True Left
History => Ancient World => Topic started by: 90sRetroFan on January 29, 2021, 11:39:17 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. :)
-
https://x.com/9mm_smg/status/1878190711679361336?t=7DGmuQSkKaHpkNzoxkUFug&s=19
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.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GhCsfdPXAAADLu7?format=jpg&name=small)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GhCsfmtWcAAesPt?format=jpg&name=small)
-
Western Civilization Moral Circles's Manual Book
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
-
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/0489ac6d0ed53202d9f450f8d711de2b/74e1c96cdb793108-3d/s1280x1920/779500532b99ce95149d13c33c527e2e5b5f8f49.jpg)
-
Our enemies were hostile to the Roman Empire and sided with the Germanic Barbarian Ancient Westerners
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/4029a657b66eca00bc5b01d9c6d063de/f6b9dc05b6e3a57a-87/s1280x1920/71bc74ef3eac0d915909d3ade04f169d5ed164b3.jpg)
-
Western Civilization, the Creator of Barbarian Personality
...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
-
https://twitter.com/dr_duchesne/status/1743651913650844143
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.
-
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/c3b6e22284dbb6b0333e3d959dcd0068/6c72f9c366003c62-e4/s1280x1920/7083516b11601f0dec0c6f6c7d0855d42c1af65b.jpg)
Germanic Pagans still despise Charlemagne for supposedly destroying Irminsul. One reason they hate Christianity to this day:
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]
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Zerst%C3%B6rung_der_Irminsaule_durch_Karl_den_Gro%C3%9Fen_by_Heinrich_Leutemann.jpg)
Captioned as "Zerstörung der Irminsäule durch Karl den Großen". The destruction of the Irminsul by Charlemagne.
Heinrich Leutemann (1824-1904). - Wägner, Wilhelm. 1882. Nordisch-germanische Götter und Helden. Otto Spamer, Leipzig & Berlin. Page 159.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irminsul
-
Ancient Eurocentrism
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/3814d82677212c74ed11a6f2176c07e4/42b6ef3e5873a728-57/s1280x1920/5a9f4261ec84653ee01d143ae113c4576542d67b.jpg)
-
https://vdare.com/posts/real-men-don-t-think-about-the-roman-empire
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
-
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/c3b6e22284dbb6b0333e3d959dcd0068/6c72f9c366003c62-e4/s1280x1920/7083516b11601f0dec0c6f6c7d0855d42c1af65b.jpg)
-
Duchesne's idol:
https://twitter.com/dr_duchesne/status/1640132115655172098
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”
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FsLqz65WIAABG3h?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Note the Turanian composition. (To say nothing of the face shape.....)
-
Our enemies help us understand them better:
https://www.amren.com/news/2023/03/educating-whites/
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"):
(https://trueleft.createaforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Faryanism.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fmartial.jpg&hash=7127f4b2e055de3d7c9cae05fde15defce6b18d8)
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?
-
Our enemies praise Cyrus II:
https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1371731/
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.
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.]
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
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
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:
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:
(https://cultureroadtravel.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Iraq-Babylon-Map.jpg)
-
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
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:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FS5GtEMUsAA8bTs?format=jpg&name=large)
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.
(https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2020/10/RomanEmpireMapHREV85_2-0ed5513.jpg)
-
By the way, regarding:
'The alt right completely co-opted the movie 300. Imagine what they're going to do with The Northman.'
let us note last time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Canton
Canton was born to a Jewish family[1] in Queens, New York
...
Filmography as Producer
...
2006 300
and this time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnon_Milchan
Arnon Milchan (Hebrew: ארנון מילכן; December 6, 1944) is an Israeli businessman, film producer and spy.
Milchan was born in Rehovot, British Mandate of Palestine (now Israel), to a Jewish family.[5][6]
...
The biography Confidential, which is largely sympathetic to Milchan, revealed in detail how he involved himself in espionage, big-ticket arms-dealing, and obtaining sensitive technology and materials for Israel's nuclear weapons program. The research in Confidential – The Life Of Secret Agent Turned Hollywood Tycoon established that "at least through the mid-1980s [Milchan] was a full-fledged operative for Israel's top-secret intelligence agency, Lekem. His activities included "buying components to build and maintain Israel's nuclear arsenal" and supervising "government-backed accounts and front companies that financed the special needs of the entirety of Israel's intelligence operations outside the country".[3] Interviewed regarding Milchan's intelligence activities, Israeli President Shimon Peres stated:
"Arnon is a special man. It was I who recruited him.... When I was at the Ministry of Defense, Arnon was involved in numerous defense-related procurement activities and intelligence operations. His strength is in making connections at the highest levels.... His activities gave us a huge advantage, strategically, diplomatically and technologically." (interview dated February 8, 2010, documented in Meir Doron and Joseph Gelman's "Confidential: Secret Agent turned Hollywood Tycoon Arnon Milchan" p. xi).
Two years later, on November 25, 2013, on Israel's channel 2 documentary program Uvda, Milchan confirmed on camera the central claims in the book Confidential that had been released earlier. The announcement caused international interest in the story and was covered widely.[12]
Peres, the architect of Israel's secret nuclear weapons program in the 1960s, stated that in the 1960s he recruited Milchan to work for the Israeli Bureau of Scientific Relations (LEKEM or LAKAM), a secret intelligence organization tasked with obtaining military technology and science espionage. Milchan acknowledged that he was a secret arms dealer for the Israeli government and claimed to have used his connections to promote the apartheid regime in South Africa in exchange for it helping Israel to acquire uranium for its nuclear program.[13]
...
Filmography
He was a producer in all films unless otherwise noted.
...
2022 The Northman
Do we see a pattern emerging? Here is one more clue:
http://aryanism.net/blog/aryan-sanctuary/eu-membership-for-turkey-now/comment-page-1/#comment-99017
an increasingly popular far-right idol is Dracula (a.k.a. Vlad the Impaler), just because he beat up Muslims. I actually don’t mind this so much; better that they accurately adopt Dracula as their symbol than inaccurately adopt Jesus or Hitler. But then again they claim that Dracula is the ideal Christian……. no, I’m not kidding.
Everyone who’s not a useful idiot now sees in retrospect that ’300′ was a movie made for the Zionist agenda of promoting Golden Dawn. The new question is: what’s the Zionist agenda behind this movie?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0829150/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_De_Luca
De Luca was born and raised in Brooklyn, New York. His mother was a German-Jewish immigrant
...
All films producer unless otherwise noted.
...
Dracula Untold (2014)
Can you figure out what is going on?
-
Racially, we could speculate that Occitania had more Aryan blood than the rest of medieval Christendom in part due to absence of Viking genetic imprint, hence not coincidentally came up with the most Gnostic form of Christianity.
Sounds like good speculation to me.
-
****:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10743827/White-supremacists-claim-ownership-Hollywood-blockbuster-Northman.html
White supremacists have claimed ownership over the new Viking Hollywood blockbuster The Northman, which stars Nicole Kidman and Anya Taylor-Joy.
...
'Northman is a based [agreeable] movie, all white cast and shows pure raw masculinity.'
The connection between white supremacy and an interest in Viking culture is not new.
...
He added: 'American white supremacists want to make Vinland great again, laying out an imagined past in which Vikings are the rightful conquerors of North America, locked in eternal battle with the Skraelings, the Viking slur for indigenous people.'
...
With its 'positive portrayal of heterosexual relationships and sex' as well as 'intense portrayals of white female beauty', the blockbuster fits into a criteria of content users of white-nationalist site Stormfront would 'watch repeatedly'
...
Social media users have also expressed concern about the film, with one person writing on Twitter: 'Does the Northman look like white supremacy fan fiction to anyone else?'
Another commented: 'The alt right completely co-opted the movie 300. Imagine what they're going to do with The Northman.'
I had a post on the old forum answering a question about Vikings, which I will repost here:
OLD CONTENT
"Were the vikings Aryan? Or is their sheer brutality a result of Giant admixture?"
Vikings did not begin to exist until long after the Neolithic era, therefore ancestrally they would be mixed like everyone else.
In terms of genetic quality, the Viking lifestyle would have selected for those who found raiding and commerce appealing. Thus I would estimate that those who chose to stay in Scandinavia would have had on average more Aryan blood than those who chose to join the Viking expeditions. This would be consistent with the Vikings being opposed to centralized states and to Christianity.
I find it noteworthy that the Viking raids (which left (probably mostly patrilineal) genetic imprint on the raided populations) never reached Occitania, which was where the Cathars later appeared. Racially, we could speculate that Occitania had more Aryan blood than the rest of medieval Christendom in part due to absence of Viking genetic imprint, hence not coincidentally came up with the most Gnostic form of Christianity.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/50/Viking_Expansion.svg/1200px-Viking_Expansion.svg.png)
(https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/3718df7f-b821-4eb5-a14d-fa1db5091c41/d93l0zc-08942931-2645-4743-ae13-9e0d1488be5f.png/v1/fill/w_591,h_350,strp/ah__vichy_occitania_by_gouachevalier_d93l0zc-350t.png?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7ImhlaWdodCI6Ijw9MTkwMiIsInBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcLzM3MThkZjdmLWI4MjEtNGViNS1hMTRkLWZhMWRiNTA5MWM0MVwvZDkzbDB6Yy0wODk0MjkzMS0yNjQ1LTQ3NDMtYWUxMy05ZTBkMTQ4OGJlNWYucG5nIiwid2lkdGgiOiI8PTMyMDkifV1dLCJhdWQiOlsidXJuOnNlcnZpY2U6aW1hZ2Uub3BlcmF0aW9ucyJdfQ.olWe9XAJRSUKZRIV9CTFT6Y3XWFobkASyhVBlCpCTxk)
-
Rome was destroyed by the Vandals, who were "more white" than the Romans. Racists see the Vandals as both racially superior and more successful, which means they are unlikely to identify with the Romans.
-
If you mean the VDare blogger, that's another matter. I was referring to Aristotle himself, who did not live to see Rome become more historically important than Macedonia. But you are correct that our enemies are rarely inspired by Rome. (Which is why stupid for False Leftists to call our enemies "fascists".)
While on the subject of Aristotle, however, here is someone else who thought highly of him:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle#On_medieval_Judaism
Maimonides also considered Aristotle to be the greatest philosopher that ever lived, and styled him as the "chief of the philosophers".[174][175][176] Also, in his letter to Samuel ibn Tibbon, Maimonides observes that there is no need for Samuel to study the writings of philosophers who preceded Aristotle because the works of the latter are "sufficient by themselves and [superior] to all that were written before them. His intellect, Aristotle's is the extreme limit of human intellect, apart from him upon whom the divine emanation has flowed forth to such an extent that they reach the level of prophecy, there being no level higher".[177]
-
I see your point. Still, Ancient Rome was one of the most successful empires that has ever existed. You're suggesting that the author is allowed to disregard any argument from a time period outside of the one he specifically designated in his article?
-
"How does the author explain the success of Ancient Rome then, for example?"
In Aristotle's time, Rome was not yet dominant even within Italy:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/85/Italy_IV_century_BC_-_Latina.svg/477px-Italy_IV_century_BC_-_Latina.svg.png)
therefore it is likely that Aristotle would have considered Rome a minor player, especially compared to his own student's territory:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/40/MacedonEmpire.jpg/1024px-MacedonEmpire.jpg)
-
Aristotle expressed himself plainly in his Politics on the subject of diversity and mass immigration; i.e., it was, in the end, disastrous for the host nation:
How does the author explain the success of Ancient Rome then, for example?
What was ‘race’ in ancient Rome?
There have been a number of stories in recent months about the intersection of race and classics, and most of them address issues in the discipline that are inextricably linked to this narrative about the ancient world. In truth, it is anachronistic to think of the ancient Greeks and Romans as White; after all, contemporary racial categorizations, especially the concepts of “Whiteness” and “Blackness,” are fundamentally products of the modern era.
More precisely, "Whiteness" and "Blackness" are products of colonial America: https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/the-'black'-and-'white'-identity-politics-scam/
The question of whether race existed in some form in the premodern past, especially in the ancient world, is extremely murky. We know that the Greeks and Romans would never have thought of themselves as part of an identity group with others solely because they shared a skin color, nor should we assume that all Greeks and Romans even had the same skin tone. But does denying the existence of race in the ancient world sanitize our view of ancient people, who could be just as xenophobic and oppressive — does it have to be this concept of race to be “race”? Or does trying to apply the term too broadly water down its impact and merely serve to reinforce inaccurate ideas about the similarity between our culture and those of people who lived millennia ago? There is no answer, in part because the type of evidence we would want to understand the structural impacts of race in the ancient world is largely gone. We cannot truly know, for example, what it meant to live in Athens as a person marked as “non-Greek,” or how that person would have defined their own identity. All we have are elite male Greeks and Romans writing about other peoples.
This is why I wanted to use a teaching gallery in the course. Art often reveals the implicit assumptions of a culture that are not explicit in the literary evidence. In the gallery, I have included a sample of some of the ancient materials from the Kemper collection to show the range of colors used to depict skin, from a deep black glaze to pale white marble. It can be hard for modern audiences to unthink our own tendency to use skin color as the ultimate signifier of racial identity. For most of these objects, the color of the skin doesn’t mean anything about the person’s race.
https://humanities.wustl.edu/features/kathryn-wilson-constructing-race-in-ancient-world
Ancient Rome Thrived When the Empire Welcomed Immigrants. We Should Remember What Happened When That Changed
Instances of xenophobia shook the cities, each one worse than the next, in the anxious years of the early fifth-century Roman Empire. Doors were slammed in immigrants’ faces when they asked for food, immigrant family members were kidnapped and beaten on the road, an immigrant house of worship was set on fire. One commentator, taking up his stylus to decry the foreign “pestilence” ravaging his comfortable way of life, won instant applause from Latin-speaking audiences. He twittered about contemporary events with matter-of-fact indifference. “Everyone insults the immigrant,” the poet Claudian said.
https://time.com/5850622/rome-immigrants/
-
Our enemies want to revive Aristotelianism:
https://vdare.com/articles/ancient-wisdom-for-modern-dissidents-guillaume-durocher-s-the-ancient-ethnostate
Aristotle expressed himself plainly in his Politics on the subject of diversity and mass immigration; i.e., it was, in the end, disastrous for the host nation:
Dissimilarity of stock is conducive to factional conflict, until a cooperative spirit develops. For just as a city does not arise from any chance multitude, so it does not arise in any chance period of time. Hence those who have admitted joint settlers or late settlers [of different stock] have for the most part split into factions.[Politics, Book 5, Chapter 3]
Aristotle cites eight examples of ethnic conflict that arose from the imprudent admission of “dissimilar stocks” to Greek city-states.
...
Aristotle also emphasizes that xenophilia is a mark of tyranny:
It is characteristic of the tyrant to have foreigners rather than persons from the city as companions for dining and entertainment, the assumption being that the latter are enemies, while the former do not act as rivals.[Politics, Book 5, Chapter 11]
This is especially important in regard to the tyrant’s bodyguards:
The guard of a [legitimate] king is composed of citizens: that of a tyrant is composed of foreigners.[Politics, Book Three, Chapter 14]
Slaves, on the other hand, ought to be of varied stock in order to make it more difficult for them to cooperate and thus to minimize the danger of revolt.
...
These concerns were reflected even in the religion of the ancients, which was short on recommendations of good Samaritanism toward strangers and long on duties to one’s ancestors. The chief duty was to produce descendants.
...
In other words, the democratic regime gave ordinary men a stake in the system, thus motivating them to defend it.
-
https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-white-supremacists-qanon-enthusiasts-222625204.html
Displays of Crusader shields and tattoos derived from Norse and Celtic symbols are of little surprise to medieval historians like me who have long documented the appropriation of the Middle Ages by today’s far right.
But amid all the expected Viking imagery and nods to the Crusaders has been another dormant “medievalism” that has yet to be fully acknowledged in reporting on both the far right and conspiracy theorist movements: the Byzantine Empire.
...
In September 2017, Jason Kessler, an American neo-Nazi who helped organize the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, inaugurated a new supremacist group called “The New Byzantium” project.
...
Kessler’s “New Byzantium” is intended to preserve white dominance after what he calls “the inevitable collapse of the American Empire.”
...
Kessler isn’t alone in appropriating the empire. Through my research, I have monitored references of Byzantium in online forums. Mentions of Byzantium are scattered across message boards frequented by both white supremacists and QAnon enthusiasts
...
For many on the far right, talk of Byzantium is cloaked in Islamophobia – both online and in tragic real-life events.
A white supremacist who killed more than 50 worshippers at mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, in 2019 railed against the Turks and the conquest of Constantinople in a 74-page manifesto.
“We are coming for Constantinople, and we will destroy every mosque and minaret in the city. The Hagia Sophia will be free of minarets and Constantinople will be rightfully Christian owned once more,” the shooter wrote. Throughout QAnon message boards, the reconquest of Hagia Sophia is emblematic of the destruction of Islam and the restoration of a mythic white Byzantium. One post stated: “When we free Constantinople and the Hagia Sophia, maybe we can talk.”
...
This “reconquest” of Constantinople had even been tied in some online posts to the presidency of Donald Trump, with images circulated online seemingly prophesying that it would happen under his tenure. In one image, Trump is seen congratulating Russian President Vladimir Putin “on the retaking of Constantinople”
...
Putin himself is not averse to drawing on the symbolism of Byzantium. The Russian state has long tried to position itself as the rightful successor to the Byzantine Empire, with Moscow as the “Third Rome.” This forms part of a religious and political doctrine tied to Russian territorial expansion that can be traced back as far as the late 15th century.
The far-right appropriation of Byzantium in the U.S. appears to be influenced by this Russian interpretation. Indeed, Russian proponents of the “Third Rome” doctrine have been cited as influences by prominent figures on the American right.
**** BYZANTIUM!
(https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/sunset-over-istanbul-silhouette-its-name-written-over-photo-istanbul-turkey-february-sunset-over-istanbul-silhouette-109988368.jpg)
(https://www.thegreatcoursesplus.com/media/catalog/product/3/1/3160.jpg)
-
OLD CONTENT
The best way to know how our enemies of today think is to know the historical figures whom they hold in high regard. Let's get started:
vdare.com/articles/forget-cinco-de-mayo-let-s-start-celebrating-hengist-horsa-day-on-may-5
Spring in Europe is a green time, a time of planting and rebirth of the earth. It was also, for thousands of years, the start of the campaigning season when armies which had been closed in by the brutal European winter could break out, raid, conquer and take new lands.
The spring of 449 AD brought the campaigning season with perhaps the longest lasting impact in human history. Two German brothers, Hengist (“stallion”) and Horsa (“horse”), chiefs of the tribe of the Jutes, sailed for the devastated Roman province of Britain after being hired by the Romanized Celtic British leader, Vortigern, to fight his Celtic opponents, the Picts and the Scots. For their service, Vortigern offered them monetary rewards and the island of Thanet.
...
That first landing in 449, 1570 years ago this spring, led to the landtaking of the Anglo-Saxons, and the birth of the English nation. Britain, in the early Dark Ages, was to the North Germanic tribes what North America would be to their descendants a thousand years later—a land to be conquered, tamed and remade in their own image. They were proud to be a nation of conquerors, proud to have settled a new land and to have made it their own. They had a healthy sense of self and no feelings of guilt towards those who they had conquered. They went so far as to refuse even to live in Celto-Roman settlements, leaving them to rot.
Within several years after the landing, the brothers were at war with Vortigern. Horsa died in battle against him in 455, at a place recorded as Aegelsthrep, which is possibly present-day Aylesford in Kent.
...
The native British were so terrified that they left Britain in large numbers as refugees and settled in the areas that are now Wales, Ireland and Brittany, France, giving the region its name and the Celtic dialect that survives to this day.
The Saxons also used treachery to gain the upper hand, and were not in the least ashamed of that fact, since all is fair in love and war, and their main God, Woden, was a treacherous God. According to Gildas, after Horsa was killed in battle with the Celts, “The remaining Saxon leader, Hengist, called for a peace conference, which took place on Salisbury Plain. In an event known as 'the Night of the Long Knives', on their arrival the Celts were treacherously massacred:
And Hengistus ordered the whole of his household that each one should hide his knife under his foot in the middle of his shoe. 'And when I shall call out to you and say "Eu nimet saxas" ( draw your swords!), then draw your knives from the soles of your shoes, and fall upon them, and stand strongly against them. And do not kill their king, but seize him for the sake of my daughter whom I gave to him in matrimony, because it is better for us that he should be ransomed from our hands.' And they brought together the conference, and the Saxons, speaking in a friendly way, meanwhile were thinking in a wolfish way, and sociably they sat down man beside man. Hengistus, as he had said, spoke out, and all the three hundred elders of King Vortigern were slaughtered, and only he was imprisoned, and was chained, and he gave to them many regions for the ransom of his soul, that is Est Saxum, Sut saxum , Middelseaxan, with other districts under his control which they named.”
...
In a strange quirk of history, it is not the actual ancestors of the English people who are celebrated, but the Romanized Celtic British losers.
...
A new awakening of the unbreakable Germanic spirit of Hengist and Horsa, an honoring of the heroes who conquered and stayed without guilt, could help save England and the Anglosphere for their posterity. A good spark to such an awakening would be to set aside a day in spring, the beginning of the campaigning season in old Europe, to commemorate the coming of the English race to Britain.
May 5 will do just fine.
A people with a pride in their history, with an identity, cannot be conquered or bred out of existence. That pride starts with recognizing who our real heroes are, who we owe a debt to—one that can never be repaid. Two such heroes were Hengist and Horsa.
So now we know: if our enemies ever offer us peace while retaining their separate identity, it means they plan to sucker us into lowering our guard whereupon they can easily massacre us. Indeed, such behaviour was repeated frequently during the colonial era. But now we see that it goes further back.