The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJung-Freud Archive
Chauvinism of Jews, Greeks, & Romans and the Mediterranean Sea as the Petri Dish of History — Why Did Northern Europe Come to Civilization Later But Make Unprecedented Progress? — Britain as New Rome and Its Problematic Template for Anglo-Americanist Globalism
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

It’s been said over and over, we need to support Israel because it’s part of Western Civilization even though, ironically enough, Jews are at the forefront of unraveling whatever that has held the West together as a people, culture, history, and territory.

We have a situation where Jews, who are said to represent the West, push mass non-white immigration on the West, making the West less Western but in the name of ‘Western Values’ that apparently have nothing to do with race, history, or territory but only a set of beliefs and ‘principles’ that are supposedly ‘universal’ in application. These ideas, though having originated in the West, are understood as having implications far beyond the West, thereby encompassing all of humanity that, in order to attain progress and liberty, must also embrace those ideas as their own. I suppose there is a kernel of truth to this as what the Greeks embarked on was a search of objective truth(based on observation and logic) as opposed to cultural subjectivity(based on customs and visions) and the idealization of man as a seeker of truth and justice than mere receptor of tradition or creature of tribalism. Greeks were mighty proud and chauvinistic, but ironically, their pride of achievement rested on breaking freer from cultural gravity than other peoples who remained more mired in their customs, myths, and lore.

Jews were similar to the Greeks in one way. They too came upon a universal concept — the one God of truth and justice for all the world — but insisted on tribal chauvinism, one where they are the Chosen bound in a special Covenant with God. Both peoples were universal in imagination but tribal in pride. And history would have been very different but for the fact that the Greek Way and the Jewish Way came together like chocolate and peanut butter in the Roman Empire. Far more than Alexander the Great(whose dream of Hellenistic Empire fractured and dissipated), the Romans took Greek Ideas and turned them into Imperial Principles. Also, the Roman adoption of Christianity, a Cult that began with heretical Jews, meant that universalism inherent in Judaism could be divorced from Jewish pride and insularity. Thus, armed with universal Greek ideas without the Greek chauvinism and with universal Jewish ideas without the Jewish chauvinism, the Romans set the template for the future West.

Of course, the Romans too were awful proud and aggressive, but far more than the Greeks and Jews, were willing to allow non-Romans a stake in the new imperial order. Though considered as part of Western Culture and History, had the Roman Way been allowed to continue and prevail, Rome would have been less the foundation of later European Civilization than the center between the West, East, and South. After all, at the height of their power, Romans had far greater regard for peoples of the Near East and North Africa than for the Northern Barbarians. Though many people invoke the Fall of the Roman Empire as a warning about the future West, it was probably a great thing for the white race. Germanic tribalism prevailed over Roman Imperialism that would likely have served as a bridge not only of Europeans into non-Europe but non-Europeans into Northern and Eastern Europe. Of course, much that was good about Roman Civilization was destroyed, but there was no guarantee of civilizational health even if Romans had prevailed over the Germanics. After all, Rome was decaying from within, and if the Eastern Byzantine Empire was any indication, civilizational longevity is no guarantee of health and vitality. Indeed, it’s possible that the fall of Western Rome was like a forest fire that made the future soil of Europe richer for something like the Renaissance. Also, the fall of Rome(as the bridge between the West and East/South) made the North safer from invasion, thus more racially and territorially secure. And over time, the North came to greatness because it had both the security of homogeneity and the fruits of diversity from the South.

Initially, Southern Europe with its ‘diverse geography’ had a great advantage over cold Northern Europe that was isolated from trade routes. In contrast, the Mediterranean was the greatest Petri Dish of cultural ferment as it allowed trade in goods, exchange of ideas, and clash of inspirations among the various peoples/cultures of North Africa, Near East, and Southern Europe. Isolation was impossible even if desired. There was a constant flow of ideas, goods, and peoples, friendly and hostile. So, naturally the Greeks and Romans were far ahead of Northern Europeans of both the North-West(Germanics and Celts) and North-East(Slavs).

But, the problem of geo-diversity was instability. With so many great powers in near proximity to one another, massively destructive wars were commonplace. Also, even with relative peace, the clashes and frictions among peoples with different myths, customs, & values and of different colors & looks didn’t lead to much of a culture of trust and cooperation. So, diversity led to a lot of sparks but also lots of fires that burned out of control. Diversity giveth but also taketh away. (Still, it must be said the Mediterranean Sea was a divider as well as unifier. It’s possible that, had there been no Med-Sea and had Southern Europe, Near East, and North Africa been just one land-mass, there might have been less civilizational spark. Med-Sea was ‘small’ enough for various peoples to travel & trade and big enough for them to maintain relative security. Indeed, the bigger threats to the Greeks came from land than from sea. Also, it’s telling that Jews regarded the sea as divider or isolator than unifier. In the Noah story, a righteous family is isolated in the ark from sinful humanity. The point of the ark is to survive and keep intact a family and culture, not to set out on voyages to unknown lands. And in the Moses story, the Hebrews cross the sea on foot under the divine protection of God, whereas the Egyptians perish under the waves. And Jesus walked on water. And Jonah’s experience with the sea was with a whale as a kind of spiritual ark.)

But when the foundational ideas forged in a world of Diversity made their way up to Northern Europe, it was like the best of both worlds. The ideas could develop and grow uninterrupted in a relative world of homogeneity, stability, and security. Then, it’s hardly surprising that the Ancient Foundation reached its greatest apex in the isolated kingdom of Britain. On their own, the Brits would have remained isolated barbarians. But equipped with ideas that arose in a world of diversity, they could push those ideas much further as the result of their trust culture made possible by greater homogeneity(relatively speaking) and territorial security. What the Romans ultimately failed to do, the Brits did do. Brits created the greatest empire of not only military power and economic wealth but cultural achievement and scientific progress. They were like the ultimate Romans, and yet, ironically, the source of their power wasn’t merely rooted in Classical Civilization but racial consciousness forged through eons of relative isolation. So, in a way, the Anglos had something in common with Greeks and Jews as well. They perfected the Imperial Formula for uniting the entire world, indeed far more than the Spanish(who soon began to stagnate) and the French who could never make up their mind if they wanted to dominate Continental Europe or compete with the British for World Hegemony. Though unprecedented as imperialists who came closest than ever before of creating a universal world order, the Brits were racially proud and chauvinistic, much like the Ancient Greeks and Jews. British Empire was about bringing the brightest light of the highest civilization to all the world, but what that light shone to the world was “Look at our superior white Anglo faces, respect and obey.” The British were more ambitious and conquered more than the Romans could ever dream of, but they were far more race/ethno-conscious than the Romans.

