The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewGuillaume Durocher Archive
Study History, Young Man!
On Your Own Time
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

In my working life, I regularly encounter people in public affairs with a total lack of interest in history. Even officials with PhDs who swear by democracy and the rule of law, and who claim to promote them, will tell me that a man like Alexis de Tocqueville is too ancient to be of any relevance today.

This sort of thing leaves me stunned but is not particularly surprising in our age when Western “elites” look upon their own civilization’s past with a mixture of total incomprehension and righteous indignation.

It is obviously extremely dangerous when a society’s leadership is ignorant and contemptuous of its past. I’ll go much further back than Tocqueville and cite Cicero as an authority: “To be ignorant of what occurred before you were born is to remain always a child.” We are governed by the human equivalent of self-loathing goldfish.

I well understand the frustration that people feel in studying history, “one damn thing after another.” Almost every child’s memory is scarred by their high-school history classes presenting an inchoate series of dates, personalities, and events to be memorized. Paul Valéry felt the same way, so if you’ve a distaste for history, you are not in bad company. In fact, there is some sense in drilling a few common references into young people’s heads, but on the whole this misses the point. The fault here is with our systems of secondary education, apparently uniformly odious forms of mental circus training, not with history as such.

The point is: How did we get here? What can we learn from past experience? What have we inherited so we don’t start from scratch? I advise every thoughtful young person to discover the pleasures of browsing a good historical atlas to understand how his society, his moment of time, fits in the big picture of the wider human journey. This can inspire right action. Again Cicero: “For what is the worth of human life, unless it is woven into the life of our ancestors by the records of history?”

Personally, I have always strongly felt the intrinsic kinship between history and politics. I later discovered that ancient historians long before me had felt the same way. But the ancients went further, in always emphasizing that the study of past lives and societies should also improve our personal moral character.

Take Polybius, that Greek historian of a Roman Republic which triumphantly unified the lands of the Mediterranean: “not only is there no more authentic way to prepare and train oneself for political life than by studying history, but also there is no more comprehensible and comprehensive teacher of the ability to endure with courage the vicissitudes of Fortune than a record of others’ catastrophes.”

I would go further and claim that the ancient historians’ approach and interests directly resonate with our experiences today. Peruse the introductions of Herodotus, Thucydides, Polybius, or Livy. What do they discuss? The great deeds of the Greeks, Romans, and other nations, the rise and fall of republics and empires, the diversity and conflict among tribes and civilizations, and even globalization. Consider Livy, who says he will document “the history of the greatest nation on earth . . . [so] that each reader will pay the closest attention to the following: how men lived, what their moral principles were, under what leaders and by what measures at home and abroad our empire was won and extended.” Who could be uninterested in the roots of the power and glory of Rome?

Nota bene: You don’t need to read the whole damn things. Chronicles may be necessary but often make for dreary reading. Though a good guide helps, e.g. the excellent Oxford Classics and Landmark series. Walls of text should also be complemented with illustrated encyclopedias featuring all the beautiful non-literary evidence and heritage left behind by our predecessors: architecture, statuary, paintings, artifacts, etc. The past was as alive as we are today, if anything, more so.

History itself also shows that its study is not limited to that of humble bookwyrms like myself. The fact is that the most serious and consequential modern leaders were also men of historical culture: the American Founding Fathers, Bonaparte, Hitler, De Gaulle, Gandhi, even that supposed knucklehead Patton . . . all were great and voracious bibliophiles with wide-ranging interests, in particular historical.

And why do great men study history? Because they seek to put their life’s work in the perspective of the ages, of all past human accomplishment. That is the challenge they put before themselves. That is how they incite their manly pride to accomplish something truly worthy and as great as can be.

But I well understand that such a mindset is incomprehensible in our times, where not just mediocrity but outright defectiveness are celebrated as sacred rights. Why would anyone study the great deeds of past men if this would only remind them of the humdrum nature of their own existence?

In truth, I would not recommend studying history at university randomly, like the Anglo-Saxons and increasingly Continental Europeans do, without a view towards a specific career. Do so, if that is your calling, that is, with the specific goal of becoming a history teacher, a professor, a researcher, a museum curator, an independent historian, etc.

You may be put off by such humble careers. I will say, in France, high-school teaching used to be a fairly respected and prestigious profession, one compatible with higher political activities. Hervé Ryssen had a stint as a history-geography teacher (his pedagogic skills indeed transpire in all his work) and, in a very different genre, the charming leader of the French conservatives in the European Parliament is the 30-something philosophy teacher François-Xavier Bellamy.

More generally, I discover every day more and more content creators who are forging their own career path, most commonly through the steady production of YouTube videos. It seems most young boys these days dream of becoming video game streamers, and no doubt there is a large market for that. (Streamers provide viewers with the characteristically male pleasures of competitiveness, creativity, comradeship, humor, and . . . victory, made shameful only by their virtuality.) But I also encounter more and more surprisingly popular history channels such as those of Survive the Jive, Simon Roper, History Debunked, or the weekly reliving of World War Two series.

There are real openings today for bold, young entrepreneurs. Do not hesitate to call and talk to the best people working in your field of interest. Don’t worry about making money right away, as long as you are actually accomplishing something noteworthy. Live in your mom’s basement if you have to free yourself from the tyranny of rent.

There is a real craft to history, tools and techniques whose use must be learned from the masters: the arts of interpreting ancient documents (see Yale’s New Testament course or maverick historian Richard Carrier’s work), archaeology, archival research, the tracking down of oral sources and private documents (David Irving surely must rank as a master here), etc.

Do not however fall in the trap of studying humanities and then trying to be some kind of generalist. That is particularly dangerous in these times of victim quotas and tickbox careers. We want our young men prosperous and independent. By studying the humanities, you will be largely indistinguishable from the hordes of semi-literate riffraff that are being plowed through the mass ed system in a half-drunken haze.

And anyway, study is best done on your own time, though of course professors and peers can help. There’s no guarantee academia will provide you a proper education. I’m still embarrassed the university system let me graduate with high honors in history and politics without ever reading Tocqueville or Aristotle. In a good state, familiarity and understanding of both would naturally be among the minimum qualifications for suffrage.

Admittedly, one must also be ready, mature enough for classic works. I remember encountering Plato’s Laws and Jeremy Noakes’ Nazism series, and leaving them aside in puzzlement.

If you are interested in public service, be smart and get some identifiable skills or qualifications that separate you from the interchangeable office plankton. If interested in foreign service or intelligence, perhaps learn a relevant language (Chinese, Russian, Arabic . . . sometimes more obscure ones for niche roles). Among European officialdom, economics and law are the surest paths to rising above the rabble of poli-sci graduates.

Basic numeracy, much rarer than you’d think, goes a long way in upgrading your market value from that of disposable intern to a “consultant” charging €750 a day.

But really, you should find and stick to whatever you do with gusto!

And regarding poli-sci: I advise against it. No field is less capable of lifting your mind out of the fashions and ignorance of our time. This is the journalism of the humanities. Much of this field only exists insofar as it caters to and flatters the idiotic assumptions and insincere policies of our current governments. You may as well be undertaking Marxian economic studies in the late Soviet Union.

I.R. theory is dubious. EU studies are a bore and, in the Continent, largely involve enculer des mouches (much ado about very little, pardon my French).

There is little you will learn in poli-sci which cannot be gleaned by reading the newspaper or, better still, an internship in some dismal office. I suppose a two-year course at a community college is justifiable, for slow folks who need help learning the buzzwords for an easy job with an NGO or some quasi-governmental shop. I cannot fault anyone for wishing to get aboard a gravy train.

Nota bene: I am sure there are good political scientists at the margins. Stephen Walt and Amy Chua have said interesting things over the years. I’ve just never met a person who was intellectually or morally improved by the process.

So, as I say, if you aspire to be a man of worth, study history. Be you soldier, scientist, artist, entrepreneur, bureaucrat, bum, or bordello manager, learn from your illustrious predecessors! There’s a warm kinship among peers that extends across generations and boundless aeons. Indulge in the exquisite pleasures of the mind which are also the path to man’s self-knowledge. Listen to Machiavelli, at the end of a long day’s work:

I return home and enter my study; on the threshold I take off my workday clothes, covered with mud and dirt, and put on the garments of court and palace. Fitted out appropriately, I step inside the venerable court of the ancients, where, solicitously received by them, I nourish myself on that food that alone is mine and for which I was born; where I am unashamed to converse with them . . . and they, out of their human kindness, answer me. And for four hours at a time I feel no boredom, I forget all my troubles, I do not dread poverty, and I am not terrified by death. I absorb myself into them completely. And because Dante says that no one understands anything unless he retains [it], I have jotted down what I have profited from in their conversation and composed a short study, De principatibus.

 
• Category: History • Tags: Academia, History 
Hide 289 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. They let in the women and so began the decline, rapid, ongoing, unstoppable and especially, deliberate.

    • Disagree: stevennonemaker88
  2. TG says:

    “We learn from history that we do not learn from history” – Hegel.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  3. History is well aged propaganda, nothing more. History is written by the winners, because most of history revolves around conflicts.

    If you want to get a one sided view of things then study history and believe it. If you want to have an open mind, then peruse history with a skeptical eye.

    If you want to become a state propagandist, then become a history teacher. If you want to become a productive member of society, then get a STEM degree. The Humanities and Social Sciences aren’t worth spit.

  4. those who don’t know the history of their own nation are like children who don’t know their own parents.

  5. Tiberius Gracchus was a Roman populist leader who angered the oligarch-controlled Senate with his reforms which favored the common man. To prevent his re-election, Tiberius and 300 of his supporters were slain by a Senate-led mob, and their bodies thrown in the river Tiber.

    Trump and approximately 300 of his supporters who attended the demonstration in DC are being crucified by lawfare. As in Roman times, the Senate has become a mouthpiece for oligarchs.

    • Replies: @Ugetit
    , @Anonymous
  6. @RoatanBill

    While I see where you are coming from, I have to strongly disagree:
    1) Typically there is considerable debate among historians. There isn’t, on most issues, just one narrative but a debate. The problem usually isn’t that you’re getting only one story, but many, and cannot come to any firm conclusion but “who knows?”
    2) I value STEM but it’s not much good if it’s narrow and ignorant of wider human issues. Many of best commentators, I find, are those that are both scientifically literate and cultured in the wider sense. In particular, the humanities and social sciences need to be informed by the latest human life sciences (evolutionary psychology, genetics). In fact, there’s often a wonderful congruence between the two: the issues explored by life scientists were already explored and compellingly expressed by Homer, Shakespeare, etc. Conversely, I know too many STEM educated ignoramuses.

  7. Resartus says:

    Never forget, the Roman Senate killed Ceasar to prevent having an Emperor…
    Not knowing the government imposed because of their actions was exactly what
    they acted against….

    • Replies: @animalogic
  8. black dog says:

    Well said. Unfortunately, most people can’t tell the difference between modern journalists working for big media and a genuine historian. The hordes of TV “historians” make matters worse. They present myths and conjecture as facts, fit their arguments to modern popular sensibilities and don’t challenge anyone’s preconceptions. History is so much more than that.

  9. @Guillaume Durocher

    While I see where you are coming from, I have to strongly disagree:
    The Humanities and Social Sciences can’t prove, via empirical evidence, the bulk of what they preach. It’s all opinion based with a smattering of evidence that may or may not have been manufactured ages ago. Some professor came up with something that sounds reasonable, without verifiable evidence, and it becomes an accepted fact to be repeated endlessly to the next crop of students who suck it up as gospel.

    If Historians are still debating issues, then call me up when you arrive at a conclusion and you can prove what you say.

    Economists are outright frauds. They can’t even do a decent autopsy on an economy that’s tanked. Their advice is anything their client (bank, gov’t, corporation, etc) wants to hear. They are the whores willing to defend any position that will pay them a stipend.

    Political Science – the name alone yells fraud as there’s no science in it.

    Gender studies, sociology, psychology, etc are all opinions and those opinions are wrecking the society because the terminally stupid believe what those faux experts have to say.

    It goes beyond just the Humanities and Social Sciences. Even the STEM fields have been polluted by opinionated nonsense. Cosmology sees black holes, neutron stars, dark matter, dark energy, etc and gets to spend billions on colliders looking for unicorns. Space missions to comets have verifiable evidence that comets are blacker than coal burned rocks devoid of water and ice but the dirty snowball nonsense is still pushed on to the public.

    Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but when those opinions are published as truth to be digested by all, then that’s a problem.

    History would be a wonderful thing, if it were only true.
    Leo Tolstoy

  10. Sirius says:
    @RoatanBill

    Anything can be propaganda. Look at the reporting of current affairs, never mind history. It is up to us to engage in critical thinking, checking different sources to get at the truth and in the case of not contemporary history, finding historians who we can trust. We can’t just ignore history.

    “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.” – William Faulkner

    • Agree: chris, ChuckOrloski
  11. ruralguy says:

    There is much truth to the saying that ignorance is bliss. The more educated you are, the less you will feel you fit into America. Most American adults are ignorant and uneducated. They read and comprehend at the 5th grade level (according to an international study). If you’re educated, you’ll see them as ignorant and uneducated. You can’t hide this disdain. They will see it and avoid you. So, if you want to fit in, you need to be at the same level as most American adults.

  12. Great Article.

    With History, and your own efforts to submit it to reason, you are your own leader.

    Without History assessed in the context of reason, Eugene Debs noted, you will always be led by someone else –

    “I would not be a Moses to lead you into the Promised Land, because if I could lead you into it, someone else could lead you out of it.”

    • Replies: @Badger Down
  13. @RoatanBill

    STEM certainly holds a better potential for sheer professional success. But surely our society, and our worth as human beings, cannot be weighed in economic values alone. Not even Soviet Communism was that inhuman.

    I would say, in a better society than ours, the ideal man is he who is both a productive worker and also a good citizen. The latter, however, absolutely requires knowledge of the humanities — not necessarily as a degree, but at least some basic literacy. A man without history is just the kind of rootless prole that every aspiring Communist dictator or corporate oligarch loves like nothing else. He has at best a vague and muddled conception of his own culture and community, and so is easily swept up in the pipedreams of individualism. And so, just as easily manipulated and led down into the abyss by wiser peoples who do recall their heritage.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  14. I read very broadly in history for no other reason save for the fact that it interests and fascinates me. It also keeps me humble in that I constantly realize that the more I know the more I realize how little in fact I do know. In distinction to what the author suggested such as getting a professor to advise or mentor one, maybe it is still different in Europe. I can’t see this being done in North America where anything that happened especially in the last 300 years is politicized and fits into Napoleon’s description as “agreed upon lies”. That they have to manipulate history alone proves the author’s assertion of the intrinsic value of the study.

    Having said that, one thing that I haven’t quite figured out is why I instinctively avoid any classical history written by women. I have read a couple of Barbara Tuchman’s books and although she does the work of a competent historian there is an off putting shrillness throughout. Lynn Macdonald wrote a very good WW1 book, 1915, and I am presently reading near history by Frances Fitzgerald, Way Out There In The Blue and find it to be very good. So I am not against women historians as such, I just get a feeling that absorbing history is incompatible with the female mind structure hence the ones that make it are outliers and not necessarily the best representatives.

    Of course I must qualify that by history I mean the study as the author pointed out that would embrace the changes found in a historical atlas and not say, the histories of fashion, the suffragette movement or lesbian poetry in the middle ages.

    Otherwise as writers they seem to be every bit as good as men. Perhaps someone might have an explanation on why I perceive this to be so.

    Cheers-

    • Replies: @Weave
  15. @John Regan

    I have no problem with people knowing about their ancestors and some historical perspective that shapes society. What I do object to is being lectured by profession jesters that tell stories they make up as they go along. I don’t want anyone to pretend they are an expert on some subject that is largely opinion based. There are no such experts, so their degrees are bogus.

    Look at the damage done by psychiatrists. There’s not a single ailment in the DSM that has a definitive test that unambiguously defines one of their made up diseases. Every practitioner evaluates a person and subjectively comes up with an opinion for what’s going on. They then prescribe mind altering drugs that turn people into vegetables or mass shooters.

    Look at the harm Economists have done over centuries. They come up with nonsense like fiat money from nothing and MMT so the state can helicopter funds into people’s accounts. Inflation – hyperinflation – don’t worry about it.

    How about paleontologists that can tell you the habits of animals that have been extinct for millions of years, but they can’t tell you how a titanosaur managed to keep it’s head on that long neck when mechanical engineers can’t figure that out.

    Egyptologists that can conjure up a temple from 6 holes in the ground (I watched a video where this occurred).

    Cosmologists that insist comets are dirty snowballs when space missions have landed on these objects and brought back samples and not a drop of water anywhere but they still spout that bullshit.

    I want proof. I want empirical evidence that someone knows what he’s talking about, not some dim bulb cranking out theories and hypothesis that have no basis in the real world.

    History, in particular, is a form of political memory and is not to be trusted past the physical evidence they can produce. Do you believe in the holocaust as an accurate description of what occurred just a handful of decades past? How can anyone believe what happened centuries to millennia ago from these story tellers?

  16. Jeremiah 6:16

    Thus says the Lord:

    “Stand in the ways and see,
    And ask for the old paths, where the good way is,
    And walk in it;
    Then you will find rest for your souls.
    But they said, ‘We will not walk in it.’

    Monsieur, history is indeed most useful if it’s guided by the knowledge of and in the service of the God of History.

    “It is He who has made us, and not we ourselves; (Psalms 100:3)

    • Agree: SeekerofthePresence
  17. History is an engineering science. Historians are engineers, building and constantly rebuilding the bridge to the past, the aim of which to explain “how we got here”. Since “here” is elusive and ever-changing, so is the explanation of how we arrived to this destination.

    If “here” is the triumph of civilisation, then we must have always been the good guys, epitomising the best of what the humanity has achieved. And thus our triumph is well deserved, and we are justifiably an indispensable nation, a shining beacon for all humankind.

    If “here” is a post-slavery racial inequality, we have always been just a bunch of oppressors and colonisers, mixed with Black-haters and slave drivers. And thus our demise will be met by well-deserved cheers of the rest of the planet Earth, which we are scum of.

    History is not about what has happened. It is about what must have happened that can best explain and justify the current state of affairs. Tomorrow history will always be different. The Civil war will have been won or lost by the North depending upon who is in the White house when tomorrow comes.

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  18. @romanempire

    I’ve never heard of anyone trying to assert that the Union lost the Civil War. Even the most pro-Confederate authors accept that their side lost.

    • Replies: @Rich
    , @Ugetit
  19. lloyd says: • Website
    @RoatanBill

    I recall in New Zealand in my first year at a University, a young man in the University cafetaria declaiming and actually naming my ancient history courses their worthlessness. No one contradicted him. Eleven years later, New Zealand passed into an Orwellian State. Worthless me noticed. The conceited sheepish Kiwis did not although now they whinge all the time. Now who wants to come across as stupid as Kiwis?

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  20. Machiavelli!! What a genius. Every serious man should have the following books on his bedside:

    Thucydides’s History
    Plato’s Laws
    Aristotle’s Politics
    Plutarch’s Lives
    Mavrikios’s Strategikon
    Prokopios’s History of the Wars
    Leo the Deacon’s History
    Machiavelli’s Discourses on Livy
    Guicciardini’s History of Italy
    Tocqueville’s Democracy in America

    Never read anything published after 1965.

  21. willem1 says:

    “The notion that we can dismiss the views of all previous thinkers surely leaves no basis for the hope that our own work will prove of any value to others.”

    – Morris R. Cohen, “Reason and Nature”

  22. Bartolo says:

    @Guillaume Durocher

    If you ever find yourself in Brussels and want to talk to like-minded people who work in international institutions (there´s not many of us, but we exist), let me know.

  23. @RoatanBill

    If thou wert educated, you wouldn’t make such lame, unfounded assertions and absurd, odious analogies, you wouldn’t totally abjure logic as you do, and you wouldn’t write such a disjointed, incoherent salamagundi of sophomoric, simplistic nonsense and try to pass it off as truism, which it ain’t even.

    • LOL: Wally
  24. Wyatt says:

    Nota bene: I am sure there are good political scientists at the margins. Stephen Walt and Amy Chua have said interesting things over the years. I’ve just never met a person who was intellectually or morally improved by the process.

    I imagine studying the repeated failures of your species even in the present day alone is enough to make everyone dumber, jaded and more nihilistic. Nothing good comes out of people, only individual persons.

  25. History is boring Dharma is not.

  26. @RoatanBill

    Look at the harm Economists have done over centuries. They come up with nonsense like fiat money from nothing and MMT

    Money isn’t a fact of nature or some spooky metaphysical reality we can’t deny or change. It has always come from “nothing,” or from what Yuval Harari in one of his books characterizes as a shared fiction.

    To me it’s funny that hard-money obsessives think that their titles to property, patents, trademarks, etc., are “real,” while the fiat money they use is somehow not. All of these fictions are the product of political and social construction, and they are really just useful ideas we agree to work with to extend our ability to cooperate with people around the world beyond our capacity to know only about 150 individuals in our local tribe.

    • Agree: animalogic, St-Germain, utu
    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  27. @RoatanBill

    Political Science – the name alone yells fraud as there’s no science in it.

    There’s no real science in Computer Science either, but that doesn’t mean that it’s worthless. If you study what it teaches seriously, you are going to come away knowing a lot about computers. If you study political science with a similar seriousness, you are going to come away knowing a lot about politics (though not necessarily as much as someone who participates in the political process ).

    If Historians are still debating issues, then call me up when you arrive at a conclusion and you can prove what you say.

    There are plenty of areas of common agreement. The debates revolve around nuances.

    No one will be calling you to inform you of anything, for after reading your posts it’s evident you are jsut a dumb crank, unworthy of anyone’s time.

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
  28. Re Youtube history series, I have enjoyed the channels “Military History Visualized” and “TIK.” The first has a heavy focus on WW2, while the second is, as far as I know, exclusively devoted to it. They both delve into finer details of battles and military affairs that more general histories necessarily leave out. Neither is really revisionist, but both (particularly TIK) present the German side objectively enough that you can listen without having to roll your eyes at all the throat clearing and denouncing more mainstream channels consider obligatory.

    • Replies: @Guillaume Durocher
  29. @RoatanBill

    Well, that was easy.
    Congrat’s for flushing away 2500 yr’s of thinking down the sluice.

  30. @RoatanBill

    Couple more steps in this/your direction Bill, & you’ll be a paid up member of “Post Modernism”. God help you.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  31. @Resartus

    “Never forget, the Roman Senate killed Ceasar to prevent having an Emperor…”
    Sure.
    And personal animus had nothing to do with it…. Some resent Clementia more than revenge….

  32. @advancedatheist

    Gold and silver are facts of nature and functioned as money for thousands of years. With money that can’t be conjured into existence, deficit spending has a natural limit to reign in profligate gov’t. Only so much real money can be diverted in a real economy by gov’t before the effects become obvious and unsustainable. With Fiat money, there is no limit and is why the world is drowning in artificial debt.

    Gold and silver tie the concept of money to the natural world. Fiat money has no such tether. Therein lies the difference.

    • Replies: @BDS Always
  33. @silviosilver

    Thanks for the suggestions, these both look interesting!

  34. @Sirius

    I never said ignore history. What I said was : peruse history with a skeptical eye.

    Lets look at current events in our own time. 9/11/2001 – the official version has entered the history books and future history books will be based on the current ones. Any future researcher will likely not find much of an alternative view because the keepers of the official truth are scrubbing the Internet as we speak.

    Look at the Trump presidency and the election. There was no fraud in the election process is the official line and even the courts have upheld that version despite massive evidence to the contrary. History will record Trump as a failed president, which he actually is, but for the wrong reasons. History will record the progressive version of events that don’t comport with reality.

    Why should anyone believe anything one has not experienced themselves about political events in the past when current history is completely unreliable?

    • Agree: Peripatetic Itch
    • Replies: @Turk 152
    , @RodW
  35. @lloyd

    Maybe you should have taken a writing course to be able to produce some prose that’s not an unintelligible word salad.

  36. @animalogic

    Instead of writing two comment that have no intellectual content, why not try pointing out the errors that you see in my statements?

    Can you do that?

  37. TG says:
    @Guillaume Durocher

    I must disagree about the idea that there is considerable debate amongst historians – there is, but only in a narrow range. There is plenty of information on things that do not touch the main drivers, it gives the false impression of debate. Like when a parent tries to get their kid to go to sleep by offering the false choice: ‘do you want to go to bed with the red blanket or the blue one?’

    For example: the recent Syrian civil war. The government had a policy of maximizing population growth, they criminalized the sale and possessions of contraceptive, all dissenting views were eliminated, and they got the population to quadruple from 5 million to 20 million in 36 years. But before it could octuple, the aquifers ran dry and things fell apart – and no, rainfall was consistent, there was no meteorological drought.

    So in Syria there is massive debate: was it the Russians? The Israelis? The Americans? ISIS? Or “Global Warming’? But nothing at all about the simple logical fact that with a massively growing population and trending constant rainfall, the idea of ‘global warming’ is a lie. So not too much information per se: a great deal of information yes but also massive blind spots, not enough of the IMPORTANT information.

    Remember, information in its purest form is just noise, like static on a radio. It is knowledge of the important factors that is key, and this is often lacking.

    • Agree: TheTrumanShow
    • Replies: @Anon53
  38. Histories should be read along with “classics” to understand the role of human nature, which is quite slow to change, and is a driving force of men & women throughout history. So-called leaders always say, “It will be different this time,” but it rarely is because people are hardwired with timeless human nature.

    Among the 147 Delphic maxims, the three considered important enough to post at the temple door:

    Know thyself
    Nothing in excess
    Surety brings ruin

  39. @RoatanBill

    Humanities and Social Sciences aren’t worth spit.

    Genius Poindexter filled his head with STEM.
    Could add and subtract calculator fast.

    But when asked, “What does the future hold for men?”
    Said, “Haven’t a clue: have no knowledge of the past.”

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  40. Anon[234] • Disclaimer says:

    If Americans knew that the Russians lost 27 million dead (or 20,000 per day for four years) maybe we would have a different view of them. Or if we knew about a submarine officer, Vasilli Arkarpov, during the Cuban Missile Crisis (google him). Or if we were taught that Nimitz, Halsey, Marshall, Eisenhower and many others opposed the atomic bombing maybe it would chip away at that obnoxious “American Exceptionalism.” Or if we were told about the U.S.S. Liberty in 1967 (google it), who knows.

    • Agree: Emslander
    • Replies: @stevennonemaker88
  41. @RoatanBill

    I don’t think the study of history itself is propaganda; rather, propaganda lives in the choice of historical ‘sound-bites’ that cultures choose to disseminate to the masses. Its akin to biblical interpretation – what priests say to the ignorant masses in church has little resemblance to what a scholarly priest would say, and that’s the reason the church doesn’t allow their real scholars to preach to the masses.

    Years ago I knew a Catholic priest who was studying for a Doctor of Divinity (a DD is basically a PhD awarded for academic study of religion). By the time he was awarded a DD his new appreciation of the myths he had been preaching had left him deeply conflicted with church doctrine.

    He went through a crisis of belief (at least for church doctrine, because he still believed that there was some kind of divine being), and one Sunday he gave a sermon in his local rural parish that was so loaded with heresies that the Bishop was inundated with phone calls from the locals who didn’t like their priest deviating from the morality tales preached for the last 1000 years. Interestingly, a few years later things came to a head and he told me that the Church was quite happy for him to continue being a heretic, but he had to transfer to a cloistered monastery in California that had been set aside for DD’s who had become heretics. He expected to spend the rest of his life there debating heresies with the other heretics while preparing academic papers for management in Rome. Anyway, that was 20 years ago, and I and our group of friends haven’t heard from him in all that time. I feel sure that he’s happily writing academic paper number 1344 as I type this.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  42. @Marshal Marlow

    The study of history itself is not propaganda; rather, history itself is the propaganda and the study of it leads to the wrong conclusions because what’s being studied is at a minimum the incomplete truth and at worst an outright lie. Anything that requires interpretation to arrive at a conclusion means there’s no real proof for that conclusion and therefore is just an opinion that shouldn’t be advertised as truth.

    9/11, the Kennedy assassination, the supposedly unprovoked Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, WMD in Iraq, etc, etc, etc are just fairly recent examples of historically significant events completely clouded by propaganda efforts as their initial cause or after the fact message manipulation that makes any and all attempts at historical documentation a failure because no one knows what the absolute truth is. These events will be studied by future historians and book authors that can only speculate on any attempt at revisionist interpretation. The mere fact that propaganda was employed renders the study an exercise in futility for determining truth long ago buried.

    As far as anything biblical is concerned, the bible was a political document put together at the Council of Nicaea in 325 and left out numerous books because they didn’t fit the narrative to be made popular. All religion is bullshit and Christianity is its pinnacle. When people read of a Jesus character that died and came back to life days later and actually believe such nonsense means propaganda works for the terminally stupid. The bible is a history book and history is the recording of successful propaganda operations that the gullible consume without hesitation.

    That someone could waste his life debating how many angels can fit on the head of a pin or become a priest in the first place is a mystery I can’t comprehend.

    • Replies: @Alden
  43. @SeekerofthePresence

    I assume you’ve heard of a drive by shooting, a cowardly act intended to do harm.

    You have managed a drive by posting where you put words into my mouth while not even attempting to refute any of my contentions while snidely referring to me personally. Your family should be real proud of you.

    Don’t you have the intellectual competency to challenge my remarks and point out where I’m incorrect? Is your only talent shit slinging like a monkey at the zoo?

    • Replies: @SeekerofthePresence
  44. Jimmy1969 says:

    A rambling bunch of nonsense.

  45. Marcali says:

    For journalists. history is News.

    For everybody: history is the witness of the past and the teacher of the future.

    For the one to be warned: there is no such thing as the past. Everything exists.

  46. Rich says:
    @Patrick McNally

    I’ll give it a shot, Patrick. Before the War Between the States, in the North there were free Whites who sold their labor in competition against other free Whites for a fair wage. In the South there was a small elitist aristocracy that used slave labor to drive down the wages of free Whites keeping them poorer and forcing them to sell their goods in competition against giant, low labor cost near monopolies. After the War, the freed slaves of the South were unleashed on the rest of the country driving down wages and enriching the same small elitist aristocrats and their families. Thus, not only did they win, they got even wealthier.

  47. @RoatanBill

    No personal attack was intended or made by my response. It simply points to the absurdity that arises from your imbalanced and unsubstantiated “argument.” If you weren’t so contemptuous of the humanities, perhaps you would recognize the difference between a satirical riposte and a personal attack. But STEM doesn’t teach such things, does it?

    All religion is bullshit and Christianity is its pinnacle.

    Another fair and balanced statement from the scientific mind. You say you are looking “to challenge my remarks and point out where I’m incorrect”. I suggest you read Josh McDowell’s Evidence that Demands a Verdict, which presents the objective basis for believing in Christ. Also recommend you check out the Shroud of Turin (Shroud.com), which many viewers, including scientists, say constitutes virtual proof of Christ’s Resurrection.

    Christ came to free people from their sins and ignorance. There is much more truth to His story than you realize.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
    , @Kapyong
  48. @SeekerofthePresence

    Belief in a sky god is delusional. Show me some proof that such an entity exists.

    • Replies: @Quintilian
  49. @RoatanBill

    The sky god is under no obligation to prove its existence. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. By denying the existence of something because you cannot see it, you only demonstrate one of the limitations of an Enlightenment-era materialist education. For a long time, nobody believed in nuclear radiation, because they could not see it.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  50. @Quintilian

    Logic dictates that no god exists.

    Who or what created god? To say he just is, is nonsense.

    • Agree: Realist
  51. Emslander says:
    @RoatanBill

    It’s all opinion based with a smattering of evidence that may or may not have been manufactured ages ago. Some professor came up with something that sounds reasonable, without verifiable evidence, and it becomes an accepted fact to be repeated endlessly to the next crop of students who suck it up as gospel.

    You probably haven’t been introduced to the great historians or to the solid principles of historical research that make some, few, great.

    Stanley G. Payne on Spanish history and David McCullough on American history are two examples that come to mind. Try examining the greats and then tell me you haven’t learned something important.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  52. @Emslander

    How does one define a great historian? Is he/she the one that tells you what you want to hear? Is he/she the one that pokes holes in the official narrative?

    Face facts and just look at recent history, within our life times, to note that what becomes the official story / history is pure propaganda when the gov’t wants it that way.

    History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon.
    Napoleon Bonaparte

    Reporting on events hundreds to thousands of years ago is just connecting dots and arriving at a conclusion that comports with the researcher’s bias. Any documents from ancient times are just as prone to spin as are their modern versions.

    I’m not saying ignore history, but I am saying don’t rely on it for accuracy. When used for decision making, weigh historical propaganda from a modern perspective to see if it applies.

    • Replies: @Emslander
  53. Emslander says:
    @RoatanBill

    A great historian is the one who has identified pivotal events and people and has used a practiced eye to present them to you with judgement and wisdom.

    Obviously, human events are more difficult to interpret than solving for a quadratic equation. That’s why new interpretations are always being made, but the differences tend to become narrower. The current propaganda buildup over 1930’s Germany, Adolph Hitler and the NSDAP has given rise to a fresh look for the truth, for example. A lot of perspective and accuracy is being brought to the subjects, as well as to the treatment of Germany and Germans throughout the Twentieth Century. A better understanding of our current times will come from that.

    I’ve given you two historians to start with. Try those and they’ll give you to a healthy curiosity along with your skepticism.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  54. @Emslander

    difficult to interpret
    new interpretations are always being made
    fresh look for the truth
    perspective and accuracy

    Thank you for agreeing with my assertion that history is aged propaganda. The actual truth is lost to time. Any attempt, even an honest one, is an interpretation and hence subject to the interpreters bias.

    Even today, we have the left with their truth and the right with the opposite truth. What becomes history is what the upper hand political class says is truth and the media will record it as such to be discussed ad nauseam thereafter by historians arguing over something that, in the end, doesn’t matter.

    I have absolutely no interest in reviewing, for example, WW-II from a historical perspective because it changes nothing today. As a wise person once said, the only thing we learn from history is that we don’t learn anything from history. That’s the nature of propaganda.

  55. Begemot says:
    @RoatanBill

    Rotanbill:

    The Humanities and Social Sciences aren’t worth spit.

    The Humanities:

    We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
    For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
    Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
    This day shall gentle his condition;
    And gentlemen in England now a-bed
    Shall think themselves accurs’d they were not here,
    And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
    That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.

    STEM:

    1 + 1 = 2

    One rouses. The other puts most to sleep.

    One is complicated and variable and fuzzy. The other gives the sense of precision and certainty (except there’s that Uncertainty Principle in quantum physics).

    Both can delude.

    STEM can tell us how to build a nuclear weapon. It can’t tell us why we should.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  56. @Begemot

    STEM is what gives you your current standard of living. STEM built the world the losers in the Humanities and Social Sciences live in and those that are too stupid or lazy to even get those bullshit degrees.

    The losers in the Humanities and Social Sciences are destroying the planet with their nonsensical opinions and control over a population too stupid too see the truth.

    Religion and government are popular. Religion and government are two sides of the same coin, foisted on the world by the sociopaths and psychopaths in the society that build nothing but claim the right to direct the world’s activities. These frauds come mainly from the non STEM fields, mostly lawyers in the US.

    Math is hard. That’s why most people distance themselves from it. Those same people vote via the sham known as democracy to enslave not just themselves, but also those of us that know better.

    Throne and alter were twins–two vultures from the same egg.
    To attack the king was treason; to dispute the priest, blasphemy.
    The sword and cross were allies.
    Together they attacked the rights of men; they defended each other.
    The king owned the bodies of men, the priests the souls.
    One lived on taxes collected by force, the other on alms collected by fear.
    Both robbers, both beggars.
    The king made laws, the priest made creeds.
    With bowed backs the people carried the burdens of one, with open-mouthed wonder received the dogmas of the other.
    The king said rags and hovels for you, robes and palaces for me.
    The priest said God made you ignorant and immoral; He made me holy and wise; you are the sheep, I am the shepherd; your fleeces belong to me.
    You must not reason, you must not contradict, you must believe.
    Robert G. Ingersoll

    • Agree: Realist
    • Replies: @Begemot
    , @nokangaroos
    , @Alden
  57. Begemot says:
    @RoatanBill

    Curious that you quote something from the humanities area to give your argument some authority. Thus you contradict yourself.

    So what is the STEM answer to the problem that Ingersoll talks about? Can you provide one to the fifth decimal place?

  58. Actually I quoted something from a person that has analyzed the subject in question and come to a conclusion and was able to state that conclusion in a powerful and memorable way. No contradiction at all.

    What you’ve done is implicate yourself as someone desperate for an excuse.

    There is no STEM answer, but I can provide my answer. The solution from me as an atheist and anarchist is to get rid of the idiocy of religion and government, as Ingersol intimated.

    • Replies: @Begemot
  59. Begemot says:
    @RoatanBill

    There is no STEM answer

    Exactly my point.

    STEM is limited to it’s limited domain. The other disciplines deal with their domains. The whole man needs them all.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  60. @Begemot

    Those other domains, the Humanities and Social Sciences, are full of bullshit artists that can’t prove anything past common sense.

    • Replies: @Alden
  61. Seraphim says:

    There is an aspect of ‘history’ that is generally overlooked. Its name in the first place.
    In Ancient Greek ἱστορία (historía), meant “inquiry”, “knowledge from inquiry”, or “judge” (historía), meaning “inquiry”, “knowledge from inquiry”, or “judge”. It was ‘judicial inquiry’ in criminal as well as civil offenses, the collection by the prosecution of evidence of crimes against individuals or against the state and of circumstances in which they were committed, submitted to the judge for establishing the guilt or innocence of the defendant and enable a fair verdict, discriminating between true and false accusations. To establish who is wrong and who is right, according to Truth and Justice and not according to ‘mob justice’ (be it KKK lynching or ‘BLMLGBTQ+Antifa’ destruction of ”symbols of ‘racial’ oppression”). Thee is always the possibility that new evidence might come about to reverse former judgements.
    This is what Herodotus set to do:
    ”This is the display of the inquiry of Herodotus of Halicarnassus, so that things done by man not be forgotten in time, and that great and marvelous deeds, some displayed by the Hellenes, some by the barbarians, not lose their glory, including among others what was the cause of their waging war on each other… The Persian learned men say that the Phoenicians were the cause of the dispute…. it was the taking of Troy which began their hatred of the Greeks….But the Phoenicians do not tell the same story about Io as the Persians… For my part, I shall not say that this or that story is true, but I shall identify the one who I myself know did the Greeks unjust deeds, and thus proceed with my history, and speak of small and great cities of men alike…”.
    Primarily then, a ‘detective story’, the historian being the ‘detective’ using all the instruments of ascertaining the authenticity and probationary power of ‘evidence’. which requires ‘boring’ specialized skills in establishing the authenticity of documents, datation, identification of forgeries, forensic evidence-archaeology is particularly useful, credibility of witnesses- which requires a ‘historia’ too (witnesses are under oath, remember?), precedent patterns of crimes.
    A doctor wouldn’t be able to put a correct diagnostic without the ‘medical history’ of the patient, which is: ”The record of information about a person’s health. A personal medical history may include information about allergies, illnesses, surgeries, immunizations, and results of physical exams and tests. It may also include information about medicines taken and health habits, such as diet and exercise. A family medical history includes health information about a person’s close family members (parents, grandparents, children, brothers, and sisters). This includes their current and past illnesses. A family medical history may show a pattern of certain diseases in a family. Also called health history”.
    So, history is not primarily ‘propaganda’ (of victors or vanquished alike, who forever would accuse each other of lying). It is an indispensable tool for determining the state of societal health and suggest a diagnostic. You cannot treat a disease if you don’t know its real causes. Politicians should be ‘doctors’ and not demagogues set to please the mob (be it ‘white supremacist’ or ‘BLMLGBTQ+ Antifa’).
    People hate history because it proves that their subjectivity of which they are so proud (‘I’, ‘Mine’, ‘MY Way’, ‘MY case, of which I’m certain’) is a lie, self-deception, that they lived a life of lies, the more when ‘the end is near and they face that final curtain’).

  62. 128 says:

    All language is useless and should be replaced with binary.

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
    , @Fred777
  63. @RoatanBill

    I get the impression that communists, anarchists, libertarians and church ladies are all the same: Childlike utopists insofar as they actually believe.

    – The difference is the church ladies´Kantian Imperative has been shown
    to actually work 😀

  64. @128

    Heteronormative fossil 😛

  65. Coconuts says:
    @RoatanBill

    Who or what created god? To say he just is, is nonsense.

    Is there empirical evidence for that claim?

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
    , @nokangaroos
  66. @Coconuts

    Asking for evidence of absence is a well known impossibility. If you didn’t know that then that says something about your intelligence.

    Can you provide empirical evidence for the existence of god, be that Jesus, Baal, Anubis or the thousands of other gods that people have worshiped over the ages? And what makes you think your current favored apparition is any more real than those the ancients recognized?

    • Replies: @Seraphim
    , @Coconuts
  67. Seraphim says:
    @RoatanBill

    The Gospels are records of empirical evidence of Jesus death and resurrection. So the Epistles of the Apostles, e.g. Saint Paul 1 Cor.15:3-10:
    ”I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me”.

    • Thanks: Emslander
    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  68. Smith says:

    I am a huge history nerd, but we learn from history, not to repeat it.

    History is useful but it must be analyzed as examples, not blind worship.

  69. Anonymous[311] • Disclaimer says:

    Study something practical and marketable (STEM or accounting or the trades). In your free time read the books recommended in Ron Unz’s America Pravda series or Banned by Amazon.

    Studying the history or the humanities you’ll find in any school nowadays will vitiate a young person for life.

  70. @RoatanBill

    Logic dictates that no god exists.

    Of itself, logic is incapable of either proving God’s existence or disproving it. You yourself tacitly admit the latter by conceding that evidence of absence is impossible to find. That’s logic at work.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
    , @Biff
  71. Kapyong says:
    @SeekerofthePresence

    I suggest you read Josh McDowell’s Evidence that Demands a Verdict, which presents the objective basis for believing in Christ.

    The Jury Is In
    The Ruling on McDowell’s “Evidence”

    https://infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/

  72. Alden says:
    @RoatanBill

    Study both sides of history. For instance the French Revolution. Find the conventional history is all lies. And then the seditious treasonous activities of Philippe d’ Orleans, Voltaire, Read the truth from Renee Boudereau, Abbe Barruel, Baron Batz, count and countess Buckley, Chateaubriand and even Alexis de Tocqueville.

    Napoleon the great hero. Ruled France for about 17 years. Lost the war. Killed a generation of French Italian Spanish German Dutch Flemish Walloon Danish and Polish men. Wife contributed more worth as she was a great gardener and breeder of roses and patron of horticulturists and artists. Family stole enough money from the treasures of Europe to live on it ever since. One of his sisters revived the carrara marble quarries. Another lasting useful accomplishment oh, I forgot. Napoleon army did invent canned food and processed cheese. Useful inventions. France was lucky it didn’t get WW1 Versailles treaty sanctions against Germany after Bonaparte’s escape from Elba

    If you read enough in one subject you can come to your own conclusion. But it’s just your conclusion. No better than anyone else’s conclusion. Including professional historians.

    But economically and vocationally it’s useless. It’s a nice hobby if you are so inclined. If you don’t like it, don’t bother.

    A fellow Roatan Islander of yours is in the group marching to the Guatemalan border on his way to American welfare. He was interviewed claimed he was starving on Roatan. And some guy named Biden promised him a place to live in America

    • Agree: Joe Levantine
    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  73. Alden says:
    @RoatanBill

    I think Ingersoll was just quoting Voltaire. Never heard of Ingersoll but it’s very Voltairish.

    • Replies: @GeeBee
  74. Alden says:
    @RoatanBill

    Social Science don’t you mean crapology?

  75. @Guillaume Durocher

    Dear Mr. Durocher,

    To understand why you intuitively recoil at Lil’ Bill’s thought-disprocess, look no further than the conning tower atop the first molehill in south america flying the banner “Home of the Brave Loudmouth Who For Sake of Protection Lives Among the Peons.”

    Bill ‘specially loves pontificating over any story he thinks allows him to denigrate what’s left of the United States–that is, when he and his hyena buddy Fred Reed aren’t otherwise occupied with handing out “I Told You So” cards, or clamoring joyously over the intended wishbone of America’s total destruction.

    Read here an honest rant from Bill’s bleak home of like minded sycophants hindered with the same genealogical cowardice as lil’ Bill, wherein he tells us what it means to have “balls”

    “I’m cautious enough to get out of the way should nukes start to fly due to the US constantly pissing off China and Russia. The US military hasn’t won a war since WW-II and even in that one, Russia did most of the fighting with the US taking the bulk of the credit. . .My calculations say I’m doing more than you are because you haven’t the balls to do what I’ve already done.”

  76. Consider Peabody and Sherman and their “Wayback Machiue”. Not only does history become probable but each episode ends with a moral—Rocky and His Friends —

  77. Bert says:
    @RoatanBill

    Your willingness to issue broad proclamations is matched only by your ignorance. Cliodynamics is a research program that while still nascent has existed for 20 years. If your STEM education had any breadth, you would have found it yourself.

    Consult this link, Peter Turchin’s books and journal articles, and those who reference his work.

    http://peterturchin.com/cliodynamics/

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  78. Alden says:
    @RoatanBill

    How many angels can fit on the head of a pin? Or how small is small? And are there things so small we can’t see them even with a magnifying glass? These questions led to the discovery of molecules atoms neutrons etc.

    How many angels Was the beginning of physics. Physics a quintessential STEM subject.

    It was the priest mathematician astronomers at the Vatican astronomy who developed the calendar we use today. Calendar needs adjusting every 1500 years. Next adjustment will be in about 1100 years. That one will probably done by the Vatican astronomers too.

    Science needs a university , a physical institution or a thousand years ago monastery and cathedral libraries for the scholars to gather and keep their books laboratories and instruments when the universities began as monastic libraries Or later in America as seminaries for the Protestant clergy

    You’re so full of shit and ignorance.

    • Agree: GomezAdddams
  79. Thanks Jews

    • Agree: Robjil
  80. @TG

    Georg Wilhelm was a playful and humorous and ironic and sarcastic thinker. You have to keep that in mind when reading him. It is like the threefoldedness of the meaning of the Holy Bible if you want to find out what he was aiming at when saying x . (Hegel came from a pietist background so he knew from experience that the sense of the Holy Bible was not properly reached by a direct approach).

  81. @Guillaume Durocher

    I’d add some sort of aesthetic competence and the insights of (social) psychology and – oh: Philosophy.
    And – to make the circle complete: Some kind of bodily – exercise.

  82. Fred777 says:
    @128

    01010011 01101111 01110101 01101110 01100100 01110011 00100000 01101001 01100110 01100110 01111001 00101110

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  83. So what, precisely, does History tell us of worldwide lockdowns and the proposed engendered omnicide of billions?

  84. • Thanks: Robjil
  85. Miro23 says:
    @Guillaume Durocher

    1) Typically there is considerable debate among historians. There isn’t, on most issues, just one narrative but a debate. The problem usually isn’t that you’re getting only one story, but many, and cannot come to any firm conclusion but “who knows?”

    This seems to be mostly due to the subsequent “weaponization” of history to help further political aims.

    A way to avoid the problem, is to write history using primarily contemporary sources/documentation in an open minded way. For example:

    Stanley G. Payne “The Spanish Civil War” Cambridge University Press 2012 or David Irving’s “Hitler’s War” Hodder& Staughton Ltd. 1977 and “Warpath” Michael Joseph Ltd. 1978

    Also everything done by Oleg Khlevniuk using Russian state archives (for example “Master of the House: Stalin and His Inner Circle” Yale University Press 2008).

    Original sources are effective because they can seriously interfere with the dominant propaganda. For example, by showing the “Holocaust” to be such a feeble travesty of history that it has to be legally elevated to religious status with questioning defined as criminal heresy ( and that’s in supposedly enlightened free speech Western democracies).

    • Agree: Ugetit
  86. Dumbo says:
    @RoatanBill

    As usual, the STEM-absolutists show that they don’t understand anything.

    It’s all related. Music is related to mathematics. Visual arts are related to geometry. Could they have developed independently? Perhaps. But I think it makes more sense to understand them as parts of a whole.

    Many great scientists were also great writers or thinkers. Pascal, for example. Many others.

    Political leaders in particular benefit from the study of History. I don’t know of any great leader who did not have an interest in History. Well, perhaps Gengis Khan.

    Of course, modern Humanities are completely corrupted. But STEM-Sciences are also corrupted today. Perhaps less so, but still corrupted. Just watch the recent COVID hysteria.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  87. @Seraphim

    The gospels are empirical evidence as much as Superman comics are empirical evidence.

    • Agree: Kapyong
  88. @AnonStarter

    You are correct. I can’t prove that god doesn’t exist, but then I don’t have to, just as I don’t have to prove that unicorns don’t exist. It is up to the believers to prove that god does exist.

    If you could provide god’s address, phone number or email address, I’d appreciate it.

  89. @Alden

    If you read enough in one subject you can come to your own conclusion.

    History is a story that some choose to believe is truth itself. Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t. Since history mostly records the shenanigans of the political class, I choose to believe that most of it is probably made up propaganda, which is their forte.

    There’s no such thing as a skinny Honduran, except for the dopers. The island is a mix of British descendants from when the island was a British possession, the black offspring of slaves and a smattering of various Indian tribes that perform for the tourists. As long as there are fish in the ocean and fruits on the trees, no one is starving on the island.

    • Replies: @Bolteric
  90. After reading unz.com for 2 or 3 years now and
    – getting to know some of the “honest history” books available and
    – following some of the interesting discussions about history
    I’ve come away with the impression that history is largely a question mark. I believe that one major reason for this is that the human wolves who crave power (3-5% of humanity?) and who are strongly attracted to politics and hierarchies will try to hide/justify their crimes which leads to the “agreed upon lies” which are often the “enforced lies”. Another factor is that the advances of science and technology give our hierarchies very strong powers to control information (our own time is an obvious example).

    I personally draw the conclusion that the official history of the last 500 – 1000 years is mostly lies by the psychopaths and grifters and that in order to find a meaning in life you need to find out what you really want in terms of human relations and material success. But some of the authors mentioned here can most certainly help you on this search.

  91. Weave says:
    @Timur The Lame

    Timur, I am a female and have avoided women authors for years, even for fiction. There are a few good ones, of course, but I avoid female authors by and large.

    • Replies: @Timur The Lame
  92. Ugetit says:
    @RoatanBill

    History is well aged propaganda, nothing more. History is written by the winners, because most of history revolves around conflicts.

    What are you calling history, RB? You generally make excellent comments but the above comment is very wide of the mark because you seem to be conflating propaganda with history. Also there are many versions of “history” and part of the fun of studying it is to move beyond the common propagandistic bilge and thus destroy it as the laughable foolishness that it almost always is.

