Destroying History

[Speaker to Animals]

Did Bolelli ever get back to you?

[Speaker to Animals]

I know he didn't read the text because it contradicted what he was posting. He didn't even know it contradicted him until I pointed it out.

You are a little late. We've moved on to him lashing out at Bolelli now for also stating that the servile wars had some connection to the Dionysian cults, and that Spartacus' wife was, in fact, a follower of Dionysus. But, again, he'd have known that if he read the quoted Plutarch.

He was a Thracian from the nomadic tribes and not only had a great spirit and great physical strength, but was, much more than one would expect from his condition, most intelligent and cultured, being more like a Greek than a Thracian [3]. They say that when he was first taken to Rome to be sold, a snake was seen coiled round his head while he was asleep and his wife, who came from the same tribe and was a prophetess subject to possession by the frenzy of [the god of ecstasy] Dionysus, declared that this sign meant that he would have a great and terrible power which would end in misfortune. This woman shared in his escape and was then living with him.

http://www.livius.org/so-st/spartacus/s ... s_t01.html


Again, I realize my thesis about degeneracy and the similarity between the SJWs and the Bacchanalia is controversial. I don't have a problem with people disputing that. Bjorn is disputing historical record and doing so in an insulting fashion. I just responded in likewise insult, though I use the actual historical record to support my case whereas he does not.

You know, fair's fair. About the tone of, at least my initial, reply. It was needlessly provocative. I apologize about that.

Still nowhere disputing historical record. The historical record knows about interpretatio romana.

I talked to our late iron age archaeologist at the museum where I work today about this discussion of ours, btw. He too confirms what I'm saying. That ancient Romans interpreted foreign gods to really be Roman gods with other names. Most historical sources simply relays the truth as they experienced it.

Again, I'm nowhere disputing the historical sources, just your reading of them. Plutarch's not contradicting me, lying, or being dishonest when he says that Spartacus' wife was a Dionysian priestess. To Plutarch and other ancient Romans, saying that Germans worshipped Mercury and Thracians Dionsysus, even if they instead worshipped Woden or some Thracian god(ddess) would have been met with blank stares. To them, WodenWAS Mercury, just a different name for the same god. This is referred to as interpretatio romana:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpret ... tio_romana

https://books.google.dk/books?id=as_OTs ... us&f=false

Are there any Thracian gods that resemble Dionysus? Here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleo-Balkan_mythology

You decide.

I am curious if you found this in your wikipedia excursion:

The ecstatic cult of Dionysus was originally thought to be a late arrival in Greece from Thrace or Asia Minor, due to its popularity in both locations and Dionysus' non-integration into the Olympian Pantheon. After the deity's name was discovered on Mycenean Linear B tablets, however, this theory was abandoned and the cult is considered indigenous, predating Greek civilization. The absence of an early Olympian Dionysus is today explained by patterns of social exclusion and the cult's marginality, rather than chronology. Whether the cult originated on Minoan Crete (as an aspect of an ancient Zagreus) or Africa – or in Thrace or Asia, as a proto-Sabazius – is unanswerable, due to lack of evidence. Some scholars believe it was an adopted cult not native to any of these places and may have been an eclectic cult in its earliest history, although it almost certainly obtained many familiar features from Minoan culture.[1]

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

It's not even a Greek or Roman religion.


A Thracian coin featuring Dionysus on the obverse:



https://www.cointalk.com/threads/coins- ... sm.246579/



This coin right here is awesome:




Thracian coin with Dionysus on the obverse, and Hercules on the reverse. I wouldn't mind owning that one.

[BjornP]

Did Bolelli ever get back to you?

Not yet. I'll be sure to post his reply whatever the case, but as I said, it's not going to change anything. Wether you are convinced or not, and no matter Bolleli's response, makes no difference that

I am curious if you found this in your wikipedia excursion:

The ecstatic cult of Dionysus was originally thought to be a late arrival in Greece from Thrace or Asia Minor, due to its popularity in both locations and Dionysus' non-integration into the Olympian Pantheon. After the deity's name was discovered on Mycenean Linear B tablets, however, this theory was abandoned and the cult is considered indigenous, predating Greek civilization. The absence of an early Olympian Dionysus is today explained by patterns of social exclusion and the cult's marginality, rather than chronology. Whether the cult originated on Minoan Crete (as an aspect of an ancient Zagreus) or Africa – or in Thrace or Asia, as a proto-Sabazius – is unanswerable, due to lack of evidence. Some scholars believe it was an adopted cult not native to any of these places and may have been an eclectic cult in its earliest history, although it almost certainly obtained many familiar features from Minoan culture.[1]

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

It's not even a Greek or Roman religion.

It says that the Dionysus cult was originally thought to have come from Thrace or Asia Minor, but that that theory was later abandonded and the cult (not a religion) is now considered an indigenous one.

[Speaker to Animals]

Did Bolelli ever get back to you?

Not yet. I'll be sure to post his reply whatever the case, but as I said, it's not going to change anything. Wether you are convinced or not, and no matter Bolleli's response, makes no difference that

I am curious if you found this in your wikipedia excursion:

The ecstatic cult of Dionysus was originally thought to be a late arrival in Greece from Thrace or Asia Minor, due to its popularity in both locations and Dionysus' non-integration into the Olympian Pantheon. After the deity's name was discovered on Mycenean Linear B tablets, however, this theory was abandoned and the cult is considered indigenous, predating Greek civilization. The absence of an early Olympian Dionysus is today explained by patterns of social exclusion and the cult's marginality, rather than chronology. Whether the cult originated on Minoan Crete (as an aspect of an ancient Zagreus) or Africa – or in Thrace or Asia, as a proto-Sabazius – is unanswerable, due to lack of evidence. Some scholars believe it was an adopted cult not native to any of these places and may have been an eclectic cult in its earliest history, although it almost certainly obtained many familiar features from Minoan culture.[1]

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

It's not even a Greek or Roman religion.

It says that the Dionysus cult was originally thought to have come from Thrace or Asia Minor, but that that theory was later abandonded and the cult (not a religion) is now considered an indigenous one.

But was a major part of their culture..

I also showed you two coins. Apparently he was so important to them, many of their coins feature his visage.

[BjornP]

As for the coin:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thasos#Antiquity

Around 650 BC, or a little earlier, Greeks from Paros founded a colony on Thasos.

[BjornP]

But was a major part of their culture..

I also showed you two coins. Apparently he was so important to them, many of their coins feature his visage.

Of Greek (and Roman) culture? Certain. And Thracian worship of Sabaziois* was a major part of Thracian culture, and Romans considered Sabazios to be simply another name for Dionysus.

Some Romans may have wanted an end to the Bacchanalians, but would not wish to ban other - sanctioned - ways of worshipping Bacchus or Dionysus, as the Roman senate legislating in favor of restricting Bacchanalian excess ought to attest.


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

[Speaker to Animals]

Dionysus was not native to Greek and Roman culture. He's an import.

The point being, you claimed everybody is mistaken in concluding the Roman historians were correct in their connecting Spartacus' wife to Dionysus because Dionysus was not a Thracian god. But I have shown you quite clearly that he was one of the primary gods worshiped by Thracians in that time. It's not crazy to believe that she was exactly what the Romans said she was.

[TheReal_ND]

What happened to innocent until proven guilty? James Fields hasn't even been tried yet. You poison the well of your own supposed ideology you uphold in the name of slandering people you disagree with. You're no better than the Nazis.

My ideology? Again creating your own bullshit narrative, nuke.

If some motherfucker drives into a crowd, then he drives into a crowd. I feel the same way of that Moroccan lunatic here that went on a stabbing rampage targetting women and people who tried to help the victims. Proven until guilty is for the justice systems motto to give people a fair trial, but what is self evident... is self evident. It would be ludicrous to assume something else, some repugnant whitewash that the guy was acting on self defence. What is clear is clear.

Or perhaps you are thinking about some conspiracy theory that James Fields Jr was innocent, that the driver was actually a black guy from the BLM or what? False flag my ass.

Being pro-white is not the same as pro FOX. I hope you finally put the bullet through your skull you pro nigger boomer.

[Speaker to Animals]

One almost gets the impression that the end result, and true motivation behind this, is the dismantling of civilization itself.

You should read this:
https://www.newcriterion.com/issues/200 ... tions-fall

In the course of the 1960s, a new tribe was established that also sought to overthrow the Western citadel from within and had notably greater success. This was Betty Friedan’s radical feminists. It was a tribe constructed out of women who had taken some sort of degree and were living domestic lives. Technology had largely liberated them from the rigors of beating, sweeping, and cleaning, while pharmacology had released them from excessive procreation. In tactical terms, radical feminists made one innovation that has turned out to be crucial to the destiny of the West over the last half century. They suppressed almost completely the idea that their project involved a transfer of power and operated entirely on the moralistic principle that their demands corresponded to justice.
What lay behind this momentous development? It is a complicated question, but I think that Diana Schaub understood the essence of it in her essay 'On the Character of Generation X':
[Betty] Friedan was right that the malaise these privileged women were experiencing was a result of 'a slow death of the mind and spirit.' But she was wrong in saying that the problem had no name—its name was boredom. Feminism was born of boredom, not oppression. And what was the solution to this quandary? Feminists clamored to become wage-slaves; they resolutely fled the challenge of leisure.
And by 'leisure,' Professor Schaub means something classically Greek: the higher employment of the mind once the necessities of life have been dealt with.
The first task of this new movement was to create the shared consciousness necessary for tribal functioning. Like all forms of psychic collectivism, 'consciousness raising' (as it is known) exploits indignation and cultivates righteousness. It operated in this case with the basic liberatory image of the prison and, identifying happiness with being in the labor force, argued that only male oppression over the centuries had 'confined' women to the domestic sphere. What radical feminism essentially did was to deny complementarity between the sexes and set men and women up as competing teams playing exactly the same game, but a game in which all the rules were stacked against the women. It was only on this eccentric assumption—i.e., that women had identical talents and inclinations to men—that they could support the conclusion that there had been foul play. As with Hitler’s appeal to the Aryan race, the basic principle was one of flattery: women, it revealed, are a marvelously talented set of people who have been iniquitously suppressed by males running a patriarchal system.

I have been reading it off and on since you posted it. I think he is right about a lot of things, but I think his defense of traditionalism is a bit weak.

In particular,

In earlier centuries, the project of getting women into the labor force would have been visionary, partly no doubt because no one thought in terms of a labor force. For one thing, women were necessary to keep the home fires burning. In any case, the world of work outside the hearth was hardly inviting. Ploughing the land required relentless physical input beyond the strength of most women; nor were they keen to exercise the broadsword. And, during a longish stretch of life, women would have their hands full with bearing and nurturing children.

I don't know how to prove this, but I strongly suspect that medieval women were out in the fields working alongside the men. That doesn't mean they performed as much physical labor as men, only that they were still out there helping, especially during times of high labor such as the harvest. Further, I strongly suspect men were doing work around the house, especially in the winter, when there wasn't as much to do in the fields.

From my perspective, what we are seeing here is a mythological view of the past based on the way aristocratic women conducted themselves (exempt from labor and living a very privileged lifestyle) that was not indicative of most women. I also happen to think that, in the past two centuries, women increasingly took on the position that they all deserved to be treated as and to live like those earlier aristocratic women instead of work. If you go back to the early 19th century, most women in America anyway lived on farms and most of them worked alongside men in addition to their duties raising kids and maintaining the household. As society became urbanized and industrialized, they somehow managed to exempt themselves from quite a lot of hard labor while the husbands toiled in factories, shipyards, and so forth.

Consider that women were exempt from the kinds of hard labor their own small boys were expected to perform.

I am of the opinion that we should go back to treating women as capable laborers and expect them to contribute, but balanced with the fact that they are the ones who bare and raise children while the children are babies. Feminism demands that women live that "pure" lifestyle as if they were men, which is impossible if they also want to be mothers. Fake traditionalism demands that they stay home and never participate in the labor force, which leads to malaise and a sense of pointlessness in their existence (Mother's Little Helper wasn't written in a vacuum).

[Speaker to Animals]

In short, the only reason most women are unsuitable to hard labor is because most were never expected to perform any hard labor outside of child birth in their entire lives. They are frail and weak because they never bothered to build muscles. They lack endurance because they don't work hard in general.

In an office environment, that doesn't really come into play at all. But.. women still seek to balance their biological roles as mothers with their adopted roles as office workers, and that's not easily accomplished. At all.

Feminism promised them they could have it all. Which, of course feminism would do that, since it's just the most base impulse to accumulate privileges for women. And, of course it backfired on women. The whole project was stupid from the start.

We need a more organic and biologically-realistic approach to these kinds of social policies. The problem is that a lot of women are unwilling or incapable of realizing that, contrary to what feminists tell them, a lot of what happened over the past century and a half was women accumulating unjustifiable privileges. Of course women should work! And of course they can't work professionally to the same level as men if they want to also be mothers! There's nothing wrong with that.

The true degenerate and fifth column nature of feminism occurred with the marxism and moral degeneracy it propagated, not the attempt to get women back into the workplace.