So, it took a rebellious offshoot of the British Empire, the United States, to finally detach the universality of British Imperialism from Anglo pride, arrogance, and chauvinism. Though the American Republic also began as a race-conscious nation, its founding principles were far more amenable and even attracted to universality. Perhaps, this owes to Anglo identity never having formed into something distinct and special, something it had in common with Roman identity. After all, Jewish identity and Greek identity survived beyond Ancient Times, but Roman Identity vanished and was replaced by mixture of funny folks called the Eye-Talians. Indeed, despite all the race-mixing and confusion, Spanish identity survived with more distinctness than the Anglo kind. What accounts for this?

Was the rise of the Romans and Anglos too swift and sudden, too identified with power above all else? After all, the core of Jewish identity took shape long before Jews came into their own as a formidable power. And the same was true of Greeks whose culture developed organically for some time before their rise to greatness. In contrast, what were the Romans before they became great? It seems Romans came to define themselves primarily by their greatness. In this sense, even though Macedonians under Alexander the Great came to be regarded as ‘fellow Greeks’ who expanded Greek power far beyond what Greeks could manage on their own, they had more in common with the late-comer Romans who, if anything, followed their example with certain imperial improvements(that favored systems over personalities) that assured greater stability. That Greek identity survived whereas Macedonian and Roman identities did not tells us something. (Likewise, what is ‘Manchu’ identity and culture today?) It goes to show cultural resilience owes less to might and money than the formation of a powerful identity rooted in ethnos, narrative, and mythos. Jews and Greeks had a more powerful culture even before they gained power, whereas the Romans had a weaker culture and, upon coming to possess a formula for great power, associated Roman-ness mainly with might, conquest, and glory.

To be a Roman was glorious as long as Rome was the center of the world, but its fall meant loss of everything. In contrast, even in defeat the Greeks and Jews believed their identities and cultures were nevertheless superior and this superiority owed more to tradition and truth than something so crude and transient as political/military power. It could be one reason why American Empire has become so obnoxious owes to a hollow sense of American Identity. Meaning almost nothing and yet everything — anyone from any part of the world can come to the US and, within five years, become ‘as American as Apple Pie… or pizza, taco, chop suey, gyros, bagels, etc.” — American sense of pride only comes with money and power, especially as democracies are now dime-a-dozen around the world. (When the US was one of the few democracies in the world, there was the pride of being a beacon of liberty. But when millions of Asian-Indians come to the US, they are going from democracy to democracy, and the only difference is US offers more money and is militarily far more powerful; it’s just human nature of Will-to-Cower for people to flock to something more richer and more powerful to be part of it.) It’s like a person with a strong sense of self in terms of identity, individuality, conviction, and meaning is less enamored of money and possession as matters of pride. While a person of strong identity may still want money and power(indeed lots of it), his core self is nevertheless defined by something other than what he possesses. Thus, even if he loses it all, he still has meaning. In contrast, a person with no meaning tries to compensate with money and power, but without money and power, he feels zero self-value. Jews are a people of strong identity who are obsessed with power and money; the thing is, even were they to lose all the power and money, they’d have meaning in what they are, a part of an ethnicity, spirituality, history, and culture. In contrast, white goy elites seem to possess nothing but the status, success, prestige, money, and/or power as the definitive markers of who they are. But that means they are NOTHING without earthly things(or social status), and perhaps this accounts for white elite class bigotry for the the Deplorables, a bunch of ‘loser whites’ with little or nothing. (Jews and white goy elites sneer at Rural White America but, for some reason, we must all care so much about Desert Semites in Israel.)

Perhaps, the seeds of eventual Anglo weakness were sown in the creation of the so-called United Kingdom. Unlike Japan that eventually united as one Japanese Folks, the idea of Great Britain or United Kingdom was founded on the prestige and glory of power. When wars came to an end in a united Japan, the idea was that all the Japanese people were rightfully under the rule of the most powerful Japanese clan with the blessing of the divine lord, aka the Emperor. In contrast, the British idea was that different peoples ‘agreed’ to belong to a united kingdom on the basis that this order was bound for great things. So, if all Japanese bowed down before a greater sense of Japanese-ness, various folks in Britain consented to de-emphasize their core ethnicity in pursuit of greater power, wealth, and glory that would come through their mutual cooperation. And this meant that not only would the Scottish restrain Scottish pride but even the dominant English wouldn’t over-emphasize English pride. Of course, one could argue that Japan too had its distinct sub-ethnicities like Britain, but the difference is the central power in Japan insisted that everyone in Japan is Japanese and must submit totally to the central authority and the Emperor, whereas British Political Arrangement was founded on mutual understanding. Thus, British-ness was bound to be more political and theoretic than Japanese(or German) identity. It was like a business partnership where various families agree to forgo extreme clan loyalty for the good of the whole under unity and cooperation. But like business ventures, such an ‘identity’ could only be justified by success and growth.

After all, if there were no material benefits in the arrangement, why should the lesser ‘kingdoms’ go along with the greater or united kingdom? So, the seeds of Americanism were already there in British History. Such compromise may have contributed to the rise of class consciousness that prevented the full-blown emergence of a race-consciousness. As racial-minded as the British were, it’s telling that they were off-put and disturbed by the German concept of Blood-and-Soil rooted in Kultur. In a way, the British treated race like a class, or a ‘rass’, and thus they were more rassists and than race-ists. Brits didn’t so much considered themselves as the superior race as the better class of race. In a way, the failure to develop a strong sense of British Ethnicity(as Britishness was a compromise position among the various ‘ethnicities’ that were, by the way, almost homogeneous genetically) meant that the Brits would have to opt for the more generic notion of ‘whiteness’, which came to define America.

 
• Category: History • Tags: Ancient World, British, Greeks, Jews, Mediterranean Sea, Romans 
Of Related Interest
Jewish Political Theology Enshrined in the Criminal Code
Hide 67 CommentsLeave a Comment
    []
  1. Part of Western civilization? C’mon! Monumental barbarism!!!

    Go BDS!

    BDSMOVEMENT.NET

    • Replies: @Fran Taubman
  2. Hacienda says:

    Perhaps, the seeds of eventual Anglo weakness were sown in the creation of the so-called United Kingdom.

    What profits the race that conquers the world, but loses its soul?

    Check out the Wimbledon Centenary celebration on Youtube. It’s like Anglos Saxons have become masters of ceremony and modern-day ritual. London is no longer an Anglo-Saxon city, but there are still great set pieces that the Anglo can escape to.

    Anglo culture is become an arch culture. An arch is supportive, weight bearing for structures greater than itself. Often for bridges, so that people can cross over it. The natural decency of the Anglo and fairmindedness is become ridiculous. Not that, I’d want to see a return of the 50s, but some other great race needs to “take up the slack”. (It’s not going to be you, Jews. Jews can’t do culture.) The last 50 years have shown that in spades.

    • Replies: @Jon Chance
    , @Reg Cæsar
  3. The Macedonian identity did survive and precisely as a cosmopolitan one in contrast to the Greek arianism. Visit Macedonia today and you will see the struggle against Greek and western racism.

    • Replies: @Tito vampir
  4. anonymous[520] • Disclaimer says:

    With the question re the Spanish asked above, the great difference is that unlike the Brits, Spaniards sent mostly men overseas, who freely married with natives, becoming mestizo-castizo patriarchs in overseas local cultures … whereas Brits tended to pick their wives from back home, sometimes bringing them to live amidst colonial administration

    So Spanish conquistadors melded to become part of ‘new’ mixed-race peoples, whilst Castilians back in Spain marrying Spanish wives domestically, tending to keep their strong local Spanish identity instead of internationalising it (tho of course many ‘Spaniards’ have some significant mediaeval Moorish & Jewish heritage visible in their features)

    Some have a theme now, that Spaniards were thus less ‘racist’ colonialists, ultra-Catholic and more internationalist Christian, shown in their readiness to have mixed-race children, who now fill Latin America and, increasingly, the USA. One sees the history reflected in some popular ‘conquistador – native girl’ memes

    • Replies: @James of Africa
  5. Malla says:

    The Islamic conquests of North Africa (the Maghreb was part of the Latin World earlier) pushed the center of gravity of Western civilization from the Mediterranean Sea to Central Europe. Northern Europe came late into the scene as it was further away from the river valley civilizations of Eurasia and North Africa.

    Rivers + Climate+ domesticable foodstuff—-> Agriculture—> more grain—> more population—->more wealth—->Civilization—>More tax wealth to elites to fund high stuff, stuff not needed for immediate survival like philosophers, sculptors, classical court musicians etc and for grand projects. Also merchants would be attracted to these places like bee to honey with a variety of new goods and even ideas. This would be difficult to do in Northern Europe or Japan at the level of human technology (w.r.t) agriculture at that time. Civilization moving there and becoming possible with advancement in agricultural technology would take more time.

    But just because civilizations supposedly started there does not mean that they will always in the lead. It is like claiming just because Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone, the most dominant mobile company in the World should have been British. No, the Koreans at Samsung came up with a better product and went ahead. Rome was a much newer civilization than Egypt, but when it conquered Egypt, it was ahead of Egypt in many technologies.
    Or like a sparrow tweeting to a lion, when my ancestors were T-rexes, they roamed and dominated these plains and had bigger teeth than you. Lion roars in reply: “So what? Now you are a tiny bitch ass bird and I am King of the Jungle.”

    As far as this phenomenon of Germanic influence on Western Civilization, check this out


    Understanding Western Civilization.

    • Replies: @Joe Paluka
  6. A very nice take on history. The ambivalence argument between racial tribalism and universal concepts based on logic and observation. Worthy incorporating in elaboration of Anglo-Saxon, West, Western, White, alas the concepts of. For one, as multiple factors always to be considered together (race, cast (race within class), class, nation, territory, gender (“the two main ones”) ) in polity making, history processing, goal setting for the future.

    Now let’s have bio-diversity defined as humans as to other mammals, the whole context of life on the planet, and some of us are getting somewhere.

  7. gT says:

    When the Romans came to power, they lamented that the Greeks no longer existed. In other words, the Greeks of the Athenian and Spartan heydays just weren’t there no more. So while the people in Greece might speak Greek they weren’t the same people from the Greek Classical period. Some Roman texts even said the Greeks were extinct. Roman texts even said that the Jews were Black, back in those days at least.

    But at least the Classical Greeks built a lot and started the whole Western science idea. Compare that to the Jews who built nothing except wrote some writings which is just plagiarism of what others wrote before them. And the Europeans then adopted this plagiarism as their religion and are now paying for it with their imminent extinction.

    Northern Europe could only get civilized with the end of the last ice age, when the continental glaciers melted, before that there was just ice in Northern Europe, and North America. They benefited from domesticated crops and animals via the Fertile Crescent, but mostly from the advent of inter ocean trade and colonization. The vast inter continental markets made Europe rich and the wealth enabled more leisure thinking with different ideas coming from all over the world and so arose the industrial revolution and the modern world as we know it.

    But this process of Globalization is now coming to an end. With basically everyone able to make everything everywhere, and thus increasingly able to defend themselves, the returns of manufacturing and industrial trade have decreased. The only way to make money these days is with money, in other words Financialization. However some countries value their sovereignty too much to allow the Financialization of their economies, so the push back against Globalization has now commenced. The primary producing nations are making a comeback against the FIRE (Finance, Insurance and Real Estate) nations and their Globohomo ambitions.

    • Replies: @Chris Moore
    , @Franz
  8. Odyssey says:

    It is difficult to make any sensible conclusion based on so many distorted or falsified details of Roman and ‘ancient’ Greek history. Previously, there are so many questions to be asked.
    First, when and from where (future) Greeks came to today’s Greece? Who already lived there? Who gave them this name? Who brought Jews and (future) Greeks to Egypt? After they were expelled, who gave them a refuge? Homer, Iliad, Odyssey, Troy, Orpheus, muses, Delphi, Thucydides, etc, were not Greek. Alexander the Great was not a Greek.

    ‘Greek’ mythology was adopted from indigenous people so as the language. The original ‘Greek’ language was not ‘indo-european’ (whatever does it mean). Greeks entered the world history with the first Olympic game? What a joke. Where were they during the Dark Ages? Preparing for Olympic games? Greek culture developed organically? They had Olympic mythology during the Trojan war almost 1000 years before they actually saw Mt Olympus. Trojans were no Greeks. They were not Alexander cavalry – they simply did not have horses nor fertile land. They were no part of Roman combat units.

    For e.g., Serbs were the elite of Roman legions and gave two dozens of Roman Emperors – Constantine, Licinius, Diocletian, Galerius, Jovian, Valens, Justin, Justinian, etc. The fall of Rome did not happen in the city of Rome, it happened in former Yugoslavia where was the capital city of the Roman Empire, Sirmium, which had a Colosseum bigger than Rome’s, and which minted all coins for the Empire. Serbian Emperors ruled both, East and West Roman Empire, fought (Diocletian), legalised Christianity (Constantine) built churches (Justinian).

    This text so as maps from this period presents the area of former Yugoslavia, which was the centre of the Roman Empire, uninhabited. Who lived there? Who were Romans? Eighty percent of Roman army wasn’t Italian. Which language was spoken in this army? Which Germanics? Goths? Dacians were not Germanics.

  9. “In contrast, the British idea was that different peoples ‘agreed’ to belong to a united kingdom on the basis that this order was bound for great things.”
    Oh yes, they “agreed”…after years, decades, centuries of conflict with the English. (ie Scots…. & then there’s the Irish who never “agreed” — which is why the British transplanted a ruling class to Ireland.)
    Unfortunately this article is too concerned with race & idealist notions of “universalist concepts” & not enough with blood & dirt on your hands,
    power dynamics.

  10. Jon Chance says: • Website
    @Hacienda

    Perhaps an alliance of Swiss, Vikings, and Russians will liberate the nations of Europe from the EU-ECB and then sweep across the Atlantic to reestablish the American Confederation.

    https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp

    Jews can live in Birobidzhan.

    • Replies: @Hacienda
    , @Autistocrates
  11. After all, the core of Jewish identity took shape long before Jews came into their own as a formidable power.

    When was that, exactly? Other than in their dreams (i.e., Solomon’s “kingdom” etc.).

  12. Who brought Jews and (future) Greeks to Egypt?

    The Greeks? themselves. The Jews, on the other hand, never were in Egypt, having been formed between 1200-1100 BC by an association of INDIGENOUS Canaanite tribes, see Vom Koran zum Islam, Hans Schiler Verlag, Berlin 2009, pp. 60-61. Btw, there never was a Moses nor an Abraham nor any Patriarchs, see Der frühe Islam, Hans Schiler Verlag, Berlin 2007, pp. 310 & 346 – these 2 books being part of a series called “Inârah” (http://inarah.net/), 9 books in my possession.

    PS The Jews being INDIGENOUS in Canaan but NOT THE ARABS, this really the “Palestinians” still need to acknowledge.

    • Replies: @dearieme
    , @Odyssey
  13. Chebyshev says:

    Eye-Talians emerged after Rome collapsed in the West and were the conduit for Jews to enter Europe and become Ashkenazi.

    Anglo-Celt is an ethnicity. Anglo-Celts built most of the stuff in America pre-WW2.

    • Thanks: Trinity
    • Replies: @dearieme
  14. Chris Moore says: • Website

    the Roman adoption of Christianity, a Cult that began with heretical Jews, meant that universalism inherent in Judaism could be divorced from Jewish pride and insularity. Thus, armed with universal Greek ideas without the Greek chauvinism and with universal Jewish ideas without the Jewish chauvinism, the Romans set the template for the future West.

    But Jews always contained a greedy, hoarding, parasitic element, a fifth column within. This fifth column is entirely cynical and all about materialism, power and control, and is at complete odds with the universal ideals of Christianity, the “universal Jewish ideas without the Jewish chauvinism.”

    Zionists like to say Oy! Oy! Christianity is Jewry’s little brother! Baloney. It is Moses Judaism, purged of cynical materialists, grown up and come to maturity.

    But these parasitic, parallel “Jews” have been there all the way through, too, and took total control of the ((Jewish)) entity around the time of Jesus, via the Talmudic rabbis, and henceforth led Jewry into relentless betrayal for 30 metaphorical pieces of silver.

    It’s a betrayal pathology that continues to this day.

    • Replies: @Chris Moore
  15. c matt says:

    Europe is the child of Greece raped by Rome subsequently raised by its adoptive father Christianity.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    , @Odyssey
  16. dearieme says:
    @René Fries

    The Palestinian “Arabs” must be largely the descendants of the inhabitants of 1st century Palestine i.e. principally the Jews of that time, having been first Christianised and then, the majority. Islamised.

    • Agree: Ann Nonny Mouse
    • Replies: @Wokechoke
    , @René Fries
  17. dearieme says:
    @Chebyshev

    “Anglo-Celt is an ethnicity”: really? It’s doubtful that even Celtic was ever an ethnicity. No classical writing that survived ever referred to the inhabitants of the British Isles as “Celtic”.

    • Replies: @Chebyshev
    , @Autistocrates
  18. Chris Moore says: • Website
    @gT

    The only way to make money these days is with money, in other words Financialization.

    Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc make a lot of money. They’re not in the FIRE sector.

    This ((Jewish)) pathology is all about ego, totalitarianism, and mindless “revenge” against morally superior Christian civilization (Christendom) and scientifically superior Western civilization.

    These ((Jews)) and their stooges are butthurt, and yes, they’ve co-opted a lot of scientifically brilliant but equally butthurt and reprobate goyim jackasses onto their Judas team; mindless, privileged “victims,” also out for revenge, who’ve been rubbing shoulders with the ((Jew)) devil and its stunted Chosen/Persecuted modus operandi for too long.

    It’s as if concienceless reptiles learned a formula they could milk, have kept at it until they hit paydirt, and are now mining it until they reach totalitarian control.

    Useful idiots see how successful they are, and follow them into belly-crawling “winning.”

    • Agree: Joe Levantine
  19. Chebyshev says:
    @dearieme

    Perhaps more a set of ethnicities.

    “Anglo-Saxon,” as applied to the modern British people, and Britannic race, I believe every impartial scholar will agree with me in thinking a gross misnomer. For if it can be shown that there is a large Celtic element even in the population of England itself, still more unquestionable is this, not only with regard to the populations the British Isles generally, but also with reference to the English-speaking peoples of America and Australasia. Even the English are rather Anglo-Celts than Anglo-Saxons, and still more certainly is Anglo-Celtic a more accurate term than Anglo-Saxon, not only for that British nationality which includes the Scots, the Irish and the Welsh; but also for that Britannic race, chief elements in the formation of which have been Welsh, Scottish and Irish immigrants. – John Stuart Stuart-Glennie

  20. Wokechoke says:
    @dearieme

    Even in the classical period I suspect the Jews were a class that concentrated in a few cities milking the locals and country folk.

  21. Odyssey says:
    @René Fries

    So, what we have?

    – The migration of Greeks to Egypt! >>> Where they came from? What was their name (‘greeks’ was given by indigenous Balkan people and not used before Aristotle and widely after Romans). When they came to Europe? Which language they spoke? Where, when and how they got their mythology?

    – Jews indigenous in modern Israel! >>> I have never seen that any Jew or anyone else mentioned this. What about the promised land? Wouldn’t be a stronger argument to use that they lived there since the beginning of time instead of getting the promise for the land where someone else already lived? What about Philistines, who were they, how they fit in this story? Recently, every single newspaper in the world announced that king David’s palace, given him by their enemies, Philistines, was discovered? Where Palestinian Arabs came from?

    • Replies: @René Fries
  22. @Ann Nonny Mouse

    Go BDS!

    Are you feeling a little defeated and lost? The BDS movement has gotten no where, boycotting Israel both culturally and economically. It is a failure.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/boycotting-israel-isnt-free-speech-bds-antidiscrimination-unilever-eighth-circuit-aclu-arkansas-times-11657050421?mod=latest_headlines

    June was a terrible month for the anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions movement. On June 22, in Arkansas Times v. Waldrip, the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals broadly upheld the constitutionality of anti-BDS laws. A week later Unilever, the multinational parent company of Ben & Jerry’s, overruled the boycott of Israel that the ice-cream company announced a year ago, and it gave the Israel-based licensee permanent ownership of Ben & Jerry’s ice-cream making in Israel and the West Bank. In a jab at the Vermont subsidiary’s leadership, Unilever noted it “repudiates unequivocally any form of discrimination or intolerance.”

    The company broadly condemns what it views as injustices around the world, including “systemic racism” in America. Axios’s Alexi McCammond asked Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield: “You guys are big proponents of voting rights. Why do you still sell ice cream in Georgia? Texas—abortion bans. Why are you still selling there?”
    “I don’t know,” Mr. Cohen replied. “It’s an interesting question. I don’t know what that would accomplish. We’re working on those issues, of voting rights. . . . I think you ask a really good question. And I think I’d have to sit down and think about it for a bit.” She pressed him on the abortion question and he said: “By that reasoning, we should not sell any ice cream anywhere. I’ve got issues with what’s being done in almost every state and country.” Which leaves the question: Why boycott only Israel?

    Israel gives more rights to Arabs than most Arab countries. Arab countries in the ME invite poor Bangladesh and Indians to work, they call them guest workers, than they take away their passports and utilize them as slave labor, these immigrants constitute more than 1/3 of Bahrain, as an example. Guest workers with no chance of citizenship or going back home. So many of these workers have died building western architectural masterpieces by star architects that recent laws banning construction companies that use forced guest workers, who live and work under inhuman conditions.

    Look up how many guest workers died building the soccer center in Qatar.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/25/revealed-qatars-world-cup-slaves

    • Agree: René Fries
    • Replies: @Rev. Spooner
  23. @dearieme

    What you say is corroborated by Zahir Muhsein, PLO executive committee member, who on march 31, 1977 said in an interview with the Dutch daily Trouw: “The Palestinian people does not exist”, http://www.wildolive.co.uk/who%20are%20palestinians.htm; in the article there is also mentioned the fact that a great many of the autochthone Muslims before 1880 really were converted Jews.

  24. @Odyssey

    Although I have studied Latin and Greek, thereby learning much about their history, fact is that this occurred some 60 years ago. I am quite reluctant to search in the internet because there is so much trash out there; on the other side, my books are disseminated over 4 different places, some have disappeared – and anyhow, the question seems to me a quite unimportant one. Who cares about the Greeks? (be it said here that I remember Fallmerayer having written around 1830 that most of the Greeks at the time were rather Albanese, the Orthodox Church having preserved the Greek writings). The Philistines I remember having read they were “les peuples de la mer”. And the vast majority of the today’s “Palestinians” came into the British Palestine Mandate because of the opportunities offered to them by the rapidly increasing economic development generated by the massive arrival of Jews. The fact that the vast majority of these “Palestinians” are by no means indigenous can be ascertained by their family names: al-Masri, al-Masrawa = Egypt; Khamis = Bahrain; Furuki, al-Faruqi = Mossoul, Iraq
; al-Araj = Morocco; al-Lubnani = Libanon; al-Mughrabi = Morocco or North Afrika; al-Djazair = Algeria; al-Yamani = Yemen; al-Afghani = Afghanistan; al-Hindi = India; Iraqi = Iraq; Halabi, Halaby = Alep, Syria; el-Baghdadi = Baghdad, Iraq; Tarabulsi = Tripoli, Libanon; Herraney, al-Hourani = Hauran, Syria; al-Husayni, el-Husseini = Arabia; al-Sa’udi, al-Sa’ud = Arabia; Metzarwah, Massarweh = Egypt; Bardawil = lake Bardawil, Egypt; Nashashibi = Syria; Ubayyidi, al-Obeidi, al-Abadi, al-Ubayyid = Sudan; al-Hamati = Hama, Syria; Bushnak = Bosnia; Zoabi= Iraq/Jordan; Turki = Turkey; al-Kurd = Kurdistan; Haddadins = Yemen; Abu-Kishk = Egyptian Bedouins; al-Shakirat = Egyptian Bedouins; al-Zabidat = Egyptian Bedouins; al-Aramsha = Egyptian Bedouins; al-Sayyid = Egyptian Bedouins; Qawasameh, Kwasma = Iraq; al-Arj = Morocco; al-Shishani = Chechenia; al-Dimashqi = Damascus, Syria; al-Hijazi = Hedjaz, Arabia; Ottman = Turkey; al-Zidan = Arabia; al-Qudwa = Syria; al-Takriti = Tikrit, Iraq; al-Ramadin = Arabia; Tiyaha = Arabian Bedouins; al-Jumblatti = Kurdistan

  25. @The Immigrant

    Dream on! Titoland can not claim Macedonian identity!

  26. @René Fries

    Very detailed, Fries. It makes you look like a paid troll.

    There are mountains of books on the subject so anyone with the time and motive can make a muddy lake out of snippets.

    The way to go for someone honest is to quote credible, respected Jewish authors on the subject. Ilan Pappe, Shlomo Sand, Israel Shahak, Gilad Atzmon, Benjamin Freedman etc.

    It becomes plain that the Palestinians are the original Hebrews, there was no “Second Exile”, that following the Muslim conquest of Christian Palestine, where the Hebrews still were, the latter converted to Islam because that was a more genuine Judaism than Babylonian Talmudism, then being imposed on the Hebrews by their rabbis, was. Atzmon and Freedman, probably most of them point out that the Palestinians are the real Jews, the European conquerors, so-called Jews, being fake Jews.

    Both the Christians of Syria (Arameans) and the Hebrews of Palestine began calling themselves Arabs in the century or so following the Muslim conquest.

    • Replies: @René Fries
  27. @ Odyssey
    “”” For e.g., Serbs were the elite of Roman legions and gave two dozens of Roman Emperors – Constantine, Licinius, Diocletian, Galerius, Jovian, Valens, Justin, Justinian, etc. The fall of Rome did not happen in the city of Rome, it happened in former Yugoslavia where was the capital city of the Roman Empire, Sirmium, which had a Colosseum bigger than Rome’s, and which minted all coins for the Empire. Serbian Emperors ruled both, East and West Roman Empire, fought (Diocletian), legalised Christianity (Constantine) built churches (Justinian) ::::::::::

    Very good sense of bad Titomade humor!

    Listen Titocomrade is more likely that Novak Djokovic is Samoean!!!!!!!

    • Replies: @Odyssey
  28. Chris Moore says: • Website
    @Chris Moore

    Thinking a bit more about your definition of Christianity as “the universal Jewish ideas with Jewish chauvinism,” and the story of Moses and the Ten Commandments. What is the first commandment?

    “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.”

    Who actually did that? Moses. Therefore, is Moses the true Yahweh? If so, what did he think of the concept of the Chosen Race of Hebrews? Did he think they could no wrong, that they were one with God?

    Of course not. He actually wiped out a large percentage of the heretics in his own tribe; in fact, it’s the first thing he did when he cam down from the mountain and saw how they had already reverted to, basically, voodoo. So “Jewish chauvinism” is heretical, because it assumes Jews are automatically a Chosen people by fiat of their race, when in fact a large percentage of “Jews” today (all?) are actually the kind of reprobate heretics that Moses eviscerated.

    Extrapolating this out to the US Constitution as a sacred, universal declaration, what should have been the penalty for those who violated the US Constitution? Death! That means the Founders who brought in the slaves were already in violation of their sacred oath.

    Indeed, Moses, by tolerating slaves (“servants” in the Ten Commandments, and female servants were also concubines) was in de facto violation of the Ten Commandments, because female concubines beget offspring from the master, and what is to be done with them? What code are they to follow? Are they to be incorporated into the tribe? No, according to traditional Judaism, for only the offspring of female Jews are allotted Jewish status. This is going to cause major problems down the line, as the concubine spawn demands equal rights.

    So by officially sanctioning slavery, Moses was setting up the Jews to fail their oath to the Ten Commandments, the Jewish Constitution.

    That’s why the US is failing, too.

    Christian Europe, on the other hand, doesn’t want to bring in low-paid foreign workers (globalist “slaves”), but the globalist ((Jews)) are trying to force the issue, and have thus far succeeded.

    These ((Jews)) and their insatiable greed are nuts. Their sickness and insanity is what precipitates the need for “Great Resets” and “Great Wars,” because when history finally and inevitably catches up with them, the only solution is a mass evisceration of all the messes they’ve made, so they can get a “fresh start” — to make the same mistakes all over again.

    These ((Jews)) meet the colloquial definition of Insanity — Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

  29. @Malla

    Looking at that map, the entire Pacific coast of North America from the middle coast of BC to Anchorage Alaska isn’t part of “western civilization”. I’ll need to tell that to the people I come in contact with in Ketchikan and Juneau the next Alaska cruise I take.

  30. @c matt

    Peloponnesian War, the worst that ever happened. Athens and Sparta destroying one another, from which neither recovered. It proved to be a Pyrrhic Victory for Sparta.

    Then the total disaster of falling under Macedonian power. All that Greek energies wasted on Alexander’s reckless empire building. The Greek World grew bigger but also murkier and less defined.

    How history might have been different if Athens and Sparta found way to combine their respective strengths. Athenians were too arrogant, Spartans were too rigid.

    Roman Empire was the natural follow-up to Alexandrian Empire. Both awful.

  31. @anonymous

    Easy if you get to colonize less unattractive variants of human, but some unlucky bastards in history had to colonize Africa and and Australia. It takes some idealization of black sexual prowess to escape the reek of ghetto hopelessness to living such a life.

  32. Lagoons. says:

    Northern Europeans during Roman times are commonly thought of as dumb barbarians along the lines of the African spear chucker. This isn’t a accurate view at all though.

    They were proficient at smelting copper, bronze, and iron, this includes everything from weapons to jewelry. They were also skilled at navigation, especially as far as seafaring goes – those “barbarians” made their own ships and over ran Roman Britain, and at around the same time, another group of “barbarians” invaded Spain and proceeded to construct a navy to invade Roman North Africa. These were the Vandals. And not only did they do that, they also gained controlled over all of the central Mediterranean and sacked Rome via naval landings from their new home in North Africa.

    Later on, the Vikings perfected the earlier tribal Germanic ship building techniques and managed to be the first Europeans to set foot on North America, centuries before Columbus.

    Also, it was Northern Europeans and their cousins in Eastern Europe and the steppes of Central Asia who first domesticated the horse itself. The Chinese, Japanese, Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, etc. who rode horses, it goes back to those Northern European related steppe people who first domesticated the species.

    Point being is that they were never unsophisticated or dumb. They were VERY tribal but at the same time they were also extremely intelligent and obviously, capable.

  33. Odyssey says:
    @tito vampir

    Comrade, you who are cowardly hiding behind the Croat name and Serbian surname, did you say something?

  34. Odyssey says:
    @René Fries

    I see that you have studied in details Palestinian white pages. We do expect from you to provide some expertise in Latin or Greek. For example, when and where Latin originated? Wielgus is also a linguist, but he did not give us anything so far. We must discuss this on our next Trier micro-community meeting.

  35. Hacienda says:
    @Jon Chance

    That’s interesting. Three fascinating countries. Swiss precision, Norwegian cool, Russian resolve.

    Like them all. Just can’t see how they will form an alliance. And there’s too much, much pizzazz in E.Asia. Makes the Swiss boring. The Russians thick-headed. Norwegians fun, but not really relevant.

    • Replies: @Jon Chance
  36. Odyssey says:
    @c matt

    When Greeks came to Europe and where from? What was their name at that time?

    • Replies: @tito vampir
  37. Franz says:
    @gT

    But this process of Globalization is now coming to an end.

    Good show, thank you.

    Yes, “globalization” was the catch-word for about 40 years of wages seeking the lowest level. The bottom is now nearing. Nations that thrived on cheap imports are now going to find prices going up, wages going down, and opportunities for solid careers in a tailspin.

    A generation + of cheap stuff and lies has created a bumper crop of strange new “sciences” as Critical Race Theory and others employed people at insane wages to produce nothing but social disruption. People in this category are like the autoworkers of 30-40 years ago who got thrown out.

    Big difference: Autoworkers and others were patriots and accepted reality, often finishing careers in get-by jobs and gigs. The Critical Race club are NOT patriotic and the hissy fit they throw when the freebies come to an end is going to be fun to watch. Dangerous fun too, maybe.

  38. @Jon Chance

    Europe’s destiny lies in France being able to overcome the GAE. They are the one country in Europe who hasn’t completely cucked their economy to the GAE. There are elements of the right in France that are very well organized & quite based. They are also the one Western country who survived WW2 relatively in tact. France also had the leader who saw past the Cold War con in De Gaulle. Even though Gaullism got compromised, the vision he had was fundamentally nationalistic without being some imperial agenda or ideological circle jerk. He wanted a gold standard, he wasn’t all that into Israel & distrusted the idea that Europe should build interdependent systems.

    • Replies: @Jon Chance
  39. @dearieme

    I actually wish people would stop lumping America in with the West, we are not Europe. We are fundamentally a new civilization. The Euro worship in America among the right is why Neocons win. The Europeans stayed in Europe, Americans have always been pioneers, we’re the ones that left Europe for valid reasons. We set out to build a new civilization. That’s fundamentally why our destiny converges with Latin America, whether we all like it or not.

    Let the Russians deal with these lunatic Europeans. All this worshiping of a Europe which has long since disappeared, ends up yielding the country over to this pro-Atlanticist cartel, who effectively then hands us over to old European moneyed interests.

  40. Jon Chance says: • Website
    @Hacienda

    India, Japan, and Taiwan will manage the Jewish problem (CCP) in Asia.

    If you believe the Swiss are boring, the Russians are thick-headed, and the Norwegians are irrelevant, you’re probably French or Jewish.

    • Replies: @Hacienda
  41. Jon Chance says: • Website
    @Autistocrates

    France is today, and always has been, an arrogant and ignorant proxy for Judeo-Islamic terrorism.

    Eventually Germany (and Russia) will liberate France again.

    https://TheGreatestStoryNeverTold.tv

  42. @Hacienda

    What the hell is an “Anglo”? Speak English, not Mexican!

    • Replies: @Hacienda
  43. @Odyssey

    Greeks and Europe are the same like the heart and the chest of the human body.
    The controversial name Greci, Greek comes from geros ( that means old like in the word geriatrics).
    Geros ( ΓΗΡΑΙΟΣ) was the nickname of Hercules ( ΗΡΑΚΛΗΣ). The old Hercules was worshipped all over Europe since the prehistoric times that’s why Europe is called the Old Continent and that’s why England is called the Old Albion. Hercules was the god of agriculture. He used the fire Prometheus provided the human race and right after the flood together with his nephew Iolaos burnt the tropical forest in Nemea. They created the first fields for agriculture and thε first meadows for the livestock. The Hydra of Lerna was the huge tropical forest after the flood. Even today for deforestation they use the same slash and burn technique Hercules and Iolaos invented to kill the Hydra of Lerna. In many places in Europe were nemetons, worship places of Hercules. Nemea, nemeton and the word name (ΟΝΟΜΑ) come from the verb ΝΕΜΩ that means allot. That’s why people have names to imply their own share of property.

    So the Greeks considerd themselves as offsprings of Hercules, Heracleidaes. That’s why their kings were portaiting themselves with a lions head. But Greeks was not the only name they had for themselves. The were called ERYTHREOI the Reds because they considered themselves as the first people to face the sun coming out of the caves . The Reds were cosmopolitans and they sailed all over the globe that’s why the invented geography and named all the places ( rivers, mountains, sea, continents, islands etc) Aethiopians was another name of the Greeks also Phonecians, Aegyptians, Persians, Libyans . As they spread in historical times and expanded, the areas were they settled were given the various different names of their homeland.

    • Replies: @Odyssey
  44. Hacienda says:
    @Jon Chance

    I’m neither French nor Russian. Bad, bad guess, wise guy. You need to recalibrate your ethnological takes.

    And you are another Jew obsessed. That makes you a puppet of Jews themselves. Ever think about it from that angle? The Jew is indifferent to whether you are philo-semitic or anti-semitic. What matters is that you are OBSESSED by the Jew. Then the Jew can do whatever she likes to you.

    But you won’t ever understand. You’re a slave to the Jews. To get all meta-here we are talking about the Jew. Created by a Jew. See? And it goes much deeper than that.

  45. Hacienda says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Look it up in Wikipedia.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  46. @Hacienda

    Look it up in Wikipedia.

    Because it isn’t in Britannica!

    Wik’s first four words: “Anglo is a prefix…”

    What does Mexiwiquipedia say? Why, nothing:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo#/languages

    It is also only a prefix in Ukrainian, but a stand-alone word in Russian and Armenian, the only other languages which have such a page.

    If it’s not word enough to merit a page in Spanish, whence it came, it’s not word enough to qualify as English. So there.

    • Agree: Rich
  47. Odyssey says:
    @tito vampir

    What is this, sýntrofos vampirko? Are you telling us kindergarten stories? Not only me, many other noticed that Greeks present mythologies as their history. To qualify for this conversation, first tell us when and where from Greeks came to Europe! You wouldn’t tell us that Alexander was a Greek, would you?

  48. @Odyssey

    You are right my friend Greeks purposely confuse mythology and history. After all they invented history! As far as Alexander the Great he never had identity issues.
    In contrast a lot of victims of Tito’s propaganda try desperately to prove a false identity.

    After all who cares about the other people’s past? Pride is a very selfdestructing feeling.
    Copying the best with a sense of respect and responsibility would save the world from a lot of trouble.
    A good human character beats any national and historical background.
    Meanwhile keep eating your food using your fork and knive and never ask yourself why half of the earth’s population is doing that. My guess is you won’t be very happy from finding out!

  49. Bubba says:

    Pride is a very selfdestructing feeling.

    Please tell that to these lunatics during the month of June…

    https://www.gaytravel.com/gay-events/gay-pride-event-calendar

  50. @Odyssey

    Good Evening.
    can you tell us what nationality was Alexander the great.?
    What language did he speak and write in?
    What does his name mean?
    Philippos father’s name (and why grammatically it has two (p))
    Olympiada his mother (does her name match something else?
    Aristotle, his teacher, in which language did he teach him?
    He always had Homer’s Iliada under his pillow!!!!!!!!!
    Let me remind you, sir, how in Ancient Greece, the names
    they denoted the quality of a person or thing.
    Example¨¨WINDOWS….By the door(next to the door)
    I am waiting for you to solve my questions
    thank you very much.

    • Replies: @Odyssey
  51. Rich says:
    @René Fries

    If I’m not mistaken, Jews were driven out of Palestine around 70AD by the Romans. Another revolt about 100 years later resulted in whatever stragglers remained being forced out. In the 7th century Muslims conquered the area and thus began mass conversion and Muslim immigration. That’s about 1300 years of Muslim control. Pretty legitimate claim to the land. Of course, as long as the present day Israelis can hold it, it’s theirs. Playing word games and basing claims on a small kingdom from over 2,000 years ago (who stole the land from Caananites) is a little comical. Whoever can take and hold the land, owns the land.

    • Replies: @René Fries
  52. Odyssey says:
    @Andreas Nterekis

    Kaló apógevma to you, too!

    Very interesting questions, I may skim through the book of Demosthenes’ speeches to find some answers. In the meantime, we can answer the initial question – when and where from the (future) Greeks came to Europe? After that we can see who lived in Troy and who was Homer. Or, who am I?
    Kalinychta!

    • Replies: @Andreas Nterekis
  53. @Rich

    In the 7th century Muslims conquered the area

    “Islam” did not even exist in the 7th century, nor in the 8th (I’ve written more than once about the topic), so how a non-existing community could have conquered any territory remains a mystery.

    • Replies: @Rich
  54. Rich says:
    @René Fries

    What is your name for the armies that conquered Palestine from the Eastern Romans in the 7th century, then? Is it really your contention that Khalid ibn Al-Walid and his forces weren’t Muslim? Okay. But there is no doubt to the fact that an army that every historian I’ve ever read claimed to be Muslim, attacked combined Roman and Arab Christian armies in Palestine and conquered the region. Those armies weren’t led by men named Goldberg or Hertzman.

    I’m not familiar with your unique position that what everyone else calls Muslim armies, weren’t Muslim. I’m sure you’re not contending that those armies were part of the IDF, are you?

    • Replies: @René Fries
  55. @Odyssey

    Dear Sir,
    because they must have definitely come from somewhere else!!!!!
    because modern historians say so ???
    have they always been there!!!!!
    Isocrates, (436-338 BC) “Panegyrikos”, 24-25, mentions…
    “For we inhabit this country, neither driving others out of it nor desolating it, nor settling in it as a mixed group of various dissimilar races, on the contrary our race is so noble and genuine, that the country in which we saw the first light, we continue to live continuously, because we are natives and only we of all others have the right to address our city with the same words, with which I admonish the best known relatives”.
    Efcharisto

  56. As for the Greek name, Ellin we know these…. In Greek mythology, Deucalion is the husband of Pyrrha, daughter of Epimetheus and Pandora: they were the only people who survived the Flood and recreated humanity.

    He was the son of Prometheus and the Oceanus Klymene, daughter of the Titan Oceanus and the Titaness Tethys according to Dionysius of Halicarnassus.
    Of the children born from the stones they threw, Pyrrha and Deucalion gave birth to the Greek, Amphictyon, the Protogenea Pandora the Younger and the Nymph Thyia.

    Their firstborn son <> became the progenitor of the Greeks. Amphictyon ruled Athens after Cranao. Deucalion himself became the king of Phthia and Thessaly.

    The progenitor of the Greeks, Hellene, fathered three sons with Orseida, Doros Xouthos and Aeolus, the first leaders of the Greeks.

    Xuthos reigned in the Peloponnese and had two sons, Achaios and Ionas from whom the Achaeans and the Ionians took their names. Aeolus reigned in Thessaly and the inhabitants were named Aeolians after him. Doros and his people who were called Dorians settled in the areas east of Parnassus.

    • Replies: @Odyssey
  57. From Homer, Rhapsody Z, verses 119-236
    In the smoke of battle two enemies, the Greek Diomedes and Glaucus from Troy prepare to kill each other in a duel. During their conversation it emerges that they have a sacred relationship of friendship, as Diomedes’ grandfather hosted Glaucus’s grandfather in Argos and they exchanged gifts of hospitality. Thus, the two enemies part amicably, exchanging gifts, just like his grandparents: Glaucus gives Diomedes gold armor, while Glaucus gives Glaucus bronze of lesser value. When Diomedes asks to know the origin of Glaucus, he replies:
    “Tydeides magathim, what or what are you doing?”
    As for the generation of leaves, so is the generation of men.
    The wind is blowing leaves, but nothing else
    I have been offered a man, he is not the time of the time;
    The generation of men is not born but perishes.”

    translation…

    Diomedes, brave heart, why do you sit and ask me about my generation?
    As the leaves, so is the germ of men:
    some of the leaves are thrown by the winds to the ground and others fall
    the forest bursts forth throughout the spring; the like
    and of mortals one has sprung up and the other generation is dying.”

    of course they spoke in the Greek language, because they were both Greeks…..

    As for who Homer was, to me he is Odysseus himself,

    because he describes in both works, so many details that only one participated

    in these events, he could know them.

    Sorry for the long text

    Andrew.

  58. @Fran Taubman

    Screw you both i.e Fran Taubman and René Fries. Murderers of Palestinians and simple farmers. You both are robbers and thieves of the Palestinanians.

  59. Odyssey says:
    @Andreas Nterekis

    The question is still unanswered, and it prevents from moving on. There is no intention to reclaim anything, but the history should be cleared from falsifications. It is pointless to discuss anything if there is a disagreement on the first step.

    Antio sas,

    Homer

    https://macedonianhistory.ca/PDF/Macedonian%20village%20names.pdf

    • Replies: @tito vampir
  60. @Ann Nonny Mouse

    There are mountains of books on the subject

    indeed there are. Before the parution of the “Inârah” series [it being the state-of-the-art science in the matter, you can look at Robert M. Kerr’s achievements https://iuni-saarland.academia.edu/RobertKerr, he is co-editor of the last parution Die Entstehung einer Weltreligion VI which I’ve just acquired], I already had read Blachère, Cusanus, Corbin, Grousset, Arnaldez, Kalisky, Kepel, Belloc and Goldziher (these being the names that come to my mind readily, but there were others). The publications of “Inârah” fulfill every strictest criterion of scientific methods.

    (…) credible, respected Jewish authors on the subject

    Spinoza, whom I have complete, is credible and respected but NOT by the Jews. I doubt whether any of those you’ve named would concur in admitting that Moses and Abraham didn’t even exist as I have mentioned already, or to accept the contents of a long article on the matter published in the Dutch scientific monthly Natuurwetenschap en techniek (NWT) 7-8/2007 , “Bijbelse openbaringen”.

    (…) the Palestinians are the original Hebrews

    those before 1880 were. I mentioned it.

    (…) the Muslim conquest

    there never was a Muslim conquest, the “religion” Islam did not yet exist in 638, date at which the patriarch of Jerusalem opened the doors to the contingents of former Arab auxiliaries of the Sassanids whose king Khosraw had been utterly defeated by emperor Herakleios between 622 (this being the beginning of the “Hijra” in Muslim mythology) and 627. The said auxiliaries being the only military force in the region (Herakleios not wishing to re-occupy it), they had no problems in occupying the former Byzantine territories, the more so as the widow of Herakleios, Martina, instructed the patriarch of Alexandria to facilitate the exit of the remaining Byzantines on sep 12, 642, see Die dunklen Anfänge, Verlag Hans Schiler, Berlin 2007, pp. 26-29.

  61. @Rich

    I’ve just replied

    René Fries says:
    July 12, 2022 at 6:48 am GMT • very recent • 300 Words ↑
    @Ann Nonny Mouse
    ,

    the comment awaiting moderation.

    • Replies: @Rich
  62. @Odyssey

    Dear Andreas,

    Why are you wasting your time with poor victims of Tito’s propaganda?
    Don’t you get it? When they look at themselves in the mirror the see ” nobody “.
    That where the Odyssey , Homer, efharisto, antio sas, in his responses are coming from…..
    Living in Titoland under fifty years of Tito that’s a heavy tall…………

    • Replies: @Odyssey
  63. Rich says:
    @René Fries

    Interesting thesis. I’ve never come across it before. When I get time I’ll have to give it a look.

    • Replies: @René Fries
  64. Also the conquest of Spain had nothing to do with “islam”. This was a fact well-known at the time: “(…) the Egyptian chronicler Ibn ‘Abd al-Hakam still knows that the Berbers are Christians”, in Schlaglichter, Hans Schiler Verlag, Berlin 2008, p. 125. That’s to say that in reality there had been but a “collaboration of the christiano-berber population of North-Africa with the non–catholic population of Spain against the Catholic Spanish king”, cf. Die dunklen Anfänge, Hans Schiler Verlag, Berlin 2007, p. 101. The said king Rekkared (Récarède) had himself converted to Catholicism because he – rightly – feared the growing power of my ancestors, the Franks.

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 Jung-Freud Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
How America was neoconned into World War IV
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement