Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:
Verification:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: January 11, 2025, 07:47:14 pm »

This is of course untrue. While he stabs the first Sentinelese with his sword, the others could rush him down and immobilize his limbs. Or if they wanted to avoid any casualties they could pretend to surrender and then wait until he falls asleep before immobilizing him. Or if they don't even want to pretend to surrender, they could tire him out just by continually retreating every time he tries to advance, as it will fatigue him more to move in armour than it will fatigue them to move without armour. Especially considering the local air temperature.

Then they could cook him alive inside his armour.  :)
Posted by: rp
« on: January 11, 2025, 06:37:03 pm »

https://x.com/9mm_smg/status/1878190711679361336?t=7DGmuQSkKaHpkNzoxkUFug&s=19
Quote
Barring mainland India getting involved, a man wearing plate armor could likely capture and become king of North Sentinel Island with nothing but a sword and a case of white Monsters.

Posted by: antihellenistic
« on: May 16, 2024, 08:11:10 pm »

Western Civilization Moral Circles's Manual Book

Quote
The most important value of Indo-European aristocrats was the pursuit of individual glory as members of their war bands and as judged by their peers. Literary works abound with accounts of the heroic deeds and fame of aristocrats — Iliad, Beowulf, the Song of Roland, and including such Irish, Icelandic and Germanic sagas as Lebor na hUidre, Njal’s Saga, Gisla Saga Sursonnar, the Nibelungenlied. These are the earliest voices from the dawn of Western civilisation. Within this heroic ‘life-world,’ the unsocial traits of humans took on a sharper, keener, individuated expression.

Source :

Faustian Man in a Multicultural Age by Ricardo Duchesne page 187
Posted by: antihellenistic
« on: April 11, 2024, 06:07:03 am »

Posted by: antihellenistic
« on: April 09, 2024, 01:15:03 am »

Our enemies were hostile to the Roman Empire and sided with the Germanic Barbarian Ancient Westerners

Posted by: antihellenistic
« on: March 28, 2024, 11:34:24 pm »

Western Civilization, the Creator of Barbarian Personality

Quote
...tradition of Western thinkers who held that the desire for survival and for material things is often bound up with the psychological desire to be recognized by others.

...

I realized one could use Nietzsche’s insights as a way to understand the aristocratic spirit of the West from the very beginning before the “citizen” starts to triumph over and assimilate the master. But let us accept Fukuyama’s important contribution, and then ask the following: if the demand for recognition is inherently inegalitarian, may it not also be the case that this desire has been unevenly manifested by the cultures of the world? Is it possible to argue with Nietzsche that not all cultures are equally proficient in the production of creative individuals? Can we not add to Nietzsche that the West produced the “highest exemplars” of humanity due to its singular aristocratic grounding? We saw in the last chapter that the “megalomaniacal desire” on the part of the chiefs is having others recognize their superiority. Fukuyama develops this point further by considering Plato’s famous discussion on the “three parts of the soul” (162–65). Plato believed that all humans had a soul which consisted of three elements: i) a physically desiring part that drives humans “to seek things outside them;” ii) a reasoning part that allows humans to calculate the best way to get the things they desire; and, iii) a “spirited” or thymotic part that drives humans to seek recognition from others. Fukuyama adds, using the language of popular psychology, that the desiring part of the soul, called thymos, comes from the innate sense in all individuals that they are worthy of some respect. This sense of self-worth and self-esteem is intimately related to the way other humans treat us and evaluate us. But the thymotic spirit is not developed equally in everyone’s soul; some individuals are not satisfied with themselves as having equal worth to others in that they want to be recognized as superior. This desire to be superior stems from its ancient Greek roots and is known as megalothymia while the desire to be recognized as the equal of others is known as isothymia.


...



Now, while Fukuyama correctly explains that megalothymia is a rare psychological drive exhibited by strong and ambitious men, I believe he loses sight of the historical implications of the “first man” when he brings up various historical and cultural examples like Beethoven, Stalin, and Caesar while forgetting to specify or locate the “first man” at the beginning of history. Who was this first man engaged in a battle to the death for pure prestige? Yet, to his credit, there is a paragraph in Fukuyama which is worth citing at length because it serves as one of the few instances in which a scholar has tried to make historical sense of Hegel’s “first man” in the same way that countless scholars have occupied themselves with historical descriptions of Hobbes’s hypothetical state of nature:

The Hegelian understanding of early class stratification is probably more accurate than that of Marx. Many traditional aristocratic societies initially arose out of the ‘warrior ethos’ of nomadic tribes who conquered more sedentary peoples through superior ruthlessness, cruelty, and bravery. After the initial conquest, the masters in subsequent generations settled down on estates and assumed an economic relationship as landlords exacting taxes or tribute from the vast mass of peasant ‘slaves’ over whom they ruled. But the warrior ethos – the sense of innate superiority based on the willingness to risk death – remained the essential core of the culture of aristocratic societies the world over, long after years of peace and leisure allowed these same aristocrats to degenerate into pampered and effeminate courtiers (148).

This is the one instance in which Fukuyama equates the first men with aristocratic societies in history. But this is all we get; the historical contribution of aristocratic warriors is seemingly quick and short. After risking their lives and showing their martial superiority over the ordinary men – over the majority of men preoccupied with their self-preservation and comfort – the aristocrats go on to live a parasitic life extracting surpluses from the real producers to eventually “degenerate into pampered and effeminate courtiers.”2 Fukuyama interprets the master-slave dialectic in the same way other scholars have, including, I would argue, Hegel and Kojeve. The “first man” provokes a bloody battle which gives him satisfaction because he has risked his life and received recognition from another human, but soon the master feels that the recognition he receives from the inferior slave is no longer satisfying. As the master has a slave working for him, “his life therefore becomes a static and unchanging one of leisure and consumption.” The slave, on the other hand, rediscovers his humanity through work, which he performs out of a sense of duty and self-discipline; he uses tools, invents technology and advances scientific knowledge and, in this way, he masters nature, learns to control his immediate desires for the sake of future achievement. All this makes the slave proud and gives him a sense of his own self-worth and dignity. Eventually he conceives of the idea of freedom and, in the end, risks his own life for the realization of freedom and universal human equality (192–98).

Fukuyama does not think through the implications of the just-cited passage, namely that the willingness to risk death for the sake of validation was the defining attribute of aristocratic societies. Instead, he follows the Hegel-Kojeve supposition that the successful master was a singular man who risked his life and became the sole ruler over a servile population. He presumes that, since megalothymia is a will to superiority, the master will want to suppress everyone as a way of achieving the highest recognition. The “logic of recognition,” he writes, leads “ultimately” to the desire to be a tyrant with no rivals. It is no surprise then that many of the historical examples Fukuyama offers of rulers with powerful thymotic drives are of men like Stalin, Mao, and Saddam Hussein, all of whom fit with the philosophical model of the single master who eliminates all competitors. This is a profound misunderstanding of what it means to be an aristocratic master. What aristocrats desire is recognition of their worth and dignity by other masters possessing equal worth and dignity. There is a momentum in the drive for recognition pushing aristocrats to impose their will on other men including aristocrats. But in true aristocratic societies “some men are free” and this means that the dominant master is always “first among equals.” The master-leader finds satisfaction in the recognition he receives from his peers. Despots, on the other hand, find satisfaction in the adulation of servile masses; they fear the competition of free spirits.

...

I believe there is a major flaw in Kojeve’s philosophical account (which has not been noted by his interpreters since his readers are philosophers rather than historians), namely that the master-slave dialectic misses the essential historical role of aristocratic warriors. The image we get from Kojeve is that of a singular master – a despot – who, upon winning the “first” battle, faces servile men who are unwilling to challenge his authority because they prefer security rather than a life of risk and rebellious behavior. But true warrior societies are those led by the best fighting men, all of whom recognize each other as masters. In warrior aristocratic societies there are always masters who recognize the heroic deeds of each other. Only in a despotic society where “one man is free” does the master find himself in a situation in which the recognition of the others as slaves is without value for him. Kojeve fails to see that true warrior societies are not those in which one man is free and the rest of the population is servile; they are those in which there is a class of men-at-arms who recognize the humanity of each other even when there is a recognized leader, “the bravest hero” who takes the “hero’s portion” of meat when all the mightiest warriors dine together sitting in a circle.4 A master without honor is without worth, and honor can only be conferred by one’s peers.

Kojeve, I must say, was not particularly interested in the masters even though he grasped this part of Hegel’s Phenomenology better than any interpreter at the time. What mattered to Kojeve, as a Marxist, was the future dialectic of the master-slave relation.5 He believed that once the master had played the role of risking his life in bloody wars for prestige, there was little else for him to do. He was stuck in the “wrong track” of history, in a situation in which he was recognized by a “thing” and not another man. For all the wars of prestige, the master would find himself in an “existential impasse”: either in a life of pleasure and idleness, by living from the fruits of the slaves, or simply dead in battle. His role in history did not go beyond the initial achievement of self-consciousness, with no other lasting legacy. Meanwhile, the slave would be one “ready for change.” The “very being” of the slave was indeed transformation because he necessarily works upon nature and learns about nature and becomes “master” of nature; he “transcends himself by working…he educates himself, he ‘cultivates’ and ‘sublimates’ his instincts,” as he represses his immediate desires and concentrates on his work. The slave, in this way, learns to master his own immediate biological desires in the name of creating products which objectively give expression to his goals. He realizes his essential powers through work and through the products he makes and thus ceases to be a “natural being” and “becomes truly conscious” of his humanity (Kojeve: 20–30, 42–52).

Thus, in Kojeve’s view, whereas the master “cannot go beyond himself, change, progress,” the slave makes history “in the technical world transformed by his work.” In repressing his immediate urge to consume, and forming an idea of what he intends to make – “the idea that engenders a technique is a scientific idea” – the slave (as he is gradually becoming a bourgeois) engenders “abstract thought, science, technique, the arts – all these have their origin in the forced work of the slave.” Therefore, through his work, the slave manages to free himself from the natural conditions of his existence, and learns to master nature and improve the economic conditions of life.6 As he becomes aware of his intellectual abilities, the slave “becomes conscious of his freedom,” and thus conceives “the idea of freedom,” an idea that he will eventually realize through the active abolition of slavery. The master, meanwhile is what he is, free in his idleness, the master of a being who gives him a recognition he does not value, and beyond this state the master cannot advance, and so “the master never succeeds in going beyond the freedom that is realized in himself and the insufficiency of that freedom” (Kojeve: 53–70).

It is work that brings real change, not military action; “work that produces a machine gun, and no longer an ax.” The purely warlike attitude of the master does not vary throughout the centuries, and therefore it cannot engender a historical change.” Work transforms the world and Man himself, by creating a Man that knows how to modify nature and that becomes aware of his freedom. The master starts history by forcing the slave to work, but it is the slave that pushes history forward after its start. Before realizing “human” freedom, the slave thinks through a series of philosophies of freedom…until he conceives Christianity imagining a “beyond” in which the slave is equal to the master, but as long as the slave is not willing to risk his life he will not cease to be a slave. He has to risk his life in a fight with the master, and this he will do once he transcends Christianity by realizing the Christian ideal in the actual world, which is what “is effected in and by the French Revolution” (Kojeve: 53–70).

In writing about ancient Greece, Kojeve momentarily speaks of the “masters as citizens” and of a “State of Masters,” as if aware that in this society there was not a singular master, but a state controlled by a popular assembly of citizens who were all masters (57). Clearly, these “masters as citizens” can be said to have been “truly satisfied” insofar as each was recognized by their peers. But because Kojeve frames the master-slave relationship in Marxist terms, and thus presumes that human work is the main transformative force in history, he gives no attention to the masters beyond the primordial manner in which they brought forth the essential reality of human self-consciousness. Moreover, his argument is presented in purely philosophical terms with no awareness of how particular historical beings might have achieved their self-consciousness. It seems to me that the Hegel-Kojeve idea on the origins of self-consciousness can be of value historically so long as there was a “first” society of masters dedicated to the enhancement of prestige, as the essential way by which its members asserted their “being-for-self ” (freedom) and revealed their humanity. I have already argued in previous chapters that the candidates in world history that come closest to playing this role are the Indo-Europeans.

Source :

The Uniqueness of Western Civilization Ricardo Duchesne page 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, 425, 426, 427
Posted by: rp
« on: January 09, 2024, 04:18:13 pm »

https://twitter.com/dr_duchesne/status/1743651913650844143
Quote
Dr. Ricardo Duchesne
@dr_duchesne
Until WWI, when Americans became awash in anti-German prejudice, the liberal American narrative about its Western heritage was profoundly Germanic. Through the 18C and 19C American elites believed the German barbarians who invaded Rome had brought back afresh the original Indo-European ethos of aristocratic liberty and heroic honor the early republican Romans had possessed as descendants of the Indo-European race.

The later Romans had lost this ethos through race mixing and assimilation of Oriental despotic mannerisms. This Germanic ethos was characterized by an aversion to monarchical tyranny and preference for a council of warriors alongside a king responsive to it.

The American president John Adams admired "the Teutonic institutions" as "the most memorable experiment...ever yet made in human affairs". Jefferson wrote with pride of his "Saxon ancestors". They were greatly influenced by Montesquieu's argument that this Germanic ethos was considerably weakened in France with the onset of absolutism, when the aristocracy lost its vigor becoming dependent courtiers.

Montesquieu, who was a member of the old French nobility of the sword, believed that this aristocratic ethos had been well sustained in Britain, beginning with the Angles and Saxons who invaded in the fifth century, and the Germanic Normans who invaded in 1066, leading to the Magna Carta, an aristocratic declaration of rights, and the evolution of parliament and limited monarchy in 1688. Britain thus resurrected the republican Roman experience of monarchical, aristocratic, and popular-democratic elements.

Today, the Germanic side of the US has been obliterated. This was the beginning of the transformation of the US from a nation founded by Europeans into a "melting pot" dedicated to the destruction of European identities across the West.

To be more precise, it is the transformation of the US from a Western country into a non-Western one (America). The new Rome will rise in its place.
Posted by: Irminsul
« on: November 03, 2023, 01:03:17 pm »

Quote from: antihellenistic on August 09, 2023, 07:17:10 am


Germanic Pagans still despise Charlemagne for supposedly destroying Irminsul. One reason they hate Christianity to this day:

Quote
According to the Royal Frankish Annals (772 AD), during the Saxon Wars, Charlemagne is repeatedly described as ordering the destruction of the chief seat of their religion, an Irminsul.[7] The Irminsul is described as not being far from Heresburg (now Obermarsberg), Germany.[7] Jacob Grimm states that "strong reasons" point to the actual location of the Irminsul as being approximately 15 miles (24 km) away, in the Teutoburg Forest and states that the original name for the region "Osning" may have meant "Holy Wood".[7]


Captioned as "Zerstörung der Irminsäule durch Karl den Großen". The destruction of the Irminsul by Charlemagne.
Quote
Heinrich Leutemann (1824-1904). - Wägner, Wilhelm. 1882. Nordisch-germanische Götter und Helden. Otto Spamer, Leipzig & Berlin. Page 159.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irminsul


Posted by: antihellenistic
« on: November 02, 2023, 08:32:55 pm »

Ancient Eurocentrism

Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: September 15, 2023, 06:24:23 pm »

https://vdare.com/posts/real-men-don-t-think-about-the-roman-empire

Quote
The Roman Empire is for dweebs. Real men think about the Roman Republic.

See also:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/ancient-world/roman-road-construction/msg21045/#msg21045

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/ancient-world/the-ancient-rolemodels-of-our-enemies/msg13416/#msg13416
Posted by: antihellenistic
« on: August 09, 2023, 07:17:10 am »

Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: March 26, 2023, 07:24:34 pm »

Duchesne's idol:

https://twitter.com/dr_duchesne/status/1640132115655172098

Quote
Imagine our elites were made of men like this across Western nations: It is said that this statue was not a portrait of Colleoni but of the idea of a strong and unbreakable military commander “bursting with titanic power and energy”


Note the Turanian composition. (To say nothing of the face shape.....)
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: March 19, 2023, 06:12:00 pm »

Our enemies help us understand them better:

https://www.amren.com/news/2023/03/educating-whites/

Quote
Asian martial arts come with an assumption that Asian culture — whatever that really is — is superior to Western culture. People who study judo or Tae Kwon Do or karate wear “gis” and talk about “masters” and “dojos.” It is all about some mysterious system with ceremony and decorum. An obsession with Asian-ness is standard for any American who becomes a “sensei.” The students attribute deep wisdom to the “master,” who is likely to believe that anyone who uses strength to win a fight is a brute.

The Western view is different. We proudly used war and fighting to make our boys into men, but we never pretended that a Kung-Fu-Panda-type master of some mysterious cult was the wisest man in the world. In our tradition, a martial art was a technical skill used for fighting. We Westerners used everything at our disposal, whether it was technique, armor, weaponry, strategy, or strength. We were always looking for new ways to improve the efficiency and success of our fighting men.

And we have always admired strength for its own sake. We admire “huge Achilles,” who wielded a spear that no one else could handle. We admire Ajax, also described as huge — the “bulwark of the Achaeans.”
...
The desire to become better, not the subtle distinctions between Western and Eastern martial arts, is what makes the West fundamentally different from the East. Karate and Tae Kwon Do, for example, never develop or change. They are stagnant and therefore useless.

The bad translation that produced the term "martial art" itself exposes the Western attitude. A more accurate translation would actually be "art of ending violence" (literally "Ahimsa art"):



The correct aspiration is not to keep becoming better, but only to be able defeat the enemy in front of you. To do so requires studying the enemy and figuring out what is required to counter them (so it is untrue that non-Western styles never develop; rather, we develop strictly in retaliation, to the extent required to defeat the enemy). But when there is no enemy, our duty is to avoid becoming (by initiating development) the new enemy that others will then need to develop themselves in retaliation in order to defeat. This is the wisdom that Westerners have no appreciation for.

The duty of Ahimsa is to avoid ever starting an arms race, no less than to end ASAP any arms race that has been started (by eliminating whomever started it). This is why ethical Ahimsa arts teachers during times of peace designate the most powerful techniques of their respective styles as forbidden from being practiced by their students, and only during emergencies temporarily unlock these techniques for specific use by the heroes entrusted to defeat the enemy (and the heroes may even voluntarily cripple themselves after the mission is completed in order to show they have no intention of retaining the techniques). All this is alien to Western thinking.

Who is superior: those who encourage an arms race, or those who discourage it?
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: September 17, 2022, 05:09:04 pm »

Our enemies praise Cyrus II:

https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1371731/

Quote
Medvedev Uses Rev 9:18 as Apocalyptic Warning to West
...
Rev 9:13-18 & Rev 16:12 refer to the same world-changing historical event... the brilliant way Cyrus the Great conquered "invincible" Babylon.

Quote
Cyrus took sacred white horses with him in his war campaign against Babylon. According to ancient Greek historian Herodotus, it was an incident with one of Cyrus' white horses that gave him the brilliant idea how to conquer Babylon by stealth... by diverting the water of the Euphrates river [Rev 9:14 & Rev 16:12.] Cyrus literally stole the city of Babylon right from under the Babylonian king.

Interestingly... Russia's coat of arms, Russian military uniforms, Moscow's flag and Putin's flag all have a warrior on a white horse [St George slaying a dragon symbol which is also similar to Cyrus the Great's family seal.]

Quote
Medvedev is cryptically saying, Putin is Cyrus and Babylon will fall.

Once again, I am happy to reach academic agreement with our enemies in comparing Putin with Cyrus:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great

Quote
The Edict of Restoration, a proclamation attested by a cylinder seal in which Cyrus authorized and encouraged the return of the Israelites to the Land of Israel following his conquest of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, is described in the Bible and likewise left a lasting legacy on the Jewish religion due to his role in ending the Babylonian captivity and facilitating the Jewish return to Zion. According to Isaiah 45:1 of the Hebrew Bible,[14] God anointed Cyrus for this task, even referring to him as a messiah (lit. 'anointed one'); Cyrus is the only non-Jewish figure in the Bible to be revered in this capacity.[15]

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/enemies/israel/msg12478/#msg12478

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/jews-have-nothing-in-common-with-us!/msg11536/#msg11536

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/jews-have-nothing-in-common-with-us!/msg12624/#msg12624

We were winning back then:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_captivity

Quote
The Babylonian captivity or Babylonian exile is the period in Jewish history during which a large number of Judeans from the ancient Kingdom of Judah were captives in Babylon, the capital city of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, following their defeat in the Jewish–Babylonian War and the destruction of Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem. The event is described in the Hebrew Bible, and its historicity is supported by archaeological and non-biblical evidence.

After the Battle of Carchemish in 605 BCE, the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II besieged Jerusalem, which resulted in tribute being paid by the Judean king Jehoiakim.[1] In the fourth year of Nebuchadnezzar II's reign, Jehoiakim refused to pay further tribute, which led to another siege of the city in Nebuchadnezzar II's seventh year (598/597 BCE) that culminated in the death of Jehoiakim and the exile to Babylonia of his successor Jeconiah, his court, and many others; Jeconiah's successor Zedekiah and others were exiled when Nebuchadnezzar II destroyed Jerusalem in his 18th year (587 BCE), and a later deportation occurred in Nebuchadnezzar II's 23rd year (582 BCE). However, the dates, numbers of deportations, and numbers of deportees vary in the several biblical accounts.[2][3]

and then Turanian Cyrus was the one who literally brought Judaism back from the brink so that it would continue to plague the world even to the present day:

Quote
After the fall of the Neo-Babylonian Empire to the Achaemenid Persian Empire and its founding king Cyrus the Great at the Battle of Opis in 539 BCE, exiled Judeans were permitted by the Persians to return to Judah.[4][5] According to the biblical Book of Ezra, construction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem began in c. 537 BCE in the new Persian province of Yehud Medinata. All of these events are considered significant to the developed history and culture of the Jewish people, and ultimately had a far-reaching impact on the development of Judaism.

Bonus picture:

Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: May 17, 2022, 09:02:05 pm »

Our enemies officially state their dislike for the Roman Empire:

https://vdare.com/posts/the-grand-strategy-of-the-roman-empire-invade-the-world-invite-the-world

Quote
These individuals allow us to connect the region they were observed in, to the region containing the most likely source of their ancestry. We recover a dense network of mobility across the Roman empire and beyond:


From our perspective, this is why all the present-day South Mediterranean countries including territory which were former Roman provinces should be given EU (and Schengen) membership ASAP.