    Please be clear that propaganda is what’s written by the self-declared “winners,” not history in any sense.

    And another thing, those given to constant fretting about the never ending disasters du jour that we’re told we’re facing would do themselves a huge favor if they could learn this lesson.:

    “… there is no more comprehensible and comprehensive teacher of the ability to endure with courage the vicissitudes of Fortune than a record of others’ catastrophes.” I would add also, others’ victories.

    So, do dismiss propaganda, but study history.

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
  93. Biff says:
    @AnonStarter

    Of itself, logic is incapable of either proving God’s existence or disproving it.

    If there is a god it would be in his best interest to avoid this place.

    • Replies: @Marckus
  94. Ugetit says:
    @Beavertales

    …the [US]Senate has become a mouthpiece for oligarchs.

    It was designed and implemented that way from conception.

    It would be interesting to know if the Roman Senate was, despite the “SPQR.” My guess is that it was.

    • Replies: @Alfred
  95. @RoatanBill

    Are your parents still alive? Do you have a wife? Children?

    Do you love any of them? If so, prove it. Please put that love on the table so I can inspect it. And put proof of your self-awareness (of your consciousness) next to it, or at least give me its address.

    There is nothing wrong with encouraging STEM studies. Roads and bridges and buildings, mining and milling, they’re all good things, thanks be to God.

    But to discard the humanities with the waive of a hand is silly. Same with religion, which man clearly appears to be “hardwired” to pursue (see what I did there, brave materialist).

    • Replies: @Ponder
  96. Alfred says:

    Machiavelli was a revelation to me. An honest politician and diplomat. I read “The Prince” when I was 17. It was on a list of books to read for kids studying English – I was in the science stream at school.

    Anyone who has played the board game “Diplomacy” will appreciate his writings. I most certainly do not recommend that you play this game with your friends. 🙂

    • Thanks: SolontoCroesus
    • Replies: @Marckus
  97. Ugetit says:
    @RoatanBill

    If you could provide god’s address, phone number or email address, I’d appreciate it.

    Ahem.

    Pardon me, but are you requesting that I dox Myself for the benefit of an infidel? 🙂

  98. @RoatanBill

    re: Logic dictates that no god exists.

    I am an agnostic myself (“I don’t know”) but I am aware that religion is a very strong driving force in most civilizations. And I believe that the reason for that is that religion appeals to the two major mind mechanisms that we use: logic (expressed by words) and emotions (expressed by images). And because of our success with science and technology we have forgotten that emotion largely controls our reactions – and our human relations have become more shallow. Nietzsche expressed it more or less like this: ” With logic we try to reflect nature and not our own feelings. If we want to perfect this we are not human any more – we become just a mirror” (my own formulation from memory).

    As to Christianism I feel that it is main message is not the power-verbiage of the religious hierarchies but is a basic emotional attitude which exists among the normal people in most Christian civilizations, namely the idea to tolerate others (the founder Jesus expressed it in a very strong way “love the others as you love yourself” – I would translate “love” as “understand”). Not many world religions have this idea (some Indian religions are also tolerant – f. ex. Buddhism, Sikhism) while the “Abrahamic” religions (Judaism, Islam) start from the assumption that they are “superior” and need to submit or destroy the others. And I would guess that tolerance is becoming a condition for survival in our times.

    • Replies: @Emslander
    , @Seraphim
  99. @Bert

    Grouping all the bullshit artists into a new made up category adds no weight to their emanations.

    There’s an Austrian saying that roughly translates into – when multiple people shit on the same pile it’s still all shit.

    • LOL: Marckus
    • Replies: @Bert
  100. @Dumbo

    Given your last paragraph, you and I are largely on the same page. My objection to the Humanities and Social Sciences is their demand we take their opinions as fact when clearly they aren’t. Their graduates are the modern day priests of their political, sociological, psychiatric, economic and various other religions.

    The Covid nonsense is largely run by the various priesthoods with a vested interest in controlling their congregation of believers and lining their pockets via the scam. A tiny fraction is made up of actual knowledge about what’s going on, but even that is subject to interpretation given that medicine is still more art than science. As usual, the non believers are being threatened as heretics.

  101. @Alden

    Except for the angels part, I’ll agree with you on everything but your last line. All manner of people can investigate the natural world, even those otherwise deluded in the belief of a supreme being which they’ve never found any empirical evidence for.

    Since I agree with you, then you must either be representative in your last line or wrong, but coming from you, your sentiment is expected.

  102. We don’t need ancient historians to understand current events.

    Ancient historians themselves would not have understood all of this.

    What will you do when the Feds come at you – “console” yourself with a head full of anecdotes and parallels?

    Bookwormism is dead. It’s prison planet now. Do some pushups.

    • Replies: @Guillaume Durocher
  103. Coconuts says:
    @RoatanBill

    Asking for evidence of absence is a well known impossibility. If you didn’t know that then that says something about your intelligence.

    I didn’t ask for evidence of absence, I asked for empirical evidence for your claim that everything that exists must have a cause.

    You were saying earlier in this thread that claims without empirical evidence to validate them were propaganda or bullshit narrative or something like that.

  104. Schuetze says:

    There is History and there is (((History))). Never confuse the two. Unfortunately, the Bible belongs to (((History))).

  105. Robjil says:
    @RoatanBill

    The problem of the time is not about God existing or not.

    It is belief in Israel/big 6 is the problem of our time.

    http://vjmpublishing.nz/?p=8811

    The big 6 is the religion of our time.

    Most people think that, with the decline of Christianity, there is no longer a religion that unifies the Western world. These people are in error, because the forces and social phenomena that led to the rise of every previous religion still exist, and continue to give rise to new ones. Not only has the Holocaust been mythologised to the point of being an actual religion, but this religion, as this essay will examine, is now the one that unifies the West.

    Denial of the big 6 is the biggest blasphemy of our time.

    The charge of “Holocaust denial” is a modern way of saying blasphemy, the religion so blasphemed against in this case being the Holocaust religion. To suggest that fewer than six million Jews were killed in the Holocaust is to blaspheme. This is effectively a heresy, in other words a sin against God, and deserves to be treated as such, with the utmost contempt and censure. Germany even went as far as putting an old lady in prison for questioning this sacred myth.

    Israel uses it to get what it wants.

    To that end, the Holocaust religion has been promoted to dispel the sense of outrage that the Israeli presence in the Middle East would otherwise have. The Jews must have Israel, we are told, because the alternative is Holocaust.

    • Replies: @Badger Down
  106. Anonymous[144] • Disclaimer says:
    @RoatanBill

    God exists in consciousness. Look inside your mind.

  107. @Weave

    Interesting but the question would still be why? (for you and me in any event). I thought about this a little more after my post and realized that what I refer to as ‘near history’ (events in our lifetimes) have some very good books written by women but to my observation confined in large part to financial scandals. Or scandals as such. Is it a propensity to gossip?

    A very prominent female financial journalist came by our offices back in the day where a ‘Chatty Cathy’ alcoholic, old school penny stock lady was given some space as a gesture of mercy and they would talk dirt for hours. Hence my impression.

    Any public discussion on why there is a dearth of female classic historians would of course instantly run into the ditch of patrimony or toxic masculinity but I think that it would be worth evaluating.

    And speaking of running into ditches and ‘near history’ it occurred to me the other day that we have in a lifetime degenerated from Robert Frost to Amanda Gorman. I had the misfortune of succumbing to curiosity and actually ended up reading that rancid word salad. Even worse, I read the unanimous accolades. Then it was off to the liquor store.

    Cheers-

  108. @RoatanBill

    “History is written by the winners, because most of history revolves around conflicts.”

    It’s so true! When was the last time someone wrote the history of cooks in the Roman empire or the carpenters in the German empire or the history of the innkeepers in England? It’s always been all about who has gotten the biggest shlong, i.e. big guns!

  109. GMC says:

    Used to read History News Network – out of DC but when 1/2 the articles were not worth a shit and lied – I called them out . Of course I have been 86d — for years now. Even when it changed donor Universities – my name stayed on the 86 list. lol The smarter they think they are – the easier it is to call their bluff.

    • Agree: Ugetit
  110. Marckus says:

    Studying history by memorising dates and events seems to me a complete waste of time. Perhaps we should draw lessons from history.

    For example, forget about the date Brutus knifed Caesar. What is the lesson ? When the stakes are high any trust you put in anyone can turn out to be lethal. We see this every day, 2000 years later and witnessed it with our own eyes just a few days ago.

    The world may have changed in terms of technology but human nature remains the same. The problems encountered by the Roman Emperors are the same ones we encounter in our contemporary world. What happened in the past will happen again.

    Unfortunately, we never seem to learn from history. Reading history books is out of fashion. Today we are too busy on social media reading the silly comments of silly people.

    Who wants to read Homer when we can look at a video of a pet hamster taking a dump and the owner wiping its ass ?

    • Replies: @SeekerofthePresence
  111. Z plan……Z plan…..Midget (Biden)
    Biden is changing US ………To love island

  112. Wally says:
    @RoatanBill

    said:
    “History, in particular, is a form of political memory and is not to be trusted past the physical evidence they can produce. Do you believe in the holocaust as an accurate description of what occurred just a handful of decades past?

    Particularly true when absurd Zionist propaganda such as the mentioned “holocaust” defies laws of science, is simply impossible.

    However, free speech about it will soon be banned in the US like it is in much of Europe.

    recommended:

    The Coming Biden Administration Censorship & Oppression: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13744

    MSM Calls for “New Definition of Free Speech” / Who benefits?: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13766

  113. Marckus says:
    @Alfred

    Ask the average citizen about Machiavelli and they are likely to ask if it comes with pepperoni, sweet peppers and double cheese.

    Why would anyone want to read him when Harry Potter is available ? Its the same with music. The great composers lived on the edge of financial disaster while today’s rappers rake in millions with their questionable lyric

    These days trash is venerated and everything else scorned and that is why the youth have no foundation.

    • LOL: Alfred
  114. gotmituns says:

    An interesting period of history is the Weimar years in Germany after WW1 – They had J-E-W written all over them. And people wonder why a man like Adolf Hitler could come to power.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  115. vox4non says:

    George Orwell said, “He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past”

    Thus, part of learning history critically is also to learn who wrote the stories and lessons; and like any good data analysis, to also determine what was missing.

  116. I love history. I’ll agree what you are primarily fed as history in school is propaganda. However propaganda has its historical basis. For fun try reading a book written a century or two ago. Totally different. Read current alternative historical books while you still can. Also buy history or second hand books, and build a library. You can also talk to some old timers. I know boomers, you hate your parents, and a bunch of blah-blah. I have learned a lot, especially local and family history, from listening to the old timers.

    As for STEM, the only one that doesn’t do performance art for grants is math. Math is almost incorruptible. All the rest of STEM can be corrupted. Just think Anthony Fauci.

  117. Marckus says:
    @Biff

    You are right. At times I hear people ask where is God ? But what would he be doing here ?

  118. Anonymous[401] • Disclaimer says:
    @RoatanBill

    RoatanBill: “If you want to become a productive member of society, then get a STEM degree.”

    YESSSSSSSS!

    Eff ethics and hate history! Morality is for chumps, simps, and anal-brains.

    Chemistry genius Fritz Haber apparently agreed with RoatanBill.

    A German Jew, Fritz invented artificial fertilizer…saving the world from Malthus’ mass starvation. It also led to ever-more-powerful explosives. Yay!

    During WWI, Haber created poison gas to help the Reich, morality being for weenies.

    Germany rewarded him, post-War, with his own chemistry institute. Said institute then created Cyclone, a pesticide use for delousing, murdering rodents, etc.

    During WWII, Germans demonized Jews like Haber in PR films such as THE ETERNAL JEW…depicting the Tribe as rats streaming out of sewers.

    In 1942, post-Wannsee Conference, Germans gassed Jews with Fritz’s highly “productive” rat-killer… Cyclone/Zyklon-B.

    Oh, the irony!

    Evidently Adolf, Inc. agreed with RoatanBill: it, too, thought Humanities (religion, morality, law, ethics, philosophy, history, etc.) and Social Sciences weren’t worth spit…leading to lime-lined pits filled with human Others.

    Oh, well.

  119. @RoatanBill

    Some British History which is not taught in Schools, Colleges or Universities.

    Justin Walker take back Bradbury Pound On the 7th August 1914, in order to avoid a run on the banks.

    On the 7th August 1914, in order to avoid a run on the banks, the Treasury issued Treasury Notes signed by John Bradbury – a form of national credit backed by the credit of the nation.
    We require that the Treasury immediately restarts issuing such interest-free money, based upon the wealth, integrity and potential of our country. Such an initiative would completely remove the hold the banks have over the nation, and would kickstart a productive economy.

    Justin Walker has spent the last twenty-three years researching globalisation, or what is sometimes referred to by people like the late Prime Minister Gordon Brown as ‘The New World Order’. His main concern is that powerful corporate oligarchs are bypassing the democratic process and creating global agenda in such a way that is not transparent and which clearly lacks accountability. He distances himself from so-called ‘conspiracy theorists’, preferring instead to rely on proven historical facts along with the common sense approach of always following the money trail and asking ‘cui bono?’.

    For the last four years Justin has been concentrating on who is behind the world’s money supply and this led him to ‘rediscovering’ eighteen months ago the very little known Bradbury Pound. He is currently the Campaign Director (unpaid) for the British Constitution Group which is spearheading the call to restore the Treasury-issued Bradbury Pound in its centenary year.

    Bankers, Bradburys, Carnage And Slaughter On The Western Front.

    by Justin Walker.

    [MORE]

    A little known historical fact that will collapse even further the reputation of the City of London.
    As I start to write this article, today is Remembrance Sunday and I’m listening live to the sombre but magnificent strains of Elgar’s Nimrod as the parade at The Cenotaph assembles for the nation’s annual act of remembrance to the fallen. Like almost everyone else, I’m always humbled and moved by the veterans’ march-pass to pay their respects to fallen friends and comrades – but this year I will find it particularly poignant in the light of my recent research concerning a little known fact about the outbreak of the First World War. Let me explain.

    Yesterday, I watched by sheer chance the spectacle of the Lord Mayor’s Show on television. This year’s parade for the inauguration of the 685th Lord Mayor of London, Alderman Roger Gifford, was no different from any other. As ever it was a combination of centuries old, corporate traditions, with floats and vintage vehicles representing the various Worshipful Companies, combined with local units from the armed forces along with enthusiastic and diverse community groups of children and young people. It was pageantry and modern day life parading together side by side to show off all that is best about our capital city.

    All very innocent and benign you would think. There was Roger Gifford, a banker by trade, smiling and clearly enjoying himself hugely as he doffed his large black tricorne hat to the passing parade. All around him on the VIP stand were his family, friends, business acquaintances and representatives from the City of London – people who just seemed relaxed, normal and happy.

    All very innocent and benign you would think. There was Roger Gifford, a banker by trade, smiling and clearly enjoying himself hugely as he doffed his large black tricorne hat to the passing parade. All around him on the VIP stand were his family, friends, business acquaintances and representatives from the City of London – people who just seemed relaxed, normal and happy.

    Looking at this joyous and colourful scene on the streets of London, I was reminded of the fictional character Richard Hannay in John Buchan’s pre-First World War famous spy novel The Thirty-nine Steps. The final scene sees the hero Hannay confronting The Black Stone, the network of ingenious German spies who had morphed into the higher echelons of British society and had discovered, by the use of magnificent disguise and deception, the war-time dispositions of the Royal Navy. Having tracked them down to their secret lair on the Kentish coastline, Hannay is confronted by a scene of complete domestic normality. There is nothing about the Germans or the villa that could suggest anything other than a typical British upper middle class household at ease with itself enjoying a seaside holiday. But just one sudden flicker of recognition restored Hannay’s confidence that he had discovered The Black Stone.

    Well, such a flicker of recognition also restored my confidence. As soon as I saw the giant wicker effigies of Gog and Magog on the parade, the mythical ‘protectors’ of the City of London, my confusion disappeared. The façade of decency and respectability was gone in an instant – the truth of what we were really looking at had once again been restored.

    For those of us who, after many years of careful and detailed research, now understand the hidden machinations of global finance and who are aware of the secretive network of criminals and traitors who seek world government on their terms, this annual spectacle of corporate celebration and respectability by people who are not household names clearly masks an evil that must now be exposed quickly and effectively.

    https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/bankers-bradburys-carnage-and-slaughter-western-front

  120. @ruralguy

    Movies, television, and the web have made the general public ignorant of what happened in history. For many, in my 86-year-old opinion, reading is hard work and after a day at the office or with the kids it’s so much simpler to turn on the telly. History is complex, while the telly is focused on making daily life seem simple. The most important people who should be reading history are those in the government, but they show little inclination to do so. Read Obama’s Audacity of Hope and you find no indication that he knows any American history. Yet he was elected president. Trump? Same problem. Totally ignorant of history. If he had known any, he could have done a much better job of defending himself. He was the eighth president elected with less than a popular majority. Bill Clinton was one of his predecessors. Clinton got only 43 percent of the vote in 1992, but thanks to Ross Perot he went into the White House.

    • Agree: Skeptikal
  121. Ugetit says:
    @Agathoklis

    Though I’ve only read about half of those, thanks for the list, particularly Thucydides, who is well placed a the top, and may I add all of Aristophanes’ plays, the works of Lucian of Samosata, Herodotus (if only for the interesting anecdotes though not the accuracy)?

    I’d like to add a few other rules* as well; go to the original sources whenever possible, avoid textbooks, “best sellers” and anything else promoted widely, consider those authors who’re criticized by “authorities,” reject any “history” written by any “professor,” PhD, or any employee of an establishment institution except when they incriminate themselves, and only read any mass media published after 1950 for the laughs.

    *The list is nowhere near comprehensive.

  122. @RoatanBill

    History, in particular, is a form of political memory and is not to be trusted past the physical evidence they can produce.

    In agreement, I would predict that in 20 years, when us old geezers are dead and gone, and the memories of the Gen-Xers have been chemically erased, history will likely tell us that Honest Joe Biden saved the world from the most horrendous of fates. That nothing but good came from the suppression and brutal elimination of the “cancerous” growth of the “now-exterminated” MAGA cult.

    Most everything you say about the corruption of modern science is absolutely true. Even physics, with its aberrant descent into big-bang and black-hole cosmology has gone off the rails by virtue of a takeover by theoretical mathematicians with no respect for, and no access to, experimental data.

    History is itself far too much a matter of document-mongering and arguments akin to numbers of angel that can dance on the head of a pin. By document-mongering, I include the dogma that the absence of documents that should exist precludes all historical conclusions. Group think as far as the eye can see.

    Yet there is hope. Some of the sciences or at least parts of those sciences remain uncorrupted. To my mind there is much good in basic physiology and molecular biology. These sciences derive from classical chemistry and physics, which developed their own firm basis by a belief in the uncertainty of knowledge and a rigorous adherence to a regimen of discussion and debate.

    Unfortunately their undoubted successes led to a certain arrogance and the institution of a peer-review system that has no real distinction from the papal-review system that condemned Galileo. Even engineering, which is just applied classical physics, has had its reputation diminished by bridge collapses, one on its first day of operation in Florida. One suspects corruption by the diversity dogma but the suppression of embarrassing findings prevents all discussion.

    To my mind, many of the successes of history in determining objective reality have come from those academics with a strong STEM background who have used chemistry and physics to refute the conclusions of the document mongers.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  123. @RoatanBill

    I have no problem with people knowing about their ancestors and some historical perspective that shapes society. What I do object to is being lectured by profession jesters that tell stories they make up as they go along. I don’t want anyone to pretend they are an expert on some subject that is largely opinion based. There are no such experts, so their degrees are bogus.

    This is how I can tell you didn’t read the article. Durocher said to avoid university courses and study on your own time. He also critiqued the humanities as you do in other comments, knashing your teeth as if Durocher is a champion of sociology instructors. If you want to laud the brilliance of STEM graduates perhaps you should actually, I don’t know, read the article you’re critiquing? You certainly are confirming stereotypes about the language deficiencies of engineers

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  124. @silviosilver

    There are plenty of areas of common agreement. The debates revolve around nuances.

    It’s called group think. Angels dancing on the head of a pin stuff.

    you are going to come away knowing a lot about computers.

    I thought we were talking about history.

  125. @Anonymous

    At the so-called Ordensburgen (“Order Castles”), where the future elite of the Nazi state was being trained, actually very little was taught except for humanities.
    Of their own brand, of course.
    Just as ethics of a different kind are a powerful force in “1984” and “Brave New World”, where one of the protagonists (Helmholtz) actually teaches ethics…

  126. Alfred says:
    @Ugetit

    It would be interesting to know if the Roman Senate was, despite the “SPQR.” My guess is that it was.

    The Roman Senate was very much an elitist institution. All republics end up that way before collapsing on their own hubris.

    Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon and entered Rome. The senators fled. The populace rejoiced. Later, the elitists (Brutus) murdered Caesar. Brutus had earlier been pardoned by Caesar after losing the civil war. Two years later, Brutus himself was killed in a battle with Mark Anthony

    • Replies: @Ugetit
    , @Zarathustra
  127. Ugetit says:
    @Patrick McNally

    Rich (comment #46) gave it a pretty decent shot , but you first need to define what you mean by “the Union” before you can understand what he’s saying.

    The “Union,” was not a union for the benefit of the masses, was never intended to be, and, given human nature, never could be. IMHO, same concept may be accurately applied to virtually every war in history.

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  128. Anon[522] • Disclaimer says:
    @Guillaume Durocher

    It’s as easy for humans to be silly, or unable to think critically, objectively, and with a wide horizon, whether their minds have a humanities or science bias.
    Surely the most common weak points of the two groups aren’t exactly the same, but mostly, yes.

    It’s unavoidable to run, frequently too, into comments saying only science matters, or demanding, more or less self-awarely, that humanities should be functional to technical/scientific goals.
    It’s the other side of the coin where people who believe themselves thinkers, artists, open-minded, fire words against “Trumpers”, “fascists”, and set categories of people or specific individuals.

    Tolerant (really open-minded, that is), intellectually curious (really intellectual, that is) people will always be on short count. Especially among the socially-visible, and culturally “authoritative” ranks and files, which include the academic environment. Where power comes into play, neither real scientists, thinkers, or artists can be really at ease, it’s not the place for them.

    You too have biases, “horizon limits”, and the like, which, I’d guess, you aren’t aware of.
    Like when you write on Christianity, and handle it as a tool in a workshop, who must help you do your job, serve the goals you like, or get out of the way (and disappear from both your workshop, and your horizon). Never does it cross your mind that it could be something else than you imagine, and that the “Christianity” you blame because you judge it not conducive to your political and social likes has nothing to do with actual Christianity, just unjustly borrowing a real faith’s name.
    You should blame what some do using the name “Christianity” for those troubles (or perceived troubles), not Christ and its teaching, and who genuinely follows them.

  129. Unfortunately, the vast number of people who have made America home have no interest in learning history. It is better for newcomers, financially and politically, to simply sweep us aside and start anew. Pausing to learn our history and situate themselves within that narrative only weakens them. I think everyone sees the United States as a big pile of money. They want to plunder as much money as they can for it. Nobody cares what happens here in the future or what happened here in the past. The Republic is dying. Everything is a grift or a swindle. At best we will be an example of how not to run a Republic in the end.

  130. anarchyst says:

    If environmentalism was honest and restricted itself to truly caring for our natural resources, I would have no problem with it. However, with the secret science and questionable funding that these environmental groups possess taints the whole barrel.

    It turns out that many claims that environmentalists make have no basis in fact and are not based on good, honest, scientific investigation. This is why environmental scientists have to hide their data, as it does not fit their agenda.

    FOLLOW THE MONEY…

    A good example of this is the so-called global warming crap, now renamed climate change. For one, the climate is always changing. The East Anglia emails in which data was purposely falsified by climate scientists comes to mind.

    [MORE]

    Not only that, the climate scientists purposely installed temperature monitoring sensors in cities, contrary to manufacturers recommendations and good scientific practices, in asphalt-covered parking lots, and other heat sink areas in order to prove their (faulty) hypothesis. This is scientific dishonesty at its worst.

    It turns out that the solar system is in a cooling cycle due to decreased solar activity. There are two long-term solar cycles that reinforce themselves when in phase and cancel themselves out when out-of-phase. Look up the Maunder minimum. There are no SUVs on Mars or other planets, yet they are also experiencing the same solar variability.

    Environmentalism has been the method used to impose communist principles on western society, especially in the USA.

    Environmentalists are not content with promoting clean water, air and land, but are hell-bent on controlling human behavior, and yes, promoting extermination plans for much of humanity as these anointed types consider mankind to be a pestilence (except for themselves) to be reduced in population by any means necessary.

    Environmentalists HATE the God-given concept of private property and have imposed government-backed and enforced land use controls on private property owners without compensation, clearly an unconstitutional taking of private property.

    If environmentalists want to control land use, let them purchase it themselves, not by government force. Today the only method of negating government-imposed land use restrictions is to shoot, shovel, and shut up.

    If environmentalists have their way, the earth’s human population would be reduced by approximately 90%, with the remainder to (be forced) to live in cities, in soviet-style high rise apartments, utilizing bicycles, buses and trains for transportation.

    The use of automobiles and access to pristine wilderness (rural) areas would be off-limits to us mere mortals, and would only be available for these anointed environmentalists.

    The endangered species act is another abuse of environmentalism.

    Species are always changing, to adapt to their environments-survival if the fittest.

    In fact, the hoopla over the spotted owl (that placed much northwest timber land off-limits to logging) turned out to be nothing but scientific misconduct and arrogance. There are virtually identical species in other parts of the northwest.

    More scientific malpractice occurred when government biologists attempted to plant lynx fur in certain areas to provide an excuse for making those areas off-limits for logging or development. Fortunately, these scientists were caught, however, no punishment was imposed.

    In order to promote the false religion of “global warming” aka “climate change”, NASA “scientists” purposely installed temperature sensors in city parking lots and roads contrary to good scientific principles and practices in order to “skew” the “global warming” results.

    In a nutshell, today’s environmentalism IS communism like watermelon-green on the outside and red (communist) on the inside.

    It is interesting to note that communist and third-world countries have the WORST environmental conditions on the planet. Instead of the USA and other developed countries spending billions to get rid of that last half-percent of pollution, it would behoove the communist countries to improve their conditions first.

    Here is a question for you environmentalists: Why is there a push for restrictive environmental regulations, but only on the developed first-world countries, and not the gross polluters such as India and China?

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
  131. akouo says:

    I’ve always loved history, in dry text form to well researched historical ‘fiction’ George Macdonald Fraser etc but I’ve recently encountered a lot of question to history’s authenticity. There was such as a series of three articles on this very site last year and I’ve read books dating back to the Edwardian era too. they claim that much of what we think of as established ‘fact’, the classics etc, are actually fiction, created in a rush by monks, to flesh out a logical past including their own fake history. That the ‘dark ages’ didn’t exist but have been inserted to push dates back a few centuries. It certainly is odd that documents purporting to be millennia old are almost pristine in appearance whilst “Magna Carta” for instance is barely legible while being mere centuries old. All of these Roman writers original works must have been a Godsend to ‘discover’ during the renaissance when such thing sold for a king’s ransom! It’s probably age related cynicism but having seen what happens to recorded ‘history’ as it’s happening today I’m inclined to treat it all as fiction as one historical fact is sure, people do not change.

  132. Anonymous[401] • Disclaimer says:
    @RoatanBill

    > “If Historians are still debating issues, then call me up when you arrive at a conclusion and you can prove what you say.”

    Degrees, probabilities, and parameters, my good man!

    Science itself is “still debating,” open to knew evidence. That doesn’t mean some things aren’t more settled than others.

    Just because things aren’t “absolute” doesn’t mean they are equally unsettled.

    Life is a continuum. Does that mean each equal segment is equally important? That there is no difference between youth and old age, birth and death?

    Both human bodies and brick walls are composed of atoms. Atoms themselves are composed mostly of space. Does that mean people can walk through walls?

    Complexity can obfuscate or explain. Much of life is not simple. Plus many times, over-simplifying prevents understanding. Only a child thinks that when he jumps off a chair in Manhattan he bounces someone in Beijing.

    Humans have temperatures that vary widely. Yet healthy humans have very LIMITED ranges of temperature. Like History, health need not be perfect to be important.

    There will always be those who believe in Bigfoot and the Earth being flat. That doesn’t mean their views are equal to those who deny those things. Nor does it mean the former should be silenced.

    Every view has its critics. That doesn’t mean all views are justified, much less equal. Some folks hate the movie CITIZEN KANE. Others love it. Yet a list of 100 top films composed by 100 different film critics, will include it. Why?

    Many people say WWII Germany was worse than the USSR. Others say the opposite. The point is to allow open debate so “on the whole” some “standard” view is reached. That’s why banning investigations of the Holocaust is so toxic (especially since its purported existence is used to “forgive” any and all acts by Israel). You can’t have valid consensus when you forbid debate.

    Chiding History for being imperfect is to deny the human condition. We are forced to live by guesstimates…not all of which are equal…because none of us will ever have all knowledge or live indefinitely.

    It’s like people who say “Change is inevitable” with aplomb. Watch those same people when they’re forced to daily find new jobs, food, and lodging!

    They’re like folks who chirp “Change is good!” Watch THEIR faces when you tell them they have cancer!

    Mathematics often involves nearing, but never achieving, absolute certainty…like asymptotes and infinity. Also, how does one measure “zero”? Yet humans don’t need such absolutes. We live, like manufactured goods and constructed objects, in a world of “tolerances.” Saying nothing is perfect does not mean jets are built “whateverly.” Plane parts must fit tighter than those of a house. That is, progressively, but not practically, “perfect.”

    The key to me: let ALL opine, hoping the best answers/practices will prevail. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t. Truth doesn’t reveal or maintain itself. Galileo was correct, yet had to recant to stay alive. Still, had he chose to die like Socrates, the Truth would have remained.

    Today, American history is being simultaneously denied, contorted, revealed, demonized, and lauded. The solution is not to say “to hell with History”…because Hell can then ensue. The answer, again to me, is to let all sides be heard. More peer reviews, not less!

    That the Left refuses to do so should concern us all.

    Once you succumb to mob rule you get, well, mob rule. Every court case involves opposing views. One will prevail. Thus most every ruling creates losers. How do losers then react? If they refuse to accept the judgment, they create lawlessness…which can lead to vendettas, mafiosa, wars, and worse. That is why good Law must temper justice with mercy, permit appeals, and allow reversals. Because when enough people no long trust the Law, they WILL ignore it…leading to drinking during Prohibition, along with rum-running and Capones.

    Law cannot exceed Culture. Law must codify what is already accepted/practiced. Even when it tries to change beliefs, it will only succeed when (1) those it seeks to educate are a minority and (2) it has state power to enforce decisions.

    CHINESE SAYING: “Laws are created when people forget how to live.”

    FACT: Everything about the Holocaust was legal…under German law.

    Like History, America…while flexible…is not infinitely so. One can only expand definitions and “social balloons” so far before both become meaningless. And/or explode.

    Like Religion, History has general trends. What matters is how many people at any given time agree about basics. Jews do not believe Jesus was the Messiah. Christians do. So how many Christians exist in the world vs. Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc.? Which belief system prevails in which context? Jews are a numerical minority, yet have great power: how and why?

    History, as a purely abstract hobby, doesn’t matter much. Just like rabbinical pilpul and Jesuit casuistry are piffle, mere mental gymnastics. Until they aren’t….and inform Laws.

    When History is used to justify politics and other things that impact human lives, it becomes important. Very important. THEN particular views of history matter. A lot. If Germans believe Odin gave them ALL Lebensraum, it becomes a matter of life or death whether one is Aryan or Jew.

    Similarly, if Americans believe History handed them the right of Manifest Destiny, it matters to citizens and others.

    “Abstract” History only matters to the extent that it impacts real lives. Its being “imperfect” or “never settled” is no reason to ignore it. In fact, its malleability makes it matter all the more. Because humans are mortal. And because particular views of History at particular times can directly affect how and if we live.

    Today, one view of History demonizes America. And not just the whites who founded it. It damns their current heirs, too. The result? People are losing their good names, jobs, marriages, houses, even lives based on the lie of “white privilege.” Ergo, all the more reason to urgently counter the Left’s view of history.

    Finally, to those who say History is ignorable nonsense because it’s not fixed and ever-changing: try telling BLM/antifa that THEIR view of history is wrong. See how “academic” and “peaceful” and “open” their response is.

  133. Robjil says:
    @Anonymous

    leading to lime-lined pits filled with human Others.

    The big 6/Israel mania has to stop. Humanity has to grow. Humanity now is stuck in mud with this Israel/big 6 mania. It keeps humanity’s growth frozen. Unfreeze it. Freedom of speech would do. It is the best and simplest way to do so. Truth sets one free. Humanity is yearning to be free again. Enough is enough.

    http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.com/2009/03/secular-religion-of-holocaust-tainted.html

    There was nothing exceptional about the fate of Europe’s Jews in the general blaze of war. It would have deserved just a mention in the great book of Second World War history. One may therefore quite rightly be astonished that today the fate of the Jews should be considered the essential feature of that war.

  134. @Peripatetic Itch

    STEM has its problems. When one is on a particular STEM track, the educators should clearly identify theory from fact for students. More and more, one theory leads to the next theory that leads to the next and ending up with black hole and neutron stars, for example. Outside a given track, any mention of any theory to the public should be prefaced loudly that it IS a theory, if mentioned at all.

    It also appears that many in the STEM arena aren’t capable of just saying – I don’t know. They think they have to make up some nonsense and is how we get things like the multiverse and 11 dimensional space. The mathematicians are the primary culprits for real science going off the rails. It seems that few want to get their hands dirty in a real lab, preferring computer simulations where a programmers talent can produce just about any desired outcome that is then labeled a eureka moment with Nobel prizes for all.

    There’s a physicist on YouTube, Sabine Hossenfelder, that pokes fun at some aspects of her discipline but then is deeply involved with furthering esoteric, or rather, hallucinogenic physics.

    • Agree: Peripatetic Itch
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    , @Realist
  135. GeeBee says:
    @Alden

    Voltaire was a consummate man of the world, and by no means would he have exposed himself as the kind of deluded fool that might concoct the farrago of puerile, undergraduate mediocrity that Roatan Bill is fond of quoting from ‘Ingersoll’ (whoever he might have been). Roatan is of course an anarchist. He might not believe in those sentient, non-human cosmic agencies we call gods (neither do I), but that doesn’t mean that he’s not ‘away with the fairies’.

    • Replies: @Alden
  136. Ugetit says:
    @Alfred

    Thanks. It was elitist, just as I would have guessed.

    Sold as SPQR. Same old scam, and it never fails.

  137. @gotmituns

    Durocher recommended the World War II series by Spartacus Olssen. It’s an extensive project, tracking WWII week by week (or maybe day by day), with another subseries interspersed covering the Inhumanity of war.
    I viewed the Inhumanity segment titled The Straegy of Terror Bombing, May 1940. It focused on German terror bombing in Spain, Poland, Rotterdam and elsewhere, and touched on the construction of the first concentration camp.

    Olssen, who is German, concluded the 19-minute tour of ghastly destruction and death at the hands — or bombs — of Germans, with, “What about the French and the British?” And then he dismissed them: “War is so evil, and the laws of neutrality have been trashed,” so that’s the only lesson we need to learn, that and Germany was (is) evil.

    I didn’t count the number of WWII episodes Olssen & team produced and have online on youtube; there are dozens. I suspect that a talented German film- and documentary-maker like Olssen would not get 10 seconds of air time if he were to discuss the involvement of zionists in ginning up the war, or indeed of arranging for its intended devastating impact — the near-total destruction, not least by “strategic” aerial bombardment, of Germany.

    History comes at us in all different ways; I certainly never set out to doubt the dogmatized holocaust narrative: my life would be a whole lot happier if I had not. But some things you can’t unlearn.

    As I viewed Olsenn’s narrative on Strategic bombing, I thought, “I’ve been wrong; I’ve allowed myself to be duped into thinking Germans were victims: they were NEVER victims, they were always evil, just as the propaganda insists.”

    Maybe I have to nuance my rage at what was actually done to the German people and nation.
    Maybe I have to redouble my efforts to bring to popular notice the evil acts of zionists and others who provoked war, for their benefit.

    Dang, this whole history bit can cause Blair Head.

    • Agree: Badger Down
    • Replies: @Alden
  138. BAMA says:

    Modern, Western history is a charade, fraud, a lie. Agenda prevarication at its best. These impostor history writers belong with run of mill political pundits, but not for history.

  139. @Pop Warner

    What you know that isn’t so is your problem.

    I read the entire article. I just disagree with the idea that independent research, even if it arrives at an opposite opinion is worth pursuing because it will forever remain an opinion devoid of empirical evidence. Forgeries of documents and art work have been going on for thousands of years, so what evidence can be trusted? Events in the last few decades have been spun to reflect a particular political narrative, so why should anyone take the reporting of older events seriously?

    History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon.
    Napoleon Bonaparte

    History is political OPINION. History is propaganda that’s been aged and sanctified by historians, aka court jesters.

    History records that the bible was assembled at the Council of Nicaea in 325 under the leadership of emperor Constantine, and that would make it a political document and yet the believers in it swear it’s the word of some sky god. The bible is a novel, a collection of poorly written stories.

    Historians have asserted that Josephus invented Christianity as a political ploy along with his benefactors, the Flavians in the late first century AD. The Jesus character appears first in history quite some time after his supposed death and miraculous resurrection. There’s no mention of that character during the time he was supposed to be alive and yet history is full of him. An invention that the believers have decided to agree up.

    • Replies: @Pop Warner
    , @Kapyong
  140. Emslander says:
    @Question Mark

    The main message of Christianity is that God sent his only-begotten son, Jesus Christ, to save us from the sin of Adam and that Jesus Christ is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, thus God-Man.

    I write that, knowing that anonymous blasphemy and ridicule are to follow in this comment section, but Truth has to be declared from time to time.

    • LOL: RoatanBill
    • Replies: @Question Mark
  141. I don’t believe we share the same view of the “elites”. They know more about true history then you and i.

    They been around for 100’s of years.

  142. @ruralguy

    I have found this to be true generally. I however, disdain judging my friends and fellow Americans on perceived ignorance. Many people have serious problems that take up their time, some work hard to get by and are tired and fed up so they turn to amusements that they really know inside, do not give them any real pleasure. They feel there is nothing to strive for, especially in a nation run by politicians who keep promising them things they can not deliver. It’s all very sad, what has been done to the youth especially. Their dreams have been taken away by politicians and “educators”. Females have been degraded, not uplifted. Males and young men, have equally been the victims false promises and philosophies in this day and age. A greedy, uncaring, totally worthless in character, U.S. elite have done this to our youth. I am 100 percent certain, that leftist politicians and ideologues are so damaging to the young that their false promises and narratives of what young people should focus on makes them literally mind criminals.

    • Agree: Zumbuddi
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  143. Emslander says:

    If history were as useless as some of the commenters here claim, I can assure you that it would not have composed the primary works of human thought since humans began to think. There’s a reason we always refer to the beginning of rational activity as the “historical record”. Denial of the importance of history is a ludicrous exercise.

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
  144. @Jim Christian

    I accidentally clicked disagree. I do agree with your comment. Feminism is one of the most effective weapons against civilization. a weapon which (((our rulers))) wield with skill.

  145. @Alfred

    Brutus was our of wedlock Julius’s son.

    • Agree: Alden
    • Replies: @Alfred
  146. anarchyst says:
    @RoatanBill

    You make some excellent points. I would like to add one more example…

    Opening one’s mind does not require a “college degree”.

    In fact, there are those who made great strides in technology despite not having a “college degree”.

    One prime example of this is the story of Stanford Ovshinsky. A machinist by trade, he came up with the idea of “amorphous semiconductors”.

    Traditional semiconductors are fabricated from crystalline structures, by complicated processes, which are then “doped” with various “impurities” to gives them unique electrical characteristics.

    Ovshinsky’s method utilized non-crystalline methods which could be simply “sprayed” on a surface, while possessing these unique electrical characteristics, much less expensive to produce.

    He took his ideas to local universities, whose professors all told him that his ideas would not work. He still pursued his line of thinking “outside the box” and was extremely successful.

    Multinational corporations such as Sony and Sharp have licensed his patented technology.

    These same universities, who initially rejected him, in later years, have invited him as a “peer” and have finally embraced his unconventional methods who they initially said “wouldn’t work”.

    Thinking outside the box can be a lonely pursuit, but is quite often necessary to advance the technology. Mr. Ovshinsky himself, admitted that if he had received a traditional college education, he would not have come up with his ideas and accomplishments.

    • Agree: RoatanBill
    • Replies: @Ralph B. Seymour
  147. @Alden

    It was the priest mathematician astronomers at the Vatican astronomy who developed the calendar we use today. Calendar needs adjusting every 1500 years. Next adjustment will be in about 1100 years. That one will probably done by the Vatican astronomers too.

    And it was the Jesuit theologian Dionysius Petavius (1583 – 1652) and the Calvinist Joseph Scaliger (1540- 1609) who formulated and set in stone the chronology of Western history we rely on today. That chronology was questioned by no less than Isaac Newton, but his critique was published only after his death and had no lasting influence. Our calendar, of course, is of no use for historical dating if the chronology is wrong. So any challenge to that chronology would prove RoatanBill’s argument that arguing about trifling details like calendar adjustments misses some very important issues.

    Especially if that challenge would knock off the best part of a millennium from our history:

    https://www.unz.com/article/how-long-was-the-first-millenium/#comment-4195843

    • Replies: @Alden
  148. @ruralguy

    you know the universal term AMERICAN IDIOT

  149. Lester says:

    Survival Tip!
    Be au courant

    That means don’t get info off cable news and you won’t get sick from vaccines created for a patented virus, for one thing.

  150. @Guillaume Durocher

    great comment, and great article! I appreciate how you pointed out that reading history helps us discover our place in the great tapestry that is life.

  151. @Sirius

    excellent comment. I agree completely. Bill is throwing the baby out with the bathwater

  152. @RoatanBill

    History records that the bible was assembled at the Council of Nicaea in 325 under the leadership of emperor Constantine, and that would make it a political document and yet the believers in it swear it’s the word of some sky god

    But by your logic how can we trust that telling of history? Was it actually assembled in 325 or is that another historical fiction? I would hope you don’t accept the Josephus conspiracy theory as fact, because there is no “empirical proof” to say this for certain and you would be making a statement of faith. In fact, how do we even know there was a Council of Nicea in 325? There were no photographs of it happening so it’s very easy for historians to make that up like you insinuate the Gospels were. See how we can keep going with this forever? Your autistic outlook on evidence would be great for a defense lawyer; with no video of a crime happening you could simply assert the whole thing was made up. You engineers sure are bright!

    • Agree: RedpilledAF
    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  153. @Ugetit

    do dismiss propaganda, but study history.

    Easier said than done. Those who create propaganda tend to call it history and enforce its teaching in schools as history. They even write laws saying it’s not to be questioned. They will imprison you or even terminate you if you do.

    And they will call a competing real history propaganda.

    • Replies: @Gulnare
  154. History in a single phrase:

    The Aryan Expansion vs the Rising Tide of Color.

    See how easy that was?

  155. Anonymous[351] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dr. Charles Fhandrich

    “The world has experienced many tragedies, but to my mind the greatest tragedy of all is the present economic condition wherein women strive against men, and in many cases actually succeed in usurping their places in the professions and in industry… This growing tendency of women to overshadow the masculine is a sign of a deteriorating civilization.”

    — Nikola Tesla, 1924

    I wonder what Tesla would think of a civilization which sends its women and mothers off to faraway war zones?

  156. @Ugetit

    When this started off I was responding to someone claiming that the Civil War could be potentially written as having been lost by the North. Debating the composition of the Union does not really pertain to that. Nor is it the case that northern white workers suffered any loss from the incorporation of blacks as wage labor within a time-frame that would such a script. Tp the extent that white workers today sometimes find Affirmative Action showing disadvantages, that is a post-1965 phenomenon. The Civil War ended in 1865 and all histories (whether pro-Confederate or anti-Confederate or something else) have accepted the basic reality of the Union victory. It would make more sense to argue that Germany and Japan won World War II since after 1970 their economies really did come out ahead for about a quarter-century (Japan has been in decline again since about 1995).

    • Replies: @Ugetit
  157. Gulnare says:

    In France, under the Ancien Régime, the most widely read political history books, which were in first place among the educated (and therefore had a place of command and responsibility in society) were, it seems, Plutarch’s Lives of the Noble Greeks and Romans and Xenophon’s Cyropaedia. Two admirable works. If this were still the case, there would not be a mafia of white-collar gangsters in power since de Gaulle’s departure.

  158. Ponder says:
    @John Fisher

    I see he ignored your question. The truth is that man is a spirit and also is flesh. STEM knows about the flesh part as in the periodic table at inanimate level and that’s all. Science is simply the laws that govern natural creation and nothing more. that’s all STEM can ever teach. Period.

    Life on the other hand is not governed by laws of physical creation and therefore cannot be accessed by such. The rulers know this and that is why they all talk about “hidden knowledge, occultic practises, white magic, spiritual phenomena that involves rituals. Life cannot be accessed by logic nor even be measured or scientifically defined. Ask a doctor what death is and they cannot answer that question yet one minute a person is alive and the next, when the spirit leaves the body, they are declared dead, and yet everything is as it was 1 second before : the heart is there, the blood, the brain everything but no life. That is what Roatanbill is asking you to provide. Identify a Spirit by using science when science cannot even identify the human spirit.

    Well, all I can say is, the invisible is the eternal while the visible is the temporal is is evidenced by death.

    • Thanks: John Fisher
  159. @Agathoklis

    I want to add Eduardo Galeano’s unique “Memory of fire” trilogy . .

    https://www.kobo.com/us/en/ebook/the-memory-of-fire-trilogy

    • Replies: @gar manar nar
  160. @Pop Warner

    I said “history records”. I never said I believe it. This historical record is as untrustworthy as all the rest.

    The remainder of your prose only adds weight to my contention that history is just a collection of stories without any real evidence that deluded people have decided is truth. I just happen to not be one of those people.

    And, yes, we engineers are bright. Thank you for your observation.

  161. @Anon

    I do not think the Russians losing 27 million dead is a badge of honor. The Germans killed Russians at a rate of 5 to one for much of the war. Even tiny Finland killed 5 soviet troops for every one they lost. The reason the soviets “won” is because the axis where simply overwhelmed. The allies had many times over the men and material as the axis, on the eastern and western front. If you have a great enough numerical advantage, you can still win despite being incompetent.

    • Agree: GomezAdddams
  162. @RoatanBill

    It is up to the believers to prove that god does exist.

    Well, not really, because to the faithful, God is already proven.

    Logic can also be applied as follows: if there is no Guiding Hand over the cosmos, then it is the mere by-product of essentially deaf, dumb, blind, lifeless and unconscious matter routinely assembling and dissembling as it has across the aeons, ad infinitum. Even the apparent success of the watchmaker’s fallacy depends upon acknowledging the existence of a minimum of one creator.

    Where we concern ourselves with God — who, by definition, transcends time and space itself — logic takes us only so far. Beyond that, it’s purely a matter of faith (or lack thereof).

    • Thanks: RedpilledAF
    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  163. @Agathoklis

    Leo Strauss said you have to read between the lines of all those books because none of those writers had the freedom to explicitly write fully what they knew. Ergo you can interpret their facts to argue just about anything for or against. The only limit is stuff like flat earth and q anon where the argument is downright ridiculous.

    The Yale New Testament course really is pretty great. One of the luckiest accidents of my life although I hardly appreciated it at the time is I had an excellent high school American history teacher. I can still hear him talking about the Cleveland presidential election in my minds’s ear.

    Ma ma where’s my pa?
    Off to the white house ha ha ha!

    This was many years ago but one thing I remember was that we were responsible for absolutely nothing in our textbook before 1776 or after 1940; U. S. history starts at 1776–before that it’s something else. And history ends when the people writing it are still materially interested in its content. So we still haven’t quite reached the point where somebody could write a proper history of John Kennedy. According to my high school American history teacher.

  164. Robjil says:
    @Anonymous

    Why are US and Israel doing in Syria? Both are not doing any good for the Syrian people. Here is an example of the duo’s teamwork. Israel mania is the main problem of the Zion Western Nations. When we are free of this mania, it will noted as a sad time in human history.
    https://southfront.org/no-surprises-us-made-smart-bomb-was-used-by-israel-to-murder-civilians-in-syrias-hama/

    A US-made “smart bomb” was apparently used in the Israeli airstrikes that claimed the lives of an entire family in Syria’s Hama.

    The family including a father, a mother and two children were killed in the airstrikes, which targeted the western outskirts of Hama city early on January 22. The attack injured at least four other civilians.

    The Syrian Arab News Agency shared a photo showing the remains of the projectile which struck the victims’ house. One of the pieces seen in the agency’s photo appears to be identical to a wing of the US-made GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb (SDB).

  165. @gar manar nar

    here’s a better synopsis / description

  166. Anonymous[339] • Disclaimer says:
    @Beavertales

    Trump is a coward who betrayed his supporters for the umpteenth time, on his way out the door..

  167. Anonymous[339] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wally

    What would be the best sources for info. on the holo…..the best info to show normies?

    • Replies: @stevennonemaker88
  168. @RoatanBill

    “ If you want to become a productive member of society, then get a STEM degree. The Humanities and Social Sciences aren’t worth spit.”

    Would that explain the American technological barbarian?

    STEM is essential for any society to achieve any sort of material advancement, and it is by and large uncontrovertial except when it delves into theoretical physics, since in applied physics it is the tangible result that matters. But history should be controversial, otherwise it is tantamount to propaganda. History ought to be the cornerstone of humanities and the student should be always exposed to opposing views and get to reach his or her proper synthesis. Seeing the memetic response to a European who just heard the words ‘ Nazi’ or ‘Hitler’ tells a lot about how history is taught in most White countries.

    But we can all rest assured that the last thing the matrix of control wants is to have the masses acquire the capacity to think in a critical way courtesy of the proper education of history.

  169. Alden says:
    @GeeBee

    I recognized some Voltaire sentences and quotes. Whatever. Only Ingersoll I’ve ever heard of was a late 19th century Chicagoan. He ran the utility company and violated anti trust laws.

  170. Alden says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    About the so called German terror bombing in Spain. Neutral Britain had numerous spies in Spain reporting on the war.

    Despite that some of the British spies were left wingers devoted to the communist Republicans, they reported that the Germans didn’t bomb from the air.

    It was the communist republicans on the ground that planted and set off bombs and used their extensive network of communist sympathizers and propagandists to claim the Germans bombed Spain.

    Re: the Spanish civil war. Jews were on the republican communist side. Therefore, the communists Republicans were the bad guys and the Vatican backed Franco faction was the good guys.

    Jews always back the bad guys
    Jews backed the communist Republicans
    Therefore the communist Republicans were the bad guys.

    Both the facts and logic prove the communist Republicans were the bad guys.

