary date when most would agree it had become ‘Italy’ being 1871.
In many respects to this day it remains a serious of *regions*, each with it’s own language (again, ‘Italian’ is an invented amalgam of a language, primarily based on Tuscan, adopted by the newly formed Italian ‘state’), cultural norms and cuisine (ahh! regional italian food!).
All governed by one of the most comically inept and corrupt political classes ever assembled, with the possible exception of the EU itself…
Yeah, that reminds of how I heard once that germany “didn’t exist” until it was unified in 1871,it goes along with the modern liberal mindset that nations don’t exist, only countries do. The italian people seem to have more internal differences than Austria and Germany have between each other.
To the modern “new world man” (as said so well by Rush), nations cannot exist, because that implies a genetic delineation between one people and the next. So there is one “italian” people, one “american people”, one “brazilian” people etc. There are no venetians or other groups of people unless they are used as something to hammer in a sense of anti-racism as the black population is being used to do so.
So explaining this subject to a liberal can acchieve its peak at getting a mutual understanding that a different language or dialect is spoken and there is different food in one place or the other. They are still “one people” if they happen to live under the same flag.
Where did you hear that though? The Kingdom of Germany existed in the Holy Roman Empire long before 1871. Though I am aware it wasn’t really a state.
I wish I could recall where I heard it but I can’t, and the Holy Roman Empire wouldn’t have been included in the liberal evaluation because germany is only a country to them, and not a nation ruled by various political institutions such as the Holy Roman Empire
throughout the course of their history.
The Germany nation (das Volk) existed for almost 2000 years. What they lacked was a German state. And yest it Italy is an artificial nation, they really are an exception in Europe.
Could be, could also be mixing with slaves, Arab invasions etc etc, that the southern part of the country was closer too.
It’s interesting to note that the more “protected” Europeans are less dark than those historically invaded by Mongols, Arabs etc etc, or practised slavery historically.
“And that makes you… part eggplant.”
Racist! Everyone knows they were black. Reverends Jackson and Sharpton say so.
Nice article. But how is Cicero’s death caused by weakness? You call it a weakness because you assume he was completely oblivious it might happen, but is that the case? What if he chose to ‘die for his cause’, as it is often proudly advocated?
I don’t think so…
Read his letters and you’ll soon pick up that he was pretty terrified of being killed during those days…
Hm. But then, what about ‘disobey fear’?
Oh his philosophy is *excellent*, and he’s been called ‘the most civilised man’ who ever lived!
As a man, like me, like all of us really, he didn’t always live up to his ideals.
I admire him greatly, but he had plenty of faults…. he was pompous, long-winded, had a massive chip on his shoulder (he was new-rich and never felt as grand as his fellow Patricians) and he was a coward…
Summarised Stoic philosophy beautifully though…
Why isn’t Caesar on the list for pardoning his enemies?
Then he was Short-sighted and, in this area at least, an idiot. Just like someone dying for their country. Victory comes from making the other schmuck die.
Everyone defines Victory in their own way.
And Jesus would disagree. 🙂
He probably would. Clearly, I am not He.
He may disagree even with that.
Law 4: Always say less than necessary.
Law 20: Do not commit to anyone.
Law 22: Use the surrender tactic to transform weakness into power.
Law 36: Disdain things you cannot have, ignoring them is the best revenge.
I think extroverts in particular need to heed these. We tend to not be as good at them as our introverted counterparts.
Circle Jerk
Don’t forget Bruce Jenner (Caitlyn undid him)…
Follow the 30 second rule:
The thing to remember about American politics, and world politics in general, is that it’s all a dog and pony show. Politicians are no longer statesmen but professional actors following the scripts they’re given; straying from which means that the dirt on them gets aired in public. Bil Clinton has raped women but none of that surfaced in the MSM, but when he dragged his feet in the war against Serbia, the Monica Lewinski (honeypot) affair blew up in his face and almost got him impeached.
If the script calls for them to win, then they win even if the election has to be rigged (as it often is). If it calls for them to lose, then they lose (like Dan Qualyle who lost to Dubya Bush through voting machine fraud), even if they have to do it on purpose.
Not that any of this really matters. Anyone who has a shot at being President (or Prime Minister) of any Western country is already working for The Powers That Be. The USA is a corporation and this whole electoral farce just lets us think we will choose who the next manager will be. Third party candidates like Ross Perot or Ron Paul are there to get peoples’ hopes up about a viable candidate who faces the issues the others won’t address, only to disappoint and disillusion them later and help further split the vote so that one of the two main candidates can (more credibly) win the election (with a little help from the “fair and unbiased” MSM plus a little voter fraud as needed).
Good article, weak, abrupt conclusion. I would rewrite that part and resubmit.
As for Cicero and the outdated Republic, we are now facing something similar. Half of our population is simply too stupid and greedy to function under our system.
Like the Saddam era Iraqis, such people deserve to be ruled and ruled harshly. I’m afraid the time is coming sooner, rather than later.
After Ghaddafi, I have to wonder just how harsh Saddam was.
How come Saddam had to go when he was a crazy despot with WMDs while Kim Jong, who has greater WMDs and is even crazier, gets to stay?
Because he plotted to assassinate W’s dad, Poppa Bush. That’s it.
There has to be more to it than that. The Bushes and the Sauds are joined at the hip, but it seems odd that they would want to create a power vacuum that would be-and has been-filled by Iran.
Romney’s ‘investment’ firm was a strip mining operation. So much for those ‘Mormon’ ethics on par with Bush’s Christianity.
http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/mitt-romney-is-the-real-super-fraud-heres-the-proof-chapter-and-verse/
Now that’s a screaming case of the pot calling the kettle black if there ever was one. Mitt Romney has lashed out at The Donald for being a “phony and fraud”, but consider this. During his 16-years at Bain Capital, fully one-fourth or $600 million of the firms cumulative $2.5 billion of profits were scalped from companies which went bankrupt soon after Mitt and his partners got out of town with the loot.
No wonder the American voters did not believe him when he claimed to be the “job creator”!
The American political system is a dog and pony show where people gets to choose (or rather are tricked into thinking they choose) which sock puppet will occupy the Oval Office for another four-year term. As fake as wrestling. Nothing worth getting worked up about, since the outcome has already been decided in advance. They’re all owned by the banksters, too. So it doesn’t matter who wins, we the people get screwed either way.
If Mitt Romney was running for office and failed, it was because was supposed to, just like Rand Paul, whose job it was to split the vote. With low voter turnout, a split vote makes voting fraud much easier to pull off.