>Sup Forums claims to be traditional, conservative, and anti-liberal
>Sup Forums also wants civilization to thrive
There is no country in the entire world where a city (A civilized area) is more homogeneous than a rural town (A less civilized area).
Why do you continue to support civilization?
We don't.
That's why we roll for happenings.
Quads or more and a supervolcano goes off this year and everyone dies.
What said.
That would have been so neat if that happened.
I don't want an homogeneus world, I want less retards.
So you're a civic nationalist and support civilization?
Very interesting, user.
In other words, if you are not liberal then you must be rasicst. Great logic there op.
I just want people to give a shit about what they do. I prefer SJWs to apathetic fucks.
>[...] than a rural town (A less civilized area).
I guess that depends on how you define (((civilized)))
>Canadian shitposting
Try Japan where homogeneity is comparable.
Now kindly fuck off glass jaw.
rerolling
Definition of civilized
: characteristic of a state of civilization
Definition of civilization
a: a relatively high level of cultural and technological development
b : the culture characteristic of a particular time or place
Very simple user.
Towns are less technologically developed than cities, by definition. Cities are centers of trade and development. And with cities and MORE civilization, comes diversity.
I don't
The last Civ I bought was Civ4
>Equating racial diversity with technological sophistication and development.
Again, Japanese cities are more diverse than rural Japanese towns..
You're going to see more whites and blacks in cities.
>>Sup Forums claims to be traditional, conservative, and anti-liberal
pol is neither traditional not conservative and frankly doesn't even claim it these days
No you rely on the flawed assumption that technological progress and development requires immigration. This is a both logically flawed and a baseless assumption not supported by history.
The Italian Renaissance did not require the importation of Niggers. The growth of Hellenism resulted in the EXPORTATION of technological development and progress. The rise of Chinese technological superiority resulted in its importation to Japan, Korea and South East Asia.
In other words technological development and progress is INDEPENDENT of racial diversity.
Okay... Nobody has given me one example of a country where a town is more diverse than a city.
Sure, technological advancement can be equated with diversity. YOU are the one justifying a diverse society.. Not me. I couldn't give a fuck about technological progress, because it will never be relative to general happiness. The most technologically advanced societies are also the most depressed.
>There is no country in the entire world where a city (A civilized area) is more homogeneous than a rural town
That’s because you never left Canada
Ok 16 year old
Your argument is baseless go back to the drawing board rabbi.
The Meiji Restoration did not result in an influx of Europeans to colonise Japan, neither did the revival of the Imperial administration under Charlemagne result in an influx of Moors and Arabs into Holy Roman Empire.
>There is no country in the entire world where a city (A civilized area) is more homogeneous than a rural town (A less civilized area).
Now, as they decline. Not at their creation.
Holy christ.. You're missing the point.
I'm not making an assumption that technological progress and development requires immigration.. I made NO such assumption.
Nazis, for example, didn't need immigration.
My point is that cities (centers of trade and civilization) are naturally more ethnically diverse as they are technologically advanced. That's correlation, not causation.
Civilization is a double edged sword.
We accept its perceived benefit (technological progress), at the cost (diversity).
I don't see a benefit though. Happiness is relative.
>ethnically diverse
Wrong you haven't provided a shred of proof that development requires diversity. The correct term is technological development and progress not ethnic diversity.
That or you're utterly retarded since Ive already pointed out there are several examples in history where technological development occurs independent of ethnic diversity and results in the reverse happening.
the correlation lies in that rich people tend to live in cities, and they have money and want all the good stuff, from all over the world. Small amounts of ethnics other than the native one might help to create contrast and thus solidify the identity of the native ethnicity, I'd assume from what I've seen. Too much and you'll get ghettos and perhaps worse segregation (if the group in question has been around long enough). Keep the cities 99% native, the rest can be of another ethnicity or halfbloods.
What brought Europeans to Japan, in the first place?
Plz enlighten me.
Did the dutch get there and shake hands with the Japanese, and then go about their merry way back to Europe? They wanted to trade.
And what made Rome into such a big empire?
Trade.. with... other.... kingdoms...
They played it smart, of course, for a while, which is the exception.
But nobody can say that Rome just built itself up without the influence of other cultures and peoples.
One of its creation stories, is that Rome was started by Trojans (Greeks).
A civilization that proves, once again, that civilization is a compromise of people (which makes it diverse in the first place), rather than a cooperation of people.
>That or you're utterly retarded
It's a fucking leaf, of course he's retarded.
>The Roman Republic
The Roman Republic did not throw open its doors to Greeks and Carthaginians period. They specifically maintained client states that were separate to Roman control. "Diversity" didn't happen until the Republic absorbed these states. Point being the Rome was at its most sophisticated compared to everybody else before it became an Empire, when it was a federation of Latin city states with common interests as opposed to a multicultural mix of Etruscans, Greeks and other Mediterraneans.
Civilization is therefore not about diversity, Cvilization is about organisation and conformity to established principles, customs and values ie HOMOGENEITY.
>Wrong you haven't provided a shred of proof that development requires diversity.
Because I didn't fucking say that, numb nuts.
I have only ever said that they were correlated.
I don't think it's the rich people.
It's the structure of a city.
Cities are epicenters of trade.
Tribes, for example, work as one group. If you force 2 tribes to work together for a mutual benefit, they will lose tribal identity, but that doesn't mean that they will attain a higher form of identity. If you put enough tribes together, it will require more laws, because they're obviously not going to get along. Cities can't thrive without laws, but small towns can.
If you remove law for a day, whole cities are going to be burned to the ground, looted, and there's going to be mass rapes. But in small towns, the crimes will be a minimum, because small towns are more tribal in that sense.
Civilization thus requires only that you obey the law, work, and are productive; this is what makes them such a good environment for international peoples like Jews and Arabs who have no sense of nationality, so they come into our countries and infest the banks and small shops, and try to sell us cheap garbage for big money.
Point is, civilization is an environment that allows diversity to thrive. It's the ONLY environment that allows diversity to thrive. You wouldn't get that shit in a small town.
What you call diversity is a result of economic organisation where people have to specialise in order for cities to function at higher levels of organisation.
The proper term is called the division of labour. (((Diversity))) is just you being a retarded jew.
You absolutely don't understand how "civilized" cities form.
1) Country trades
2) Big technology boom
3) People have more children
4) Rural "uncivilized" countrymen and merchants come look for opportunities where trading happens. This usually happens around strategic geography like rivers (NYC, London, Paris, etc. all next to rivers)
5) Wealth accumulates
6) More people come, prompting people to build taller buildings, hotels, and tourist attractions
7) The place becomes a famous city that attracts the wealthy and foreigners
8) Foreigners move in, causing real estate to drop and makes districts poor and undesirable and making labor cheap
9) More uneducated foreigners and niggers are able to move in because of cheap housing and demand for cheap labor
10) Industrialists move out to find cheaper labor as foreigners demand equal treatment
11) Niggers are stuck in poverty ruining the city
12) Look at this wonderful civilized diverse city
The current city is a result of bad governance and excessive immigration.
Okay okay... Let's roll with your retardation for a minute.
Why are ALL modern cities more ETHNICALLY diverse than their rural counterparts?
What is it that attracts diversity to civilization?
Don't tell me that rural areas can be "ethnically diverse" too, because we both know that it's not going to happen without civil intervention (ie, civilization).
>4) Rural "uncivilized" countrymen and merchants come look for opportunities where trading happens. This usually happens around strategic geography like rivers (NYC, London, Paris, etc. all next to rivers)
This is the flaw in your argument, because it's the only attracting feature of civilization.
If the uncivilized peoples don't face starvation, they don't have a need to look for opportunities. The British tried to civilize the Indians, showed them all kinds of things, but they went back to their cloths, bows, foraging. There are tribes all over the world that still live like primitives, and a lot of them have been given a chance to civilize, but turn it down. Civilization's greatest attractor is the fact that scarcity leads to compromise.
The people being attracted to your civilization, for example, come from OTHER civilized countries with less than what your civilization has. A simple transaction; making sure I receive more than I perceive my product is worth; that is how civilization works and forms.
Your problem is you assume ethnic diversity hold special skills that all cilizations must obtain from said ethnic group in order to develop and progress civilization. My proposition is civlization and development can occur independent of diversity.
Ie stop playing your shitty Civilization games.
As for WHAT attracts diversity to civilization the simple answer is opportunity. Rural centres have smaller populations, in most instances less economic activities going on or need for economic activity. This pattern of development occurs irrespective of ethnic diversity. The rural populations will inevitably suffer a migration drift towards cities because they offer more opportunities than a rural centre.
In other words your initial argument is invalid in the sense you don't need immigration for development to occur simply because a city will naturally attract people from rural areas and other cities because it offers better opportunities.
Therefore (((Diversity))) is neither a prerequisite nor a necessary ingredient for development nor is it a guaranteed symptom of development.
>What is it that attracts diveristy
Again a shitty unsubstantiated assumption.
The reason we have so much diversity today is more because of the liberalisation of the freedom of travel. Wherein the past a combination of strict nonmigratory controls and limitations of travel (being timely and costly) cities would remain relatively homogenous. With the relaxation of travel restrictions and legal requirements to settleing, diversity inevitably increased.
if you call loads of pointless retail shops and food outlets owned by corporations "civilisation"