    That’s what I mean by read and observe all opinions and views. Then make up your own mind.

    If people only knew the truth behind both the American and French revolutions

    • Thanks: Gulnare
    • Replies: @Gulnare
  171. Alden says:
    @Peripatetic Itch

    Problem with Laurence Guynote’s theory is that there were plenty of civilizations other than W European Roman Catholicism between 400 and 1,000 AD. China India Tibet Persia Mongolian Turk Arab Muslim world S American Indians.

    And all their calendars were the same as the Julian calendar used between about 50BC and 1600 AD in Roman Catholic W Europe. Calendars need adjustment every 1,500 years.

    The 1500-1600 AD adjustment was done by RC priest mathematicians astronomers. It’s used all over the world. Whether you and Laurence Guyenote like it or not.

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
  172. @Marckus

    The world may have changed in terms of technology but human nature remains the same.

    Captain Kirk Questions Khan…

    “How little man himself has changed!”

  173. anon[712] • Disclaimer says:
    @RoatanBill

    To most people, if a person on TV that claims or is claimed to be an expert on something, his cred depends on whether he wears a white smock jacket and the right glasses (for stem), a cardigan and good beard for the humanities. It also helps to have an English or other European accent. The accent with a good beard is 90%.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  174. Gulnare says:
    @Anonymous

    “I wonder what Tesla would think of a civilization which sends its women and mothers off to faraway war zones?”

    It is not a civilization, it is the inversion of a civilization, of humanity.

    • Agree: Robjil
  175. Anon[240] • Disclaimer says:

    “ If you want to become a productive member of society, then get a STEM degree. The Humanities and Social Sciences aren’t worth spit.”

    The STEM-degree person will understand his world and himself far better if he takes a big helping of those other courses. Or, studies these on his own. He will have a different mental state. Maybe he doesn’t want that mental state; and maybe, in today’s world, he is better off. A poet said, Be always drunk, on wine, poetry, or virtue. Perhaps “drunk on STEM” could be added as a fourth option.

  176. Gulnare says:
    @Peripatetic Itch

    “Those who create propaganda tend to call it history and enforce its teaching in schools as history. They even write laws saying it’s not to be questioned. They will imprison you or even terminate you if you do.

    And they will call a competing real history propaganda.”

    Like the myth of the “Holocaust”, for example.

  177. @RoatanBill

    If you could provide god’s address, phone number or email address, I’d appreciate it.

    God’s Address:
    The Holy Orthodox Church, the Human Heart

    His Email:
    The Church Fathers, the Bible, the Gospels

    His Phone:
    Prayer, the Sacraments

    Don’t wait to make that call!

  178. @Emslander

    re: The main message of Christianity is that God sent his only-begotten son, Jesus Christ, to save us from the sin of Adam and that Jesus Christ is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, thus God-Man.

    🙂 I don’t believe your citation is the basic message of Christianity. I rather suspect that it is the message of the religious hierarchies but that is simply my private opinion. To my mind a message like “Love the others as you love yourself” is able to resonate deeply with many people because it holds a strong emotional content but a message like 3 in 1 or 1 in 3 or whatever sounds somehow political to me i.e. a message to satisfy diverging interests – a little bit like the “official” message that Jesus’s mother remained a virgin. Anyway I think the “normal people” who are mostly unaware of power doubletalk are much more representative of a religion than the religious hierarchies – and especially so in the case of Christianity (as we all know the Vatican has always been very interested in political power)

    In a way I agree with you that it is a “truth” of some kind but I would put it in the category of “agreed-upon political obfuscation” (to paraphrase Napoleon).

    • Replies: @anonsasmaug
  179. @Wally

    I agree with you on the holocaust. It is a total fraud once you look into it. The REAL reason for the holocaust myth is to justify the destruction of Germany and western heritage in the eyes of the Goyim. The (((elites))) already hated the Germans long before WWII.

  180. @Anonymous

    I think the work that Ron Unz has done on this website is a great start! the American Pravda series is superb

    • Agree: JackOH
  181. @anon

    I think for most people, just being interviewed on TV would be enough for them to listen to what is being said. Since discrimination has become a dirty word, most people no longer have any capacity to discriminate even when it’s a desirable trait, which is nearly all the time.

    People also don’t distinguish between areas of expertise as they should. When an economist speaks, he should be ignored because he’ll say anything that sounds plausible and can earn him a buck or recognition leading to that buck. Sociologist, psychologists, and others from the Social Science live in some alternate universe that their teachers made up and they now inhabit. The medical profession is a bit tricky because there are people in that field that do have a recognizable skill, namely surgeons. The rest are largely salespeople for big pharma that we get to pay for.

    The political class enjoys a whopping 20% favorable rating, but that still doesn’t prevent people from rooting for their preferred dirtbag and even wasting their time listening to their lies on TV and even traveling to hear them tell their lies as an audience member.

    Ron White is correct, you can’t fix stupid.

    • Replies: @anarchyst
  182. AReply says:

    Re Jim Christian and anonyimagguffin[351]

    Is there any topic on unzcom which doesn’t invoke the pleading of bigots for more bigotry?

    I’ve personally studied everything there is to know about the history of Western Civilization. I’ve watched and re-watched Peter Jackson’s adaptation of J.R.R. Martin’s The Game of the Rings. In this epic cinematic ode to the sinpler, yet courageous, ways of the “Shire Folk” — small people, “they would be only children to your eyes” —the valiant Aragorn, heir to a fallen throne of Gondor, encounters the unhappy but loving Éowyn, sister of Éomer, daughter of the King Théodwyn of Rohan, son of Éomund:

    Éowyn, deeply in love with the betrothed Aragorn is practicing with a sword in a cinematic set-up for the following encounter:

    Aragorn : (Parrying Eowyn’s blade with his own making a clang!) You have some skill with a blade…

    [MORE]

    Eowyn : The women of this country learned long ago, those without swords can still die upon them. I fear neither death nor pain!

    Aragorn : What do you fear, my lady?

    Eowyn : A cage. To stay behind bars until use and old age accept them and all chance of valor has gone beyond recall or desire.

    WELL THERE YOU HAVE IT, HISTORY’S WOMEN DONT WANT TO BE TOLD HOW TO LIVE BY OLD SHELLECKER

    If we continue our reading of known history, we can wonder how the God Peter Jackson and his wife and screenwriter sidekick, Fran Walsh, handled Aragorn’s response:

    (Pick one, you will be graded and thrown out of Cloud City and back to the Mines if you choose wrongly)

    A) Aragorn : Make yourself useful, you strumpet of a princess. Rub my tired feet then fix me a sandwich, as I was nearly killed bu Warg and I’ve had nothing to eat but maggoty bread for three days!

    -or-

    B) Aragorn : You are a daughter of kings, a shield maiden of Rohan. I do not think that will be your fate.

    History wanted only one of these two, and dudes like you are gonna have to abide history.

    And in fact because history is history, history was fulfilled when Éowyn charges into the Battle of Gondor, with the aid of one of the small-folk, defeats the dreaded Nazgul, grounding him decapitating his dragon in a single stroke:

    Nazgul : No man can beat me! Bwahhhahahaha!

    Eowyn : I AM NO MAN… (Kazoww! Stabs Nazgul in helmet socket, Nazgul crinkles like tin-foil and implodes)

    You can’t argue with history.

    I understand that some men cannot related to history, and they hate us for our freedoms. But such men are on the wrong side of history. And if men have built a world unfit for men, well, who’s fault is that?

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
  183. Which historical atlases and illustrated encyclopaedias do people recommend? I’m not against old ones – I found HG Wells’ Outline of History interesting as a kid, it was pretty straight talking on HBD issues. But I’d prefer something less dog-eared and more up-to-date.

  184. @AnonStarter

    Where we concern ourselves with God — who, by definition, transcends time and space itself — logic takes us only so far.

    It can’t be otherwise because if it were, God would be something we could explain while there simply is no need for an almighty being to be able to be explained by us humans.

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
  185. @anarchyst

    Just as a historical matter, environmentalists like me were sucked into the global-warming scam by the establishment’s need to deal with Immanuel Velikovsky, a psychiatrist by training, who proffered a scientific theory that was taking the world by storm back in the 1950s. A good friend of Albert Einstein and a meticulous ethnographic researcher, Velikovsky established that Venus was unknown in the records of the ancients 3500 years before the present. And when it did begin to appear, it was portrayed for centuries as a monster with long hair spewing cosmic lightning and associated with catastrophe.

    In 1950, Velikovsky published his book Worlds in Collision, which led the New York Times best seller list for 11 straight weeks. In it he postulated that Venus was a new planet that had been recently ejected from Jupiter on a cometary orbit and that it caused havoc throughout the inner solar system until it settled down into its current orbit. He further made a number of predictions about the planet that turned out to be spectacularly true and unexpected as space scientists developed the ability to send probes towards our neighbor planet. One of those predictions was that the surface of Venus would be incredibly hot, a prediction that was used to ridicule him until it turned out to be true.

    The astronomer Carl Sagan took on the job of putting this uppity layman in his place. Knowing that the atmosphere of Venus was 95% CO2 and that CO2 was able to absorb infra-red light, he postulated that Venus had suffered a runaway-greenhouse effect. A conference of the AAAS was organized in 1973 supposedly as a dispassionate discussion of Velikovsky, Velikovsky was thoroughly put down and the greenhouse heat-death theory became established as the future of the Earth. Wealthy people saw a way to make a buck from it and pushed it on us poor environmentalists. Sagan got his just rewards, becoming a popular media celebrity.

    As Paul Harvey would have said, that is the rest of the story. Be kind to environmentalists. We are all manipulated.

    • Replies: @AReply
    , @Badger Down
    , @Alfred
  186. Incitatus says:

    Provocative essay – thanks Durocher.

    Reading history: each author, each period can be an exciting voyage (better or worse). It’s the journey that counts. Building context, building a frame-work of understanding (objective and intuitive) that allows one to decide for himself how to scale what’s probable. Appreciation/understanding of history is important, it’s how we were born, who we are, our legacy.

    Lacking that framework, one is blind to current offerings, let alone (oft phony) visions of the future.

    Of course, historians are as human as the rest of us. Bias in varying degree. Different views from different pairs of eyes. How not?

    Tragic Thucydides is worlds away from ‘gossipy’ Herodotus, ‘salacious’ Suetonius, ‘pragmatic’ Tacitus, ‘jokine true historian’ Lucian of Samosata, ‘Arid’ Livy, ‘travelogue’ Pausanias, and Sallust’s self-serving obituary on Jugurtha. To say nothing of Pindar, Homer, and the rest.

    It’s on us to read them (and all the rest). There are NO ‘stone tablets of truth’. One must decide for oneself. That’s the lesson

    “In my working life, I regularly encounter people in public affairs with a total lack of interest in history.”

    PBS ‘Finding your Roots’ amply demonstrates commonplace indifference to history and (intimate history) genealogy. Celebrities feign astonishment at their own provenance (most never know antecedents beyond great-grandparents). The show rarely traces earlier than six to eight generations (±180-240 years). Revelations are treated as incidental pleasantries or mild embarrassment (e.g. slave-holders).

    Entertainment, pop-corn imbibed to get through another day.

    Why not ad “who were my parents, my family” to your:

    “How did we get here? What can we learn from past experience? What have we inherited so we don’t start from scratch”

    Just a thought.

  187. The understanding of history should be a flexible enterprise.

    One of the reasons is that ‘history’ itself isn’t necessarily truthful or reflecting honesty.

    Without delving into too much; have a look around you today and try to imagine how someone 2,000 years down the road will digest what’s going on today.

    Would s/he be right…?

  188. @Emslander

    If history were as useless as some…

    You misconstrue what they’re saying. Not that it’s useless but that it is unreliable as a way to discern objective reality. Truth if you like.

    Highly useful, however. Every society needs to construct a historical narrative to hold itself together. Those who would lead society need to do the same to gain the loyalty of their group.

    How would you have got the British Tommies in WWI to shoot enemy soldiers if you hadn’t made up stories about those evil spike-helmeted Huns cutting off the hands of children and boiling corpses to make soap?

    History doesn’t need to be true to be useful.

  189. Ugetit says:
    @Patrick McNally

    …the basic reality of the Union victory.

    I’ll grant you that it was a military and a political victory, but it was won mostly by the Northern banking, trading, and political interests. The proles, as usual, paid the price. Claiming that “the North” won is glib and specious.

  190. anarchyst says:
    @RoatanBill

    It’s the “college degree cult” that is part of the problem.

    You see, in many cases, a person with a “college degree” will be taken more seriously than a smart, talented individual who attains knowledge on his own through independent study.

    In my passage through life, in my quest for knowledge, being proficient in many disciplines, I have been able to hold intelligent conversations with anyone from a high-school dropout to PhD s. Honest “college degree holders” have remarked positively on my grasp of many subjects from engineering to philosophy, history and medicine.

    There have been a few PhD s and others possessing “college degrees” whose security was threatened by my breadth of knowledge, to the point of telling others “he shouldn’t know that (or be taken seriously)–he doesn’t have a college degree”.

    You are correct in stating that, far too often, “college degree holders” are taken seriously even when spouting nonsense and opinions outside their (supposed) “areas of expertise”. Look at Bill Gates who is now a medical “doctor” advocating vaccinating the world population.

  191. Seraphim says:
    @Question Mark

    The main message that ‘the founder Jesus expressed it in a very strong way’ was:
    ”which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the LORD THY GOD with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the FIRST AND GREAT commandment. 39 And the SECOND is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” (Matthew 22:36-40).

    ”And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might” (Deuteronomy 6:5).
    ”And now, Israel, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul” (Deuteronomy 10:12).
    ”And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live” (Deuteronomy 30:6).

    ‘Agnosticism’ is not a reason to not study history and supress what history said when you don’t like it.

  192. Gulnare says:
    @Alden

    This is the same disinformation as that concerning the so-called Oradour-sur-Glane massacre in France (1944). We are led to believe that it was German soldiers who massacred the inhabitants of the village gathered in the church, when they died because of the explosions and fire caused by communists hidden in the bell tower, as historian Vincent Raynouard has shown perfectly. For conducting a rigorous investigation and telling the truth, Vincent Raynouard was persecuted. That is why he is a “revisionist”, a very honourable name, and why it is his opponents who are the real “negationists”. It’s normal, the West has become an Orwellian world where political power reverses reality.

    • Agree: Peripatetic Itch
  193. Will and Ariel Durant wrote an excellent series of history books, etertaining and written devoid of political correctness (Gandhi was still alive when the first book was published.)

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_of_Civilization

    • Replies: @Alden
  194. @Question Mark

    Exodus 33:20
    Moses

    “…19“I will cause all My goodness to pass before you,” the LORD replied, “and I will proclaim My name—the LORD—in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 20But He added, “You cannot see My face, for no one can see Me and live.” 21The LORD continued, “There is a place near Me where you are to stand upon a rock,…”

    So here you see that you cannot look upon God. With that in mind, in what way could you look upon the Lord and not die? God would have to be born, as human? Which also means he can be tortured and nailed to a cross until dead, and who could save God if God was human? Try to imagine being Jesus, God who is human, but is it real, knowing what you know about everything and powerless to do anything.

    I know this means little I am a woman, to look at me may turn you to stone.

  195. @Alden

    And all their calendars [China India Tibet Persia Mongolian Turk Arab Muslim world S American Indians] were the same as the Julian calendar used between about 50BC and 1600 AD in Roman Catholic W Europe.

    A chronology involves much more than your Julian/Gregorian 365-day calendar with an occasional leap year. In a chronology you need to determine when the Caesars in Rome lived relative to the Herods in Palestine or Montezuma in Mexico. You generally try to set a common arbitrary reference point that was probably never recognized as such by the ancients who actually lived at the time, who never communicated with each other, and who probably couldn’t do so because different languages.

    The problems in constructing a chronology involve synchronization. Every civilization has its own history, written in its own language. The various languages are never easily translatable. and the civilizations do not necessarily communicate. These problems can be intractable in the best of times. You bring the stories of a particular monarch, say, from different societies together, translate them into a common language and then try to decide whether the Claudius in one is the same as the Claudio of the other. If you get it wrong you will have a duplication and an extended timeline, perhaps.

    You suggest, I think, that such disparate cultures as China, Europe and South America all had the same calendars, even before the age of exploration. That would seem hard to believe except in the trivial sense. For it to be useful in a chronology, their calendars would have to be using a common reference point (e.g. birth of Christ) or there would have to be well-documented communication between them to do the synchronization. I am unaware of such data. A much earlier Marco-Polo-type traveler might do if his dates of visiting each culture were well documented in each calendar.

    There are two different but related critiques of the orthodox chronology. The first is Anatoly Fomenko’s analysis based on several different astronomical calculations. The second is Gunnar Heinsohn’s stratigraphy-based chronology. Both are based on STEM or near-STEM considerations. Considerations mostly ignored by establishment historians. As I understand Fomenko, his analysis was primarily directed to Scaliger, and would not, or not necessarily, include China and South America. Heinsohn based his analysis on stratigrapic layers suggesting catastrophes wiping out much of the civilization and would extend, it seems, wherever those layers exist. I see no reason to necessarily deduce that their existence in Europe implies their existence in South America.

    I’m sorry, I can’t find anything Laurent Guyenot has written on the subject, unless you think he is the anonymous author of the UR series.

    So as you say, your observations may constitute a problem for the theories, but not necessarily a refutation. Minor problem, I suggest.

    • Replies: @Alden
  196. @Seraphim

    ” 39 And the SECOND is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” (Matthew 22:36-40).”

    This would be an impossibility. I doubt Jesus imagined forcing his people to live with atheists or people of other religions who according to their religion will go to heaven with Jesus for killing Jesus’ people. I doubt Jesus imagined coming back to help take out the very people who believe in him for the ones who don’t.
    If your neighbor is like yourself then yes you should love him.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  197. @AReply

    J.R.R. Martin’s The Game of the Rings.

    Or maybe J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings.

    Or maybe G.R.R. Martin’s Game of Thrones.

    What you smoking there, little one?

    You have the nerve to call this history.

  198. @anarchyst

    The media do all the work for you, these days. They tell you who the experts are and who you should be listening to. The headline, or lede, or anchor will read:

    Experts say: World to end in 90 days.

    So who gets to decide who the experts are? A journalist, whose only education is in creative writing? Or the media’s owner, who has his own little agenda?

    And who decides who is not to be called an expert? These “non-experts” often have more expertise than all the quoted ones put together.

    • Agree: anarchyst
  199. Skeptikal says:

    “There is a real craft to history, tools and techniques whose use must be learned from the masters: the arts of interpreting ancient documents (see Yale’s New Testament course or maverick historian Richard Carrier’s work), archaeology, archival research, the tracking down of oral sources and private documents (David Irving surely must rank as a master here), etc.”

    To be a serious historian one must speak or at least read at least one foreign language.
    A true historian deals in primary sources, not just secondary.

    It is Irving’s mastery of German and also of challenging German scripts that, I am convinced, enabled him to become an outstanding historian.

    It is difficult to learn a foreign language on one’s own to the level required for either historical research or just grasping and internalizing the idea that different languages produce different cultures, ideas, and social circumstances.

    A good historian must divest herself of the idea that the rest of the world will come to her, in the context of language. People who speak only one language are intellectual children. Like those who ignore the past.

  200. Skeptikal says:

    “Among European officialdom, economics and law are the surest paths to rising above the rabble of poli-sci graduates.”

    Yep, and that is precisely why the EU is such a mess.

    As explained clearly by Perry Anderson in his series of articles in the London Review of Books in which he deconstructs the EU (two have appeared; the third is still TK).

  201. Environmental science, ecology and all that was only invented in the 1970s, right?

    Here’s Plato, a Greek philosopher who lived about 427-347 BC and who was a student of Socrates. He spoke about the environmental changes he had seen in his native province of Attica, of which Athens was the capital city.

    “The land was the best in the world, […] Many great deluges [floods] have taken place during the nine thousand years, for that is the number of years which have elapsed since the time of which I am speaking; and during all this time and through so many changes, there has never been any considerable accumulation of the soil coming down from the mountains, as in other places, but the earth has fallen away all round and sunk out of sight. The consequence is, that in comparison of what then was, there are remaining only the bones of the wasted body, as they may be called, as in the case of small islands, all the richer and softer parts of the soil having fallen away, and the mere skeleton of the land being left. But in the primitive state of the country, its mountains were high hills covered with soil, and the plains, as they are termed by us, of Phelleus were full of rich earth, and there was abundance of wood in the mountains. Of this last the traces still remain, for although some of the mountains now only afford sustenance to bees [who get food from wildflowers on deforested slopes], not so very long ago there were still to be seen roofs of timber cut from trees growing there, which were of a size sufficient to cover the largest houses; and there were many other high trees, cultivated by man and bearing abundance of food for cattle. Moreover, the land reaped the benefit of the annual rainfall, not as now losing the water which flows off the bare earth into the sea, but, having an abundant supply in all places, and receiving it into herself and treasuring it up in the close clay soil, it let off into the hollows the streams which it absorbed from the heights, providing everywhere abundant fountains and rivers, of which there may still be observed sacred memorials in places where fountains once existed; and this proves the truth of what I am saying.”

    • Agree: Alfred
    • Replies: @Alfred
  202. @Trial by Wombat

    Or Todd Rundgren:
    “If I thought I knew what was good for you,
    I would have gone and done it for myself.”

  203. Seraphim says:
    @anonsasmaug

    Who is ‘my neighbour’? You don’t have to imagine (let alone doubt) what Jesus said. Don’t you read the Scriptures? Because He said it plainly:

    [MORE]

    ”And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? 27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. 28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. 29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour? 30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. 33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, 34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. 36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? 37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise” (Luke 10:25-37).

    ”And it came to pass, as he went to Jerusalem, that he passed through the midst of Samaria and Galilee. 12 And as he entered into a certain village, there met him ten men that were lepers, which stood afar off: 13 And they lifted up their voices, and said, Jesus, Master, have mercy on us. 14 And when he saw them, he said unto them, Go shew yourselves unto the priests. And it came to pass, that, as they went, they were cleansed. 15 And one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, and with a loud voice glorified God, 16 And fell down on his face at his feet, giving him thanks: and he was a Samaritan. 17 And Jesus answering said, Were there not ten cleansed? but where are the nine? 18 There are not found that returned to give glory to God, save this stranger. 19 And he said unto him, Arise, go thy way: thy faith hath made thee whole” (Luke 17:11-19).

    Read John 4:4–26.

    • Replies: @anonsasmaug
  204. @ruralguy

    Some of the most uninformed people in America are college educated. The amount of dumb women especially with post baccalaureate education is astonishing. And these women are usurping all the high level jobs in so many industries in the US. Its disgusting to be honest. Women no matter how educated are for the most part collectively natures rule following sheep hell bent on pleasing the “teacher”.

    • Replies: @Alden
  205. @Robjil

    And remember folks, that’s “murdered”, or at least “killed” by the Germans. Don’t try wieseling out of it by saying people die in wars: it’s gotta be “Six Million Jews were murdered by the Germans”.

  206. anon[217] • Disclaimer says:

    Second-rate academics sucking CIA dick to 1035-960 spec, cause CIA has got busted for a lot of stuff lately, like stealing this election with their proprietaries inter alia Diebold and Dominion, and infecting you with COVID-19 after cooking it up at Burnett-Womack Ctr. and weaponizing it overseas in compartmented work by Battelle subs, and attacking the honor and reputation of the president with fabricated Russian treason whoppers, and murdering Seth Rich after he exposed CIA’s purge of opponents to Clinton, their figurehead of choice, and disappearing their pedo-pimp Epstein, and blowing up the WTC and Pentagon, and so on.

    https://www.niemanlab.org/2021/01/the-enduring-allure-of-conspiracies

  207. @Seraphim

    I said what I said, if you are going to refute it then do so. Otherwise go off. Some people have decided that God is not for them and others have their own religion. There is no point dragging them to the river. Jesus has people whose faith is strong and they don’t have to be dragged or beaten, they just read, listen and hear. I decide who my neighbor is not you. Considering I have no friends, I can’t imagine I have any neighbors.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  208. AReply says:
    @Peripatetic Itch

    Yes, all that about Venus being hot and greenhouse effects…

    And Venus is also way closer to the sun, which, as some have surmised… Is really hot.

    But Velikovsky was shunned for other reasons than rabid dogmatic rejections of his science.

    I don’t denigrate Velikovsky his ridiculous speculations, for reasons connected to precisely one the points you made regarding the appearance of Venus as a monstrous incursion upon celestial orthodoxies: A free mind is free to associate, to build connections between disparate realms.

    Carl Sagan had little to offer the spirit, odd for a man who so earnestly circumscribed the known to create a relief of mystery. But he was concerned about nut-jobs who apply reason only in so far as it suits regressive policy hierarchies. Good for him!

    Would I want Velikovsky to be head of a governmental space science program? No. I would want him to excite questioning of our presuppositions about our relationship to the world.

    I have to break it to you: the global climate crisis is not a scam. But it’s also not repairable. It’s a situation we have to face and adapt ourselves to. Our reaction can be to cower to a monster (ourselves) or to take stock and adapt. I think many people may be heartened to learn that life and wealth are about matters beyond base material consumption, but instead about some sort of art of living. This involves feeding the creative spirit and a willingness to relax and abandon dogmas that do not serve us, not double-down on fantasy.

    The greatest challenge humanity now faces is ourselves.

    Oh, wanderer…

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
  209. @Peripatetic Itch

    If you study just a little geology, study the layers in the Earth’s crust, you will understand that Venus has been in its present orbit for at least 350,000,000 years, not 3,500 years.

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
  210. Kapyong says:
    @RoatanBill

    “History records that the bible was assembled at the Council of Nicaea in 325 under the leadership of emperor Constantine.”

    Sorry, RoatanBill, but that oft-repeated claim is not supported by the extant historical evidence (which is considerable.)

    The Minutes of the Meeting
    Firstly, the canons (decisions, or rules) of the council were published to all churches and still exist to this day. They can be read here :
    http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm
    Note there is NO rule about, or even mention of the list of books of the bible (also refered to as a canon, or rule.)

    Accounts of the Council
    Church historian Eusebius was present and wrote an account of the meeting, several other early Christian writers wrote accounts of the meeting too. NO mention of discussing the bible canon. Roger Pearse has a page on this :
    http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html

    Formation of the NT Canon
    Glenn Davis has an excellent page detailing the formation of the NT canon – here is his list of sixteen NT canon authorities from ~110 to ~400 AD :
    http://ntcanon.org/authorities.shtml
    Note that Nicea is not listed there.

    The evidence is clear – the Council of Nicea had nothing to do with deciding the books of the bible. Dan Brown is mostly to blame for this pernicious and popular factoid.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  211. Is the first image in OP an hypothetical route that the descendants of white, plaid-clad ‘european’ invaders took into the Tarim Basin and what was to become the Lop Nor? How supremacist. Luckily they’re all gone now. Driven out and genocided by Turks and various east-asiatic tribes, like a lot of people round there.

  212. Alfred says:
    @Zarathustra

    Brutus was out of wedlock Julius’s son

    According to Wikipedia:

    When the Battle of Pharsalus began on August 9, Caesar ordered his officers to take Brutus prisoner if he gave himself up voluntarily, but to leave him alone and do him no harm if he persisted in fighting against capture.

    Maybe that is why Julius spared him.

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
  213. Seraphim says:
    @anonsasmaug

    If you decided that Jesus is not for you, why do you bring him in conversation?

  214. Alden says:
    @Sick of Orcs

    The French Revolution sections were completely wrong, just trite conventional Masonic revolutionary propaganda. I’m not knowledgeable enough to critique the rest of the books.

    My favorite history at the present time is European machinery tools technology before the industrial revolution medieval and earlier times going back to Roman and pre Roman Times. Plus trade routes, Jacque Couer, Fuggers Frescobaldis Vespuccis and others. Prince Henry’s navigation school. Even ordinary household things making candles rush and oil lamps stoves and heating spinning weaving making clothes building houses and other buildings. Not just the cathedrals and Roman aqueducts And weapons. Amazing how many useful inventions and developments were created by soldiers to make it easier to kill other soldiers.

    When Henry Ford 1 said history is bunk he meant we should learn more about tools machinery trade routes instead of endless Roman conquests Henry 8 wives Bonaparte

    • Replies: @Sick of Orcs
  215. Alden says:
    @Peripatetic Itch

    I’m not trying to refute or argue anything. It’s just that I’ve always been interested in history, including non European histories. And their histories are more or less in synch with the Julian calendar.

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
  216. Alden says:
    @ConqueringFools

    Not this woman you scumbag POS.

    It was White men who made it possible for women to get in those power positions. First Supreme Court justices all White men. Then Presidents Johnson and Nixon and VP Humphrey and 100 percent White men senators and 90 percent White men Congress critters.

    52 years later, it’s White men Billionaire CEOs parachuting women, especially commie women of color into high positions.

    White men idiots should remember it wasn’t women of color who destroyed White men’s jobs but other White men.

  217. @Dieter Kief

    It can’t be otherwise because if it were, God would be something we could explain

    The conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise. I wrote that “logic can take us only so far,” not that “logic can’t take us anywhere.”

    To phrase it as a proposition: If God is, it certainly follows there’s a need for Him to be explained to us.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  218. @AReply

    And Venus is also way closer to the sun, which, as some have surmised… Is really hot.

    So besides not knowing the difference between G.R.R. Martin and J.R.R. Tolkien, between The Lord of the Rings and the Game of Thrones, and between fiction and history….

    Besides all that you don’t know any planetary science. You have never heard of albedo. Or you don’t know that the albedo of Venus is roughly 0.75, which is more than twice the albedo of the Earth. That means it reflects more than twice as much sunlight off the top of its very dense cloud layer as does Earth with its spotty cloud layer. The sunlight doesn’t even make it down to the surface of Venus, where it is hot enough to melt the metal lead.

    That more than makes up for its closer proximity to the sun. Thank you.

    For the rest of your fact-free word salad, it’s a good thing it’s not an ocean. You’d never be able to find a drowning man in there.

  219. JackOH says:

    Guillaume, thanks.

    Yes, I’d encourage the study of history to learn about how people much like ourselves responded to the challenges of their time. But, the writing of history is fraught with peril. If my memory’s okay, David Hackett Fisher describes some of those perils in the front matter to his Four British Folkways in America.

    At the popular level, knowledge of history is so sketchy that it may not differ at all from unexamined propaganda that’s fervently believed in. Plus, we have Western liberalism to thank for allowing interested constituencies to wreak havoc with measured historical truth for the sole purpose of achieving an unfair advantage over their fellow men. The grievance industry is a well-known example that we talk about here.

  220. @Seraphim

    re: the LORD THY GOD

    I am not convinced of the honesty of history even if “holy books” are invoked as proof. As far as I’m aware it is not always clear who wrote the teachings of the holy books – and you can also ask yourself questions about the authors: what were their motivations to write what they did? My personal interest has always been in truth and reality and so I keep my own counsel on what I am ready to accept or not. And I’m very wary of the notion “obey or else” which I feel is mainly a power play. But this is just my personal view of the world and I certainly agree that everybody can have his own views on these matters.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  221. @Skeptikal

    Indeed, Perry Anderson’s knowledge of the EU and major national political cultures – British, French, Italian, German – is remarkable.

    I agree you need to speak the language of whatever nation you are studying. Jon Toland got away with not speaking German and was still interesting because he directly interviewed so many of the participants, but knowledge certainly would have helped (e.g. he had to rely on questionable English translation of the Table Talk).

  222. @Marshall Lentini

    I’d say we need cultured thugs, as Jonathan Bowden said. It’s no good having brawn without brains (and vice versa).

  223. @AnonStarter

    If God is, it certainly follows there’s a need for Him to be explained to us.

    Your God yes, God no. Being almighty sure includes to be inexplicable – that’s also the miracle part, mind you!

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
  224. @Alden

    The French Revolution sections were completely wrong, just trite conventional Masonic revolutionary propaganda.

    You may be right, and if so I still wouldn’t consider it a deal-breaker.

    Your call for a relationship study of history and technology is a very good idea.

  225. @Kapyong

    Thank you for helping me make my point.

    You can reference your frauds and I’ll reference other frauds and never the twain shall meet. History is not to be trusted unless you’ve got modern evidence such as video and audio of what was going on. Given that Hollywood magic can concoct just about everything, even that evidence can be falsified.

    I couldn’t care less about the Council of Nicaea or the rubbish it produced. I referenced it only to smoke out a true believer for the opposite opinion which you’ve supplied.

    • Replies: @Kapyong
  226. @Badger Down

    If you study just a little geology, study the layers in the Earth’s crust, you will understand that Venus has been in its present orbit for at least 350,000,000 years, not 3,500 years.

    Hmmm… Not bad. As a drive-by kind of shooting, I mean. Spray a few bullets around and see what they hit.

    Of course, you must be sure everyone but me will know what you’re talking about. Ambiguity covers a lot of sins.

    Interesting you chose 350 million years. Why not go all hog and cite 4.5 billion — the estimated age of the Earth?

    But then I could tell you the anomalous retrograde rotation of Venus severely questions the theory that Venus condensed from the same nebular cloud as the Earth. The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum requires that all planets from the same primordial cloud rotate in the same direction. Which Venus does not.

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
  227. Richard B says:
    @Jim Christian

    They let in the women and so began the decline, rapid, ongoing, unstoppable and especially, deliberate.

    And not just the women. Though there isn’t a single causal force that explains how and why we are where we are today, certainly one important factor was the population explosion of the 19th and 20th centuries in the West that introduced millions and millions of White people (just about all of us including myself) into a civilizaiton they didn’t understand or appreciate. A few took advantage of the opportunities to learn about that civilization (the most complex and unpredictable in the history of the world). But most simply took it for granted that it was simply there for them to use and abuse.

    That population explosion corresponded with the communications revolution and both led to the beginning of the debasement of high culture and the eventual deterioration of higher education and the eventual collapse of our universities.

    Thus was also born the Radical Ingratitude that Ortega talks about in his must read masterpiece The Revolt of The Masses. But he had predecessors.

    The best being Nietzsche’s essay on history from his Untimely Meditations. In it he talks about three uses of history. For the man of action, the man of thought, and the man who values tradition.

    And, though the three are independent categories, since any important subject, like philosophy, science and art should be used for the purpose of living an active, healthy life, those three categories should be interegrated into the individual’s life. Enough of those individuals to form a critical mass would constitute a healthy culture.

    So far, so good. But he warned of the five dangers to the individual and therefore the culture of abusing history. He artuged that abusing history could make the individual conflictive, presumptuous, immature, false, and egotistical.

    In other words, because life in the modern world is fired at us point blank and non-stop we don’t have time to develop a strong interior life that will enable us to develop a strong exterior life. Since we have both, if we fail to develop them our internal and external lives become conflicted.

    The other four follow from this internal/external conflict. We become presumptuous and think we know more than any other time in history about history itself. Since we never really develop as individuals this conflictive, presumptuous character never grows and so remains fundamentally immature. Being immature we develop a false self whose ego knows no bounds.

    In short, pretty much what you see all around us today. So the West began to deteriorate starting with its principle race and then that process simply extended itself and spread throughout the rest of the world. And now we’re back to how and why we got here today. The key point is, we are where we are today. The time to start crawling from the wreckage is now and the readiness is all.

    • Thanks: SeekerofthePresence
  228. @Alden

    And their histories are more or less in synch with the Julian calendar.

    By which, I presume you mean the Julian calendar in conjunction with the orthodox chronology with its B.C./A.D. referencing system. In effect the whole Scaligerian paradigm. But when you have a dominating paradigm like this, the tendency (often required in peer-reviewed academic circles) is to make all historical writing conform to that paradigm. What you may be seeing is that enforced consistency.

    Historians would like us to think that they have a purely empirical endeavor and thus exempt from what Thomas Kuhn called scientific revolutions. I too am a student of history, but my specialty is scientific history. One can easily list a dozen scientific revolutions over the last couple of centuries, pretty much at least one in every discipline: continental drift/tectonic plates, relativity, germ theory, evolution, oxygen theory of combustion… And there is no doubt the Scaligerian paradigm constitutes a theory that has gone unquestioned for far too long.

    As a theory it is subject to the usual criteria of falsification. And as such it’s been arguably falsified in several major observations. Just one: The Roman Empire’s famous Via Appia, built in 312 BC, not rebuilt, as shown by archeological surveys, till 1784 AD. The Romans were perhaps good engineers, but that good?

  229. Alfred says:
    @Peripatetic Itch

    Velikovsky established that Venus was unknown in the records of the ancients 3500 years before the present

    Utter nonsense. More like 500,000+ years. Anyone with eyes can see it.

    As one of the brightest objects in the sky, Venus has been known since prehistoric times, and as such, many ancient cultures recorded observations of the planet. A cylinder seal from the Jemdet Nasr period indicates that the ancient Sumerians already knew that the morning and evening stars were the same celestial object. The Sumerians named the planet after the goddess Inanna, who was known as Ishtar by the later Akkadians and Babylonians. She had a dual role as a goddess of both love and war, thereby representing a deity that presided over birth and death. One of the oldest surviving astronomical documents, from the Babylonian library of Ashurbanipal around 1600 BC, is a 21-year record of the appearances of Venus.

    Historical observations and impact (of Venus) – Wikipedia

    The astronomer Carl Sagan took on the job of putting this uppity layman in his place. Knowing that the atmosphere of Venus was 95% CO2 and that CO2 was able to absorb infra-red light, he postulated that Venus had suffered a runaway-greenhouse effect.

    Average distance from sun:

    Venus – 108 million km
    Earth – 150 million km

    Everyone knows that the strength of radiation is proportion to the inverse of the square of the distance to the source of the radiation. If the earth receives 1000 Watts per square meter (example), Venus receives 1928 Watts per square meter. Almost double.

    The fact that they managed to convince people that CO2 is responsible is a measure of how corrupt science has become in the USA and elsewhere.

    How Far Are The Planets From The Sun?

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
  230. Alfred says:
    @Badger Down

    Here’s Plato, a Greek philosopher who lived about 427-347 BC and who was a student of Socrates. He spoke about the environmental changes he had seen in his native province of Attica, of which Athens was the capital city

    Forests create clouds and rain. Rain creates more trees. Trees create soil. People start chopping down trees to build boats and so on. The economy flourishes. The trees disappear. Rain washes away the soil. It turns dry. The economy contracts and the people starve/disappear. Hundreds of years later, the trees reappear and the cycle recommences.

    Deforestation, Erosion, and Forest Management in Ancient Greece and Rome (1982)

    • Thanks: Gulnare
    • Replies: @Gulnare
  231. @anarchyst

    The most reasonable, productive and yes, educated, people I ever met have one thing in common: They never set foot on a college campus.

    As far as I can tell, the education industry/ business is, for the most part, just another scam propelled by money—– like medicine, law, banking, et.al.

    We have been headed in the wrong direction for a long time.

  232. @Alfred

    If the earth receives 1000 Watts per square meter (example), Venus receives 1928 Watts per square meter. Almost double.

    Exactly what I told @AReply in post 222. The solar flux at the top of the atmosphere on Venus is almost double that of Earth. Just as you say. But because Venus is swathed in dense clouds its albedo (reflectance) is also more than twice that of the Earth: 0.75 – 0.77 versus 0.367. That means twice as much is reflected back into space and the amount reaching the planet’s surface is about equal.
    https://www.universetoday.com/25819/albedo-of-the-earth/

    Almost no one in the climate community accepts Venus’ proximity to the sun as the explanation for its extraordinary high surface temperature of 400 degrees C. (Many still do accept the runaway greenhouse explanation, as I indicated.)

    One of the oldest surviving astronomical documents, from the Babylonian library of Ashurbanipal around 1600 BC, is a 21-year record of the appearances of Venus.

    Well you either didn’t read my explication of Velikovsky or your quibbling about a hundred years or so. 1600 BC is 3600 years ago. Velikovsky dated the appearance of Venus at 3500 years before the present, as you so ably quoted me. That was in 1950. The exact figure is surely not set in stone. Neither figure to be sure.

    There are other issues with the interpretation of these ancient records that were discussed in the UR thread I cited. Apparently, at least for Egypt, about which we had a similar discussion, there was not the consensus claimed and there was considerable indication ancient Egyptians thought they were just looking at the dead souls of their departed kings. Unfortunately Velikovsky is no longer here to defend himself. Anyone interested can find a well-argued defense here:
    immanuelvelikovsky.com/Svbasic.htm

    Here is a pic of your Sumerian goddess Ishtar, being held in the outstretched hand. You will note it has exactly the same structure Velikovsky interpreted as a comet’s tail:

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
  233. @Peripatetic Itch

    Here is a pic of your Sumerian goddess Ishtar, being held in the outstretched hand. You will note it has exactly the same structure Velikovsky interpreted as a comet’s tail:

    Sorry, the program interrupted my attempt to edit this sentence. It should read:

    Here is a pic of your Sumerian goddess Ishtar from the Louvre. You will note the object being held in the outstretched hand has exactly the same form Velikovsky interpreted as a lightning bolt:

    • Thanks: Alfred
    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
  234. @Skeptikal

    Law is also quite deceptive if not rightfully understood within it<'s boundaries (a mistake that is wildly popular amongst all kinds of "EU deadwood" (P. J. O’Rourke). See also Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde and his Böckenförde-dictum, which means, that the law is just one amongst a variety of tools and can be overstretched quite easily – see also Peter Turchin, who hints at the fact, that the law professionals – from a certain point on are an indicator for something quite destructive. namely: Elite overproduction.

    See the (enormous) influence a single guy like Nigel Farage could exercise outside the establishment – via a blow of fresh air and clear-minded rhetorics.

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
  235. Realist says:
    @RoatanBill

    They think they have to make up some nonsense and is how we get things like the multiverse and 11 dimensional space. The mathematicians are the primary culprits for real science going off the rails.

    It is a little unnerving that you and I agree on so many things…or is it great minds think alike.

    Physics is not applied mathematics. It is a natural science in which mathematics is applied.

    – Robert Heinlein

    Here are somethings I have posted before.

    String theory was birthed and driven by math and has no physical reality. It was kept alive by slapping more and more illogical/metaphysical band-aids on it. The same can be said of the multiverse theory.

    The problem with physics over the last 100 years is the use of mathematics as a substitute for insight or imagination.

    Mathematics is a tool for physics ….mathematics is not physics.

    There’s a physicist on YouTube, Sabine Hossenfelder, that pokes fun at some aspects of her discipline but then is deeply involved with furthering esoteric, or rather, hallucinogenic physics

    I was a big fan of Hossenfelder until she posted too many of the bullshit metaphysical theories I abhor.

  236. @Dieter Kief

    Your God yes, God no.

    No difference, since there’s only one.

    Our disagreement boils down to how we understand God. You presuppose that He remains unequivocally inexplicable. I don’t. It’s just that simple.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  237. @AnonStarter

    I understood from the beginning of our conversation what your god looks like. I wasn’t sure though whether you would want to accept that there is not just your God around. And I still ain’t sure.

  238. Anon53 says:
    @TG

    What about maybe they tired of living in a police state, what about maybe they wanted to join the rest of the prosperous, equality under the law world, seeing it on the internet? This meme that the conflict is all the result of drought or population explosion sounds bogus considering they live in a police state where Christians and Allowite and Kurds are privileged and Sunni Arabs are not.

  239. Turk 152 says:
    @RoatanBill

    I think this is your most important point, and a topic that seldom gets discussed. My 50 years on this planet have been marked by a perpetual state of state sponsored violence over the phoniest of justifications glossed over by endless propaganda that is easily debunked with research or critical thinking. Yet all of it will be passed on to future generations as our official history.

    • Thanks: RoatanBill
  240. Gulnare says:
    @Alfred

    This is why the “path of the forest” is the path of wisdom.

  241. Seraphim says:
    @Question Mark

    There are no obvious reasons why one should doubt the authorship of the ‘holy books’ and why people should not believe in their authority. When denying their authenticity, authority, the history of their composition the onus of ‘demonstration’ is on the deniers and one should ask for their motivations. And however much you trust your own counsel, all their ‘demonstrations’ fell short. There are not as many truths as persons who all want to have it ‘my way’ even when it leads nowhere, persons who want to be ‘a law onto themselves’ believing that this is ‘freedom’. It is the revolt of the male child against the father who slap their hand when catching him masturbating.

    • Replies: @Question Mark
  242. Kapyong says:
    @RoatanBill

    “I couldn’t care less about the Council of Nicaea or the rubbish it produced. ”

    Indeed.
    You mistook the erroneous claims of a popular fictional novel for what “history records” about the Council of Nicea.

    Not what I would describe as “perus[ing] history with a skeptical eye“.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
    , @Seraphim
  243. @Kapyong

    You keep making assumptions about me and keep building straw men.

    I never read that book you mentioned. I believe it was made into a movie and I didn’t see that either. Therefore I have no knowledge of what’s in that text. Since I’m not a journalist, I don’t keep notes on where I gather information, but due to my early Catholic upbringing and contempt for Catholicism particularly and all religion generally, I spent considerable time researching early Christianity and also the roots of Zionism. For the longest time, I thought Judaism and Zionism were essentially the same thing, and when I discovered my error, curiosity got me to investigate. I had numerous email exchanges with a anti Zionist rabbi that heads a group of anti Zionist Jews in New York. He provided reference material.

    I found numerous theologians, archaeologists, historians and others that deconstructed the Council of Nicaea and is where I learned they think that numerous books of the bible were purposely left out of that novel for political reason. As I recall, the gospels of Peter and Thomas features prominently in their analysis of information from the Nag Hammadi library discovered in 1945 in Egypt.

    I don’t remember the details, but I was left with the impression they think the bible was concocted in 325 by assembling the religious mafia of the day and hammered out the bible to consolidate power in both the religious and political realm. As I indicated, I don’t much care who is right. All I care about is that there are opposing theological, archaeological and historical scholars that disagree with the prevailing orthodoxy, meaning history can’t be trusted.

  244. Seraphim says:
    @Kapyong

    You are wasting your time trying to argue with stuck-up know-it-all brainwashed sophomoric nincompoops who cannot figure out that there are other ways to get to the truth than videos!

  245. @Ponder

    Well, all I can say is, the invisible is the eternal while the visible is the temporal is evidenced by death.

    So, all you can say is, Batman, God, Santa, and dragons are invisible and eternal.

    Well, then we agree.

    • Replies: @Ponder
  246. @Seraphim

    re: There are no obvious reasons why one should doubt the authorship of the ‘holy books’ and why people should not believe in their authority.

    I am not trying to persuade believers to change their ways – I am simply of the opinion that each individual should be allowed to find his way in the intellectual and emotional morass of our times – with the important caveat that he should not force others to accept his way of thinking. A reason for doubt that speaks to me is that not all of the world religions can be true at the same time. If you compare Abrahamic religions like Judaism or Islam with Bouddhism or Christianity how can they all be true?

    re: There are not as many truths as persons who all want to have it ‘my way’ even when it leads nowhere, persons who want to be ‘a law onto themselves’ believing that this is ‘freedom’.

    Sooner or later each individual has to live with the consequences of his decisions. If you accept that you must be ready to change your habits/convictions/beliefs then IMO you are on a good way.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  247. Bert says:
    @RoatanBill

    You in fact are the bullshit artist. It is apparent that either you were too lazy to examine Peter Turchin’s work, or you just characterized Turchin’s STEM-based work as bullshit after earlier proclaiming STEM as the only true knowledge. Neither alternative allows you any credibility. He is a scientist with excellent quantitative skills who is examining broad aspects of history in a way driven by data and models. Turchin is a highly-innovative member of the University of Connecticut Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. You are a bloviating expat.

    I know that you will not read this explanation of cliodynamics, but other readers may find it educational.
    http://peterturchin.com/cliodynamica/the-mad-prophet-of-connecticut/

    • LOL: RoatanBill
    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  248. @Bert

    Apparently you aren’t bright enough to understand my previous point, so let me make an example for you.

    If I, with STEM degrees, decided to create a new discipline that tries to combine phrenology, astrology, virgin sacrifice and alchemy into some universal know it all, would that defacto mean it has to be respected?

    Anyone, regardless of educational credentials, that tries to turn useless disciplines (a sows ear) into something worthwhile (silk purse) is a con man. I don’t doubt easily duped people will give him lots of money and he will produce prodigious amounts of papers, but it will still all be bullshit.

    • Replies: @Bert
  249. Many on the Right call for traditionalism, but what is traditionalism? There is a long history of traditions, and so much have changed over the eons. So, which tradition should we hark back to guide us in the present? The problem with invoking tradition is there is too much of it. It’s like a museum filled with all sorts of artifacts, relics, documents, mementos, and etc. Some may argue that we need to respect Living Tradition, but even a Living Tradition has undergone so many alterations, revisions, and reconfigurations. Also, the very longevity of traditionalism can be its weakness. Traditions have been strengthened via repetition through the ages. It’s like the celebration of Easter. But the seemingly endless routine makes tradition seem tired and boring, year in and year out and year in and year out again ad infinitum. It’s like Christmas for many has become just a time to shop. No one cares about what it means anymore. And Thanksgiving is just Turkey Day, just like Easter, if it’s remembered at all(not by Jews at Google), is about rabbits and eggs. After something is repeated over and over, people forget why it was commemorated or celebrated in the first place, and in time, rituals peter out to an end. Whatever happened to all the pagan celebrations of the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans? And what meaning do Christian rituals hold anymore? Most Christians are so bored that they want to spice it up with Rock music, Diversity, or Homomania in the church as discoteque. When a tradition grows weak and weary, people add more color. It’s like if the meat is old and dry, you add more sauce and spice to make up for its lackluster flavor.

    ‘Traditionalism’ connotes rigidity, fixedness, dogmatism, predictability, and lack of spark. Perhaps, ‘Arsenalism’ is closer to what we need. An arsenal is filled with stockpiles of weapons, but what we do with them is incumbent on the needs of the moment. So, if there are guns, bombs, missiles, bazookas, tanks, trucks, and copters, there is no fixed rule that demands that such-and-such items be used in such-and-such way. Everything in the arsenal is of use, but we decide what should be used and how depending on the nature of the challenge.

    In contrast, Traditionalism suggests that we stick to a successful strategy used in the past. But what if the times have changed, and the enemies have adapted to a new strategy? Suppose the once-successful strategy using certain weapons in certain way will no longer work. But the traditionalist will demand that the Proven Way still be used. What if it fails against the New-and-Improved enemy with new tricks up its sleeves? The traditionalist remains adamant and insists that the Old Way is the Only Way because it and only it is the right way. This is sure to fail in the long wrong because every method or system, however effective in certain ways, has weaknesses. It’s like the Greek phalanx system that worked so well for so long didn’t work against the Romans who came up with more effective and adaptive means of combat.
    When the once-mighty Ottoman Empire was faced with New-and-Improved Europe, its Old Ways of combat, which had once been so formidable, only led to defeat after defeat at the hands of Europeans.

    If Traditionalism tends to stress the Proper Way of doing things with the available material, Arsenalism argues for a more flexible, creative, adaptive, and vitalist way of using and advancing the available material to take on the enemy. The problem with Conservatism Inc. is that it got stuck in the rut of playing by the same rule book over and over. Because of the great electoral victories from 1968 to 1992, throughout which the Republicans won every presidency except four years under Jimmy Carter, the GOP got stuck with the same tropes and themes. This was during the Cold War with relatively high taxes and troublesome labor unions. But with the rise of globalism & ‘free trade’, decline of Big Labor, massive increase of non-white immigration-invasion, and the Long March through the Institutions by 60s radicals, America of the 90s and thereafter was not the America of the 70s and 80s. Just like New Deal politics wouldn’t work in current America, neither would Reaganomics of the 80s. Thus, political traditionalism isn’t enough. There has to be political vitalism.

    Arsenalism is vitalist. It’s like how a game is played in sports. Suppose your team won many games last season and took the championship. So, should your team run exactly the same plays this year? But the other teams will have studied all your tricks and will have adapted to come up with their own counter-tricks. So, even if you do the same thing again in the hope of repeating last year’s success, the chances are you will lose because the rivals have adapted their strategy to overcome your strategy. The only thing that is a constant between last year and this year is that your side must win. Now, it would be stupid to reject everything that was done last year. Indeed, many such plays will surely be executed again for their proven track record. But, they will have to be revised and adapted so that the other side won’t know the when-and-what of your strategy. The other teams that lost to your team last year have learned of their own vulnerabilities and have patched them, and furthermore, they studied all your strengths and devised ways to overcome or circumvent them. So, to win once again, traditionalism isn’t enough. You need vitalism. It’s like what Arthur says in EXCALIBUR: “There are no war tricks that will fool Mordred and Morgana.” And so, Merlin comes up with an ingenious way to trick Morgana into filling up the battlefield with mist. Merlin is a classic vitalist. He remembers and knows more than any other man, but he doesn’t just rely on the Old Way. It’s not that he sees no value in past events or past strategies, in Tradition. It’s just that he knows every new challenge calls for a new, creative, and ingenious way to use that knowledge once again. After all, win-or-lose is decided in the Moment of the Now. One cannot rest on the laurels of the past. Victory and Power are about keeping it Vital. Tradition and Memory are important but only as a repository of ways and lessons. There is no guarantee that an old way will work again. Every situation has to be freshly assessed and dealt with.
    Also, thought process must be intuitive and instantaneous in the moment of struggle. Consider a boxer. Surely, he’s trained everyday and has much experience. His intuitive skills in the ring don’t just come from nowhere but from many hours of practice and the bouts that he had. Intuition is the crystallization of experience, practice, and knowledge. A musician’s intuition isn’t possible unless he spent lots of time mastering music. Granted, there are those who study, practice, and play a lot but never gain much in the way of intuition and inspiration.
    But to have intuition/inspiration, one must master an art or skill. Intuition without experience and practice is hazy at best. Still, when the boxer is in the ring, he can’t THINK of all the years of practice and experience. He can’t intellectualize. He has to be IN THE MOMENT at all times throughout the fight. If he loses the sense of the moment, he could be knocked out or could lose the chance to knock the other guy out. Intuition is related to improvisation, which also requires practice, experience, and mastery. Before you improvise with a musical instrument, you need to learn to play it first. But when you’re playing, you must lose yourself in the moment of the music. You can’t think consciously in note-for-note terms. You must become one with the music’s beat, rhythm, and harmony.

    [MORE]

    While study, practice, and experience are crucial in storing our minds and shaping our bodies in a certain way, when the moment(of challenge) arrives, we need to be in vital than traditional mode. When we are taking the test, we must know IN THE MOMENT. Our minds have to work intuitively and instantly to make the connections and recall the necessary knowledge. We can’t be in the mode of someone in the library, looking through the card catalog, filling notes, and going through the material piecemeal by piecemeal. It’s been said that when the Iranian crisis spiraled out of control and hostages were taken, one of Jimmy Carter’s first reactions was to ask for books on Iran in the library. But it was not a time for reading books. He was president, not a librarian.

    Even though we are part of a long line of evolution and history, we are always IN THE MOMENT. Any organism is part of an extensive genetic ‘tradition’ of life that goes back billions of years, but the vitality of his life doesn’t come from contemplation of that long connection. It comes from being IN THE MOMENT. If a gopher can’t run and hide from a hawk in the Moment, it is dead.
    Humans are different in being able to remember more and ponder the meaning of things, but the Future is determined by those who are most intensely engaged with the Now. And even if actions in the Now are informed by past experience and knowledge, the vitality comes from the ability to intuitively and instantly engage with the world. Mere seconds determine all the years of our lives and, if possible, the lives of our children and their children.

    Because conservatives tend to stress traditionalism, they lack in vitality. They understand meaning as all the material and knowledge in museums, books, and institutions, but the core meaning of life is in the power, and power derives from a vital ability to use knowledge IN THE MOMENT. Also, even though there is so much to learn from the past, Truth and Wisdom are sort of like Noam Chomsky’s theory of Universal Grammar. Just like humans are hardwired to use grammar in a certain way, humans are hardwired to access certain meanings if their minds are activated and cultivated properly. If a child is never taught language, it won’t be able to understand it. But when he is taught, his mind almost instinctively grasps the principles of grammar. So, it’s not like something totally external is being programmed in the child but more like his innate switches are being turned on by external stimulation. Without education, those switches won’t be turned on(just like without sun and water, a seed will not sprout), but once the process begins, more and more switches turn on naturally. Same goes for Meaning or Universal Meaning. Even without reading too many books or hearing too much music, many switches automatically begin to turn on in the minds of young people when they are introduced to ideas and criticism. And then more switches turn on of their own accord, and the mind begins to make connections upon connections. Granted, this happens differently and more with some people than with others. Some kids pick up chess right away after playing a few games. Some kids get music pretty fast once the switches are turned on. Consider Mozart who grasped the way of music far more than even older masters who’s spent yrs and yrs of study, practice, and performance.

    Now, clearly, Mozart or Beethoven couldn’t have been possible without the glorious tradition of Classical Music. It’s not like they invented the instruments, music notations, and the basic classical forms. But they were much more than mere traditionalists.
    In the East where traditionalism was stressed more than vitalism, the students and apprentices were trained to copy and master the correct way bequeathed by the old masters. Thus, even new works had a museum-quality about them. It had been the same with the Ancient Egyptians whose entire civilization just became a moribund funereal traditionalism of sticking to the proven way. Though there was a great tradition, it was petrified wood than firewood. But what is a bunch of furnaces if they can’t make fire. What is a collection of swords if no one knows how to use them? And even if one trains to use the sword in such-and-such choreography, what use are they in a real fight when there are so many unpredictable factors? In movies or choreography, the swordsman can repeat the motions over and over to make them seem impressive. But in a real fight, there is no telling what the opponent will do. One has to be trained to fight IN THE MOMENT.
    Indeed, that is the difference between a mere expert and an artist. Most smart people can become an expert at something. He can read up on literature or music and expound about why Shakespeare or Beethoven is so important. Or, he could even train himself to compose Shakepeare-like Sonnets or Beethoven-like melodies. But it’s all imitation, not inspiration. There is no creative spark there. He would be a traditionalist who remembers, knows, and expounds but not a vitalist who can make new things out of old things. In contrast, Shakespeare(or whoever may have written the plays) not only was well-rounded in the tradition of literature but drew inspiration from them so that he could intuitively and instantly produce new and amazing possibilities from the traditional material. It’s like a real musical artist not only learns how to play a classic tune but finds ways to revise, rearrange, and twist them to make new possibilities.

    Now, there is a need for traditionalism. Some people have to be museum curators, librarians, pedants, and teachers. After all, most people just don’t have the stuff of spark and inspiration. But all real change is created by the vitalists, not the traditionalists. Traditionalists preserve the storage of knowledge and works from the past. But they lack the ability to use the storage like an arsenal of firepower for explosions to make for the new. While everyone draws from tradition, revolutionary power comes from those who make breakthroughs. Consider Bob Dylan. Why did he have a greater impact on music than other folkies? Most folkies were just traditionalists who stuck to the tried-and-true, and they were pretty good. But the tried-and-true is also dried-and-through. It only comes to new life when someone is inspired by it to make something new. Dylan revered the traditions of American music, but he also had the vital force to digest everything and mold it into something bold and different. He didn’t just rest on tradition but drew on tradition to create a new force in music, and he changed musical history.

    The problem of Conservatism, high and low, is that it tends to lack this vitalist element.
    Low Conservatives tend to lack knowledge and interest in arts, cultures, and ideas. Their tradition is a simple one of faith and community. But with faith eroding and communities falling apart(due to decadence, globalization, and mass immigration-invasion), Low Conservatives are lost. Even Country Music is now just junky pop music.
    High Conservatives do care about arts, culture, and history but in the mode of librarians, curators, or admirers. Admiring great art, ideas, and culture is good, but admiration alone doesn’t lead to anything new and powerful. It’s like the minor character in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA who admires Lawrence as a great man but is clueless as to all the forces, internal and external, that made Lawrence ‘great’. Bill Buckley was a charming character, but his view of history was to just hit the brakes. He was uninterested in the accelerator and the steering wheel. He didn’t like where history was going, so he just hit the brakes on and on as often as he could until they wore off. It never occurred to him that the real power is about taking the wheel and stepping on the accelerator to where one wants to go. After all, even a reactionary can’t go back to the past he longs for by just hitting the brakes. He must take the wheel and accelerator and do a U-turn, like the Islamic radicals of Iran. Buckley dreamed of the 19th century when the 20th century was hurtling toward the 21st century. And then, take an online site like THE IMAGINATIVE CONSERVATIVE. It’s a rather odd name because there is NOTHING IMAGINATIVE about anything there. It’s mostly staid and respectable, and that’s all very nice, but that’s not the kind of mindset that leads to new possibilities and new creative explosions. Creativity is ‘bohemian’ than ‘bourgeois’ even though both modes have a symbiotic relationship, as epitomized by the Gail Wynand & Howard Roark partnership in THE FOUNTAINHEAD(though, to be sure, most creative types are and must be far more flexible than the purist Roark who is almost resolutely Taliban in his vision, even blowing up an entire apartment complex in the name of principles). Wynand the bourgeois makes the money and, via Ellsworth Toohey, promotes middlebrow values and conventions for the masses. But with his great fortune, he finances Roark who can go further. Now, by ‘bohemian’, we don’t mean someone who goes out of his way to be weird. Indeed, self-expression via tattoos and piercings is almost always a crutch for those without true creativity. Having nothing to say, they seek attention with body graffiti or mutilations. In contrast, a true artist doesn’t have to do funny stuff with hair color or tattoos to demonstrate his worth. Stanley Kubrick didn’t have a nose ring, Akira Kurosawa didn’t have an ass tattoo, and John Ford didn’t have purple-dyed hair. Most of the great writers, musicians, and dramatists proved themselves with worthy work, not with silly trinkets hanging from their noses or stupid pictures injected into their skins. I doubt if T.S. Eliot had a cock-ring. I doubt if Beethoven would have been more creative had he pierced his tongue. By ‘bohemian’, we mean in spirit.

    An artist in action works differently from an artist in training. It’s the same with soldiers. Boot camp is necessary to instill discipline, increase muscles & stamina, and instruct skills. And soldiers are made to march in tight formation to develop a sense of bond. But in the actual battlefield, it’s not enough to go by boot-camp instructions. A soldier has to find his own way to fight and survive. He has to learn to adapt and improvise from moment to moment. Same is true in business. Business schools teach the A-B-C’s of business, but a businessman can’t make it in the field by lugging around a Business Text-Book wherever he goes and flipping through the pages for instructions in every transaction. Rather, the essence of what he learned must be an intuitive part of him so that he knows instantly what to do and what to say at any given moment. So, despite the value of what he learned from traditional business education, he will succeed or fail depending on how he acts IN THE MOMENT. Tradition of anything is long & vast and useless as a whole in any given situation. Much of tradition continues has immense value but only in relevant use to the demands of the Moment. A boxer has a host of pugilistic arsenal at his disposal, but in any given moment, he has to pick the right move. If he lunges when he should be dodging, he will be smashed in the face. If he throws a left-hook when he should be going with a right upper-cut, he will miss the chance to KO the opponent.
    This should be obvious, but the invocation of Tradition among conservatives has had a way of nullifying(or at least ‘dullifying’) the sharpness of their senses. They often point to the Western Canon and take pride in the Great Tradition. But Power is about using ideas, and IN ANY MOMENT, the mind must pick the relevant ideas, retool and reinvent them, and then do combat. It’s like a chef has all sorts of utensils and pots & pans and sauces and spices, and they are all part of his ‘tradition’, but he can’t make something by using EVERYTHING at EVERY TIME. Depending on the demand or challenge, he has to find the ingredients and recipes that he needs. A conservative is like a chef who says, “Look at all the wonderful utensils, sauces/spices, knives, meats, and vegetables I got” but is lost as to what to do with them when crunch time comes. There was a Japanese TV show called IRON CHEF that demonstrated the importance of vitalism. Each of these chefs were steeped in mastery of tradition. So, one could be an expert in French cooking, another in Chinese cooking, another in Italian cooking, etc. So, each knew his thing. The real challenge came with the presentation of surprise ingredients that the contestants must use creatively in conjunction with their established skills. That is demanding. A man who learned to make good lasagna can make good lasagna with his eyes closed. But what if he has to work with unfamiliar ingredients. Then, he has to make creative use of his knowledge in Italian cooking to make something worthy. The challenge calls on his knowledge of tradition, but tradition alone isn’t enough. He must intuitively grasp and use only the aspects of tradition that may complement the ingredients at hand. And it is this vitalizing(and revitalizing) and reinventing skills that are woefully absent on the Right.

    To be IN THE MOMENT doesn’t mean we must reject or devalue our tradition. Rather, vitalism means having a tradition isn’t enough… just like having a closet full of martial arts weapons isn’t enough. One must know how to use them and which one when and where. The mind has to be sharp and focused. Indeed, even human brains work this way. Depending on the task, the neurons flare up only in certain parts of the brains. Not all of the brains are working all the time. Rather, depending on the tasks, dangers, challenges, or necessities, different parts of the brains kick into gear.
    Consider the law student in THE PAPER CHASE. He claims to have a photographic memory, and he can memorize everything he’s read and seen. His mind is filled with a ‘tradition’ of memory. And this ability was good enough to have him enter Harvard Law School. But when challenged to think on his feet in the classroom, he is lost and flustered. He knows and remembers a lot but lacks the ‘vitalistic’ ability to focus on relevant facts for argument in the case at hand. To have traditionalism without vitalism is like that. It’s like holding a dozen swords instead of picking one, drawing it, and dueling with it. A man fine-tuned with one saber will defeat a man holding a dozen swords. Too often, Conservatives point to the Western Canon and say ‘Muh tradition’ but, in pitched battles in the Culture War, don’t know which weapon to pick and parry & lunge with.

    Also, it’s not enough to inherit something from the past. It must be reinvented and revitalized. It must be re-created. Same goes with life. Life doesn’t live forever. It dies and new life is born that continues the life of its parents but also begins afresh. Now, ‘reinvention’ has negative connotations on the Right because Jews promote it to mean the West must be reinvented as a non-white mixed-race diversity empire controlled by Jews and homos. Who the hell wants Europe, the US, and Canada to become Brazil ruled by the likes of George Soros and Simon Schama?
    But there is another meaning to ‘reinvention’, and all great works of art are indeed reinventions. If an artist just learns from past masters and imitates, it will be the same old same old, and vitality will seep out. But if he not only absorbs the tradition but reinvents with his creative will and spark, he will make it seem fresh and alive once again. Thus, his work will have connection to the past but also to the future. Consider what John Boorman did with Arthurian legends on EXCALIBUR. He reinvented the myth to make it live and breathe again. According to PC globalists, the West must be reinvented into a Non-West. White women must have children with black men to reinvent Europeans into a people who look like Moroccans and Yemenites. White heroes must be recast with blacks. Lancelot and Achilles must be made black. PC says whites cucking out to blacks is the New and Improved West. Jews want to gain control of whites by castrating white manhood into cuckhood and by infecting white women with Jungle Fever. That is the Jewish idea of reinventing the West.

    But there is a patriotic and True European way of reinventing, retelling, and revitalizing the classics, legends, and myths. John Boorman showed what could be done. And Richard Wagner took old pagan Germanic myths and reinvented them in grand style with his DIE NIBELUNGEN RING CYCLE. It’s not enough to brandish images of Old Europe like Identity Europa does. The real key is to take the tradition and revitalize and reinvent it with creativity and originality. Indeed, why did the fallen West overtake Byzantine Europe in which classical civilization continued? Partly, it was because the East got tired and bored with its moribund traditions whereas the West found the ‘lost heritage’ exciting one again through the creative reinvention of the Renaissance.

    And it’s not enough to invoke a great tradition in dealing with the Globalists. What is necessary is the Weaponization and Arsenalization of Tradition into a gauntlet, sword, and shield to do battle with the heinous Jewish globalists. That is the only way to win.

    • Replies: @Miro23
    , @Presocratic
    , @Smith
  250. @Peripatetic Itch

    I know you are impervious to geology 😛

    but Titius and Bode laid Velikowsky to rest before he was even a dirty thought.
    The Law rules out a “young” Venus (and before you show me what you found
    on wiki, the internal structure of the asteroid belt – rock and ice – shows its physical reality).

    – The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum strictly applies only in a closed system – Uranus (absolutely no pun intended) doesn´t rotate in the right direction either.

    That said, I would be interested in the 350Ma also …

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
  251. Miro23 says:
    @Priss Factor

    Many on the Right call for traditionalism, but what is traditionalism? There is a long history of traditions, and so much have changed over the eons. So, which tradition should we hark back to guide us in the present? The problem with invoking tradition is there is too much of it.

    If you take the line that humans (homo sapiens) are the product of their environment – Then for 95%+ of human history that environment involved small numbers of hunter-gatherer tribes living in a vast natural wilderness. Survival in that particular (traditional ) environment meant:

    – Fairly hard daily physical exercise – particularly walking.

    – Essential division of male/female roles.

    – Different generations living together and all contributing (work and teaching skills).

    – Maybe a lifetime living with the same related group of around 25 people with a high degree of trust and inter reliance for survival (hunting, defense).

    – Social ranking based on contribution to group survival.

    – Diet rich in fruit, meat and vegetables. Occasional lack of food. Only natural sugar – fructose and honey.

    Duplicating this lifestyle in the modern world would be difficult but not impossible, and would presumably produce well adjusted human beings (mentally and physically). – IOW human beings better able to train and deal with the moment. Also helped by modern medicine etc.

    Just a theory – but building from the individual/ family upwards.

  252. Seraphim says:
    @Question Mark

    There are true religions, partially-true religions and false religions.

    • Replies: @SeekerofthePresence
  253. @Priss Factor

    [A] true artist doesn’t have to do funny stuff with hair color or tattoos to demonstrate his worth. Stanley Kubrick didn’t have a nose ring, Akira Kurosawa didn’t have an ass tattoo, and John Ford didn’t have purple-dyed hair. Most of the great writers, musicians, and dramatists proved themselves with worthy work, not with silly trinkets hanging from their noses or stupid pictures injected into their skins. I doubt if T.S. Eliot had a cock-ring. I doubt if Beethoven would have been more creative had he pierced his tongue. By ‘bohemian’, we mean in spirit.

    Very funny, but so true.

  254. @Seraphim

    There are true religions, partially-true religions and false religions.

    Proportionally:

    True religions: 1.

    Partially-true religions: a handful.

    False religions: infinite.

    “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.”
    Matt. 7:13, 14 NKJV

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  255. @Miro23

    There is a long history of traditions, and so much have changed over the eons.

    Two traditions seem to have won out over the others, technology and war…

    • Agree: Peripatetic Itch
  256. Smith says:
    @Priss Factor

    Pretty good analysis.

    Traditionalism or culture should be built upon material conditions.

    If shit changes, adapt with it. Never be stubborn and worship ideas.

  257. No Expert says:
    @anarchyst

    Wasn’t Bill another college drop-out?

    • Replies: @anarchyst
  258. anarchyst says:
    @No Expert

    Yes,he was. However, “daddy’s money” got him a medical degree (sarc)…

  259. @Miro23

    This is, in essence, what Otto Koenig said …
    (“We are 10,000 generations of paleolithic, and 200 since then; so what did you expect?” He did not, BTW, advocate “back to Nature” in that regard)
    The feminists did not like it one bit, hehehe …

    … which is a bit surprising as it´s what they are always clamoring for:
    – Return to “primary matrilineality”,
    – Big Mama goddesses and, of course
    – an end to the scourge of monogamy.
    Life for mouthy females was brutish and very short 😛

    The “paleo diet” is methinks a fad – worth discussing (grains do cause karies) but hardly practicable.

    – I hold we cannot go back before the Neolithic Revolution (the Law, cities, high religion)
    and all those seeking to reverse it (Jews, blacks, feminists – the Unholy Trinity) are forces of Chaos and therefore evil.
    It seems to me that what is is, by authority of being, probably better (in a Darwinian, not in a Panglossian sense) than what occurs to us when we wax intemperant.

    If that be “conservative”, go sue me 😀

  260. Ponder says:
    @Dumb4asterisks

    I expected it to fly right across, far beyond your comprehension. If your spirit continues living after death, as it does, then clearly, your human spirit which is invisible is eternal while your human body which is very visible is temporal.

  261. Seraphim says:
    @SeekerofthePresence

    There is no need to tell you that the truest religion is the one founded by the ”Truth, the Way and the Life” Himself, who has been given ‘All power in heaven and in earth’ and sent the Apostles to teach all people to observe all things whatsoever He has commanded them (this is the real meaning of ‘religion’). That only knowledge of that Truth makes you free and nobody comes to the Father except through Him.
    ”Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: 2 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, 3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: 4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust” (1 Peter 1:14).

    • Thanks: SeekerofthePresence
  262. @nokangaroos

    but Titius and Bode laid Velikowsky to rest before he was even a dirty thought

    Ah, Bode’s Law. That old saw. Good of you to recognize it didn’t come from Bode. Too bad you didn’t tell us it wasn’t ever a law. And it probably has nothing to do with geology either. So stop trying to push your own little expertise there.

    If it deserved the status of a law, it would have been derived from basic principles of physics or chemistry, which it’s not. Or it would have been shown true for at least several other nearby solar systems, and we’re a long way from establishing that. If it were even considered a law, astronomers would never have dispossessed Pluto of its planetary status.

    Do note the quotation marks around the word in this very modest attempt at its explanation. Sorry it’s not from Wikipedia:

    If an explanation for the Bode-Titius “Law” were to exist it might be in terms of the size of a radius zone for a planet within which no other planet could form because of the disruptive effects of the gravitational attraction of that planet. There is such a zone for a planet within which a satellite cannot form because of the stresses produced by the gravitational attraction of the planet.

    https://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/bode.htm

    Even accepting this as an explanation, all it says is that if a new planet came along its effect would entail an adjustment in the orbits of the others. No way it would spit it out of the solar system.

    The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum strictly applies only in a closed system – Uranus (absolutely no pun intended) doesn´t rotate in the right direction either.

    Oh, Wow, the old switcheroo. Tie me kangaroo down, sport. You noticed me disparaging the nebular theory of solar-system formation, threw in another observation doing the same, and pretended you are refuting something I said. Good job, mate. Now you’ve got me wondering if your “nokangaroos” moniker is hiding the fact that you are just a kangaroo masquerading as human. Or maybe a whole troop.

    The nebular theory comes into this discussion because it has been, and was in the 1950s, the general theory of solar-system formation. It underlay the assumption that Venus was formed at the same time as the other planets and the presumption that Venus was thereby a sister planet of the Earth, like it in most every respect. That’s what made Velikovsky’s several predictions about Venus so startling. When they started to come true in spades, he became a threat to the establishment that had to be put down and put down fast.

    The nebular theory does in fact postulate that the solar system was a closed system when it was formed. The Retrograde rotations of Venus and Uranus (and several satellites) are just two of the several violations of the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum that had to be ignored to sustain it. Others were the different planes of rotation of the sun and the planets, and the anomalously small angular momentum of the sun. Then there is the difficult question of how a dust cloud could lose enough angular momentum to collapse in the first place.

    Of course if it admitted that the solar system is not a closed system, it must then be admitted that the anomalous planets may have been captured from without the solar system and at a later time, which is what Velikovsky was arguing.

    Because the [primordial nebular] disk was spinning, it had some angular momentum associated with it. The material in the middle was eventually pulled together by gravity to become the sun. The rest of the disk became the planets, moons, and other bodies in the solar system, or was blown out into space by the newly formed sun.

    Since all of these bodies formed from the same rotating disk, they all rotate in the same direction. From above the solar system, the planets move around the sun in a counter clockwise motion. The moons of our solar system orbit their planets in a counter clockwise motion. Even the rotation of the planets themselves is counter clockwise.

    That’s because of conservation of angular momentum. The material that formed each of the bodies in our solar system had some rotational motion. That rotational motion continued even as the material was condensing to form planets and moons.

    https://socratic.org/questions/how-does-angular-momentum-relate-to-our-solar-system

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
  263. @Peripatetic Itch

    Note also the long braids in the goddess’s hair. This is what Velikovsky interpreted as the tail of a comet. When he found the same meme in widely disparate and unconnected cultures of course.

  264. @Miro23

    humans (homo sapiens) are the product of their environment

    Darwin said much the same thing: That most every species becomes optimally adapted to their environment over the course of many generations. That a subsequent change in that environment will lead to mal-adaptation until they evolve to re-adapt to the new environment or go extinct. The mal-adaptation, he said will be manifest as decreased survival or decreased fertility.

    It is of course a matter of conjecture, and some controversy, as to what conditions were salient in the various environments we arose from. Nevertheless it seems likely we have embarked on a grand experiment that does not guarantee, in any way, our survival as a species. Most species do go extinct.

    It can only enhance the possibility of species survival if various groups of people attempt to recreate the conditions of our early evolution. Think of it like the various states or countries that have adopted different strategies in combatting this pandemic. Some of them have seemed wiser in retrospect than the conventional wisdom.

    The galley slaves chained to their oars all go down with the ship.

    • Agree: nokangaroos
    • Replies: @Miro23
  265. Miro23 says:
    @Peripatetic Itch

    Darwin said much the same thing: That most every species becomes optimally adapted to their environment over the course of many generations. That a subsequent change in that environment will lead to mal-adaptation until they evolve to re-adapt to the new environment or go extinct.

    The radical change to the human environment came (very recently) with the industrial revolution. It enabled a massive increase in population, giant cities, the abandonment of rural life and the destruction of the natural world (for example – world deforestation).

    Nevertheless it seems likely we have embarked on a grand experiment that does not guarantee, in any way, our survival as a species.

    The traditional challenges of human existence have mostly been resolved = easier to find (desirable) food and shelter – no need for physical activity – greater security – modern healthcare – no need for close family relations – easy access to entertainment.

    The problem, is that humans haven’t had anything like the time needed to physically adapt to this new environment (still being physically adapted to the Paleolithic). So paradoxically, the resolution of traditional challenges is not really a resolution at all. The accomplished physically active hunter/group planner/close family guy now spends a lot of time alone eating luxury food (high sugar and fat) and vicariously experiencing his group hunting instincts watching TV sports.

    It can only enhance the possibility of species survival if various groups of people attempt to recreate the conditions of our early evolution.

    Agree with this. Mr & Mrs Modern People can make the effort to recreated the activities and challenges that they’re designed for, and integrate them with the modern world. In other words, take fairly heavy daily exercise (especially aerobic), eat a lot more fruit, mostly stop eating processed sugar , try and keep family (various generations) together and get involved in teamwork inside and outside work. Also a good move to get rid of the TV.

    The galley slaves chained to their oars all go down with the ship.

    They’ll still be rowing, but at least they’ve broken their chains and 1) have the possibility of taking control of the ship 2) being fit enough to swim if it goes down.

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
  266. @Peripatetic Itch

    [ scratching violently ]

    Of course Bode´s Law is technically a “Rule”, and not a terribly strict one at that
    (Hegel already made fun of it).
    But the structure of the asteroid belt as distinct rock and ice ones that
    cannot have formed together shows the basic idea of “stable orbits” (and an irrational geometric progression) is sound.
    The Law is implicit in the definition of “planet” (“gravitational dominance”) and the exoplanet fuzzies use it all day.
    – I said it rules out a geologically young capture (thought on long-term stability of the solar system has evolved considerably) while Velikowsky postulates such in historical times i.e. now, based on braids and snakes (=fertility). That´s Däniken turf (which I admit the high priests are wont to go anaphylactic on – they even shredded Tollmann, and he had the creds and loads of circumstance).

    – I was unawares the Kant-Laplace (“nebula”) Theory has been discarded as basic framework of formation (musta been when I was imbibing).
    Solar bodies shed rotational energy through jets in the t Tauri (“disk/wind”) phase i.e. during the burning out of the inner solar system.
    The tilt of the sun´s rotational axis is more problematic … as previously noted the last burst of Sagittarius A* was less than 6Ma ago but is non-actualistic i.e. we have no idea what it does but the hourglass nebulae say galaxy-wide and magnetic; not my field 😀

    – I´ll wait for serious rock samples (as there already are bound to be secondary-projectile achondrites in our collections but not recognized as venereal, they probably won´t be too alien).
    Until then, Velikowsky goes in the same drawer as Boas (seriously, the Russian habit of accepting sci-fi writers into the Academy of Sciences is misguided).

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
  267. @Miro23

    The problem, is that humans haven’t had anything like the time needed to physically adapt to this new environment (still being physically adapted to the Paleolithic).

    That’s as Darwinian a statement as anything I’ve seen on UR, and as a long-time student of Darwinian thinking, I commend you for it. I might just amend it slightly, by clarifying that the term “physically adapted” must include mentally adapted, physiologically adapted and everything else that encompasses biological adaptation. Whether we are aware of them or not.

    If Darwin could be criticized, it would be because he never let his thinking become truly Darwinized. He always tended to bend a knee to the “course of human progress,” as you arguably do with the following statement:

    The traditional challenges of human existence have mostly been resolved

    This ventures into the realm of worship at the temple of technological progress as the cure for everything that ails. It’s an Overton window kind of thing. I’m not even criticizing you for it because you’re already pushing that window as far as we are permitted.

    So, then you go on to make the following statement, which I again mostly agree with. I just want to focus on the italicized clause:

    Mr & Mrs Modern People can make the effort to recreated the activities and challenges that they’re designed for, and integrate them with the modern world. In other words, take fairly heavy daily exercise (especially aerobic), eat a lot more fruit, mostly stop eating processed sugar, try and keep family (various generations) together and get involved in teamwork inside and outside work. Also a good move to get rid of the TV.

    The problem is this: We don’t know how much of our thinking about the modern world, about what’s good and bad about it in a Darwinian sense, is limited by that Overton window. Just to give one example, Darwin’s idea of natural selection was sparked by his analysis of artificial selection, an early innovation that had been underway for many generations and which had already removed us from that “Paleolithic”. Our current nutritional guidelines are hence already based on a post-paleolithic environment. There’s a myriad of other anomalous quirks about the modern world we generally ignore as not salient.

    People like you and I are starting to think about the issue. Many are even worried about the evolutionary implications of the new mRNA vaccines. But it is best to be humble. Let some try to adapt to the modern world. But also celebrate the efforts of the Amish to locate fitness in 19th-century agricultural communities. Protect those primitive natives in the Amazon jungle. Be skeptical of advances in technology.

    Let’s hope it is not too late. Nature does not follow human categories.

    • Replies: @Miro23
    , @Miro23
  268. Skeptikal says:
    @Dieter Kief

    Dear Mr. Kief,

    You speak in generalities. Regardless of the what the Böckenförde-dictum states, if you read the aforementioned work by Perry Anderson you will see that in the EU the European Court has effectivley seized an unassailable role for itself via a stealth coup, over a number of decades since the early EEC.

    Perry Anderson chronicles this development, and the individuals and circumstances that are its landmarks, in his three long essays, in which he also discusses the works and ideas of the principal chroniclers and analysts of European integration . So, quarrel with Anderson, not with me. But first inform yourself:

    https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v42/n24/perry-anderson/the-european-coup

    https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v43/n01/perry-anderson/ever-closer-union

    https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v43/n02/perry-anderson/the-breakaway

    No more rose-tinted glasses for me vis-a-vis the EU.
    Britain was fortunate to get out, for whatever reasons they voted.
    I think future generations will thank the Leavers.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  269. @nokangaroos

    Of course Bode´s Law is technically a “Rule”

    OK, so you’re now admitting that Bode’s Law is not a law, just a rule, that just happens to “rule out a geologically young capture.” Sounds to me like that old ploy of a distinction without a difference.

    I reiterate that Bode’s Law is now generally regarded as a “numerological curiosity with no known justification.” Even Wikipedia calls it but a “superseded hypothesis.” Astronomers consider it fallacious reasoning.
    https://www.britannica.com/science/Bodes-law

    If planets distribute according to Bode-like laws, then we would expect the moons of Jupiter and Uranus to do so too. But again, according to Wikipedia:

    The four large satellites of Jupiter and the biggest inner satellite (i.e., Amalthea) cling to a regular, but non-Titius–Bode, spacing, with the four innermost satellites locked into orbital periods that are each twice that of the next inner satellite. The large moons of Uranus have a regular, non-Titius–Bode spacing.

    So at best you might argue that “the present wide dynamical separation among terrestrial planets is possibly one of the significant conditions to maintain the stability of the planetary orbits in giga-year time spans.” However, chaotic dynamical systems like the solar system are characterized by their strong dependence on initial conditions. A perturbation of that system by the expulsion of a newly formed Venus from Jupiter would constitute initial conditions of a sort establishment astrophysicists would not think to simulate.
    https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/336/2/483/1158666
    https://www.pnas.org/content/98/22/12342

    According to Robert W. Bass (Bob Bass) Emeritus Professor of Physicist and Astronomy, one of the few scientists who did:

    “In these two articles I have not sought, as yet, to demonstrate that Velikovsky’s central hypothesis is true, so much as to prove that it is not forbidden by Newtonian dynamics. In a resonant, orbitally unstable or “wild” motion, the eccentricities of one or more of the terrestrial planets can increase in a century or two until a near collision occurs. Subsequently the Principle of Least Interaction Action predicts that the planets will rapidly “relax” into a configuration very near to a (presumably orbitally stable) resonant, Bode’s-Law type of configuration. Near such a configuration, small, non-gravitational effects such as tidal friction can in a few centuries accumulate effectively to a discontinuous “jump” from the actual phase-space path to a nearby, truly orbitally stable, path. Subsequently, observations and theory would agree that the solar system is in a quasi-periodic motion stable in the sense of Laplace and orbitally stable. Also, numerical integrations backward in time would show that no near collision had ever occurred. Yet in actual fact this deduction would be false.

    https://www.velikovsky.info/robert-w-bass/

    I was unawares the Kant-Laplace (“nebula”) Theory has been discarded as basic framework of formation (musta been when I was imbibing).

    (So that explains why your posts are so often incomprehensible.) In fact, however, the nebula theory has been relaxed quite enough in response to angular-momentum considerations to accommodate Velikovsky. Expositions of that theory now commonly state that “unusual (backwards) orbits indicate capture.” The same would presumably, if perhaps less certainly, apply to Venus’s retrograde rotation.

    Your mention of Alexander Tollman is elucidating. He used the same sort of ethnographic research as Velikovsky to put forth a not dis-similar catastrophe theory in pre-historic times. Tollman himself said ‘Earth scientists have traditionally rejected the inclusion of arguments outside the natural sciences in the analysis of this problem – as if oral history possessed no validity.” His critics, on the other hand, argued he could be dismissed on the principle that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. Which in logic is just a claim that “We got here first.” Basically, “We’re the king of the castle, and you’re the dirty rascal.” First formulated, it seems, by Carl Sagan, himself. Velikovsky’s self-appointed assassin.

  270. Bolteric says:
    @RoatanBill

    You seem to draw the conclusion that nothing can be known, and that the truth is an impenetrable box. For one, I’ve learned on this site to take nothing at face value as disseminated the way you say it is. Proof positive is the journey from questioning fake news and then positing fake history. But to conclude all history is spurious misses a lot of what writers like Ron Unz, David Irving and several others whose works appear here uncover. Furthermore what the writer here stresses is that that in turn is more useful than anything else to the politician or general. We don’t worship the past, but we study it because it is good, and to counter Hegel we do learn from it.

    I recall when I went to grad school for a worthless humanities degree that was imbedded in spirituality, that to my shock my mentor insisted we study history, though it could be perceived as worthless as it was to those the author refers to here at the beginning of the essay. Our meditations were too empty without the richness of historical understanding.

    Some years later I returned to school for engineering at my wife’s behest for something more useful for society and wage-earning. In the process I was introduced to this site, which encouraged me to do some more of my own reading. The point many of the authors here including the editor is to make you aware of a source they themselves have reviewed, and they encourage you to read for yourself and decide for yourself. What you choose next is up to you. You can walk the party line or go off the reservation.

    I feel like you know this already, but we caught you on a dreary day.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  271. Miro23 says:
    @Peripatetic Itch

    But it is best to be humble. Let some try to adapt to the modern world. But also celebrate the efforts of the Amish to locate fitness in 19th-century agricultural communities.

    Our problem, is that the benefits of traditional lifestyles (physical, co-operative, family and dietary) are no longer obtained automatically. It’s possible to opt out of just about all of them – which most people do.

    And our digital world isn’t going away either. It’s our new adaptive benchmark.

    Result, that the only solution that I can see, is to fully participate in the modern world, while at the same time respecting our (Paleolithic) physiology. IOW meet those Paleolithic needs artificially – daily physical training, working at keeping families together, working at developing social groups, avoiding the fat/sugar diet and deliberately remove that ultimate activity blocker (TV).

    All of which is not going to happen.

  272. @Skeptikal

    I was adding an aspect to your arguments, not (not!) arguing against them.

    Oh, and I did appreciate your hint at Perry Anderson’s articles. So – thanks Skeptical!

  273. @Bolteric

    The only history I regard as true is the history I personally experienced in my decades of existence. To me, my experience is the truth. To someone else observing the near identical activities of the world my history is his fake news. History is in the eye of the beholder with some indisputable facts thrown in IF they can be verified empirically.

    You, as an engineer, speaking to me as an engineer, means your first sentence is disingenuous to say the least. We engineers know fact from fiction because fiction won’t support a building or bridge. We, engineers live in the real world, not in some fantasy realm inhabited by the humanities and social sciences types.

    What we all do here is give our worthless opinions and even those you highlight like Ron Unz and David Irving are just spouting theirs when the topic has no scientific and empirical basis.

    History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon.
    Napoleon Bonaparte

    I think Napoleon said it best and most honestly. History is a story we like to tell ourselves. Some of it is the truth and some of it is bullshit. In the final analysis, history, documented by someone else can’t be trusted.

    • Replies: @Bolteric
  274. RodW says:
    @RoatanBill

    Have you read the awful ‘novel’ “The Daughter of Time”? It’s a valuable work in that it illustrates how lies and propaganda can be sniffed out even hundreds of years after the fact. So your despair over 9/11 and Trump’s election isn’t fully justified, taking the long view.

  275. Miro23 says:
    @Peripatetic Itch

    Darwin’s idea of natural selection was sparked by his analysis of artificial selection, an early innovation that had been underway for many generations and which had already removed us from that “Paleolithic”. Our current nutritional guidelines are hence already based on a post-paleolithic environment. There’s a myriad of other anomalous quirks about the modern world we generally ignore as not salient.

    I would argue that the physical adaptations to the modern world haven’t changed. For example, for the human metabolism to function correctly it needs a fairly high level of daily physical exercise and intake of vitamin C. The mental environment is different, in that it is far more demanding of intelligence, and intelligence is actively being selected for.

    So advanced societies are being stratified into intelligent/ unintelligent, notably with regard to the uptake of digitalization.

    That poses the question of whether the digital elite care about the lumpen proletariat or not. The evidence is that they don’t – and they want of get rid of the troublesome US Constitution, US elections etc. – which may be possible or maybe not. The elite can only exercise their power through a hierarchy – but sufficient chaos dissolves the hierarchy and leaves them exposed.

    The question then becomes: Can the elite can successfully maintain the structure of a dictatorial society?

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
  276. Bert says:
    @RoatanBill

    Apparently you are neither bright enough nor honest enough to critique cliodynamics with evidence rather than bloviation. Your approach to argumentation mirrors that of the drunk barstool philosopher that every self-respecting patron of the establishment seats themselves far away from.

  277. Some ‘history’ that is never mentioned?

    “Taken together, these four volumes constitute an extraordinary commentary on a basic weakness in the Soviet system.
    The Soviets are heavily dependent on Western technology and innovation not only in their civilian industries, but also in their military programs.
    An inevitable conclusion from the evidence in this book is that we have totally ignored a policy that would enable us to neutralize Soviet global ambitions while simultaneously reducing the defense budget and the tax load on American citizens.”
    “ His book tells at least part of the story of the Soviet Union’s reliance on Western technology, including the infamous Kama River truck plant, which was built by the Pullman-Swindell company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, a subsidiary of M. W. Kellogg Co. Prof. Pipes remarks that the bulk of the Soviet merchant marine, the largest in the world, was built in foreign shipyards. He even tells the story (related in greater detail in this book) of the Bryant Chucking Grinder Company of Springfield, Vermont, which sold the Soviet Union the ball-bearing machines that alone made possible the targeting mechanism of Soviet MIRV’ed ballistic missiles. “
    http://www.crowhealingnetwork.net/pdf/Antony%20Sutton%20-%20The%20Best%20Enemy%20Money%20Can%20Buy.pdf

  278. The end of history?

    ‘We’ have ten years?

    [MORE]

    “ . . . our best estimate is that the net energy
    33:33 per barrel available for the global
    33:36 economy was about eight percent
    33:38 and that in over the next few years it
    33:42 will go down to zero percent
    33:44 uh best estimate at the moment is that
    33:46 actually the
    33:47 per average barrel of sweet crude
    33:51 uh we had the zero percent around 2022
    33:56 but there are ways and means of
    33:58 extending that so to be on the safe side
    34:00 here on our diagram
    34:02 we say that zero percent is definitely
    34:05 around 2030 . . .
    we
    34:43 need net energy from oil and [if] it goes
    34:46 down to zero
    34:48 uh well we have collapsed not just
    34:50 collapse of the oil industry
    34:52 we have collapsed globally of the global
    34:54 industrial civilization this is what we
    34:56 are looking at at the moment . . . “

  279. Bolteric says:
    @RoatanBill

    My apologies, the first sentence should be qualified “historically.” You seem to have retreated from your position somewhat, but I do think the Napoleon quote is spot on.

    For certain when we deal with the physical reality and comprehend the laws that govern the natural world, we can reach definitive conclusions. Certainly dealing with events and what happened’s, our understanding drops off precipitously. But to say a smaller subset of the population can’t come to a clearer picture of the past, than available by usual propaganda sources, discredits some very solid efforts by thinkers much greater than I.

    I think we mostly on the same page. There are vastly more useful professions and dedications of resources than for an endowed chair of the liberal arts. Got one of those degrees too.

  280. @Miro23

    I would argue that the physical adaptations to the modern world haven’t changed.

    Your heart and philosophy are in the right place. But your understanding of fitness in the Darwinian sense is, I suspect, severely limited. Fitness encompasses much more than you might think. Human physiology is incredibly complicated, with many thousands of genes, proteins, enzymes, etc., all of which were more or less well-adapted to that Paleolithic era. The number of changes we have made to our environment also number in the many thousands. An unknown proportion of them have potential to impact the action of those molecules and hence our fitness in a negative way. Many of these, I would venture to say, you like most people have never even thought about.

    That would not of course be your fault. We are not encouraged to think about them. But more, scientists or thinkers who do are actively discouraged from disseminating those thoughts while the media simply ignore those who persist. This has been going on for far longer than the recent move to a cancel culture. That discouragement has included suppression, job termination, black-washing, and in some instances physical termination.

    Let me give you just one example of several dozen I could give: You may know that free iron in the body is a major free radical and oxidant (Google the Fenton reaction). It is at least in theory a major cause of accelerated aging. The levels of free iron are fairly well controlled in women by their menstrual cycles but have been rising in men over the course of increasing civilization, simply because we are able to avoid or treat episodes of serious bleeding. The free iron builds up when haemoglobin from red-blood cells breaks down.

    Back in the 1980s the Lancet published a medical hypothesis written by a British doctor to the effect that excessive iron levels were the cause of the modern epidemic of heart disease and its differential effect on men. The article was four pages long and written in script so small I could not even read it these days, but highly persuasive. It was never given much play and hardly anyone was ever allowed to refer to it again. Today it is all but completely forgotten. I may be one of the few who ever took it seriously. Its implications for health and fitness are obvious to anyone who can think.

    Few journals publish anything of the sort anymore. One that does is eponymously called Medical Hypotheses. Perhaps the only major medical journal that treats the dogmas of medicine as theories subject to Popperian corroboration and refutation. It has been the source of several of the more recent health suggestions, such as omega-3 oils. I would recommend it for anyone interested in improving their Darwinian fitness in the modern world. Access it through Pubmed.

    • Replies: @Miro23
  281. Miro23 says:
    @Peripatetic Itch

    Let me give you just one example of several dozen I could give: You may know that free iron in the body is a major free radical and oxidant (Google the Fenton reaction). It is at least in theory a major cause of accelerated aging. The levels of free iron are fairly well controlled in women by their menstrual cycles but have been rising in men over the course of increasing civilization, simply because we are able to avoid or treat episodes of serious bleeding. The free iron builds up when haemoglobin from red-blood cells breaks down.

    Thanks, I’d never heard of this, but it’s an example of modern life (treatment and avoidance of serious bleeding in men ) working against the body’s Paleolithic derived health maintenance system. Same as modern life removing the need for active physical work – contributing to a whole host of “diseases of affluence” (obesity, circulatory, heart, strokes etc.).

    However, following Darwin, the ultimate test has to be reproductive fitness. Judged this way, modern life seems to present pluses and minuses:

    PLUS

    – Specialized medical research combined with societal organization protecting 100’s millions of people from previously lethal diseases (e.g. antibiotics). Survive = reproduce.

    – Better food security. Shopping for food in a supermarket is more reliable, less effort and lower risk than hunter/gathering. Survive = reproduce.

    – Less risk of serious physical harm since no close contact with an untamed natural wilderness, and less physical violence. Survive = reproduce.

    MINUS

    – The generalized protection of modern medicine resulting in overpopulation (too much reproductive success) = destruction of the natural world. Long term survival negative.

    – Scientific research (eg. Haber-Bosch process) allowing vastly increased food production/food security, resulting in overpopulation (too much reproductive success) = destruction of the natural world. Long term survival negative.

    – Generalized health and safety protection enables the unfit in Paleolithic terms to survive = a physical and mental lowering of the population average. Potential survival negative.

    – Strong tendency for the poor and less socially able to have more children (societal protection) = a lowering average of societal fitness – or alternatively, an evolutionary driven bifurcation of society into a new intellectual elite tribe and the “others” – probably also involving physical separation.

    – General feeling of alienation in the modern world as the Paleolithically hard wired social machinery is unused, irrelevant or counter-productive. Lower reproduction.

    – Women no longer valued. Women have lost their Paleolithically determined societal protected and valued role as mothers (given the historical need to replace high fatalities and ensure tribal survival). Alienation and lower reproduction.

    – Women replacing men in higher grade/higher status employment. Interferes with hard wired Paleolithic roles . Career advancing the age of childbirth or removing the possibility altogether (lack of suitable social status partners – or career interference with male expectations). Lower reproduction.

    – Unemployment. A bizarre concept in Paleolithic terms. Children were trained to contribute from the earliest possible age = the modern unemployed being psychologically unprepared for doing nothing. Lower reproduction.

    – Breakdown of the identifiable tribe at all levels from family up to national. The tribe being of primordial importance in Paleolithic terms = serious alienation. Lower reproduction.

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  282. @Miro23

    Your assertion that reproduction fitness is the ultimate test is already a bad simplification. It’s rather that reproduction defines the initial priority, and remains fundamentally important even over the long haul, but has a tendency to move to the background over time. This is similar to the change of priorities which affects a business growing from a small private enterprise to a big public corporation. If you opened a small burger joint on your street corner today then your priorities would be different from what happens when your business has grown into McDonald’s.

    Similarly the earliest species in the evolutionary chain were much closer to insects and bugs that we see today. Eggs would be hatched en masse the way that a queen ant does. This was clearly the best form of reproductive fitness imaginable. At a later stage of evolution we saw mammals appearing which now gave birth to much fewer offspring, such as a litter of kittens. Eventually humans appeared with an even more significantly reduced capacity for breeding usually only 1 offspring per time with about a year usually separating births in even the most highly breeding cultures. That clearly shows how the evolutionary pattern shapes the reproductive behavior of a species in the fashion of a growing corporation so that once the business is well-established from high rates of reproduction there is a natural tendency for the corporate body of the organisms to shift towards developing other traits while lowering reproductive capacity.

    The riddle that always remains open is, when has this gone too far? People have said that Gillette pushed things too far with their hokey ad that poked at the male customers. A small business owner would know not to do this. Has Gillette become so intoxicated with the corporate world that they have actually forgotten how to run a business? That may be true. Is something similar happening among sectors of the human population? Again, that may be true. But it still is clear from the record of evolution that reducing reproduction is not by any means always contrary to the natural pattern.

    • Replies: @Miro23
  283. Miro23 says:
    @Patrick McNally

    The riddle that always remains open is, when has this gone too far? People have said that Gillette pushed things too far with their hokey ad that poked at the male customers. A small business owner would know not to do this. Has Gillette become so intoxicated with the corporate world that they have actually forgotten how to run a business? That may be true. Is something similar happening among sectors of the human population? Again, that may be true. But it still is clear from the record of evolution that reducing reproduction is not by any means always contrary to the natural pattern.

    Both small businesses and large businesses seem to be exposed to environmental pressure. For example only 60 firms remain in the Fortune 500 from the 500 listed in 1917.

    Equally, the principal risk to human tribes (other than food supply), seem to be other human tribes – so tribal group survival and reproductive success looks like mostly the same thing.

    At one time American Indians were the dominant ethnic group in North America, but rather than flourishing into a population of 100’s millions they mostly went out of business. Same with the Indians of South America who also suffered military and social defeat.

  284. Jett Rucker says: • Website

    History is neither more nor less than a pack of lies.
    I study history (with great interest) so that I may know what the more-informed around me might think, and/or to know what they might think I think.
    It is a point of departure for the exploration of doubt and even confusion. Only from this could the slightest inkling of understanding ever arise, and that by little more than happenstance.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
$
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Guillaume Durocher Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Becker update V1.3.2
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
The JFK Assassination and the 9/11 Attacks?
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement