Vergilius Rex

Lately I have been reading Roman History and have come to question myself: The Roman Republic was so successful that it conquered the world. So what made it worth of that power?, and to be the inspiration for the renaissance and the resurgence of the West? What renaissance thinkers like Machiavelli and Enlightment thinkers like Locke noticed to be the strenghts of a republic is what was put on paper to make the constitutions of the US or France. Thus the republics that exist today are the freest that have ever existed. We can confirm that those thinkers, and the enacters of those constitutions, have done something right. However our Republics seem to be dying. Corruption, decay, roman parallels that Stefan has so expertly exposed. What is it exactly that killed the Roman Republic and is killing our western Republics as well? I dare to say that, what makes a republic is effectively its citizens. Without its citizens there is no republic, no matter its laws. What the Romans lacked was a de facto Consitution, so that laws could not be made and unmade at will. We have Constituions that protect the citizens from too many or too few laws. But they lack something as well. The original US Constitution, and the French one, had limited citizenship. Not everyone could be a citizen because not everyone can be responsible for the destiny of the country. Thus: - No children, because they are not responsible for themselves - No women, because they are considered vain and weak regarding politics ( Stefan made a case here) - No unlanded men, because they had not a material part of the country and, therefore, could not be really responsible for its integrity. I think they had a case here. A citizen is someone that takes responsibility for the country, that accepts the consequences of its actions. Thus the flaw of our Constitutions today is the definition of its citizens. By making everyone a citizen, they have practically made no one a citizen. If it is not earned it has no value. As simple as that. I would like to discuss this topic with this question: What are good limitations on citizenship? And how to enforce the citizenship?

This is reminiscent of the video on The Fall of Rome that Stefan did but I want to add something to it: -Immigration is controlled by a government, its a decision made or undone by it. ( even more so today where the state is so big) Therefore we can asume that the migrant crisis in Europe and the United States, is deliberately caused by the government. ( I know it sounds like a Conspiracy but hang on) -The nature of the political classes, regarding this issue, is primordial. If we observe the nature of the political man from the West, or even of the average citizen, we can easily observe a lack of patriotism and a high concentration of self-interest. But this is already too obvious. We ought to see the politicians from today as patricians from the past; in the sense that they generate from the same social-ecosystems, thus simulating castes. This is not so much of an aristocracy but it resembles one because it lacks patriotism whilst the aristocracy generally did not. This observation looks similar to class warfare Marxism but is different because it does not refer to labour or exploitation. The main idea is patriotism, which leads to my next point. -There is a flaw in the current enforcement of ideas and heritage (or culture). As on Stefan's video on Rome, we see that the citizenry does not behave as citizens anymore. The problem is that this corrups the whole Constitutionalism and Social Contract that exists in the West. As in Rome, without its citizens nations dont exist. The European nations and the American nation are ceasing to exist as such, becoming the abstractions of states, pieces of land with a name that no longer mean anything. Thus if we see citizens handing over the country to everyone for their own personal gain ( politicians) and all the rest of the citizens allowing it ( current average westener) its because they are citizens only in name, a shallow title with no meaning. This is as such because the ideas that make a citizen are no longer upheld or even required. These are all the Enlightment ideals and the American Constitutionalism that are not enforced. After this long exposition it is safe to consider the root problem of why something so machiavellian as importing migrants to gerrymander elections is feasible. If the ideas that made a nation and its citizens are not kept, or if they are failing to be kept, they must be enforced. Otherwise there is no West anymore. I have always found this quote to be most illustrating over this matter: