The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenters to FollowHide Excerpts
By Authors Filter?
Andrei Martyanov Andrew J. Bacevich Andrew Joyce Andrew Napolitano Boyd D. Cathey Brad Griffin C.J. Hopkins Chanda Chisala Eamonn Fingleton Eric Margolis Fred Reed Godfree Roberts Gustavo Arellano Ilana Mercer Israel Shamir James Kirkpatrick James Petras James Thompson Jared Taylor JayMan John Derbyshire John Pilger Jonathan Revusky Kevin MacDonald Linh Dinh Michael Hoffman Michael Hudson Mike Whitney Nathan Cofnas Norman Finkelstein Pat Buchanan Patrick Cockburn Paul Craig Roberts Paul Gottfried Paul Kersey Peter Frost Peter Lee Philip Giraldi Philip Weiss Robert Weissberg Ron Paul Ron Unz Stephen J. Sniegoski The Saker Tom Engelhardt A. Graham Adam Hochschild Aedon Cassiel Ahmet Öncü Alexander Cockburn Alexander Hart Alfred McCoy Alison Rose Levy Alison Weir Anand Gopal Andre Damon Andrew Cockburn Andrew Fraser Andy Kroll Ann Jones Anonymous Anthony DiMaggio Ariel Dorfman Arlie Russell Hochschild Arno Develay Arnold Isaacs Artem Zagorodnov Astra Taylor Austen Layard Aviva Chomsky Ayman Fadel Barbara Ehrenreich Barbara Garson Barbara Myers Barry Lando Belle Chesler Beverly Gologorsky Bill Black Bill Moyers Bob Dreyfuss Bonnie Faulkner Brenton Sanderson Brett Redmayne-Titley Brian Dew Carl Horowitz Catherine Crump Charles Bausman Charles Goodhart Charles Wood Charlotteville Survivor Chase Madar Chris Hedges Chris Roberts Christian Appy Christopher DeGroot Chuck Spinney Coleen Rowley Cooper Sterling Craig Murray Dahr Jamail Dan E. Phillips Dan Sanchez Daniel McAdams Danny Sjursen Dave Kranzler Dave Lindorff David Barsamian David Bromwich David Chibo David Gordon David North David Vine David Walsh David William Pear Dean Baker Dennis Saffran Diana Johnstone Dilip Hiro Dirk Bezemer Ed Warner Edmund Connelly Eduardo Galeano Ellen Cantarow Ellen Packer Ellison Lodge Eric Draitser Eric Zuesse Erik Edstrom Erika Eichelberger Erin L. Thompson Eugene Girin F. Roger Devlin Franklin Lamb Frida Berrigan Friedrich Zauner Gabriel Black Gary Corseri Gary North Gary Younge Gene Tuttle George Albert George Bogdanich George Szamuely Georgianne Nienaber Glenn Greenwald Greg Grandin Greg Johnson Gregoire Chamayou Gregory Foster Gregory Hood Gregory Wilpert Guest Admin Hannah Appel Hans-Hermann Hoppe Harri Honkanen Henry Cockburn Hina Shamsi Howard Zinn Hubert Collins Hugh McInnish Ira Chernus Jack Kerwick Jack Rasmus Jack Ravenwood Jack Sen James Bovard James Carroll James Fulford Jane Lazarre Jared S. Baumeister Jason C. Ditz Jason Kessler Jay Stanley Jeff J. Brown Jeffrey Blankfort Jeffrey St. Clair Jen Marlowe Jeremiah Goulka Jeremy Cooper Jesse Mossman Jim Daniel Jim Kavanagh JoAnn Wypijewski Joe Lauria Johannes Wahlstrom John W. Dower John Feffer John Fund John Harrison Sims John Reid John Stauber John Taylor John V. Walsh John Williams Jon Else Jonathan Alan King Jonathan Anomaly Jonathan Rooper Jonathan Schell Joseph Kishore Juan Cole Judith Coburn K.R. Bolton Karel Van Wolferen Karen Greenberg Kelley Vlahos Kersasp D. Shekhdar Kevin Barrett Kevin Zeese Kshama Sawant Lance Welton Laura Gottesdiener Laura Poitras Laurent Guyénot Lawrence G. Proulx Leo Hohmann Linda Preston Logical Meme Lorraine Barlett M.G. Miles Mac Deford Maidhc O Cathail Malcolm Unwell Marcus Alethia Marcus Cicero Margaret Flowers Mark Danner Mark Engler Mark Perry Matt Parrott Mattea Kramer Matthew Harwood Matthew Richer Matthew Stevenson Max Blumenthal Max Denken Max North Maya Schenwar Michael Gould-Wartofsky Michael Schwartz Michael T. Klare Murray Polner Nan Levinson Naomi Oreskes Nate Terani Ned Stark Nelson Rosit Nicholas Stix Nick Kollerstrom Nick Turse Noam Chomsky Nomi Prins Patrick Cleburne Patrick Cloutier Paul Cochrane Paul Engler Paul Nachman Paul Nehlen Pepe Escobar Peter Brimelow Peter Gemma Peter Van Buren Pierre M. Sprey Pratap Chatterjee Publius Decius Mus Rajan Menon Ralph Nader Ramin Mazaheri Ramziya Zaripova Randy Shields Ray McGovern Razib Khan Rebecca Gordon Rebecca Solnit Richard Krushnic Richard Silverstein Rick Shenkman Rita Rozhkova Robert Baxter Robert Bonomo Robert Fisk Robert Lipsyte Robert Parry Robert Roth Robert S. Griffin Robert Scheer Robert Trivers Robin Eastman Abaya Roger Dooghy Ronald N. Neff Rory Fanning Sam Francis Sam Husseini Sayed Hasan Sharmini Peries Sheldon Richman Spencer Davenport Spencer Quinn Stefan Karganovic Steffen A. Woll Stephanie Savell Stephen J. Rossi Steve Fraser Steven Yates Sydney Schanberg Tanya Golash-Boza Ted Rall Theodore A. Postol Thierry Meyssan Thomas Frank Thomas O. Meehan Tim Shorrock Tim Weiner Tobias Langdon Todd E. Pierce Todd Gitlin Todd Miller Tom Piatak Tom Suarez Tom Sunic Tracy Rosenberg Virginia Dare Vladimir Brovkin Vox Day W. Patrick Lang Walter Block William Binney William DeBuys William Hartung William J. Astore Winslow T. Wheeler Ximena Ortiz Yan Shen
Nothing found
By Topics/Categories Filter?
2016 Election 9/11 Academia AIPAC Alt Right American Media American Military American Pravda Anti-Semitism Benjamin Netanyahu Blacks Britain China Conservative Movement Conspiracy Theories Deep State Donald Trump Economics Foreign Policy Hillary Clinton History Ideology Immigration IQ Iran ISIS Islam Israel Israel Lobby Israel/Palestine Jews Middle East Neocons Political Correctness Race/IQ Race/Ethnicity Republicans Russia Science Syria Terrorism Turkey Ukraine Vladimir Putin World War II 1971 War 2008 Election 2012 Election 2014 Election 23andMe 70th Anniversary Parade 75-0-25 Or Something A Farewell To Alms A. J. West A Troublesome Inheritance Aarab Barghouti Abc News Abdelhamid Abaaoud Abe Abe Foxman Abigail Marsh Abortion Abraham Lincoln Abu Ghraib Abu Zubaydah Academy Awards Acheivement Gap Acid Attacks Adam Schiff Addiction Adoptees Adoption Adoption Twins ADRA2b AEI Affective Empathy Affirmative Action Affordable Family Formation Afghanistan Africa African Americans African Genetics Africans Afrikaner Afrocentricism Agriculture Aha AIDS Ain't Nobody Got Time For That. Ainu Aircraft Carriers AirSea Battle Al Jazeera Al-Qaeda Alan Dershowitz Alan Macfarlane Albania Alberto Del Rosario Albion's Seed Alcohol Alcoholism Alexander Hamilton Alexandre Skirda Alexis De Tocqueville Algeria All Human Behavioral Traits Are Heritable All Traits Are Heritable Alpha Centauri Alpha Males Alt Left Altruism Amazon.com America The Beautiful American Atheists American Debt American Exceptionalism American Flag American Jews American Left American Legion American Nations American Nations American Prisons American Renaissance Americana Amerindians Amish Amish Quotient Amnesty Amnesty International Amoral Familialism Amy Chua Amygdala An Hbd Liberal Anaconda Anatoly Karlin Ancestry Ancient DNA Ancient Genetics Ancient Jews Ancient Near East Anders Breivik Andrei Nekrasov Andrew Jackson Androids Angela Stent Angelina Jolie Anglo-Saxons Ann Coulter Anne Buchanan Anne Heche Annual Country Reports On Terrorism Anthropology Antibiotics Antifa Antiquity Antiracism Antisocial Behavior Antiwar Movement Antonin Scalia Antonio Trillanes IV Anywhere But Here Apartheid Appalachia Appalachians Arab Christianity Arab Spring Arabs Archaic DNA Archaic Humans Arctic Humans Arctic Resources Argentina Argentina Default Armenians Army-McCarthy Hearings Arnon Milchan Art Arthur Jensen Artificial Intelligence As-Safir Ash Carter Ashkenazi Intelligence Ashkenazi Jews Ashraf Ghani Asia Asian Americans Asian Quotas Asians ASPM Assassinations Assimilation Assortative Mating Atheism Atlantic Council Attractiveness Attractiveness Australia Australian Aboriginals Austria Austro-Hungarian Empire Austronesians Autism Automation Avi Tuschman Avigdor Lieberman Ayodhhya Babri Masjid Baby Boom Baby Gap Baby Girl Jay Backlash Bacterial Vaginosis Bad Science Bahrain Balanced Polymorphism Balkans Baltimore Riots Bangladesh Banking Banking Industry Banking System Banks Barack H. Obama Barack Obama Barbara Comstock Bariatric Surgery Baseball Bashar Al-Assad Baumeister BDA BDS Movement Beauty Beauty Standards Behavior Genetics Behavioral Genetics Behaviorism Beijing Belgrade Embassy Bombing Believeing In Observational Studies Is Nuts Ben Cardin Ben Carson Benghazi Benjamin Cardin Berlin Wall Bernard Henri-Levy Bernard Lewis Bernie Madoff Bernie Sanders Bernies Sanders Beta Males BICOM Big Five Bilingual Education Bill 59 Bill Clinton Bill Kristol Bill Maher Billionaires Billy Graham Birds Of A Feather Birth Order Birth Rate Bisexuality Bisexuals BJP Black Americans Black Crime Black History Black Lives Matter Black Metal Black Muslims Black Panthers Black Women Attractiveness Blackface Blade Runner Blogging Blond Hair Blue Eyes Bmi Boasian Anthropology Boderlanders Boeing Boers Boiling Off Boko Haram Bolshevik Revolution Books Border Reivers Borderlander Borderlanders Boris Johnson Bosnia Boston Bomb Boston Marathon Bombing Bowe Bergdahl Boycott Divest And Sanction Boycott Divestment And Sanctions Brain Brain Scans Brain Size Brain Structure Brazil Breaking Down The Bullshit Breeder's Equation Bret Stephens Brexit Brian Boutwell Brian Resnick BRICs Brighter Brains Brighton Broken Hill Brown Eyes Bruce Jenner Bruce Lahn brussels Bryan Caplan BS Bundy Family Burakumin Burma Bush Administration C-section Cagots Caitlyn Jenner California Cambodia Cameron Russell Campaign Finance Campaign For Liberty Campus Rape Canada Canada Day Canadian Flag Canadians Cancer Candida Albicans Cannabis Capital Punishment Capitalism Captain Chicken Cardiovascular Disease Care Package Carl Sagan Carly Fiorina Caroline Glick Carroll Quigley Carry Me Back To Ole Virginny Carter Page Castes Catalonia Catholic Church Catholicism Catholics Causation Cavaliers CCTV Censorship Central Asia Chanda Chisala Charles Darwin Charles Krauthammer Charles Murray Charles Schumer Charleston Shooting Charlie Hebdo Charlie Rose Charlottesville Chechens Chechnya Cherlie Hebdo Child Abuse Child Labor Children Chimerism China/America China Stock Market Meltdown China Vietnam Chinese Chinese Communist Party Chinese Evolution Chinese Exclusion Act Chlamydia Chris Gown Chris Rock Chris Stringer Christian Fundamentalism Christianity Christmas Christopher Steele Chuck Chuck Hagel Chuck Schumer CIA Cinema Civil Liberties Civil Rights Civil War Civilian Deaths CJIA Clannishness Clans Clark-unz Selection Classical Economics Classical History Claude-Lévi-Strauss Climate Climate Change Clinton Global Initiative Cliodynamics Cloudburst Flight Clovis Cochran And Harpending Coefficient Of Relationship Cognitive Empathy Cognitive Psychology Cohorts Cold War Colin Kaepernick Colin Woodard Colombia Colonialism Colonists Coming Apart Comments Communism Confederacy Confederate Flag Conflict Of Interest Congress Consanguinity Conscientiousness Consequences Conservatism Conservatives Constitution Constitutional Theory Consumer Debt Cornel West Corporal Punishment Correlation Is Still Not Causation Corruption Corruption Perception Index Costa Concordia Cousin Marriage Cover Story CPEC Craniometry CRIF Crime Crimea Criminality Crowded Crowding Cruise Missiles Cuba Cuban Missile Crisis Cuckold Envy Cuckservative Cultural Evolution Cultural Marxism Cut The Sh*t Guys DACA Dads Vs Cads Daily Mail Dalai Lama Dallas Shooting Dalliard Dalton Trumbo Damascus Bombing Dan Freedman Dana Milbank Daniel Callahan Danish Daren Acemoglu Dark Ages Dark Tetrad Dark Triad Darwinism Data Posts David Brooks David Friedman David Frum David Goldenberg David Hackett Fischer David Ignatius David Katz David Kramer David Lane David Petraeus Davide Piffer Davos Death Death Penalty Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Debt Declaration Of Universal Human Rights Deep Sleep Deep South Democracy Democratic Party Democrats Demographic Transition Demographics Demography Denisovans Denmark Dennis Ross Depression Deprivation Deregulation Derek Harvey Desired Family Size Detroit Development Developmental Noise Developmental Stability Diabetes Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders Dialects Dick Cheney Die Nibelungen Dienekes Diet Different Peoples Is Different Dinesh D'Souza Dirty Bomb Discrimination Discrimination Paradigm Disney Dissent Diversity Dixie Django Unchained Do You Really Want To Know? Doing My Part Doll Tests Dollar Domestic Terrorism Dominique Strauss-Kahn Dopamine Douglas MacArthur Dr James Thompson Drd4 Dreams From My Father Dresden Drew Barrymore Dreyfus Affair Drinking Drone War Drones Drug Cartels Drugs Dry Counties DSM Dunning-kruger Effect Dusk In Autumn Dustin Hoffman Duterte Dylan Roof Dylann Roof Dysgenic E.O. 9066 E. O. Wilson Eagleman East Asia East Asians Eastern Europe Eastern Europeans Ebola Economic Development Economic Sanctions Economy Ed Miller Education Edward Price Edward Snowden EEA Egypt Eisenhower El Salvador Elections Electric Cars Elie Wiesel Eliot Cohen Eliot Engel Elites Ellen Walker Elliot Abrams Elliot Rodger Elliott Abrams Elon Musk Emigration Emil Kirkegaard Emmanuel Macron Emmanuel Todd Empathy England English Civil War Enhanced Interrogations Enoch Powell Entrepreneurship Environment Environmental Estrogens Environmentalism Erdogan Eric Cantor Espionage Estrogen Ethiopia Ethnic Genetic Interests Ethnic Nepotism Ethnicity EU Eugenic Eugenics Eurasia Europe European Right European Union Europeans Eurozone Everything Evil Evolution Evolutionary Biology Evolutionary Psychology Exercise Extraversion Extreterrestrials Eye Color Eyes Ezra Cohen-Watnick Face Recognition Face Shape Faces Facts Fake News fallout Family Studies Far West Farmers Farming Fascism Fat Head Fat Shaming Father Absence FBI Federal Reserve Female Deference Female Homosexuality Female Sexual Response Feminism Feminists Ferguson Shooting Fertility Fertility Fertility Rates Fethullah Gulen Fetish Feuds Fields Medals FIFA Fifty Shades Of Grey Film Finance Financial Bailout Financial Bubbles Financial Debt Financial Sector Financial Times Finland First Amendment First Law First World War FISA Fitness Flags Flight From White Fluctuating Asymmetry Flynn Effect Food Football For Profit Schools Foreign Service Fourth Of July Fracking Fragrances France Francesco Schettino Frank Salter Frankfurt School Frantz Fanon Franz Boas Fred Hiatt Fred Reed Freddie Gray Frederic Hof Free Speech Free Trade Free Will Freedom Of Navigation Freedom Of Speech French Canadians French National Front French Paradox Friendly & Conventional Front National Frost-harpending Selection Fulford Funny G G Spot Gaddafi Gallipoli Game Gardnerella Vaginalis Gary Taubes Gay Germ Gay Marriage Gays/Lesbians Gaza Gaza Flotilla Gcta Gender Gender Gender And Sexuality Gender Confusion Gender Equality Gender Identity Disorder Gender Reassignment Gene-Culture Coevolution Gene-environment Correlation General Intelligence General Social Survey General Theory Of The West Genes Genes: They Matter Bitches Genetic Diversity Genetic Divides Genetic Engineering Genetic Load Genetic Pacification Genetics Genetics Of Height Genocide Genomics Geography Geopolitics George Bush George Clooney George Patton George Romero George Soros George Tenet George W. Bush George Wallace Germ Theory German Catholics Germans Germany Get It Right Get Real Ghouta Gilgit Baltistan Gina Haspel Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Global Terrorism Index Global Warming Globalism Globalization God Delusion Goetsu Going Too Far Gold Gold Warriors Goldman Sachs Good Advice Google Gordon Gallup Goths Government Debt Government Incompetence Government Spending Government Surveillance Great Depression Great Leap Forward Great Recession Greater Appalachia Greece Greeks Greg Clark Greg Cochran Gregory B Christainsen Gregory Clark Gregory Cochran Gregory House GRF Grooming Group Intelligence Group Selection Grumpy Cat GSS Guangzhou Guantanamo Guardian Guilt Culture Gun Control Guns Gynephilia Gypsies H-1B H Bomb H.R. McMaster H1-B Visas Haim Saban Hair Color Hair Lengthening Haiti Hajnal Line Hamas Hamilton: An American Musical Hamilton's Rule Happiness Happy Turkey Day ... Unless You're The Turkey Harriet Tubman Harry Jaffa Harvard Harvey Weinstein Hasbara Hassidim Hate Crimes Hate Speech Hatemi Havelock Ellis Haymarket Affair Hbd Hbd Chick HBD Denial Hbd Fallout Hbd Readers Head Size Health And Medicine Health Care Healthcare Heart Disease Heart Health Heart Of Asia Conference Heartiste Heather Norton Height Helmuth Nyborg Hemoglobin Henri De Man Henry Harpending Henry Kissinger Herbert John Fleure Heredity Heritability Hexaco Hezbollah High Iq Fertility Hip Hop Hiroshima Hispanic Crime Hispanic Paradox Hispanics Historical Genetics Hitler HKND Hollywood Holocaust Homicide Homicide Rate Homo Altaiensis Homophobia Homosexuality Honesty-humility House Intelligence Committee House M.d. House Md House Of Cards Housing Huey Long Huey Newton Hugo Chavez Human Biodiversity Human Evolution Human Genetics Human Genomics Human Nature Human Rights Human Varieties Humor Hungary Hunter-Gatherers Hunting Hurricane Hurricane Harvey I.F. Stone I Kissed A Girl And I Liked It I Love Italians I.Q. Genomics Ian Deary Ibd Ibo Ice T Iceland I'd Like To Think It's Obvious I Know What I'm Talking About Ideology And Worldview Idiocracy Igbo Ignorance Ilana Mercer Illegal Immigration IMF immigrants Immigration Imperial Presidency Imperialism Imran Awan In The Electric Mist Inbreeding Income Independence Day India Indians Individualism Inequality Infection Theory Infidelity Intelligence Internet Internet Research Agency Interracial Marriage Inuit Ioannidis Ioannis Metaxas Iosif Lazaridis Iq Iq And Wealth Iran Nuclear Agreement Iran Nuclear Program Iran Sanctions Iranian Nuclear Program Iraq Iraq War Ireland Irish ISIS. Terrorism Islamic Jihad Islamophobia Isolationism Israel Defense Force Israeli Occupation Israeli Settlements Israeli Spying Italianthro Italy It's Determinism - Genetics Is Just A Part It's Not Nature And Nurture Ivanka Ivy League Iwo Eleru J. Edgar Hoover Jack Keane Jake Tapper JAM-GC Jamaica James Clapper James Comey James Fanell James Mattis James Wooley Jamie Foxx Jane Harman Jane Mayer Janet Yellen Japan Japanese Jared Diamond Jared Kushner Jared Taylor Jason Malloy JASTA Jayman Jr. Jayman's Wife Jeff Bezos Jennifer Rubin Jensen Jeremy Corbyn Jerrold Nadler Jerry Seinfeld Jesse Bering Jesuits Jewish History JFK Assassination Jill Stein Jim Crow Joe Cirincione Joe Lieberman John Allen John B. Watson John Boehner John Bolton John Brennan John Derbyshire John Durant John F. Kennedy John Hawks John Hoffecker John Kasich John Kerry John Ladue John McCain John McLaughlin John McWhorter John Mearsheimer John Tooby Joke Posts Jonathan Freedland Jonathan Pollard Joseph Lieberman Joseph McCarthy Judaism Judicial System Judith Harris Julian Assange Jute K.d. Lang Kagans Kanazawa Kashmir Katibat Al-Battar Al-Libi Katy Perry Kay Hymowitz Keith Ellison Ken Livingstone Kenneth Marcus Kennewick Man Kevin MacDonald Kevin McCarthy Kevin Mitchell Kevin Williamson KGL-9268 Khazars Kim Jong Un Kimberly Noble Kin Altruism Kin Selection Kink Kinship Kissing Kiwis Kkk Knesset Know-nothings Korea Korean War Kosovo Ku Klux Klan Kurds Kurt Campbell Labor Day Lactose Lady Gaga Language Larkana Conspiracy Larry Summers Larung Gar Las Vegas Massacre Latin America Latinos Latitude Latvia Law Law Of War Manual Laws Of Behavioral Genetics Lead Poisoning Lebanon Leda Cosmides Lee Kuan Yew Left Coast Left/Right Lenin Leo Strauss Lesbians LGBT Liberal Creationism Liberalism Liberals Libertarianism Libertarians Libya life-expectancy Life In Space Life Liberty And The Pursuit Of Happyness Lifestyle Light Skin Preference Lindsay Graham Lindsey Graham Literacy Litvinenko Lloyd Blankfein Locus Of Control Logan's Run Lombok Strait Long Ass Posts Longevity Look AHEAD Looting Lorde Love Love Dolls Lover Boys Low-carb Low-fat Low Wages LRSO Lutherans Lyndon Johnson M Factor M.g. MacArthur Awards Machiavellianism Madeleine Albright Mahmoud Abbas Maine Malacca Strait Malaysian Airlines MH17 Male Homosexuality Mamasapano Mangan Manor Manorialism Manosphere Manufacturing Mao-a Mao Zedong Maoism Maori Map Posts maps Marc Faber Marco Rubio Marijuana Marine Le Pen Mark Carney Mark Steyn Mark Warner Market Economy Marriage Martin Luther King Marwan Marwan Barghouti Marxism Mary White Ovington Masha Gessen Mass Shootings Massacre In Nice Mate Choice Mate Value Math Mathematics Maulana Bhashani Max Blumenthal Max Boot Max Brooks Mayans McCain/POW Mearsheimer-Walt Measurement Error Mega-Aggressions Mega-anlysis Megan Fox Megyn Kelly Melanin Memorial Day Mental Health Mental Illness Mental Traits Meritocracy Merkel Mesolithic Meta-analysis Meth Mexican-American War Mexico Michael Anton Michael Bloomberg Michael Flynn Michael Hudson Michael Jackson Michael Lewis Michael Morell Michael Pompeo Michael Weiss Michael Woodley Michele Bachmann Michelle Bachmann Michelle Obama Microaggressions Microcephalin Microsoft Middle Ages Mideastwire Migration Mike Huckabee Mike Pence Mike Pompeo Mike Signer Mikhail Khodorkovsky Militarized Police Military Military Pay Military Spending Milner Group Mindanao Minimum Wage Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study Minorities Minstrels Mirror Neurons Miscellaneous Misdreavus Missile Defense Mitt Romney Mixed-Race Modern Humans Mohammed Bin Salman Moldova Monogamy Moral Absolutism Moral Universalism Morality Mormons Moro Mortality Mossad Mountains Movies Moxie Mrs. Jayman MTDNA Muammar Gaddafi Multiculturalism Multiregional Model Music Muslim Muslim Ban Muslims Mutual Assured Destruction My Lai My Old Kentucky Home Myanmar Mysticism Nagasaki Nancy Segal Narendra Modi Nascar National Debt National Differences National Review National Security State National Security Strategy National Wealth Nationalism Native Americans NATO Natural Selection Nature Vs. Nurture Navy Yard Shooting Naz Shah Nazi Nazis Nazism Nbc News Nbc Nightly News Neanderthals NED Neo-Nazis Neoconservatism Neoconservatives Neoliberalism Neolithic Netherlands Neuropolitics Neuroticism Never Forget The Genetic Confound New Addition New Atheists New Cold War New England Patriots New France New French New Netherland New Qing History New Rules New Silk Road New World Order New York City New York Times Newfoundland Newt Gingrich NFL Nicaragua Canal Nicholas Sarkozy Nicholas Wade Nigeria Nightly News Nikki Haley No Free Will Nobel Prize Nobel Prized Nobosuke Kishi Nordics North Africa North Korea Northern Ireland Northwest Europe Norway NSA NSA Surveillance Nuclear Proliferation Nuclear War Nuclear Weapons Null Result Nurture Nurture Assumption Nutrition Nuts NYPD O Mio Babbino Caro Obama Obamacare Obesity Obscured American Occam's Razor Occupy Occupy Wall Street Oceania Oil Oil Industry Old Folks At Home Olfaction Oliver Stone Olympics Omega Males Ominous Signs Once You Go Black Open To Experience Openness To Experience Operational Sex Ratio Opiates Opioids Orban Organ Transplants Orlando Shooting Orthodoxy Osama Bin Laden Ottoman Empire Our Political Nature Out Of Africa Model Outbreeding Oxtr Oxytocin Paekchong Pakistan Pakistani Palatability Paleoamerindians Paleocons Paleolibertarianism Palestine Palestinians Pamela Geller Panama Canal Panama Papers Parasite Parasite Burden Parasite Manipulation Parent-child Interactions Parenting Parenting Parenting Behavioral Genetics Paris Attacks Paris Spring Parsi Paternal Investment Pathogens Patriot Act Patriotism Paul Ewald Paul Krugman Paul Lepage Paul Manafort Paul Ryan Paul Singer Paul Wolfowitz Pavel Grudinin Peace Index Peak Jobs Pearl Harbor Pedophilia Peers Peggy Seagrave Pennsylvania Pentagon Perception Management Personality Peru Peter Frost Peter Thiel Peter Turchin Phil Onderdonk Phil Rushton Philip Breedlove Philippines Physical Anthropology Pierre Van Den Berghe Pieter Van Ostaeyen Piigs Pioneer Hypothesis Pioneers PISA Pizzagate Planets Planned Parenthood Pledge Of Allegiance Pleiotropy Pol Pot Poland Police State Police Training Politics Poll Results Polls Polygenic Score Polygyny Pope Francis Population Growth Population Replacement Populism Pornography Portugal Post 199 Post 201 Post 99 Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Post-Nationalism Pot Poverty PRC Prenatal Hormones Prescription Drugs Press Censorship Pretty Graphs Prince Bandar Priti Patel Privatization Progressives Project Plowshares Propaganda Prostitution Protestantism Proud To Be Black Psychology Psychometrics Psychopaths Psychopathy Pubertal Timing Public Schools Puerto Rico Punishment Puritans Putin Pwc Qatar Quakers Quantitative Genetics Quebec Quebecois Race Race And Crime Race And Genomics Race And Iq Race And Religion Race/Crime Race Denialism Race Riots Rachel Dolezal Rachel Maddow Racial Intelligence Racial Reality Racism Radical Islam Ralph And Coop Ralph Nader Rand Paul Randy Fine Rap Music Raqqa Rating People Rationality Raul Pedrozo Razib Khan Reaction Time Reading Real Estate Real Women Really Stop The Armchair Psychoanalysis Recep Tayyip Erdogan Reciprocal Altruism Reconstruction Red Hair Red State Blue State Red States Blue States Refugee Crisis Regional Differences Regional Populations Regression To The Mean Religion Religion Religion And Philosophy Rena Wing Renewable Energy Rentier Reprint Reproductive Strategy Republican Jesus Republican Party Responsibility Reuel Gerecht Reverend Moon Revolution Of 1905 Revolutions Rex Tillerson Richard Dawkins Richard Dyer Richard Lewontin Richard Lynn Richard Nixon Richard Pryor Richard Pryor Live On The Sunset Strip Richard Russell Rick Perry Rickets Rikishi Robert Ford Robert Kraft Robert Lindsay Robert McNamara Robert Mueller Robert Mugabe Robert Plomin Robert Putnam Robert Reich Robert Spencer Robocop Robots Roe Vs. Wade Roger Ailes Rohingya Roman Empire Rome Ron Paul Ron Unz Ronald Reagan Rooshv Rosemary Hopcroft Ross Douthat Ross Perot Rotherham Roy Moore RT International Rupert Murdoch Rural Liberals Rushton Russell Kirk Russia-Georgia War Russiagate Russian Elections 2018 Russian Hack Russian History Russian Military Russian Orthodox Church Ruth Benedict Saakashvili Sam Harris Same Sex Attraction Same-sex Marriage Same-sex Parents Samoans Samuel George Morton San Bernadino Massacre Sandra Beleza Sandusky Sandy Hook Sarah Palin Sarin Gas Satoshi Kanazawa saudi Saudi Arabia Saying What You Have To Say Scandinavia Scandinavians Scarborough Shoal Schizophrenia Science: It Works Bitches Scientism Scotch-irish Scotland Scots Irish Scott Ritter Scrabble Secession Seduced By Food Semai Senate Separating The Truth From The Nonsense Serbia Serenity Sergei Magnitsky Sergei Skripal Sex Sex Ratio Sex Ratio At Birth Sex Recognition Sex Tape Sex Work Sexism Sexual Antagonistic Selection Sexual Dimorphism Sexual Division Of Labor Sexual Fluidity Sexual Identity Sexual Maturation Sexual Orientation Sexual Selection Sexually Transmitted Diseases Seymour Hersh Shai Masot Shame Culture Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Shanghai Stock Exchange Shared Environment Shekhovstov Sheldon Adelson Shias And Sunnis Shimon Arad Shimon Peres Shinzo Abe Shmuley Boteach Shorts And Funnies Shoshana Bryen Shurat HaDin Shyness Siamak Namazi Sibel Edmonds Siberia Silicon Valley Simon Baron Cohen Singapore Single Men Single Motherhood Single Mothers Single Women Sisyphean Six Day War SJWs Skin Bleaching Skin Color Skin Tone Slate Slave Trade Slavery Slavoj Zizek Slavs SLC24A5 Sleep Slobodan Milosevic Smart Fraction Smell Smoking Snow Snyderman Social Constructs Social Justice Warriors Socialism Sociopathy Sociosexuality Solar Energy Solutions Somalia Sometimes You Don't Like The Answer South Africa South Asia South China Sea South Korea South Sudan Southern Italians Southern Poverty Law Center Soviet Union Space Space Space Program Space Race Spain Spanish Paradox Speech SPLC Sports Sputnik News Squid Ink Srebrenica Stabby Somali Staffan Stalinism Stanislas Dehaene Star Trek State Department State Formation States Rights Statins Steny Hoyer Stephan Guyenet Stephen Cohen Stephen Colbert Stephen Hadley Stephen Jay Gould Sterling Seagrave Steve Bannon Steve Sailer Steven Mnuchin Steven Pinker Still Not Free Buddy Stolen Generations Strategic Affairs Ministry Stroke Belt Student Loans Stuxnet SU-57 Sub-replacement Fertility Sub-Saharan Africa Sub-Saharan Africans Subprime Mortgage Crisis Subsistence Living Suffrage Sugar Suicide Summing It All Up Supernatural Support Me Support The Jayman Supreme Court Supression Surveillance Susan Glasser Susan Rice Sweden Swiss Switzerland Syed Farook Syrian Refugees Syriza Ta-Nehisi Coates Taiwan Tale Of Two Maps Taliban Tamerlan Tsarnaev TAS2R16 Tashfeen Malik Taste Tastiness Tatars Tatu Vanhanen Tawang Tax Cuts Tax Evasion Taxes Tea Party Team Performance Technology Ted Cruz Tell Me About You Tell The Truth Terman Terman's Termites Terroris Terrorists Tesla Testosterone Thailand The 10000 Year Explosion The Bible The Breeder's Equation The Confederacy The Dark Knight The Dark Triad The Death Penalty The Deep South The Devil Is In The Details The Dustbowl The Economist The Far West The Future The Great Plains The Great Wall The Left The Left Coast The New York Times The Pursuit Of Happyness The Rock The Saker The Son Also Rises The South The Walking Dead The Washington Post The Wide Environment The World Theodore Roosevelt Theresa May Things Going Sour Third World Thomas Aquinas Thomas Friedman Thomas Perez Thomas Sowell Thomas Talhelm Thorstein Veblen Thurgood Marshall Tibet Tidewater Tiger Mom Time Preference Timmons Title IX Tobin Tax Tom Cotton Tom Naughton Tone It Down Guys Seriously Tony Blair Torture Toxoplasma Gondii TPP Traffic Traffic Fatalities Tragedy Trans-Species Polymorphism Transgender Transgenderism Transsexuals Treasury Tropical Humans Trump Trust TTIP Tuition Tulsi Gabbard Turkheimer TWA 800 Twin Study Twins Twins Raised Apart Twintuition Twitter Two Party System UKIP Ukrainian Crisis UN Security Council Unemployment Unions United Kingdom United Nations United States Universalism University Admissions Upper Paleolithic Urban Riots Ursula Gauthier Uruguay US Blacks USS Liberty Utopian Uttar Pradesh UV Uyghurs Vaginal Yeast Valerie Plame Vassopressin Vdare Veep Venezuela Veterans Administration Victor Canfield Victor Davis Hanson Victoria Nuland Victorian England Victorianism Video Games Vietnam Vietnam War Vietnamese Vikings Violence Vioxx Virginia Visa Waivers Visual Word Form Area Vitamin D Voronezh Vote Fraud Vouchers Vwfa W.E.I.R.D. W.E.I.R.D.O. Wahhabis Wall Street Walter Bodmer Wang Jing War On Christmas War On Terror Washington Post WasPage Watergate Watsoning We Are What We Are We Don't Know All The Environmental Causes Weight Loss WEIRDO Welfare Western Europe Western European Marriage Pattern Western Media Western Religion Westerns What Can You Do What's The Cause Where They're At Where's The Fallout White America White Americans White Conservative Males White Death White Helmets White Nationalist Nuttiness White Nationalists White Privilege White Slavery White Supremacy White Wife Why We Believe Hbd Wikileaks Wild Life Wilhelm Furtwangler William Browder William Buckley William D. Hamilton William Graham Sumner William McGougall WINEP Winston Churchill Women In The Workplace Woodley Effect Woodrow Wilson WORDSUM Workers Working Class Working Memory World Values Survey World War I World War Z Writing WTO X Little Miss JayLady Xhosa Xi Jinping Xinjiang Yankeedom Yankees Yazidis Yemen Yes I Am A Brother Yes I Am Liberal - But That Kind Of Liberal Yochi Dreazen You Can't Handle The Truth You Don't Know Shit Youtube Ban Yugoslavia Zbigniew Brzezinski Zhang Yimou Zika Zika Virus Zimbabwe Zionism Zombies Zones Of Thought Zulfikar Ali Bhutto
Nothing found
All Commenters • My
Comments
• Followed
Commenters
All Comments / On "Classical History"
 All Comments / On "Classical History"
    Our knowledge of the early life of Alexander the Great is based upon very slender literary evidence.[*] Arrian devotes only a few sentences to the years prior to Alexander's campaigns. Plutarch's coverage of Alexander's youth is also very condensed, and both he and Arrian rely almost exclusively upon pro-Alexander sources such as Ptolemy and Aristoboulos....
  • off topic: Is is possible to recommend a book for inclusion on Unz.org? How does one do so?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • j says: • Website

