Martin Hash.com

BjornP wrote:

Speaker to Animals wrote: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.

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]

Speaker to Animals wrote:Did Bolelli ever get back to you?

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.

BjornP wrote:

Speaker to Animals wrote: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.

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

Speaker to Animals wrote:

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.

ssu wrote:

Nukedog wrote: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.

Hastur wrote:

Speaker to Animals wrote: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.

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.