    Unz presents a false conspiratorial picture of Alexander’s succession of Philip. There is no doubt that Philip worried a lot for Alexander’s upbringing, procuring the very best education available, including hiring the philosopher Aristotle to tutor him. He also brought in Greece’s most famous prostitute to initiate Alexander in heterosexual love (he seems to have been less than enthusiastic). Moreover, Philip left the adolescent Alexander in charge of the kingdom while he was away in campaign and Alexander more than justified his confidence by enslaving nearby tribes. He also led the horse unit in his father’s campaigns, most successfully.

    When Philip was assassinated, Alexander did not succeed him by way of conspiracy or eliminating rivals, as the article seems to suggest, he had no need of that, because the Army immediately elected him to be its leader.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    Wasn't Alexander gay?

    Define “gay.” Did he screw dudes, yes. Exclusively, no. But that was the norm for the upper classes in Greek culture, so it’s not really accurate to call him “bisexual” as if it was merely a personal preference.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Curtius writes that Alexander was uninterested in women so much that Philip imported a foreign courtesan to initiate him. It was imperative for him to eliminate the competition, but even so he and his mother were considered excessively sanguinary even in the Antiquity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @anonymous

    We can see that in most of the non-Christian world today cousin marriage, uncle-niece marriage, etc. are still accepted, as the recent Somali elected representative shows. The horrors of Muslim incest are something that should be exposed more often, if only to show that not all cultures are equal, and sharia law is an abomination.
     
    Cousin marriage is allowed, yes. Uncle-niece marriage is not.

    *shrug*

    Anyway, the abomination is the western civilisation, which thrives on a satanic level of Greed and Psychopathy... and Pagan Polytheism.

    As your kind burns for all eternity, you will understand which is the true abomination.

    Anyway, the abomination is the western civilisation, which thrives on a satanic level of Greed and Psychopathy… and Pagan Polytheism.

    This is a cheap shot. There are a lot of bona fides to the West despite the ruin.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @TWS
    That's a flat lie. You're as ignorant as you are arrogant.

    I don’t think it’s a lie, I just think he doesn’t know all that much of what he’s talking about. I tried to lead him into a Socratic dialogue which sort of petered out.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @whorefinder
    Given the high degree of incest that existed in the pre-Christian world, the blurred line between "cousin" and "brother" probably made a lot more sense. Many families had no problem intermarrying in ways that disgust us in the West today: half-brothers and half-sisters married, uncles married nieces, first cousins could marry, etc. Your "cousin" might very well have enough of your own genes that he could be called your brother.

    It was the Catholic Church that made incest verboten before the Reformation.The Church noticed that warring factions often (1) existed side by side; and (2) kept marriages within the nobility of the particular clan. The Church thought that by barring certain forms of incestual marriage, it would force clans next to each other to breed with one another, thereby uniting lands and reducing hostility, which, in fact, it did.

    Note that Judaism did not ban a lot of incest; it was the Church that led this. Some Protestant denominations went backwards on incest, but for the most part Protestants kept up this ban (although Jane Austen's novels do have a bit of a blur between relations and marriage opportunities),

    Note also how it was assumed that the elites of two societies would much rather marry each other than commoners of their own realm. It probably didn't mean much when a powerful clan was the only people on a land (i.e. with Scottish or Irish clans in the hinterlands), but as lands became more populated and the commoner/elite divide became more pronounced the elites still preferred to marry across elite lines rather than go down to the peasantry or yeoman or merchant. Food for thought.

    We can see that in most of the non-Christian world today cousin marriage, uncle-niece marriage, etc. are still accepted, as the recent Somali elected representative shows. The horrors of Muslim incest are something that should be exposed more often, if only to show that not all cultures are equal, and sharia law is an abomination.

    We can see that in most of the non-Christian world today cousin marriage, uncle-niece marriage, etc. are still accepted, as the recent Somali elected representative shows. The horrors of Muslim incest are something that should be exposed more often, if only to show that not all cultures are equal, and sharia law is an abomination.

    Cousin marriage is allowed, yes. Uncle-niece marriage is not.

    *shrug*

    Anyway, the abomination is the western civilisation, which thrives on a satanic level of Greed and Psychopathy… and Pagan Polytheism.

    As your kind burns for all eternity, you will understand which is the true abomination.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bomag

    Anyway, the abomination is the western civilisation, which thrives on a satanic level of Greed and Psychopathy… and Pagan Polytheism.
     
    This is a cheap shot. There are a lot of bona fides to the West despite the ruin.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @daniel le mouche
    That will need some explaining. No historian of first century Rome mentions Jesus. Many (I believe though admittedly haven't read) mention Alexander, including the fact that Aristotle was his tutor, and his famous words with the philosopher Diogenes, and to say nothing of the trail of evidence he left behind in the form of cities renamed after him.
    But again, history can be, and is, continually falsified, so to claim that I actually know any of this is absurd--I've READ bits here and there, so it's all rather suspect from the beginning.

    That’s a flat lie. You’re as ignorant as you are arrogant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    I don't think it's a lie, I just think he doesn't know all that much of what he's talking about. I tried to lead him into a Socratic dialogue which sort of petered out.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Many of the Reformers

    Which? Cited in the article is Heine who shares your opinion, and various Catholics who thought the laxity (not specifically the “Revival of Learning”, but possibly the “incredible liberty of discussion”) of Rome was responsible for its troubles, but neither he nor they are Reformers.

    Heine (Ueber Deutschland) saw that the Reformation was, in effect, a Teutonic answer to the Renaissance; and we now perceive that, while the dogmas of Luther and Calvin have lost their hold upon men’s hearts, the revival of letters is broadening out into a transformation of democracy by means of culture: hic labor, hoc opus; the question of how to reconcile a perfectly-equipped human life with an ascetic religion and the demands of freedom for all, is one which none of the Reformers contemplated, much less did they succeed in resolving it.

    Weren’t you the one who previously maintained that the Reformation led to a broadening of thought? Of course since it was not in this discussion you are not obliged to maintain this thesis, and “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds”, but it seems an interesting conjunction.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anon

    Many of the Reformers were repulsed by this glorification of pre-Christian and therefore pagan values, and the Reformation was explicitly an attempt to return to what they saw as specifically Christian rather than Christian/pagan values.
     
    Which? Luther? Calvin?

    An interesting article on the subject, from the Catholic Encyclopedia of all places.

    https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/renaissance-the

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @daniel le mouche
    The 16th century, during which the entire Reformation happened, including the utter destruction (literally razing to the ground) of all monasteries in Britain, the creation of the bogus Anglican Church (which 'co-opted' the beautiful Catholic churches and magically made them their own), not to mention the drawing and quartering of all Catholics in England on Elizabeth's orders, was more lax in religious matters than the 17th?
    To your previous response to me, my main point is that official histories exist, in fact they are being created before our very eyes if we have the eyes to see it; the forces that control our minds (i.e. that control the schools, churches, media, and publishing) will have us believe what they want us to believe, Toynbee or no. I only just began his big theoretical work on history some years ago; it seemed very interesting of course, but (like basically all published work) very Establishment. But again, I'm far too ignorant on this subject to say anything for sure--so I hazard guesses, speculate.

    more lax in religious matters than the 17th?

    Yes; the examples you cite go to demonstrate the fact. Obviously the people doing these things were not particularly pious!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Logan
    The Renaissance was touted at the time and since as a return to classical values after the dark ages. Sort of by definition this involved giving greater respect to the values of classical times, which were of course pagan in origin, not Christian.

    In my various comments, when I've referred to pagan influence in society during the Renaissance and later, I've been, perhaps clumsily, referring to these values, not theology. No, the renaissance popes never reverted to pagan doctrine, but society, among the upper classes and intelligentsia, sure reverted to a great extent to classical and therefore pagan values. Hence the immense interest in classical literature, the explosion of artwork based on classical mythology and other themes, etc.

    Many of the Reformers were repulsed by this glorification of pre-Christian and therefore pagan values, and the Reformation was explicitly an attempt to return to what they saw as specifically Christian rather than Christian/pagan values.

    2 Corinthians: "Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership can righteousness have with wickedness? Or what fellowship does light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement can exist between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be My people.”

    This reaction against what it saw as paganism was one of the main driving forces behind the Reformation. Opinions vary on whether the reaction was justified or appropriate.

    Many of the Reformers were repulsed by this glorification of pre-Christian and therefore pagan values, and the Reformation was explicitly an attempt to return to what they saw as specifically Christian rather than Christian/pagan values.

    Which? Luther? Calvin?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    An interesting article on the subject, from the Catholic Encyclopedia of all places.

    https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/renaissance-the
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anon
    It would go hard with me before I would admit that Milton was a worse classicist than Michelangelo; nor would I admit he knew his bible better than More, though I will admit of course that the 16th century was considerably more lax in religious matters than the 17th-- the Reformers more and not less than other people. All the same I think, unless one is really a Greek pagan, that if a pope had a mistress or so on it is not entirely necessary to impute the fact to the influence of Venus or Cupid-- like Laplace "I have no need of that hypothesis, Sire."

    In general I think the 17th and 19th centuries were in general more bookish than the surrounding periods-- whether to say this is a cause, or an effect, or neither, of the religious opinions held at the time time I will not venture to say, not, unlike Toynbee (for whom I have the greatest respect), being a historian.

    The Renaissance was touted at the time and since as a return to classical values after the dark ages. Sort of by definition this involved giving greater respect to the values of classical times, which were of course pagan in origin, not Christian.

    In my various comments, when I’ve referred to pagan influence in society during the Renaissance and later, I’ve been, perhaps clumsily, referring to these values, not theology. No, the renaissance popes never reverted to pagan doctrine, but society, among the upper classes and intelligentsia, sure reverted to a great extent to classical and therefore pagan values. Hence the immense interest in classical literature, the explosion of artwork based on classical mythology and other themes, etc.

    Many of the Reformers were repulsed by this glorification of pre-Christian and therefore pagan values, and the Reformation was explicitly an attempt to return to what they saw as specifically Christian rather than Christian/pagan values.

    2 Corinthians: “Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership can righteousness have with wickedness? Or what fellowship does light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement can exist between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be My people.”

    This reaction against what it saw as paganism was one of the main driving forces behind the Reformation. Opinions vary on whether the reaction was justified or appropriate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    Many of the Reformers were repulsed by this glorification of pre-Christian and therefore pagan values, and the Reformation was explicitly an attempt to return to what they saw as specifically Christian rather than Christian/pagan values.
     
    Which? Luther? Calvin?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @daniel le mouche
    That will need some explaining. No historian of first century Rome mentions Jesus. Many (I believe though admittedly haven't read) mention Alexander, including the fact that Aristotle was his tutor, and his famous words with the philosopher Diogenes, and to say nothing of the trail of evidence he left behind in the form of cities renamed after him.
    But again, history can be, and is, continually falsified, so to claim that I actually know any of this is absurd--I've READ bits here and there, so it's all rather suspect from the beginning.

    No historian of first century Rome mentions Jesus.

    Quite simply untrue.

    Josephus mentions him several times in Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93, less than 60 years after his death.

    Jesus was, from the perspective of most first-century Romans, simply an obscure criminal from an obscure part of the Empire. Why in the world would a Roman historian write about him?

    Tacitus also referred to him in writings from the early second century.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anon
    It would go hard with me before I would admit that Milton was a worse classicist than Michelangelo; nor would I admit he knew his bible better than More, though I will admit of course that the 16th century was considerably more lax in religious matters than the 17th-- the Reformers more and not less than other people. All the same I think, unless one is really a Greek pagan, that if a pope had a mistress or so on it is not entirely necessary to impute the fact to the influence of Venus or Cupid-- like Laplace "I have no need of that hypothesis, Sire."

    In general I think the 17th and 19th centuries were in general more bookish than the surrounding periods-- whether to say this is a cause, or an effect, or neither, of the religious opinions held at the time time I will not venture to say, not, unlike Toynbee (for whom I have the greatest respect), being a historian.

    The 16th century, during which the entire Reformation happened, including the utter destruction (literally razing to the ground) of all monasteries in Britain, the creation of the bogus Anglican Church (which ‘co-opted’ the beautiful Catholic churches and magically made them their own), not to mention the drawing and quartering of all Catholics in England on Elizabeth’s orders, was more lax in religious matters than the 17th?
    To your previous response to me, my main point is that official histories exist, in fact they are being created before our very eyes if we have the eyes to see it; the forces that control our minds (i.e. that control the schools, churches, media, and publishing) will have us believe what they want us to believe, Toynbee or no. I only just began his big theoretical work on history some years ago; it seemed very interesting of course, but (like basically all published work) very Establishment. But again, I’m far too ignorant on this subject to say anything for sure–so I hazard guesses, speculate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    more lax in religious matters than the 17th?
     
    Yes; the examples you cite go to demonstrate the fact. Obviously the people doing these things were not particularly pious!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Logan
    Toynbee explained all this long ago.

    He had an interesting theory that civilizations were organisms with a natural life cycle. Which has a good bit of truth to it. Then, like many people, he stretched the theory well beyond where it fit, distorting history where necessary.

    His idea, as applied to western civ, was that it was/is the only civilization that is a hybrid. Essentially Greek classical civilization plus Judaic Christianity. This, in his opinion, made it uniquely innovative and vibrant, so it hadn't (when he wrote) descended into the complacency that had doomed all previous civilizations.

    The classical and biblical roots constantly struggled against each other. It's not hard to spot.

    During the Middle Ages the intellectual culture was dominated by Christianity. The Renaissance was a classical reaction, while the Reformation was a biblical re-reaction. The Enlightenment was classical. Victorian society was largely biblical, at least morally.

    Our present culture seems to be attempting to reject both roots.

    It would go hard with me before I would admit that Milton was a worse classicist than Michelangelo; nor would I admit he knew his bible better than More, though I will admit of course that the 16th century was considerably more lax in religious matters than the 17th– the Reformers more and not less than other people. All the same I think, unless one is really a Greek pagan, that if a pope had a mistress or so on it is not entirely necessary to impute the fact to the influence of Venus or Cupid– like Laplace “I have no need of that hypothesis, Sire.”

    In general I think the 17th and 19th centuries were in general more bookish than the surrounding periods– whether to say this is a cause, or an effect, or neither, of the religious opinions held at the time time I will not venture to say, not, unlike Toynbee (for whom I have the greatest respect), being a historian.

    Read More
    • Replies: @daniel le mouche
    The 16th century, during which the entire Reformation happened, including the utter destruction (literally razing to the ground) of all monasteries in Britain, the creation of the bogus Anglican Church (which 'co-opted' the beautiful Catholic churches and magically made them their own), not to mention the drawing and quartering of all Catholics in England on Elizabeth's orders, was more lax in religious matters than the 17th?
    To your previous response to me, my main point is that official histories exist, in fact they are being created before our very eyes if we have the eyes to see it; the forces that control our minds (i.e. that control the schools, churches, media, and publishing) will have us believe what they want us to believe, Toynbee or no. I only just began his big theoretical work on history some years ago; it seemed very interesting of course, but (like basically all published work) very Establishment. But again, I'm far too ignorant on this subject to say anything for sure--so I hazard guesses, speculate.
    , @Logan
    The Renaissance was touted at the time and since as a return to classical values after the dark ages. Sort of by definition this involved giving greater respect to the values of classical times, which were of course pagan in origin, not Christian.

    In my various comments, when I've referred to pagan influence in society during the Renaissance and later, I've been, perhaps clumsily, referring to these values, not theology. No, the renaissance popes never reverted to pagan doctrine, but society, among the upper classes and intelligentsia, sure reverted to a great extent to classical and therefore pagan values. Hence the immense interest in classical literature, the explosion of artwork based on classical mythology and other themes, etc.

    Many of the Reformers were repulsed by this glorification of pre-Christian and therefore pagan values, and the Reformation was explicitly an attempt to return to what they saw as specifically Christian rather than Christian/pagan values.

    2 Corinthians: "Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership can righteousness have with wickedness? Or what fellowship does light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement can exist between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be My people.”

    This reaction against what it saw as paganism was one of the main driving forces behind the Reformation. Opinions vary on whether the reaction was justified or appropriate.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @daniel le mouche
    'Presumably you mean “first-century historian of Rome”.'

    Yes, of course--contemporary history.

    'How many histories of Alexander survive from before 256 BC?'

    No idea. I think I mentioned somewhere above that I've never read anything on the guy at all.

    I’m not a historian, but historians including atheists seem generally to conclude that we can be as certain of Christ’s existence as certainty gets in history. So I don’t waste my time on things I really can’t judge anyway– if there were anything in this stuff about Caesarion or whatever, if any of it were even remotely plausible, historians would pick it up and run with it; there are a lot of atheist historians as well as a lot of historians willing to pursue random pet theories, and blasphemy sells very well.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @daniel le mouche
    A truly awful song. Thanks, I guess. I'd never listened to Iron Maiden, and this is enough. I will say, this man should have been a history teacher instead of a heavy metal rocker.

    A truly awful song. Thanks, I guess. I’d never listened to Iron Maiden, and this is enough. I will say, this man should have been a history teacher instead of a heavy metal rocker.

    You can’t please everyone I guess. I like it… I think it’s one of their better songs and one of my favorites. It is unapologetically admiring of Alexander’s legacy, fratricidal or otherwise. Bruce voted for Brexit, fittingly btw.

    http://www.brucefans.net/bruce-dickinson-is-in-favour-of-the-brexit/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Lars Porsena
    Daniel, Rome was not really the center of the early Christian world. Not then. It was spread throughout the east empire. When Constantine made it the official religion of the empire, he also split the empire in two and relocated to the new capital of Constantinople (currently Istanbul, Turkey) abandoning Rome.

    The actual church was divided into a pentarchy, various regional churches set up by the apostles. They were located in Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem.

    A couple hundred years after Constantine bolted east to Greece the city of Rome was burnt to the ground and it's western empire conquered by pagan germans. To the extent that there was a "first among equals" among the churches, it was Constantinople. Rome was a dysfunctional imploded backwater church conquered by pagan barbarians and basically last among equals. This was the dark ages of western europe. The Roman church was no longer headquartered in Rome which was abandoned, and I believe during this time there were actually several competing popes in various locations all claiming to be the legitimate pope of the Roman church.

    A few hundred years after the dark ages ended and the western church was getting back on it's feet, the larger eastern churches were all getting conquered by muslims from the east. That was during the Crusades. Constantinople was the last of the 4 of 5 other pentarch patriarchates. and it fell to the Turks in the 15th century.

    Rome was rebuilt over the ruins at some point in this time span by one of the popes. It was then after all the eastern churches fell to muslims and with the beginning rise of western powers that it became basically the center of Christianity. Sort of. It isn't for protestants or various other eastern church branches like marionite, coptic or orthodox. Only for the Roman Catholics who schismed off from the rest of the eastern orthodox patriarchates. But most of the patriarchates got conquered and occupied for a millennium by muslims so the Roman church became very large and prominent in comparison after it converted all the germans.

    I appreciate the long response. Unfortunately, I can’t comment as my history is far too patchy. I’m interested in the Church to some degree, and history in general, but it’s fairly recent and my reading on these subjects is slim.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anon

    No historian of first century Rome mentions Jesus
     
    Presumably you mean "first-century historian of Rome".

    How many histories of Alexander survive from before 256 BC?

    ‘Presumably you mean “first-century historian of Rome”.’

    Yes, of course–contemporary history.

    ‘How many histories of Alexander survive from before 256 BC?’

    No idea. I think I mentioned somewhere above that I’ve never read anything on the guy at all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    I'm not a historian, but historians including atheists seem generally to conclude that we can be as certain of Christ's existence as certainty gets in history. So I don't waste my time on things I really can't judge anyway-- if there were anything in this stuff about Caesarion or whatever, if any of it were even remotely plausible, historians would pick it up and run with it; there are a lot of atheist historians as well as a lot of historians willing to pursue random pet theories, and blasphemy sells very well.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonym
    I have little to add to this thread but an accompanying musical history lesson.

    https://youtu.be/1oTEQf1d9Iw

    A truly awful song. Thanks, I guess. I’d never listened to Iron Maiden, and this is enough. I will say, this man should have been a history teacher instead of a heavy metal rocker.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonym
    A truly awful song. Thanks, I guess. I’d never listened to Iron Maiden, and this is enough. I will say, this man should have been a history teacher instead of a heavy metal rocker.

    You can't please everyone I guess. I like it... I think it's one of their better songs and one of my favorites. It is unapologetically admiring of Alexander's legacy, fratricidal or otherwise. Bruce voted for Brexit, fittingly btw.

    http://www.brucefans.net/bruce-dickinson-is-in-favour-of-the-brexit/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I have little to add to this thread but an accompanying musical history lesson.

    Read More
    • Replies: @daniel le mouche
    A truly awful song. Thanks, I guess. I'd never listened to Iron Maiden, and this is enough. I will say, this man should have been a history teacher instead of a heavy metal rocker.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Lars Porsena
    Daniel, Rome was not really the center of the early Christian world. Not then. It was spread throughout the east empire. When Constantine made it the official religion of the empire, he also split the empire in two and relocated to the new capital of Constantinople (currently Istanbul, Turkey) abandoning Rome.

    The actual church was divided into a pentarchy, various regional churches set up by the apostles. They were located in Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem.

    A couple hundred years after Constantine bolted east to Greece the city of Rome was burnt to the ground and it's western empire conquered by pagan germans. To the extent that there was a "first among equals" among the churches, it was Constantinople. Rome was a dysfunctional imploded backwater church conquered by pagan barbarians and basically last among equals. This was the dark ages of western europe. The Roman church was no longer headquartered in Rome which was abandoned, and I believe during this time there were actually several competing popes in various locations all claiming to be the legitimate pope of the Roman church.

    A few hundred years after the dark ages ended and the western church was getting back on it's feet, the larger eastern churches were all getting conquered by muslims from the east. That was during the Crusades. Constantinople was the last of the 4 of 5 other pentarch patriarchates. and it fell to the Turks in the 15th century.

    Rome was rebuilt over the ruins at some point in this time span by one of the popes. It was then after all the eastern churches fell to muslims and with the beginning rise of western powers that it became basically the center of Christianity. Sort of. It isn't for protestants or various other eastern church branches like marionite, coptic or orthodox. Only for the Roman Catholics who schismed off from the rest of the eastern orthodox patriarchates. But most of the patriarchates got conquered and occupied for a millennium by muslims so the Roman church became very large and prominent in comparison after it converted all the germans.

    Daniel, Rome was not really the center of the early Christian world. Not then. It was spread throughout the east empire.

    This is true but it should be kept in mind that even the Orthodox generally recognize the historic primacy of the See of Rome, even if only as a “primacy of honor”.

    To the extent that there was a “first among equals” among the churches, it was Constantinople.

    Not really. The secular authority of the Emperor was based there and he often claimed the privilege of appointing bishops in other places. Not quite the same thing.

    I believe during this time there were actually several competing popes in various locations all claiming to be the legitimate pope of the Roman church.

    No, the Great (Western) Schism was considerably later.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Daniel, Rome was not really the center of the early Christian world. Not then. It was spread throughout the east empire. When Constantine made it the official religion of the empire, he also split the empire in two and relocated to the new capital of Constantinople (currently Istanbul, Turkey) abandoning Rome.

    The actual church was divided into a pentarchy, various regional churches set up by the apostles. They were located in Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem.

    A couple hundred years after Constantine bolted east to Greece the city of Rome was burnt to the ground and it’s western empire conquered by pagan germans. To the extent that there was a “first among equals” among the churches, it was Constantinople. Rome was a dysfunctional imploded backwater church conquered by pagan barbarians and basically last among equals. This was the dark ages of western europe. The Roman church was no longer headquartered in Rome which was abandoned, and I believe during this time there were actually several competing popes in various locations all claiming to be the legitimate pope of the Roman church.

    A few hundred years after the dark ages ended and the western church was getting back on it’s feet, the larger eastern churches were all getting conquered by muslims from the east. That was during the Crusades. Constantinople was the last of the 4 of 5 other pentarch patriarchates. and it fell to the Turks in the 15th century.

    Rome was rebuilt over the ruins at some point in this time span by one of the popes. It was then after all the eastern churches fell to muslims and with the beginning rise of western powers that it became basically the center of Christianity. Sort of. It isn’t for protestants or various other eastern church branches like marionite, coptic or orthodox. Only for the Roman Catholics who schismed off from the rest of the eastern orthodox patriarchates. But most of the patriarchates got conquered and occupied for a millennium by muslims so the Roman church became very large and prominent in comparison after it converted all the germans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    Daniel, Rome was not really the center of the early Christian world. Not then. It was spread throughout the east empire.
     
    This is true but it should be kept in mind that even the Orthodox generally recognize the historic primacy of the See of Rome, even if only as a "primacy of honor".

    To the extent that there was a “first among equals” among the churches, it was Constantinople.
     
    Not really. The secular authority of the Emperor was based there and he often claimed the privilege of appointing bishops in other places. Not quite the same thing.

    I believe during this time there were actually several competing popes in various locations all claiming to be the legitimate pope of the Roman church.
     
    No, the Great (Western) Schism was considerably later.
    , @daniel le mouche
    I appreciate the long response. Unfortunately, I can't comment as my history is far too patchy. I'm interested in the Church to some degree, and history in general, but it's fairly recent and my reading on these subjects is slim.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @daniel le mouche
    That will need some explaining. No historian of first century Rome mentions Jesus. Many (I believe though admittedly haven't read) mention Alexander, including the fact that Aristotle was his tutor, and his famous words with the philosopher Diogenes, and to say nothing of the trail of evidence he left behind in the form of cities renamed after him.
    But again, history can be, and is, continually falsified, so to claim that I actually know any of this is absurd--I've READ bits here and there, so it's all rather suspect from the beginning.

    No historian of first century Rome mentions Jesus

    Presumably you mean “first-century historian of Rome”.

    How many histories of Alexander survive from before 256 BC?

    Read More
    • Replies: @daniel le mouche
    'Presumably you mean “first-century historian of Rome”.'

    Yes, of course--contemporary history.

    'How many histories of Alexander survive from before 256 BC?'

    No idea. I think I mentioned somewhere above that I've never read anything on the guy at all.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • That’s a lot of perhapses!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Logan
    Disagree about the Reformation. It seems to me that it was pretty clearly at core a reaction to the reborn paganism of the Renaissance, symbolized by the utterly decadent and corrupt popes such as Alexander VI. It was explicitly an attempt to Reform the Church by returning it to its roots. Those roots were/are of course Biblical and therefore Hebraic.

    It seems you’ve read a particular author with that thesis, that the Reformation was a result of resurgent paganism in Europe, including decadent popes. Now, perhaps the popes ARE actually, and always have been, pagan, i.e. perhaps it’s a massive hoax. This is what I think is likely true of the Christian religion. Absurdity piles onto absurdity, starting with a non-existent Jesus and going forward from there. Perhaps the popes are Satanists, pagans, wizards, doing Bohemian Grove-style rituals involving pedophilia (like they do in the upper reaches of government from Washington to London).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anon

    There seems to be precisely zero evidence of a historical Jesus.
     
    There's about as much evidence for him as for Alexander.

    That will need some explaining. No historian of first century Rome mentions Jesus. Many (I believe though admittedly haven’t read) mention Alexander, including the fact that Aristotle was his tutor, and his famous words with the philosopher Diogenes, and to say nothing of the trail of evidence he left behind in the form of cities renamed after him.
    But again, history can be, and is, continually falsified, so to claim that I actually know any of this is absurd–I’ve READ bits here and there, so it’s all rather suspect from the beginning.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    No historian of first century Rome mentions Jesus
     
    Presumably you mean "first-century historian of Rome".

    How many histories of Alexander survive from before 256 BC?
    , @Logan
    No historian of first century Rome mentions Jesus.

    Quite simply untrue.

    Josephus mentions him several times in Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93, less than 60 years after his death.

    Jesus was, from the perspective of most first-century Romans, simply an obscure criminal from an obscure part of the Empire. Why in the world would a Roman historian write about him?

    Tacitus also referred to him in writings from the early second century.
    , @TWS
    That's a flat lie. You're as ignorant as you are arrogant.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Logan
    Disagree about the Reformation. It seems to me that it was pretty clearly at core a reaction to the reborn paganism of the Renaissance, symbolized by the utterly decadent and corrupt popes such as Alexander VI. It was explicitly an attempt to Reform the Church by returning it to its roots. Those roots were/are of course Biblical and therefore Hebraic.

    There was nothing notably pagan about even the most lax of popes and in any case Luther himself inclined in that direction more than any of them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @daniel le mouche
    'The classical and biblical roots constantly struggled against each other. It’s not hard to spot.
    During the Middle Ages the intellectual culture was dominated by Christianity. The Renaissance was a classical reaction, while the Reformation was a biblical re-reaction. The Enlightenment was classical. Victorian society was largely biblical, at least morally.
    Our present culture seems to be attempting to reject both roots.'

    Agreed on the final statement. As for the struggle between classical and Christian, much of this is looked at in the video, and I found it fairly interesting. Powell seems to have lifted his theory from Toynbee, whom I've only begun to read so can't comment on. I suspect that his theories will have detractors. What stands out for me immediately is the notion of the Reformation being a 'biblical re-reaction'. It seems to me it was a power play, extremely destructive in the short and long run, to the Church and ultimately Christianity itself (to which I'm tempted to say, 'good ridance'). The Reformation seems to be closely connected to the beginnings of big business and capitalism, though I know little on this subject--but it certainly was not a reaction to the Renaissance, and Luther himself only desired to make a small reform of the Church or two, not to destroy it as, was it Wolsey?, did. Henry's grim work was continued by Elizabeth, then later Cromwell and finally by William the shite. Since the brief glimmer of hope offered by James II all is lost.
    At any rate, I find the ancients and their worldview much more interesting than Christianity and its Hebrew sky god.
    Finally (and I realize I'm not doing the best job of explaining myself), I fully believe that nothing is what it seems, and religion since my childhood has seemed to me obviously false and the creation of the powerful to tame the plebes--though of late I've begun to wonder how much of my atheism came, obviously unbeknownst to me, from the Jewish puppeteers who seem to have it in for the goyim (unless they're really: the English aristocracy, decended perhaps from Venetians and before that Romans?), that is, who deliberately created the modern atheist, just as they seem to have created the modern socialist, Freudian, SJW, and every other modern opinion. Lennon said it best: You're still f'n peasants as far as I can see.

    Disagree about the Reformation. It seems to me that it was pretty clearly at core a reaction to the reborn paganism of the Renaissance, symbolized by the utterly decadent and corrupt popes such as Alexander VI. It was explicitly an attempt to Reform the Church by returning it to its roots. Those roots were/are of course Biblical and therefore Hebraic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    There was nothing notably pagan about even the most lax of popes and in any case Luther himself inclined in that direction more than any of them.
    , @daniel le mouche
    It seems you've read a particular author with that thesis, that the Reformation was a result of resurgent paganism in Europe, including decadent popes. Now, perhaps the popes ARE actually, and always have been, pagan, i.e. perhaps it's a massive hoax. This is what I think is likely true of the Christian religion. Absurdity piles onto absurdity, starting with a non-existent Jesus and going forward from there. Perhaps the popes are Satanists, pagans, wizards, doing Bohemian Grove-style rituals involving pedophilia (like they do in the upper reaches of government from Washington to London).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @daniel le mouche
    'Not much tolerance for Da Vinci Code willful ignorance about history.'

    Never read it, no idea what it's about, other than being a pulpish thriller that was on the NYT bestseller list for some time--not a good sign.
    But to speak of a willful ignorance of history, then to go on about some sort of historical Jesus, I find incredible. There seems to be precisely zero evidence of a historical Jesus. And watch out for Paul. Again, I know little on this but recall reading various things about Paul that suggest he was possibly (take your pick): psychotic, twisted, insane, disingenuous, power mad. Who was this Paul?
    And what makes you think the history you've read is true? What survives is only what's allowed to survive, that is, official histories. You can perhaps already see before your very eyes what our history is shaping up to be, all based on lies: Muslims attacking Christians (phoney), Israeli good guys, etc. etc.

    There seems to be precisely zero evidence of a historical Jesus.

    There’s about as much evidence for him as for Alexander.

    Read More
    • Replies: @daniel le mouche
    That will need some explaining. No historian of first century Rome mentions Jesus. Many (I believe though admittedly haven't read) mention Alexander, including the fact that Aristotle was his tutor, and his famous words with the philosopher Diogenes, and to say nothing of the trail of evidence he left behind in the form of cities renamed after him.
    But again, history can be, and is, continually falsified, so to claim that I actually know any of this is absurd--I've READ bits here and there, so it's all rather suspect from the beginning.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Logan
    Gotta admit I didn't watch the video and don't plan to. Not much tolerance for Da Vinci Code willful ignorance about history.

    But Titus makes even less sense as Jesus.

    He was born in 39, which was almost certainly after Jesus died. This would mean Paul wrote most of his letters about Christianity while Titus was still a kid.

    The New Testament was written in Greek because it was the lingua franca of the eastern Mediterranean, the area where Christianity first spread. Lots of groups had their own language: Egyptians, Syrians, Jews, etc. But they almost all, or at least the literate ones, spoke Greek too.

    Kind of like English in the world today. Native Hindi and Norwegian speakers can communicate just fine with each other by speaking English. Chance that either would ever learn the other's birth tongue is slim to none.

    ‘Not much tolerance for Da Vinci Code willful ignorance about history.’

    Never read it, no idea what it’s about, other than being a pulpish thriller that was on the NYT bestseller list for some time–not a good sign.
    But to speak of a willful ignorance of history, then to go on about some sort of historical Jesus, I find incredible. There seems to be precisely zero evidence of a historical Jesus. And watch out for Paul. Again, I know little on this but recall reading various things about Paul that suggest he was possibly (take your pick): psychotic, twisted, insane, disingenuous, power mad. Who was this Paul?
    And what makes you think the history you’ve read is true? What survives is only what’s allowed to survive, that is, official histories. You can perhaps already see before your very eyes what our history is shaping up to be, all based on lies: Muslims attacking Christians (phoney), Israeli good guys, etc. etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    There seems to be precisely zero evidence of a historical Jesus.
     
    There's about as much evidence for him as for Alexander.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @daniel le mouche
    'The classical and biblical roots constantly struggled against each other. It’s not hard to spot.
    During the Middle Ages the intellectual culture was dominated by Christianity. The Renaissance was a classical reaction, while the Reformation was a biblical re-reaction. The Enlightenment was classical. Victorian society was largely biblical, at least morally.
    Our present culture seems to be attempting to reject both roots.'

    Agreed on the final statement. As for the struggle between classical and Christian, much of this is looked at in the video, and I found it fairly interesting. Powell seems to have lifted his theory from Toynbee, whom I've only begun to read so can't comment on. I suspect that his theories will have detractors. What stands out for me immediately is the notion of the Reformation being a 'biblical re-reaction'. It seems to me it was a power play, extremely destructive in the short and long run, to the Church and ultimately Christianity itself (to which I'm tempted to say, 'good ridance'). The Reformation seems to be closely connected to the beginnings of big business and capitalism, though I know little on this subject--but it certainly was not a reaction to the Renaissance, and Luther himself only desired to make a small reform of the Church or two, not to destroy it as, was it Wolsey?, did. Henry's grim work was continued by Elizabeth, then later Cromwell and finally by William the shite. Since the brief glimmer of hope offered by James II all is lost.
    At any rate, I find the ancients and their worldview much more interesting than Christianity and its Hebrew sky god.
    Finally (and I realize I'm not doing the best job of explaining myself), I fully believe that nothing is what it seems, and religion since my childhood has seemed to me obviously false and the creation of the powerful to tame the plebes--though of late I've begun to wonder how much of my atheism came, obviously unbeknownst to me, from the Jewish puppeteers who seem to have it in for the goyim (unless they're really: the English aristocracy, decended perhaps from Venetians and before that Romans?), that is, who deliberately created the modern atheist, just as they seem to have created the modern socialist, Freudian, SJW, and every other modern opinion. Lennon said it best: You're still f'n peasants as far as I can see.

    Luther himself only desired to make a small reform of the Church or two, not to destroy it as, was it Wolsey?, did.

    That was before power went to his head and he became essentially Pope of Wittenberg.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Logan
    Toynbee explained all this long ago.

    He had an interesting theory that civilizations were organisms with a natural life cycle. Which has a good bit of truth to it. Then, like many people, he stretched the theory well beyond where it fit, distorting history where necessary.

    His idea, as applied to western civ, was that it was/is the only civilization that is a hybrid. Essentially Greek classical civilization plus Judaic Christianity. This, in his opinion, made it uniquely innovative and vibrant, so it hadn't (when he wrote) descended into the complacency that had doomed all previous civilizations.

    The classical and biblical roots constantly struggled against each other. It's not hard to spot.

    During the Middle Ages the intellectual culture was dominated by Christianity. The Renaissance was a classical reaction, while the Reformation was a biblical re-reaction. The Enlightenment was classical. Victorian society was largely biblical, at least morally.

    Our present culture seems to be attempting to reject both roots.

    ‘The classical and biblical roots constantly struggled against each other. It’s not hard to spot.
    During the Middle Ages the intellectual culture was dominated by Christianity. The Renaissance was a classical reaction, while the Reformation was a biblical re-reaction. The Enlightenment was classical. Victorian society was largely biblical, at least morally.
    Our present culture seems to be attempting to reject both roots.’

    Agreed on the final statement. As for the struggle between classical and Christian, much of this is looked at in the video, and I found it fairly interesting. Powell seems to have lifted his theory from Toynbee, whom I’ve only begun to read so can’t comment on. I suspect that his theories will have detractors. What stands out for me immediately is the notion of the Reformation being a ‘biblical re-reaction’. It seems to me it was a power play, extremely destructive in the short and long run, to the Church and ultimately Christianity itself (to which I’m tempted to say, ‘good ridance’). The Reformation seems to be closely connected to the beginnings of big business and capitalism, though I know little on this subject–but it certainly was not a reaction to the Renaissance, and Luther himself only desired to make a small reform of the Church or two, not to destroy it as, was it Wolsey?, did. Henry’s grim work was continued by Elizabeth, then later Cromwell and finally by William the shite. Since the brief glimmer of hope offered by James II all is lost.
    At any rate, I find the ancients and their worldview much more interesting than Christianity and its Hebrew sky god.
    Finally (and I realize I’m not doing the best job of explaining myself), I fully believe that nothing is what it seems, and religion since my childhood has seemed to me obviously false and the creation of the powerful to tame the plebes–though of late I’ve begun to wonder how much of my atheism came, obviously unbeknownst to me, from the Jewish puppeteers who seem to have it in for the goyim (unless they’re really: the English aristocracy, decended perhaps from Venetians and before that Romans?), that is, who deliberately created the modern atheist, just as they seem to have created the modern socialist, Freudian, SJW, and every other modern opinion. Lennon said it best: You’re still f’n peasants as far as I can see.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    Luther himself only desired to make a small reform of the Church or two, not to destroy it as, was it Wolsey?, did.
     
    That was before power went to his head and he became essentially Pope of Wittenberg.
    , @Logan
    Disagree about the Reformation. It seems to me that it was pretty clearly at core a reaction to the reborn paganism of the Renaissance, symbolized by the utterly decadent and corrupt popes such as Alexander VI. It was explicitly an attempt to Reform the Church by returning it to its roots. Those roots were/are of course Biblical and therefore Hebraic.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Jake
    daniel le mouche is the kind of thinker who requires his itching ears be scratched by things as insane and/or destructive of Christendom as Albigensianism, the 10 Lost Tribes of Israel as Anglo-Saxons, Mormonism (replete with its Mohammedan-like polygamy), and Scientology.

    Oh dear, another clever commenter who seems to know so much about me (perhaps you can join insult/heckling forces with Jonathan Revusky and the Wizard of Oz to become the dynamic trio). I will point out, not to you but to decent readers, that for the record I know precisely zero about the ten lost tribes (much less as Anglo Saxons–but I’ll hazard a guess that you are one of those, A-Sax.). I have had fairly brief looks at Mormonism and Scientology, enough to make me run very quickly the other way. The Albigensians or Cathars I only remember as being a heresy that dared to oppose the Vatican’s word, and which was led in being murderously obliterated by an Englishman, I can’t be asked to look up what the nasty creature’s name was.
    (Also to OTHER readers and for the record:) I am willing to entertain, for some time anyway, any theory of history/the present/reality that strikes me as plausible.
    Nice try, thoughtless goon.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Logan
    Gotta admit I didn't watch the video and don't plan to. Not much tolerance for Da Vinci Code willful ignorance about history.

    But Titus makes even less sense as Jesus.

    He was born in 39, which was almost certainly after Jesus died. This would mean Paul wrote most of his letters about Christianity while Titus was still a kid.

    The New Testament was written in Greek because it was the lingua franca of the eastern Mediterranean, the area where Christianity first spread. Lots of groups had their own language: Egyptians, Syrians, Jews, etc. But they almost all, or at least the literate ones, spoke Greek too.

    Kind of like English in the world today. Native Hindi and Norwegian speakers can communicate just fine with each other by speaking English. Chance that either would ever learn the other's birth tongue is slim to none.

    daniel le mouche is the kind of thinker who requires his itching ears be scratched by things as insane and/or destructive of Christendom as Albigensianism, the 10 Lost Tribes of Israel as Anglo-Saxons, Mormonism (replete with its Mohammedan-like polygamy), and Scientology.

    Read More
    • Replies: @daniel le mouche
    Oh dear, another clever commenter who seems to know so much about me (perhaps you can join insult/heckling forces with Jonathan Revusky and the Wizard of Oz to become the dynamic trio). I will point out, not to you but to decent readers, that for the record I know precisely zero about the ten lost tribes (much less as Anglo Saxons--but I'll hazard a guess that you are one of those, A-Sax.). I have had fairly brief looks at Mormonism and Scientology, enough to make me run very quickly the other way. The Albigensians or Cathars I only remember as being a heresy that dared to oppose the Vatican's word, and which was led in being murderously obliterated by an Englishman, I can't be asked to look up what the nasty creature's name was.
    (Also to OTHER readers and for the record:) I am willing to entertain, for some time anyway, any theory of history/the present/reality that strikes me as plausible.
    Nice try, thoughtless goon.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @daniel le mouche
    Related to the Jesus question above, in an old Steve Sailer article on Donna Zuckerberg the commenter Sean quotes, I believe, the classicist Enoch Powell (also a scourge of Ireland but nevermind):

    'Christianity is Oriental and Near-Eastern in origin, and was imposed on the western races rather recently, as history goes; and we have never got used to it. We still hold two sets of ethics, pagan and Christian, simultaneously. For instance, we say that we should love our enemies and not resist evil; yet at the same time we believe in justice, and that criminals ought to be punished, and that we should meet force with force, violence with violence. Or another instance: we believe in humility; but we also believe in masculine pride and self-assertion. I think that this spiritual conflict creates a strain in our psychology and in the heart of our culture, that has been extremely fruitful both of good and evil, of greatness and intensity, as well as of self-contradiction and hypocrisy and frustration. [...] Have you thought how many of Shakespeare’s heroes, from Hamlet down, are at war in themselves, in their own souls; whereas heroes of Greek tragedy struggle against fate or each other, but their souls remain simple and undivided?'

    Heck of a handy confusion to have if you're a ruler, eh? And I've thought for years now, the problem is that people don't know their enemy. One day they think it's Muslims (okay, everyday), but (for the right-thinking) it's also meanies of all sorts: racists, white men, non-trannies, non-women, Nazis, never England, never Israel, etc. etc.

    Toynbee explained all this long ago.

    He had an interesting theory that civilizations were organisms with a natural life cycle. Which has a good bit of truth to it. Then, like many people, he stretched the theory well beyond where it fit, distorting history where necessary.

    His idea, as applied to western civ, was that it was/is the only civilization that is a hybrid. Essentially Greek classical civilization plus Judaic Christianity. This, in his opinion, made it uniquely innovative and vibrant, so it hadn’t (when he wrote) descended into the complacency that had doomed all previous civilizations.

    The classical and biblical roots constantly struggled against each other. It’s not hard to spot.

    During the Middle Ages the intellectual culture was dominated by Christianity. The Renaissance was a classical reaction, while the Reformation was a biblical re-reaction. The Enlightenment was classical. Victorian society was largely biblical, at least morally.

    Our present culture seems to be attempting to reject both roots.

    Read More
    • Replies: @daniel le mouche
    'The classical and biblical roots constantly struggled against each other. It’s not hard to spot.
    During the Middle Ages the intellectual culture was dominated by Christianity. The Renaissance was a classical reaction, while the Reformation was a biblical re-reaction. The Enlightenment was classical. Victorian society was largely biblical, at least morally.
    Our present culture seems to be attempting to reject both roots.'

    Agreed on the final statement. As for the struggle between classical and Christian, much of this is looked at in the video, and I found it fairly interesting. Powell seems to have lifted his theory from Toynbee, whom I've only begun to read so can't comment on. I suspect that his theories will have detractors. What stands out for me immediately is the notion of the Reformation being a 'biblical re-reaction'. It seems to me it was a power play, extremely destructive in the short and long run, to the Church and ultimately Christianity itself (to which I'm tempted to say, 'good ridance'). The Reformation seems to be closely connected to the beginnings of big business and capitalism, though I know little on this subject--but it certainly was not a reaction to the Renaissance, and Luther himself only desired to make a small reform of the Church or two, not to destroy it as, was it Wolsey?, did. Henry's grim work was continued by Elizabeth, then later Cromwell and finally by William the shite. Since the brief glimmer of hope offered by James II all is lost.
    At any rate, I find the ancients and their worldview much more interesting than Christianity and its Hebrew sky god.
    Finally (and I realize I'm not doing the best job of explaining myself), I fully believe that nothing is what it seems, and religion since my childhood has seemed to me obviously false and the creation of the powerful to tame the plebes--though of late I've begun to wonder how much of my atheism came, obviously unbeknownst to me, from the Jewish puppeteers who seem to have it in for the goyim (unless they're really: the English aristocracy, decended perhaps from Venetians and before that Romans?), that is, who deliberately created the modern atheist, just as they seem to have created the modern socialist, Freudian, SJW, and every other modern opinion. Lennon said it best: You're still f'n peasants as far as I can see.

    , @Anon
    It would go hard with me before I would admit that Milton was a worse classicist than Michelangelo; nor would I admit he knew his bible better than More, though I will admit of course that the 16th century was considerably more lax in religious matters than the 17th-- the Reformers more and not less than other people. All the same I think, unless one is really a Greek pagan, that if a pope had a mistress or so on it is not entirely necessary to impute the fact to the influence of Venus or Cupid-- like Laplace "I have no need of that hypothesis, Sire."

    In general I think the 17th and 19th centuries were in general more bookish than the surrounding periods-- whether to say this is a cause, or an effect, or neither, of the religious opinions held at the time time I will not venture to say, not, unlike Toynbee (for whom I have the greatest respect), being a historian.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @daniel le mouche
    If you watch the video, it's not Caesarion, but Titus son of Vespasian, they claim was 'Jesus'. I think it's a very interesting idea. What? Our elite leaders making up a huge phoney narrative which we can then dutifully follow for hundreds, even thousands of years into the future? No, can't imagine. And much of what the video says would make sense, such as why Rome became the center of the new religion, why the New Testament was written in Greek (at least I think that might make some sense), and the actual need for it due to rabble troubles in Palestine, Rome itself, everywhere. Can't think of much else now, I just woke up.

    Gotta admit I didn’t watch the video and don’t plan to. Not much tolerance for Da Vinci Code willful ignorance about history.

    But Titus makes even less sense as Jesus.

    He was born in 39, which was almost certainly after Jesus died. This would mean Paul wrote most of his letters about Christianity while Titus was still a kid.

    The New Testament was written in Greek because it was the lingua franca of the eastern Mediterranean, the area where Christianity first spread. Lots of groups had their own language: Egyptians, Syrians, Jews, etc. But they almost all, or at least the literate ones, spoke Greek too.

    Kind of like English in the world today. Native Hindi and Norwegian speakers can communicate just fine with each other by speaking English. Chance that either would ever learn the other’s birth tongue is slim to none.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jake
    daniel le mouche is the kind of thinker who requires his itching ears be scratched by things as insane and/or destructive of Christendom as Albigensianism, the 10 Lost Tribes of Israel as Anglo-Saxons, Mormonism (replete with its Mohammedan-like polygamy), and Scientology.
    , @daniel le mouche
    'Not much tolerance for Da Vinci Code willful ignorance about history.'

    Never read it, no idea what it's about, other than being a pulpish thriller that was on the NYT bestseller list for some time--not a good sign.
    But to speak of a willful ignorance of history, then to go on about some sort of historical Jesus, I find incredible. There seems to be precisely zero evidence of a historical Jesus. And watch out for Paul. Again, I know little on this but recall reading various things about Paul that suggest he was possibly (take your pick): psychotic, twisted, insane, disingenuous, power mad. Who was this Paul?
    And what makes you think the history you've read is true? What survives is only what's allowed to survive, that is, official histories. You can perhaps already see before your very eyes what our history is shaping up to be, all based on lies: Muslims attacking Christians (phoney), Israeli good guys, etc. etc.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Related to the Jesus question above, in an old Steve Sailer article on Donna Zuckerberg the commenter Sean quotes, I believe, the classicist Enoch Powell (also a scourge of Ireland but nevermind):

    ‘Christianity is Oriental and Near-Eastern in origin, and was imposed on the western races rather recently, as history goes; and we have never got used to it. We still hold two sets of ethics, pagan and Christian, simultaneously. For instance, we say that we should love our enemies and not resist evil; yet at the same time we believe in justice, and that criminals ought to be punished, and that we should meet force with force, violence with violence. Or another instance: we believe in humility; but we also believe in masculine pride and self-assertion. I think that this spiritual conflict creates a strain in our psychology and in the heart of our culture, that has been extremely fruitful both of good and evil, of greatness and intensity, as well as of self-contradiction and hypocrisy and frustration. [...] Have you thought how many of Shakespeare’s heroes, from Hamlet down, are at war in themselves, in their own souls; whereas heroes of Greek tragedy struggle against fate or each other, but their souls remain simple and undivided?’

    Heck of a handy confusion to have if you’re a ruler, eh? And I’ve thought for years now, the problem is that people don’t know their enemy. One day they think it’s Muslims (okay, everyday), but (for the right-thinking) it’s also meanies of all sorts: racists, white men, non-trannies, non-women, Nazis, never England, never Israel, etc. etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    Toynbee explained all this long ago.

    He had an interesting theory that civilizations were organisms with a natural life cycle. Which has a good bit of truth to it. Then, like many people, he stretched the theory well beyond where it fit, distorting history where necessary.

    His idea, as applied to western civ, was that it was/is the only civilization that is a hybrid. Essentially Greek classical civilization plus Judaic Christianity. This, in his opinion, made it uniquely innovative and vibrant, so it hadn't (when he wrote) descended into the complacency that had doomed all previous civilizations.

    The classical and biblical roots constantly struggled against each other. It's not hard to spot.

    During the Middle Ages the intellectual culture was dominated by Christianity. The Renaissance was a classical reaction, while the Reformation was a biblical re-reaction. The Enlightenment was classical. Victorian society was largely biblical, at least morally.

    Our present culture seems to be attempting to reject both roots.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Logan
    Oh, boy.

    Caesarion was born in 47 BC. This means that if he was Jesus, he would have been at least upper 70s at his crucifixion. Odd none of the Gospel writers mentioning how elderly He was.

    If you watch the video, it’s not Caesarion, but Titus son of Vespasian, they claim was ‘Jesus’. I think it’s a very interesting idea. What? Our elite leaders making up a huge phoney narrative which we can then dutifully follow for hundreds, even thousands of years into the future? No, can’t imagine. And much of what the video says would make sense, such as why Rome became the center of the new religion, why the New Testament was written in Greek (at least I think that might make some sense), and the actual need for it due to rabble troubles in Palestine, Rome itself, everywhere. Can’t think of much else now, I just woke up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    Gotta admit I didn't watch the video and don't plan to. Not much tolerance for Da Vinci Code willful ignorance about history.

    But Titus makes even less sense as Jesus.

    He was born in 39, which was almost certainly after Jesus died. This would mean Paul wrote most of his letters about Christianity while Titus was still a kid.

    The New Testament was written in Greek because it was the lingua franca of the eastern Mediterranean, the area where Christianity first spread. Lots of groups had their own language: Egyptians, Syrians, Jews, etc. But they almost all, or at least the literate ones, spoke Greek too.

    Kind of like English in the world today. Native Hindi and Norwegian speakers can communicate just fine with each other by speaking English. Chance that either would ever learn the other's birth tongue is slim to none.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Ron Unz

    Okay, but even the three words you quote you’d need to speak Latin to understand.
     
    My apologies, but as I mentioned in the introduction, I've simply republished my short 1985 article from The Journal of Hellenic Studies, whose readers obviously knew Latin. Indeed, the JHS editors or referees would obviously have complained if I'd included unnecessary English translations.

    Anyway, much of my analysis depends crucially upon the exact meaning and implications of those Latin words, so in some respects "translating" them would have been assuming what I was attempting to prove. For example, fratres literally means "brothers" but some of the scholars whose establishment tradition I was disputing had previously argued that it might also sometimes mean "cousins."

    Thanks for responding, Ron, and clearing that up–it makes sense now. Cheers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @daniel le mouche
    'It’s not a long passage, much of it consists of names.
    noverca fratresque interfecti is the only important part for the purpose anyway.'


    Okay, but even the three words you quote you'd need to speak Latin to understand. The middle one is seemingly something to do with 'brother', the first possibly something to do with 'new', and interfecti, who knows?, not intercept, not infect, 'do between'?? Without thorough training in Latin, that is declensions, you are lost. Even worse is when the old writers (say 19th century) don't translate Greek for us plebes.

    Okay, but even the three words you quote you’d need to speak Latin to understand.

    My apologies, but as I mentioned in the introduction, I’ve simply republished my short 1985 article from The Journal of Hellenic Studies, whose readers obviously knew Latin. Indeed, the JHS editors or referees would obviously have complained if I’d included unnecessary English translations.

    Anyway, much of my analysis depends crucially upon the exact meaning and implications of those Latin words, so in some respects “translating” them would have been assuming what I was attempting to prove. For example, fratres literally means “brothers” but some of the scholars whose establishment tradition I was disputing had previously argued that it might also sometimes mean “cousins.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @daniel le mouche
    Thanks for responding, Ron, and clearing that up--it makes sense now. Cheers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Junior
    This piece on Alexander brought to mind a section from the documentary "The Ring Of Power" in which the creator of the film theorizes that Ptolemy XV(Caesarion), the last king of the Ptolemaic dynasty of Egypt and rightful heir to the Roman Empire, was not killed by Octavian(adopted son of Julius Caesar, also known as Emperor Augustus) and that his mother, Cleopatra, sent him to India with her most trusted servants, Mary and Joseph. The theory is that Caesarion learned Buddhism in India and returned to reclaim his father's kingdom spiritually. His father was Julius Caesar and the movie theorizes that Caesarion was Jesus. Very interesting theories in the film and well worth watching. I've attached a link to the section on Caesarion and a link to the whole film below it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzL9V1eylFw









    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CObE4Cnuw5k

    Oh, boy.

    Caesarion was born in 47 BC. This means that if he was Jesus, he would have been at least upper 70s at his crucifixion. Odd none of the Gospel writers mentioning how elderly He was.

    Read More
    • Replies: @daniel le mouche
    If you watch the video, it's not Caesarion, but Titus son of Vespasian, they claim was 'Jesus'. I think it's a very interesting idea. What? Our elite leaders making up a huge phoney narrative which we can then dutifully follow for hundreds, even thousands of years into the future? No, can't imagine. And much of what the video says would make sense, such as why Rome became the center of the new religion, why the New Testament was written in Greek (at least I think that might make some sense), and the actual need for it due to rabble troubles in Palestine, Rome itself, everywhere. Can't think of much else now, I just woke up.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anon
    It's not a long passage, much of it consists of names.

    noverca fratresque interfecti is the only important part for the purpose anyway.

    ‘It’s not a long passage, much of it consists of names.
    noverca fratresque interfecti is the only important part for the purpose anyway.’

    Okay, but even the three words you quote you’d need to speak Latin to understand. The middle one is seemingly something to do with ‘brother’, the first possibly something to do with ‘new’, and interfecti, who knows?, not intercept, not infect, ‘do between’?? Without thorough training in Latin, that is declensions, you are lost. Even worse is when the old writers (say 19th century) don’t translate Greek for us plebes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    Okay, but even the three words you quote you’d need to speak Latin to understand.
     
    My apologies, but as I mentioned in the introduction, I've simply republished my short 1985 article from The Journal of Hellenic Studies, whose readers obviously knew Latin. Indeed, the JHS editors or referees would obviously have complained if I'd included unnecessary English translations.

    Anyway, much of my analysis depends crucially upon the exact meaning and implications of those Latin words, so in some respects "translating" them would have been assuming what I was attempting to prove. For example, fratres literally means "brothers" but some of the scholars whose establishment tradition I was disputing had previously argued that it might also sometimes mean "cousins."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @daniel le mouche
    'Following his murder of Kleitos, Alexander laments and recounts his various murders:[24] ‘tunc Parmenion et Philotas, tunc Amyntas consobrinus, tunc noverca fratresque interfecti; tunc Attalos, Eurylochus, Pausanias aliique Macedoniae extincti principes occurrebant.’ Fratres is explicitly plural.'
    &c.

    This isn't 19th century England where the educated not only were expected to be fluent in Latin and Greek, but were actually taught them. Even for a classics magazine, not translating long passages is inexcusable, but at Unz? Let's be honest, how many readers got that?

    It’s not a long passage, much of it consists of names.

    noverca fratresque interfecti is the only important part for the purpose anyway.

    Read More
    • Replies: @daniel le mouche
    'It’s not a long passage, much of it consists of names.
    noverca fratresque interfecti is the only important part for the purpose anyway.'


    Okay, but even the three words you quote you'd need to speak Latin to understand. The middle one is seemingly something to do with 'brother', the first possibly something to do with 'new', and interfecti, who knows?, not intercept, not infect, 'do between'?? Without thorough training in Latin, that is declensions, you are lost. Even worse is when the old writers (say 19th century) don't translate Greek for us plebes.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • ‘Following his murder of Kleitos, Alexander laments and recounts his various murders:[24] ‘tunc Parmenion et Philotas, tunc Amyntas consobrinus, tunc noverca fratresque interfecti; tunc Attalos, Eurylochus, Pausanias aliique Macedoniae extincti principes occurrebant.’ Fratres is explicitly plural.’
    &c.

    This isn’t 19th century England where the educated not only were expected to be fluent in Latin and Greek, but were actually taught them. Even for a classics magazine, not translating long passages is inexcusable, but at Unz? Let’s be honest, how many readers got that?

    Read More
    • Agree: Logan
    • Replies: @Anon
    It's not a long passage, much of it consists of names.

    noverca fratresque interfecti is the only important part for the purpose anyway.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Ronald Thomas West
    The thought which crossed my mind is the idea in many cultures 'cousin' and 'brother' are indistinguishable in the language when spoken generically. Another way of saying this is, unless the referrer wishes to be technically specific, cousin and brother or cousin and sister can often be the identical word. In Blackfoot language, for instance, cousin and brother can be the same word. I understand this can also be the case in some Slav languages usage. I don't know that were the case in the language spoken by Alexander's contemporaries, but if it were, it could complicate matters, especially if writers about Alexander's family were of a different language and the 'cousin-brother' distinction were not always clear in either the language spoken by Alexander, or any alternative language in which he'd been written about. Just a thought.

    History fascinates and Alexander will never go away so long as European based culture retains its place of dominance.

    History fascinates and Alexander will never go away so long as European based culture retains its place of dominance.

    So, you’re saying, maybe another week or two?

    Anyway, ‘pre-eminence’ is strong enough without resorting to ‘dominance’…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • OT: Greenwich Mean Time?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @athEIst
    Two of the Spanish Habsburg kings married their nieces, two their first cousins. The result was Charles II. They were Catholic, I think.

    True, by that point the Hapsburgs had perfected getting exceptions directly from the pope and bishops to do such marriages. The fact that Protestanism had taken over many of the royal families whom the Hapsburgs had previously married into, and that the Hapsburgs by that point ruled many places in Europe, probably spurred these exceptions as well.And the English spreading the “Black Legend” about Spain exaggerated many of the inbreeding problems.

    But that was all far after the ban.

    I’m talking about originally when the Popes started really banning incestual marriage—medieval times. I remember one really religious French king who was a pretty great patron of the Church who married his cousin whom he was deeply infatuated with and, to his shock and spiritual anguish, got excommunicated by “bell, book, and candle.” It sent a message to the rulers of Europe that incest would not be tolerated, no matter how much you did. The French king ended up reconciling with the church and marrying someone not related to him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @conatus
    All I ever knew about Alexander The Great came from a Landmark bio I read in the fifties. The Landmark series were two hundred page books about historical figures with biggish print and nothing about fratricide run wild. There was one on Garibaldi too.
    http://www.amazon.com/Alexander-Great-Landmark-World-Books/dp/B0006ATFPK
    The landmark book represented Alexander as the golden boy of early western history with his big horse and good intentions. Back then I could not imagine Alexander being a power grabber and brother killer, but now the Unz version rings with the sordid tone of truth.

    Also I thank Mr. Unz for his forum and the opportunity to read thoughtful opinions you will not run into elsewhere on the Web.

    Also I thank Mr. Unz for his forum and the opportunity to read thoughtful opinions you will not run into elsewhere on the Web.

    Hear, hear!

    Mr. Unz is indeed a man of many parts.

    Thank you, Mr. Unz!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Jus' Sayin'...
    A little learning is a dangerous thing. The people who today call themselves Macedonians are speakers of a South Slavic language and descendants of Slavic invaders of the Balkan peninsula. They bear absolutely no relation to the Macedonians of Alexander's time who spoke a dialect of Greek and were related by descent to the Greeks. It is as ignorant to confuse modern Macedonians with ancient ones as it is to confuse the Iraqi (now mostly American) Christian minority who call themselves Assyrians with the ancient people who "Came down like a wolf on the fold...".

    Detailed genetic analysis of the Hunza has shown that their European features appear to be due to spontaneous mutations within the native population not any admixture of Greek/ancient Macedonian genes from Alexander's soldiers. People also tend to forget that Alexander's supposed conquest of Afghanistan, northern India and neighboring areas was actually a reconquest of areas already conquered by the Persians in preceding centuries. The Persians basically softened these areas up for Alewxander's later conquest.

    I believe that one of the more telling accounts of Alexander's cruelty is narrated in Plutarch's Lives. During his conquest of Persia Alexander was overjoyed to come upon a city of Greek-speaking people. Later he learned that they were the descendants of Greek mercenaries who'd fought with the Persians. With no warning Alexander ordered the sacking and coimplete destruction of the city. All residents who weren't killed outright were enslaved. Alexander was a blood-thirsty monster, a near savage, and a drunken lout who happened to inherit or steal an exceedingly effective military machine. His only accomplishment -- albeit an extraordinarily important one -- was to be the accidental agent that spread Greek culture throughout the ancient Mediterranean and Near East.

    Quite correct about the Greek mercenaries in Persia. A full one-third of the Persian army that faced Alexander’s Macedonians (not to be confused with those living in today’s Macedonia) at the battle of Granicus were Greek mercenaries.

    “Battle of the Granicus”

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

    Greece was – and is – a poor country. Exporting mercenaries was a way to support their lifestyle. Much later, Greeks turned to shipping and commerce. Many emigrated over the ages.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @whorefinder
    Given the high degree of incest that existed in the pre-Christian world, the blurred line between "cousin" and "brother" probably made a lot more sense. Many families had no problem intermarrying in ways that disgust us in the West today: half-brothers and half-sisters married, uncles married nieces, first cousins could marry, etc. Your "cousin" might very well have enough of your own genes that he could be called your brother.

    It was the Catholic Church that made incest verboten before the Reformation.The Church noticed that warring factions often (1) existed side by side; and (2) kept marriages within the nobility of the particular clan. The Church thought that by barring certain forms of incestual marriage, it would force clans next to each other to breed with one another, thereby uniting lands and reducing hostility, which, in fact, it did.

    Note that Judaism did not ban a lot of incest; it was the Church that led this. Some Protestant denominations went backwards on incest, but for the most part Protestants kept up this ban (although Jane Austen's novels do have a bit of a blur between relations and marriage opportunities),

    Note also how it was assumed that the elites of two societies would much rather marry each other than commoners of their own realm. It probably didn't mean much when a powerful clan was the only people on a land (i.e. with Scottish or Irish clans in the hinterlands), but as lands became more populated and the commoner/elite divide became more pronounced the elites still preferred to marry across elite lines rather than go down to the peasantry or yeoman or merchant. Food for thought.

    We can see that in most of the non-Christian world today cousin marriage, uncle-niece marriage, etc. are still accepted, as the recent Somali elected representative shows. The horrors of Muslim incest are something that should be exposed more often, if only to show that not all cultures are equal, and sharia law is an abomination.

    Two of the Spanish Habsburg kings married their nieces, two their first cousins. The result was Charles II. They were Catholic, I think.

    Read More
    • Replies: @whorefinder
    True, by that point the Hapsburgs had perfected getting exceptions directly from the pope and bishops to do such marriages. The fact that Protestanism had taken over many of the royal families whom the Hapsburgs had previously married into, and that the Hapsburgs by that point ruled many places in Europe, probably spurred these exceptions as well.And the English spreading the "Black Legend" about Spain exaggerated many of the inbreeding problems.

    But that was all far after the ban.

    I'm talking about originally when the Popes started really banning incestual marriage---medieval times. I remember one really religious French king who was a pretty great patron of the Church who married his cousin whom he was deeply infatuated with and, to his shock and spiritual anguish, got excommunicated by "bell, book, and candle." It sent a message to the rulers of Europe that incest would not be tolerated, no matter how much you did. The French king ended up reconciling with the church and marrying someone not related to him.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • When Ottoman Sultan Murad III or IV came to the throne, all 19 brothers and half-brothers and their harem favorites were strangled.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Great article. Seriously interesting stuff. I suppose Zuckerberg’s children better hope he isn’t the serial marriage type.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Great article, I didn’t know you had been a classical scholar, Ron. Your conclusions seem reasonable to me, though of course I know very little about the subject matter to be a reliable judge of the question.

    By the way I mentioned similar topics in a quite recent comment (about North Korea, which is also a quasi polygamous monarchy), had I seen it, I would’ve referenced your article in my comment, too.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Ronald Thomas West
    The thought which crossed my mind is the idea in many cultures 'cousin' and 'brother' are indistinguishable in the language when spoken generically. Another way of saying this is, unless the referrer wishes to be technically specific, cousin and brother or cousin and sister can often be the identical word. In Blackfoot language, for instance, cousin and brother can be the same word. I understand this can also be the case in some Slav languages usage. I don't know that were the case in the language spoken by Alexander's contemporaries, but if it were, it could complicate matters, especially if writers about Alexander's family were of a different language and the 'cousin-brother' distinction were not always clear in either the language spoken by Alexander, or any alternative language in which he'd been written about. Just a thought.

    History fascinates and Alexander will never go away so long as European based culture retains its place of dominance.

    Given the high degree of incest that existed in the pre-Christian world, the blurred line between “cousin” and “brother” probably made a lot more sense. Many families had no problem intermarrying in ways that disgust us in the West today: half-brothers and half-sisters married, uncles married nieces, first cousins could marry, etc. Your “cousin” might very well have enough of your own genes that he could be called your brother.

    It was the Catholic Church that made incest verboten before the Reformation.The Church noticed that warring factions often (1) existed side by side; and (2) kept marriages within the nobility of the particular clan. The Church thought that by barring certain forms of incestual marriage, it would force clans next to each other to breed with one another, thereby uniting lands and reducing hostility, which, in fact, it did.

    Note that Judaism did not ban a lot of incest; it was the Church that led this. Some Protestant denominations went backwards on incest, but for the most part Protestants kept up this ban (although Jane Austen’s novels do have a bit of a blur between relations and marriage opportunities),

    Note also how it was assumed that the elites of two societies would much rather marry each other than commoners of their own realm. It probably didn’t mean much when a powerful clan was the only people on a land (i.e. with Scottish or Irish clans in the hinterlands), but as lands became more populated and the commoner/elite divide became more pronounced the elites still preferred to marry across elite lines rather than go down to the peasantry or yeoman or merchant. Food for thought.

    We can see that in most of the non-Christian world today cousin marriage, uncle-niece marriage, etc. are still accepted, as the recent Somali elected representative shows. The horrors of Muslim incest are something that should be exposed more often, if only to show that not all cultures are equal, and sharia law is an abomination.

    Read More
    • Replies: @athEIst
    Two of the Spanish Habsburg kings married their nieces, two their first cousins. The result was Charles II. They were Catholic, I think.
    , @anonymous

    We can see that in most of the non-Christian world today cousin marriage, uncle-niece marriage, etc. are still accepted, as the recent Somali elected representative shows. The horrors of Muslim incest are something that should be exposed more often, if only to show that not all cultures are equal, and sharia law is an abomination.
     
    Cousin marriage is allowed, yes. Uncle-niece marriage is not.

    *shrug*

    Anyway, the abomination is the western civilisation, which thrives on a satanic level of Greed and Psychopathy... and Pagan Polytheism.

    As your kind burns for all eternity, you will understand which is the true abomination.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Junior
    This piece on Alexander brought to mind a section from the documentary "The Ring Of Power" in which the creator of the film theorizes that Ptolemy XV(Caesarion), the last king of the Ptolemaic dynasty of Egypt and rightful heir to the Roman Empire, was not killed by Octavian(adopted son of Julius Caesar, also known as Emperor Augustus) and that his mother, Cleopatra, sent him to India with her most trusted servants, Mary and Joseph. The theory is that Caesarion learned Buddhism in India and returned to reclaim his father's kingdom spiritually. His father was Julius Caesar and the movie theorizes that Caesarion was Jesus. Very interesting theories in the film and well worth watching. I've attached a link to the section on Caesarion and a link to the whole film below it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzL9V1eylFw









    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CObE4Cnuw5k

    What kind of drugs, and in what dose do you need to take them, to fry yourself enough to think any of that makes sense?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I think that with a little tweaking to make this article’s focus be the need for pro-gay, pro-black Feminism ruling all discussion of the Classical world, Mark Zuckerberg’s sister might want this. And then Ron Unz would know that he has arrived.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Junior [AKA "Jr."] says:
    @5371
    Let's start with the fact that Rome was not then a monarchy, so by definition could not have a rightful heir. And it doesn't get better from there.

    Yeah, she seems to be a little sloppy with her research in terms of the connection. I THINK she was trying to say that whatever Augustus’s claim to Julius Caesar’s power in Rome as being next in line was actually Ceasarion’s. She definitely is a little loose with her use of facts and some of her connections are definitely a bit of a stretch, like her associating Julius Caesar to Jesus Christ because they both have JC in the beginning of their names… now I’m not an ancient linguist but I don’t even think that Jesus was spelled that way at the time and I think that the letter J did not even exist until about 500 years ago. :)

    But nevertheless, I think that the premise is an interesting theory.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Junior
    This piece on Alexander brought to mind a section from the documentary "The Ring Of Power" in which the creator of the film theorizes that Ptolemy XV(Caesarion), the last king of the Ptolemaic dynasty of Egypt and rightful heir to the Roman Empire, was not killed by Octavian(adopted son of Julius Caesar, also known as Emperor Augustus) and that his mother, Cleopatra, sent him to India with her most trusted servants, Mary and Joseph. The theory is that Caesarion learned Buddhism in India and returned to reclaim his father's kingdom spiritually. His father was Julius Caesar and the movie theorizes that Caesarion was Jesus. Very interesting theories in the film and well worth watching. I've attached a link to the section on Caesarion and a link to the whole film below it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzL9V1eylFw









    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CObE4Cnuw5k

    Let’s start with the fact that Rome was not then a monarchy, so by definition could not have a rightful heir. And it doesn’t get better from there.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Junior
    Yeah, she seems to be a little sloppy with her research in terms of the connection. I THINK she was trying to say that whatever Augustus's claim to Julius Caesar's power in Rome as being next in line was actually Ceasarion's. She definitely is a little loose with her use of facts and some of her connections are definitely a bit of a stretch, like her associating Julius Caesar to Jesus Christ because they both have JC in the beginning of their names... now I'm not an ancient linguist but I don't even think that Jesus was spelled that way at the time and I think that the letter J did not even exist until about 500 years ago. :)

    But nevertheless, I think that the premise is an interesting theory.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Junior [AKA "Jr."] says:

    This piece on Alexander brought to mind a section from the documentary “The Ring Of Power” in which the creator of the film theorizes that Ptolemy XV(Caesarion), the last king of the Ptolemaic dynasty of Egypt and rightful heir to the Roman Empire, was not killed by Octavian(adopted son of Julius Caesar, also known as Emperor Augustus) and that his mother, Cleopatra, sent him to India with her most trusted servants, Mary and Joseph. The theory is that Caesarion learned Buddhism in India and returned to reclaim his father’s kingdom spiritually. His father was Julius Caesar and the movie theorizes that Caesarion was Jesus. Very interesting theories in the film and well worth watching. I’ve attached a link to the section on Caesarion and a link to the whole film below it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    Let's start with the fact that Rome was not then a monarchy, so by definition could not have a rightful heir. And it doesn't get better from there.
    , @Jake
    What kind of drugs, and in what dose do you need to take them, to fry yourself enough to think any of that makes sense?
    , @Logan
    Oh, boy.

    Caesarion was born in 47 BC. This means that if he was Jesus, he would have been at least upper 70s at his crucifixion. Odd none of the Gospel writers mentioning how elderly He was.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Junior [AKA "Jr."] says:

    Similarly, he was later to fear (momentarily) even feeble-minded Arridaios as a rival (an absurd possibility, which demonstrates the irrational nature of Alexander’s suspicion).

    I’m sure that Jeb Bush would beg to differ and say that Alexander’s suspicion, of an easily-controlled feeble-minded brother taking his place, was highly rational and far from an absurd possibility.

    Read More
    • LOL: Anonym
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Jus' Sayin'...
    A little learning is a dangerous thing. The people who today call themselves Macedonians are speakers of a South Slavic language and descendants of Slavic invaders of the Balkan peninsula. They bear absolutely no relation to the Macedonians of Alexander's time who spoke a dialect of Greek and were related by descent to the Greeks. It is as ignorant to confuse modern Macedonians with ancient ones as it is to confuse the Iraqi (now mostly American) Christian minority who call themselves Assyrians with the ancient people who "Came down like a wolf on the fold...".

    Detailed genetic analysis of the Hunza has shown that their European features appear to be due to spontaneous mutations within the native population not any admixture of Greek/ancient Macedonian genes from Alexander's soldiers. People also tend to forget that Alexander's supposed conquest of Afghanistan, northern India and neighboring areas was actually a reconquest of areas already conquered by the Persians in preceding centuries. The Persians basically softened these areas up for Alewxander's later conquest.

    I believe that one of the more telling accounts of Alexander's cruelty is narrated in Plutarch's Lives. During his conquest of Persia Alexander was overjoyed to come upon a city of Greek-speaking people. Later he learned that they were the descendants of Greek mercenaries who'd fought with the Persians. With no warning Alexander ordered the sacking and coimplete destruction of the city. All residents who weren't killed outright were enslaved. Alexander was a blood-thirsty monster, a near savage, and a drunken lout who happened to inherit or steal an exceedingly effective military machine. His only accomplishment -- albeit an extraordinarily important one -- was to be the accidental agent that spread Greek culture throughout the ancient Mediterranean and Near East.

    “Alexander was a blood-thirsty monster, a near savage, and a drunken lout…”

    Please spare me your subjection of Alexander the Great to the petty orthodoxies of the 21st century. He was a man of his times, and a great one. You sound like a contemporary college kid, denouncing Thomas Jefferson for being “a racist.” Ain’t nobody got time for that!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • >>>>> and am taking the liberty of republishing this one here

    I didn’t see any “reprinted by permission” boilerplate

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • A couple years ago some royal tombs were discovered in Macedon that may have shed some light on this. I cannot remember the details, but I do remember them being likely relations of Alexander’s. Now that I think about it, they may have been his own children/wives.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Rehmat
    Yes, a little learning could be dangerous to some fools, but some of great people in history didn't even passed 8th grade. For example, Soviet Russian dictator Stalin, who established world's first Jewish state Birobidjan in 1934.

    http://rehmat1.com/2010/06/13/birobidjan-the-first-jewish-state/

    The usual implication of the Zionist pursuit of a ‘Jewish state’ was a ‘sovereign state’, just as with other groups pursuing ‘statehood’ then and now. That’s also the usual meaning of the term ‘state’ outside a US or a few other limited contexts.

    The JAO wasn’t a state. It was a third-tier subject of the USSR, or now of the Russian federation. That was a fancy equivalent of telling Soviet Jews they could run their own consolidated ghetto, which they already had been doing in most places, or telling Indians they can govern their reservations however they like. Not necessarily a bad thing, but not statehood.

    Nor was it a polity in which Jews could determine what it meant to be a Jewish nation, as opposed to having to ‘develop a proletarian jewish culture’ within a Soviet ‘socialist framework’. Nor were those Jews permitted to decide that their religion would be a major element of that Jewish culture.

    Not to mention immigration to it being controlled by Soviet authorities in Moscow, not Jewish authorities in Birobidzhan.

    Utah has a better claim to call itself a sovereign Mormon state than the JAO ever had to being a sovereign Jewish state- it is at least a first-tier subject of the US as a member state of the union, which is many levels closer to the top than any oblast of the USSR or even Russia; it has actual internal self-government [at least while the SC assumes the constitution to still exist]; it has actual freedom for Mormons to define Mormonism [ditto wrt the SC, to be sure, but at least no one says the religion has to be scrapped]; And while it certainly has a non-Mormon population, last I checked it had a Mormon majority [the JAO peaked at 25% Jewish].

    About the only things Utah lacks in this regard are full international sovereignty and the ability to direct the immigration of overseas Mormons. Still way ahead of the JAO.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    They would kill any family member standing in the way of ascension to power, including breaking firm cultural taboos like matricide, as in the case of Alexander’s younger half-sister, Thessalonike. Alexander and his family tree is a compelling mix of an incredible thirst for knowledge, culture, and exploration, and savage bloodthirst.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The practice of eliminating rival half-brothers was virtually universal among polygamous monarchies.

    It may seem unpleasant but it was necessary. If a king didn’t eliminate rival half-brothers (and full brothers) it was an absolute certainty that they would take steps to eliminate him. Strict and properly defined rules of succession are a fairly modern development. Even without polygamy rules of succession were not very clear in the ancient and medieval periods, hence The Wars of the Roses and similar stuff.

    If Alexander had his half-brothers killed that simply demonstrates his wisdom. There was no other way to assure stability.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • interesting read

    Alexander was tutored under Aristotle

    I’ve read that he insisted on breaking the most spirited wild horses personally

    a passion for knowledge and the ancient virtues, I wonder what he’d think of the kind of people we’ve become today ..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Jus' Sayin'...
    A little learning is a dangerous thing. The people who today call themselves Macedonians are speakers of a South Slavic language and descendants of Slavic invaders of the Balkan peninsula. They bear absolutely no relation to the Macedonians of Alexander's time who spoke a dialect of Greek and were related by descent to the Greeks. It is as ignorant to confuse modern Macedonians with ancient ones as it is to confuse the Iraqi (now mostly American) Christian minority who call themselves Assyrians with the ancient people who "Came down like a wolf on the fold...".

    Detailed genetic analysis of the Hunza has shown that their European features appear to be due to spontaneous mutations within the native population not any admixture of Greek/ancient Macedonian genes from Alexander's soldiers. People also tend to forget that Alexander's supposed conquest of Afghanistan, northern India and neighboring areas was actually a reconquest of areas already conquered by the Persians in preceding centuries. The Persians basically softened these areas up for Alewxander's later conquest.

    I believe that one of the more telling accounts of Alexander's cruelty is narrated in Plutarch's Lives. During his conquest of Persia Alexander was overjoyed to come upon a city of Greek-speaking people. Later he learned that they were the descendants of Greek mercenaries who'd fought with the Persians. With no warning Alexander ordered the sacking and coimplete destruction of the city. All residents who weren't killed outright were enslaved. Alexander was a blood-thirsty monster, a near savage, and a drunken lout who happened to inherit or steal an exceedingly effective military machine. His only accomplishment -- albeit an extraordinarily important one -- was to be the accidental agent that spread Greek culture throughout the ancient Mediterranean and Near East.

    Yes, a little learning could be dangerous to some fools, but some of great people in history didn’t even passed 8th grade. For example, Soviet Russian dictator Stalin, who established world’s first Jewish state Birobidjan in 1934.

    http://rehmat1.com/2010/06/13/birobidjan-the-first-jewish-state/

    Read More
    • Replies: @random observer
    The usual implication of the Zionist pursuit of a 'Jewish state' was a 'sovereign state', just as with other groups pursuing 'statehood' then and now. That's also the usual meaning of the term 'state' outside a US or a few other limited contexts.

    The JAO wasn't a state. It was a third-tier subject of the USSR, or now of the Russian federation. That was a fancy equivalent of telling Soviet Jews they could run their own consolidated ghetto, which they already had been doing in most places, or telling Indians they can govern their reservations however they like. Not necessarily a bad thing, but not statehood.

    Nor was it a polity in which Jews could determine what it meant to be a Jewish nation, as opposed to having to 'develop a proletarian jewish culture' within a Soviet 'socialist framework'. Nor were those Jews permitted to decide that their religion would be a major element of that Jewish culture.

    Not to mention immigration to it being controlled by Soviet authorities in Moscow, not Jewish authorities in Birobidzhan.

    Utah has a better claim to call itself a sovereign Mormon state than the JAO ever had to being a sovereign Jewish state- it is at least a first-tier subject of the US as a member state of the union, which is many levels closer to the top than any oblast of the USSR or even Russia; it has actual internal self-government [at least while the SC assumes the constitution to still exist]; it has actual freedom for Mormons to define Mormonism [ditto wrt the SC, to be sure, but at least no one says the religion has to be scrapped]; And while it certainly has a non-Mormon population, last I checked it had a Mormon majority [the JAO peaked at 25% Jewish].

    About the only things Utah lacks in this regard are full international sovereignty and the ability to direct the immigration of overseas Mormons. Still way ahead of the JAO.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Wasn’t Alexander gay?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Patrick Harris
    Define "gay." Did he screw dudes, yes. Exclusively, no. But that was the norm for the upper classes in Greek culture, so it's not really accurate to call him "bisexual" as if it was merely a personal preference.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Jus' Sayin'...
    A little learning is a dangerous thing. The people who today call themselves Macedonians are speakers of a South Slavic language and descendants of Slavic invaders of the Balkan peninsula. They bear absolutely no relation to the Macedonians of Alexander's time who spoke a dialect of Greek and were related by descent to the Greeks. It is as ignorant to confuse modern Macedonians with ancient ones as it is to confuse the Iraqi (now mostly American) Christian minority who call themselves Assyrians with the ancient people who "Came down like a wolf on the fold...".

    Detailed genetic analysis of the Hunza has shown that their European features appear to be due to spontaneous mutations within the native population not any admixture of Greek/ancient Macedonian genes from Alexander's soldiers. People also tend to forget that Alexander's supposed conquest of Afghanistan, northern India and neighboring areas was actually a reconquest of areas already conquered by the Persians in preceding centuries. The Persians basically softened these areas up for Alewxander's later conquest.

    I believe that one of the more telling accounts of Alexander's cruelty is narrated in Plutarch's Lives. During his conquest of Persia Alexander was overjoyed to come upon a city of Greek-speaking people. Later he learned that they were the descendants of Greek mercenaries who'd fought with the Persians. With no warning Alexander ordered the sacking and coimplete destruction of the city. All residents who weren't killed outright were enslaved. Alexander was a blood-thirsty monster, a near savage, and a drunken lout who happened to inherit or steal an exceedingly effective military machine. His only accomplishment -- albeit an extraordinarily important one -- was to be the accidental agent that spread Greek culture throughout the ancient Mediterranean and Near East.

    A little learning is a dangerous thing.

    Over 300 classicists recently sent a signed letter to President Obama. Here’s the introductory paragraph:

    Dear President Obama,
    We, the undersigned scholars of Graeco-Roman antiquity, respectfully request that you intervene to clean up some of the historical debris left in southeast Europe by the previous U.S. administration.

    http://macedonia-evidence.org/obama-letter.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Rehmat
    Alexander's nationality is still disputed among Greek and Macedonian historians. A great majority of inhabitants of Pakistan's northern state, Hunza, claim to be descendants of Greek soldiers who accompanied Alexander the Great during his conquest of that part of the world which he was forced to abandon due to a rebellion back home. According to legend, during his short stay in Hunza, Alexander married daughter of a local chief. He left a regiment to guard his wife during his journey back to Macedonia.

    A few years ago, I read an interview by Safder Karim, a student at University of Sydney (Australia), who said: "The people of Hunza and Kalash are the descendants of Alexander the Great . The great Alexander was the king of Macedonia. So logically we migrated from Macedonia to Hunza and we are the generation of Alexander 's army who never returned to Macedonia. I m totally confused why Greeks think that we are Greeks . Alexander was Macedonian so to clarify everything, our ancestors were Macedonians not Greeks. The Greeks have tried very hard to make us Greek but they won't get us to become Greek. We belong to the Macedonian culture and to Macedonia . We never mix with any other culture .In the ancient world there was no country called Greece, there was a Macedonian kingdom with a king and a city states around Athens."

    Well, Macedonians are still struggling for their survival.

    On January 31, 2015, Macedonian prime minister Nikola Gruevski accused opposition leader Zoran Zaev of conspiring with foreign intelligence agencies to topple his government. Zaev’s Social Democrats are supported by the US and EU, have been boycotting parliament for almost a year since alleging fraud in the last parliamentary election.

    http://rehmat1.com/2015/02/18/macedonia-jewish-lobby-wants-regime-change/

    A little learning is a dangerous thing. The people who today call themselves Macedonians are speakers of a South Slavic language and descendants of Slavic invaders of the Balkan peninsula. They bear absolutely no relation to the Macedonians of Alexander’s time who spoke a dialect of Greek and were related by descent to the Greeks. It is as ignorant to confuse modern Macedonians with ancient ones as it is to confuse the Iraqi (now mostly American) Christian minority who call themselves Assyrians with the ancient people who “Came down like a wolf on the fold…”.

    Detailed genetic analysis of the Hunza has shown that their European features appear to be due to spontaneous mutations within the native population not any admixture of Greek/ancient Macedonian genes from Alexander’s soldiers. People also tend to forget that Alexander’s supposed conquest of Afghanistan, northern India and neighboring areas was actually a reconquest of areas already conquered by the Persians in preceding centuries. The Persians basically softened these areas up for Alewxander’s later conquest.

    I believe that one of the more telling accounts of Alexander’s cruelty is narrated in Plutarch’s Lives. During his conquest of Persia Alexander was overjoyed to come upon a city of Greek-speaking people. Later he learned that they were the descendants of Greek mercenaries who’d fought with the Persians. With no warning Alexander ordered the sacking and coimplete destruction of the city. All residents who weren’t killed outright were enslaved. Alexander was a blood-thirsty monster, a near savage, and a drunken lout who happened to inherit or steal an exceedingly effective military machine. His only accomplishment — albeit an extraordinarily important one — was to be the accidental agent that spread Greek culture throughout the ancient Mediterranean and Near East.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    A little learning is a dangerous thing.
     
    Over 300 classicists recently sent a signed letter to President Obama. Here's the introductory paragraph:

    Dear President Obama,
    We, the undersigned scholars of Graeco-Roman antiquity, respectfully request that you intervene to clean up some of the historical debris left in southeast Europe by the previous U.S. administration.

    http://macedonia-evidence.org/obama-letter.html
     
    , @Rehmat
    Yes, a little learning could be dangerous to some fools, but some of great people in history didn't even passed 8th grade. For example, Soviet Russian dictator Stalin, who established world's first Jewish state Birobidjan in 1934.

    http://rehmat1.com/2010/06/13/birobidjan-the-first-jewish-state/
    , @Kevin O'Keeffe
    "Alexander was a blood-thirsty monster, a near savage, and a drunken lout..."

    Please spare me your subjection of Alexander the Great to the petty orthodoxies of the 21st century. He was a man of his times, and a great one. You sound like a contemporary college kid, denouncing Thomas Jefferson for being "a racist." Ain't nobody got time for that!
    , @Alfred
    Quite correct about the Greek mercenaries in Persia. A full one-third of the Persian army that faced Alexander's Macedonians (not to be confused with those living in today's Macedonia) at the battle of Granicus were Greek mercenaries.

    "Battle of the Granicus"

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

    Greece was - and is - a poor country. Exporting mercenaries was a way to support their lifestyle. Much later, Greeks turned to shipping and commerce. Many emigrated over the ages.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Alexander’s nationality is still disputed among Greek and Macedonian historians. A great majority of inhabitants of Pakistan’s northern state, Hunza, claim to be descendants of Greek soldiers who accompanied Alexander the Great during his conquest of that part of the world which he was forced to abandon due to a rebellion back home. According to legend, during his short stay in Hunza, Alexander married daughter of a local chief. He left a regiment to guard his wife during his journey back to Macedonia.

    A few years ago, I read an interview by Safder Karim, a student at University of Sydney (Australia), who said: “The people of Hunza and Kalash are the descendants of Alexander the Great . The great Alexander was the king of Macedonia. So logically we migrated from Macedonia to Hunza and we are the generation of Alexander ‘s army who never returned to Macedonia. I m totally confused why Greeks think that we are Greeks . Alexander was Macedonian so to clarify everything, our ancestors were Macedonians not Greeks. The Greeks have tried very hard to make us Greek but they won’t get us to become Greek. We belong to the Macedonian culture and to Macedonia . We never mix with any other culture .In the ancient world there was no country called Greece, there was a Macedonian kingdom with a king and a city states around Athens.”

    Well, Macedonians are still struggling for their survival.

    On January 31, 2015, Macedonian prime minister Nikola Gruevski accused opposition leader Zoran Zaev of conspiring with foreign intelligence agencies to topple his government. Zaev’s Social Democrats are supported by the US and EU, have been boycotting parliament for almost a year since alleging fraud in the last parliamentary election.

    http://rehmat1.com/2015/02/18/macedonia-jewish-lobby-wants-regime-change/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
    A little learning is a dangerous thing. The people who today call themselves Macedonians are speakers of a South Slavic language and descendants of Slavic invaders of the Balkan peninsula. They bear absolutely no relation to the Macedonians of Alexander's time who spoke a dialect of Greek and were related by descent to the Greeks. It is as ignorant to confuse modern Macedonians with ancient ones as it is to confuse the Iraqi (now mostly American) Christian minority who call themselves Assyrians with the ancient people who "Came down like a wolf on the fold...".

    Detailed genetic analysis of the Hunza has shown that their European features appear to be due to spontaneous mutations within the native population not any admixture of Greek/ancient Macedonian genes from Alexander's soldiers. People also tend to forget that Alexander's supposed conquest of Afghanistan, northern India and neighboring areas was actually a reconquest of areas already conquered by the Persians in preceding centuries. The Persians basically softened these areas up for Alewxander's later conquest.

    I believe that one of the more telling accounts of Alexander's cruelty is narrated in Plutarch's Lives. During his conquest of Persia Alexander was overjoyed to come upon a city of Greek-speaking people. Later he learned that they were the descendants of Greek mercenaries who'd fought with the Persians. With no warning Alexander ordered the sacking and coimplete destruction of the city. All residents who weren't killed outright were enslaved. Alexander was a blood-thirsty monster, a near savage, and a drunken lout who happened to inherit or steal an exceedingly effective military machine. His only accomplishment -- albeit an extraordinarily important one -- was to be the accidental agent that spread Greek culture throughout the ancient Mediterranean and Near East.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Were there any laws that at least nominally forbade and punished murder in Alexander’s time?

    (My classics knowledge is entry-level only. I have Arrian’s book, Cicero’s letters, a few others, all Eng. translation. Read a few period novels, plus had one year of Latin with Miss Macchione before she took ill and wasn’t replaced.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • All I ever knew about Alexander The Great came from a Landmark bio I read in the fifties. The Landmark series were two hundred page books about historical figures with biggish print and nothing about fratricide run wild. There was one on Garibaldi too.

    http://www.amazon.com/Alexander-Great-Landmark-World-Books/dp/B0006ATFPK

    The landmark book represented Alexander as the golden boy of early western history with his big horse and good intentions. Back then I could not imagine Alexander being a power grabber and brother killer, but now the Unz version rings with the sordid tone of truth.

    Also I thank Mr. Unz for his forum and the opportunity to read thoughtful opinions you will not run into elsewhere on the Web.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Eagle Eye

    Also I thank Mr. Unz for his forum and the opportunity to read thoughtful opinions you will not run into elsewhere on the Web.
     
    Hear, hear!

    Mr. Unz is indeed a man of many parts.

    Thank you, Mr. Unz!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • So may we just say we know not much about Alexander’s early years because he killed all his playmates? How many brothers do you think he had? I never knew Kleopatra had a daughter named Europe.

    Makes me think what I’ve often thought regarding the human nature of those who reign, and how maybe it has never much changed a mite: all more or less have Narcissistic Personality Disorder–(which USA foreign policy has a jarring meta-case of, well because of whose behind it of course.) NPD is worth a wikipedia or mayo perusal if you, like me, always figured it was just an extra dose of narcissism. It’s not, it’s fundamentally about character assassination, and a torturous insecurity. So, A. the Great kills his step-mothers relatives comprehensively? Sounds maybe more than a little insecure, maybe that a better word than paranoid. And it seems hard to imagine his half-brothers were such rivals of the Right Stuff. Anyhow he kills his competition and today they character assassinate the competition. Well having suffered it from close quarters myself, eh, I’m content to judge him no more the monster than willy-nilly character assassins of now. Alexandria was like an art-culture-learning atlantis for a time.

    The argument from silence is kinda interesting to ponder. “Have I no friend will rid me of this living fear?” Maybe the fratricide was mostly outsourced that way, no need to make a big defense after the fact of what you deliberately did not do. Tarn sounds like he’s hocking the popular thumbnail of Alexander. Though, who are the rivals out to besmirch his name, I guess claiming he was murdering relatives were they? Well I suppose you would only be practicing self-preservation getting behind that if it was a lie, right?

    From secret of secrets:

    Alexander:

    O my excellent preceptor and just minister, I inform you that I have found in the land of Persia men possessing sound judgement and powerful understanding, who are ambitious of bearing rule. Hence I have decided to put them all to death. What is your opinion in this matter?

    Aristotle responded:

    It is no use putting to death the men you have conquered; for their land will, by the laws of nature, breed another generation which will be similar. The character of these men is determined by the nature of the air of their country and the waters they habitually drink. The best course for you is to accept them as they are, and to seek to accommodate them to your concepts by winning them over through kindness.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • How did you get on with the toucan man?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The thought which crossed my mind is the idea in many cultures ‘cousin’ and ‘brother’ are indistinguishable in the language when spoken generically. Another way of saying this is, unless the referrer wishes to be technically specific, cousin and brother or cousin and sister can often be the identical word. In Blackfoot language, for instance, cousin and brother can be the same word. I understand this can also be the case in some Slav languages usage. I don’t know that were the case in the language spoken by Alexander’s contemporaries, but if it were, it could complicate matters, especially if writers about Alexander’s family were of a different language and the ‘cousin-brother’ distinction were not always clear in either the language spoken by Alexander, or any alternative language in which he’d been written about. Just a thought.

    History fascinates and Alexander will never go away so long as European based culture retains its place of dominance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @whorefinder
    Given the high degree of incest that existed in the pre-Christian world, the blurred line between "cousin" and "brother" probably made a lot more sense. Many families had no problem intermarrying in ways that disgust us in the West today: half-brothers and half-sisters married, uncles married nieces, first cousins could marry, etc. Your "cousin" might very well have enough of your own genes that he could be called your brother.

    It was the Catholic Church that made incest verboten before the Reformation.The Church noticed that warring factions often (1) existed side by side; and (2) kept marriages within the nobility of the particular clan. The Church thought that by barring certain forms of incestual marriage, it would force clans next to each other to breed with one another, thereby uniting lands and reducing hostility, which, in fact, it did.

    Note that Judaism did not ban a lot of incest; it was the Church that led this. Some Protestant denominations went backwards on incest, but for the most part Protestants kept up this ban (although Jane Austen's novels do have a bit of a blur between relations and marriage opportunities),

    Note also how it was assumed that the elites of two societies would much rather marry each other than commoners of their own realm. It probably didn't mean much when a powerful clan was the only people on a land (i.e. with Scottish or Irish clans in the hinterlands), but as lands became more populated and the commoner/elite divide became more pronounced the elites still preferred to marry across elite lines rather than go down to the peasantry or yeoman or merchant. Food for thought.

    We can see that in most of the non-Christian world today cousin marriage, uncle-niece marriage, etc. are still accepted, as the recent Somali elected representative shows. The horrors of Muslim incest are something that should be exposed more often, if only to show that not all cultures are equal, and sharia law is an abomination.

    , @Anon

    History fascinates and Alexander will never go away so long as European based culture retains its place of dominance.
     
    So, you're saying, maybe another week or two?

    Anyway, 'pre-eminence' is strong enough without resorting to 'dominance'...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The Spartan Naval Empire, 412-394 B.C. (PDF) by Ron Keeva Unz Unpublished, Harvard University/Ernst Badian, March 23, 1982 In the summer of 478 B.C., Sparta abandoned her first attempt at naval empire. Spartans had had no history of naval excellence, but the overwhelming prestige of Sparta’s land forces and her place at the head of...
  • I have not finished reading it yet, but page 14 is missing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.