Hollywood In Danger of Making Historically Unprecedented Returns From Pro-Euroman Movies

Posted by Søren Renner on March 10, 2007, 11:26 PM | #

Here come some OTHER Iranians.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lH2SSbwkmg&mode=related&search=

Not very Islamic Iranians.

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on March 10, 2007, 11:31 PM | #

I went to the movie with high expectations.  I was really excited.

Afterwards, I was sick to my stomach.

What started it was the advertisement for The Tudors on Showtime and five-six movie trailers.  European culture is dead!  After watching the disgusting immoral and narcissistic trailers, I was fully disheartened.

The movie was not much better.  I closed/shielded my eyes for over 10% of the movie.  The depiction of the ephors was really really really disgusting and revolting.  First the ephors had nothing to do with religion, they weren’t the religion, and they had nothing to do with the Oracle. 

This love of abnormality may be of the East but not of the Spartans or of the West.  The movie was totally nillistic and amoral.  The Spartans never never went into battle without the permission of the Gods. before every battle, there was a sacrifices to determine it.

The movie was totally unhistorical.  The Spartans never impaled anybody aka Assyrians.  The Spartans never stacked or desecrated bodies, The Spartans never killed wounded men! 

What was wrong with this movie was what it Taught about the Spartans.  The anti-multicultural message was good but having people have an admiration for the Spartans--was faulty to the core.  The Spartans were not Nazis!  They weren’t the Ubermensch of Nietzsche either.  Nietzsche would have been driven from Sparta by whips.

It was a sick movie according to Western Cultural standards!  And it was sick.

Posted by James Bowery on March 11, 2007, 12:19 AM | #

W.LindsayWheeler wrote: What was wrong with this movie was what it Taught about the Spartans.

Compared to what?  Here’s what’s being taught about the Spartans in universities:

Spartan pederasty, a custom held in common with other Dorian tribes, is thought to have either been introduced at the time of the Dorian invasion, around 1200 BCE, or to have been instituted in the seventh century BCE in emulation of that in Crete, which had evolved in response to population pressure. Sparta is thought to be the first city to practice athletic nudity, which evolved in parallel with formal pederastic practices.[1]

The practice was an integral part of the agoge, the educational backbone of the Spartan polis. The title given the lover was eispnelos (εἴσπνηλος) “inspirer,” who infuses the favorite with courage or arete, while the beloved was known as the aïtas (ἀίτας) “hearer.” [2][3]

Oh, I did forget to mention that some of the movie reviewers saw “The 300” as “homophobic” for its refusal to portray Spartans as queer.

Posted by PF on March 11, 2007, 12:24 AM | #

WLindsayWheeler wrote:

“The Spartans never stacked or desecrated bodies, The Spartans never killed wounded men!”

I flatly dont believe that. What is your source?

Posted by Dantius Palpatine on March 11, 2007, 03:13 AM | #

Keep up the good work. Billions will die. We will win.

Posted by Al Ross on March 11, 2007, 03:14 AM | #

I havent seen Nick Love’s ‘Outlaw’ yet but it seems to be modelled on the old ‘Death Wish, Bronson, ‘Paul Kelsey-as-vigilante’ movies and if the racial composition of the bad guys resembles that of the film’s London setting then the non-White members of the actors union, Equity, will have been kept rather busy.

Posted by James Bowery on March 11, 2007, 03:16 AM | #

Dantius Palpatine its more like you hold billions hostage to your parasitism, we refuse to submit and you kill your hostages before we can kill you.

Hostage situations in real life are like that—unlike hostage situations in movies.

Posted by stari_momak on March 11, 2007, 03:34 AM | #

I certainly can sympathize with WLidsayWheeler ... but compared to the normal fare this movie was incredible. I saw the trailers when I went to see Apocalypto .. which despite having non-white characters can also be seen as on ‘our’ side .. and I knew 300’s message would be Right. I mean ... the embassador boasting of the thousand nations of the Persian empire , and Sparta standing for Sparta . Man that was good. But in the film, when Xerxes said ‘we want to share our culture’ , you could have knocked my down with a feather (if I had been standing). Frontal assault on the pieties.

I think JB is right on with the generational thing. I am about Snyder’s age and have absolutely no recollection (other than from force feeding in schools) of the ‘Civil Rights Struggle’. What I do have is memories of the fights over bussing, the LA riots, my childhood neighborhood being turned into ‘Little Saigon’, the deterioration of California’s environment. I think their are a lot of guys my age and younger (mostly younger) that are getting ready to call bullshit in the next few years.

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on March 11, 2007, 03:39 AM | #

It is true that the Doric Cretans did invent the Tale of Ganymede and that they practiced homosexuality.

But the Doric Greeks of Laconia, i.e. the Spartans, did not. 

From Plato’s The Laws:

(Megillus the Spartan is speaking) “Yet, for myself, I hold that our Lacedaemonian lawgiver is right to command avoidance of pleasures. ... In Sparta, to my mind, this matter of pleasure is ordered better than in any place on earth. That which, by its keen delightsomeness, most easily entangles men in outrage and all manner of follies is, by our law, banished entirely from our territory. Neither in our country districts, nor in towns which are controlled by Spartans, can you find drinking parties, with the strong incentives to various pleasures that attend them. “

Next, Xenephon, an Athenian, who lived in Sparta and whose boys went through the agoge, said that no way was there homosexuality in Sparta.

The work of the German Classicist Karl Otfried Muller on this point:
http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=His._Antq._Doric_Race,_Pederasty_of_Sparta and the other http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=His._Antq._Doric_Race,_Origin_of_the_Pederastic_custom

I am with James; the use of ‘B.C.E’ and ‘Common Era’ is of Jewish invention.  As an European, we should use our collective European system of BC and AD.

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on March 11, 2007, 03:46 AM | #

On your question PF, I have to do some research and find it, but the Spartans, on the field of battle, they never killed anybody, that didn’t have a weapon in their hand.  If they had a weapon and threatened they would attack but otherwise---no.

Karl Otfried Muller called Spartan government an Aristocracy.  Why?  Because every Spartan was trained as an Aristocrat.  They were trained in Virtue and hence in Self-control.  The Spartans were very conscious of being “kaloskagathos”; the Good and the Beautiful.

Other than the Helots, in which they were at war with, and the 2000 they executed in order to prevent revolution, They didn’t kill unarmed men on the battlefield.  They didn’t sack Athens either whereas all the other Greeks wanted to.

Posted by gnxp stinks on March 11, 2007, 12:37 PM | #

Razib’s typically inarticulate “analysis”:

“You can extract out of this film whatever you want really if you focus on the lull between the battle scenes. A war between the white male West and the multiracial imperium of Asia is pretty straightforward interpretation. Or, one between rational secularity and faith based mysticism is also there. Finally, there is the angle of a progressive and liberal view of history (a “New Age") vs. a static and traditionalist once. As you can tell, for a film which lacks much subtly the broad brush strokes sweep in all directions. Ultimately, 300 was more a lushly realized video game than a live action movie, so the somewhat attenuated plot and character elements loom larger due to their scarcity on the ground, and I think this explains the over-reading by some. “

Posted by Robert of the Rohirrim on March 11, 2007, 07:50 PM | #

Lindsay Wheeler,

I like some of the ideas on your site and wikipedia.  However, I’m a bit confused with your basic philosophy.  You make a point to distinguish between the souls of different kinds of people.  You also say that Semites, being Eastern of mind, cannot possibly have created Western Civilization, and that the Greeks, especially Dorian Spartans are at the root of Western Civilization.  Yet you repeatedly use Semitic writings (the Bible) to support your arguments.  To be consistent, shouldn’t you use the writings of the Greeks to support your arguments?

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on March 11, 2007, 09:00 PM | #

In Answer to PF and in answer to the scandalous way that the movie 300 portrayed the Spartans:

XV.  The Spartan Character in Warfare

In the East, “Little boys and girls were, if not buried alive, at any rate put to death with a guilty father.” But Sparta was different.

“When the young sons of a man who had betrayed his city to the Persians were brought to the general commanding the Spartan forces after Leonidas fell at Thermopylae, he dismissed them. ‘They are boys,’ Herodotus reports him saying.  ‘What part could boys have in the guilt of siding with the Persians?’”

“What underlay the Spartan general’s action was not only the belief that the innocent must not suffer with the guilty; even more basic was the conviction of the value of each individual, no matter how defenseless.” (61)

On the battlefield, Spartans did not kill the wounded and the defenseless.  If the enemy offered resistance, he was killed but quarter given to enemy soldiers who did not resist.  Once rout was affected, the Spartans would “pursue for a short time and not far.” (62)

When Sparta was finally victorious over Athens in the Peloponnesian War, the allies demanded the destruction of Athens.  The Spartan general refused unlike what the Athenians did to the Melians.

Though they did put down slave rebellions with a vengeance, there was never a report of Spartans raping, pillaging or plundering as thieves.  In the preventitive slave uprising measures, only the adult males were killed--never women, never children.

(61) The Greek Way, Edith Hamilton, Pg 105.

(62) Thucydides, ch 16 sec 74; Pg 325

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on March 11, 2007, 09:02 PM | #

I forgot to add that info is from my own work, “The Glories of the Spartans”; you need the MSN Net passport to see it: http://www.msnusers.com/TheDoricphilosopher/Documents/The%20Glories%20of%20the%20Spartans.mht

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on March 11, 2007, 09:19 PM | #

In answer to Robert of the Rohirrim, The Greeks always move to Perfection; Arete.  Most Greeks, like Socrates and Plato, saw that their own mythology was made up by poets.

Plato, in the Laws, writes: “Now among these matters of high import is not the subject of divinity which we treated so earnestly pre-eminent?

“‘Tis of supreme moment for us, is it not, to know with all the certainity permitted to man that there are gods, and with what evident might they are invested?”

“In the great mass of our citizens we may tolerate mere conformity to the tradition embodied in the laws, but we shall do well to deny ALL access to the body of our guardians to any man who has NOT made it his serious business to master every proof there is of the being of gods.  And by denial of access I mean that no man who is not divinely gifted or has not labored at divinity shall ever be chosen for a curator, nor ever be numbered among those who win distinction for Virtue.” The Laws sec. 966 c.

Socrates, Plato, Aristotle were all Monotheists!  They gathered that from looking at Nature.  I follow them in their footsteps.

Second, the problem of evil is answered only within Christianity and Third I believe in the Resurrection.

Christianity is NOT a semitic religion.  I will be posting on my site in the future that Christianity is an Indo-European Religion--Not Semitic.  In that future thread I will point out why Christ was rejected by the Jews, but accepted by the Greeks.  Many Greek Philosophers became Christian for Christianity did met and answer many questions.  Jesus said, We are to live by the Spirit of the law, that is why forgiveness is central to Christianity and not the Revengeful spirit of the Israelites of the Mosaic Law.

There is a God.  And if God is intelligent--He would have spoken forcefully and coherently.  I believe He has communicated to us.

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on March 11, 2007, 09:26 PM | #

There is a difference between Religion and Mysticism.  The Spartans and other Greeks were Religious but NOT mystic.

Edith Hamilton, an American Classicist and Christian, brings out beautifully the dichotomy between East and West.  You need to read Her books, “The Greek Way”, “The Echo of Greece”, and “The Roman Way”.  She is my hero.  She is an excellent in her analysis and she does bring out the “West” of the Greeks. 

Edith Hamilton makes it a point that “Mysticism” had NO place amongst the Greeks!

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on March 11, 2007, 09:34 PM | #

I found my books:

“The endless struggle between the flesh and the spirit found an End in Greek Art.  The Greek artists were UNAWARE of it. 

“They were spiritual materialists, never denying the importance of the body and ever seeing in the body Spiritual Significance.

“Mysticism on the whole was alien to the Greeks, thinkers as they were.  Thought and Mysticism NEVER go well together, and there is little symbolism in Greek Art.
“The Greek Way”, Edith Hamilton, pg 42.

Posted by D.S. on March 11, 2007, 09:44 PM | #

Yes, BCE is rather silly—Euros should instead opt for Ab Urbe Condita (A.U.C.) instead .. B.C. nonsense must go too.  It’s, after all, also Jewish ...

As for the Spartans not being “Homos”—this is nonsense.  The Spartan system of fighting in pairs was based upon male love (do not mistake ancient Greek male “maennerbund” type love for the Harvey Milk Club), and that soldiers were less likely to abandoned their lovers in the battlefield.  The ancient Greeks had no problem with male love ... however, submission, sexually, to another male was generally considered strange (for adult males).  Older men generally did guide younger males and chase them (however, if you read Symposium, the younger Alcibiades chases Socrates ... ), but generally it was not “buttfucking” in the modern sense.

Spartans were generally around only males until they were 30 years old (where they were issued a wife if they did not have one lined up) ... if you think they were virgins (or lacked at least sexual encounters with other men—anal, oral, or other) ... you’re sadly mistaken.

They were not rainbow flag waving faggots, but they were not sexually repressed Christian puritans either.  Hail Sparta!

Posted by Al Ross on March 11, 2007, 11:21 PM | #

“There is a God. And if God is intelligent...”

That brilliant librettist WS Gilbert put it best :

You booby dense
You oaf immense,
With no pretense
To common sense!
A stupid muff
Who’s made of stuff
Not worth a puff
Of candle-snuff!

Posted by Robert of the Rohirrim on March 11, 2007, 11:26 PM | #

“Christianity is NOT a semitic religion.  I will be posting on my site in the future that Christianity is an Indo-European Religion--Not Semitic.  In that future thread I will point out why Christ was rejected by the Jews, but accepted by the Greeks.  Many Greek Philosophers became Christian for Christianity did met and answer many questions.  Jesus said, We are to live by the Spirit of the law, that is why forgiveness is central to Christianity and not the Revengeful spirit of the Israelites of the Mosaic Law.”

Perhaps Christianity was modified significantly by Europeans, but its roots are very Jewish.  Jesus was, according to the Gospel of Matthew, Jewish. His coming is the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy, which is why the Old Testament, containing the stories of Jewish conquest and prophecy, is so important.  According to most of the New Testament, He was the Jewish god in the flesh.

Why does Euroman need a Jew as his savior?  Why does he need to back up so much of his moral teaching with quotations from a Semitic people?  There are many more writings and moral lessons from our own literature.

Posted by PF on March 12, 2007, 12:28 AM | #

WLindsayWheeler,

Hi, whats up? I think the Greeks were great, and I think your admiration for them is well deserved, but I have to let the axe fall as regards some of your generalizations about them. It seems your picture of the Greeks as a people is very idealized, somewhat lacking in nuance, and even somehow custom tailored so support a series of position statements. Here is what I disagree with:

- D.S. comment about male love above is dead-on, its just a fact of Greek life that we had to accept, 18th-19th century classicists were also made to squirm, but its flat fact.

- Asserting that Plato and his circle were monotheists is contrary to your own quotes: if they were monotheists, why do they always say θεοι, “Gods”, instead of, like the later Christian writers, θεος, “God”?

- Whether the Spartans killed civies or not, and whether they mutilated those they killed, is a question that I dont trust any ancient historical source to be able to answer completely.
If an ancient historian made such an assertion, it would be only anecdotal: no writer was present with them on campaign, except for Xenophon, as far as I know.
War-bands tend to do disgusting things, and the Spartans most probably werent afraid to do the same thing all other armies have done. Even the anecdotes of ancient historians may be falsified, as the ancients lacked methods for verifying what was said and done.

- “In the preventitive slave uprising measures, only the adult males were killed--never women, never children.”
Were you there? Did you inspect the scene of the massacres? No. Neither did the authors that wrote about them or maybe did not write about them, if you get my drift. No classical historian would trust himself to make the assertions that you have just made.

- As far as finding Christianity to be not a Semitic religion- well the whole first half of the Christian Bible is purely Semitic, every one of its authors self-identified as Jews. The second half was about 9/10 Semitic, written by Christians of Jewish descent (I think Luke was Greek?). That text, upon which Christianity is based, was ~98% composed by Jews.
Thanks to Robert of the Rohirrim for calling WLindsay on that.

-"There is a difference between Religion and Mysticism.  The Spartans and other Greeks were Religious but NOT mystic.”
Both concepts are fuzzy - what seperates a man who is religious from one who is mystical? Would you call bird-augery mystical, or simply religious? But I think you may have a point.

I suggest a more nuanced advocacy of Greek virtue, based not on a literal belief in the veracity of ancient historical sources, nor on the infallibility of one group of people, about whom we frankly know precious little.

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on March 12, 2007, 01:09 AM | #

As you can see my detractors quote nothing scholarly.  My 29 page “Glories of the Spartans” has 85 footnotes and I am told, “not nuanced”.  I write the only true definition of the Classical Republic anywhere in existence, with a Philosophy section undergirding its creation, with over 120 footnotes for 14 pages, and what greets me---"not nuanced enough"--I am not marxist and modern academic enough.

Thanks, I’ll stay the way I am thank you. 

No other than Werner Jaeger, the famous German Classicist wrote in the introduction of opus Magnus that

“...and the impact of jumane civilizaiton upon Rome, the transformation of Hellenistic Greek paideia into Christian paideia is the greatest historical theme of this work.  If it depended wholly on the will of this writer, his studies would end with a description of the vast historical process by which Christianity was Hellenized and Hellenic civilization became Christianized. (Paideia, Vol II, pg xi)

Edith Hamilton wrote: “Christianity in its beginnings was addressed to the Greeks.  The Gospels are in Greek.  St. Paul wrote in Greek to Greek-speaking Christians.  Plutarch never came into contact with the new religion; ...although his spirit was naturally Christian, as was said of Socrates”. (The Echo of Greece, pg 208-209)

Obviously, here are JUST two witnesses of the European character of Christianity.  In many places PF, God is said in the Singular---why don’t you RE-READ Plato’s Dialogues.  And Plato called for the execution of Atheists and Atheists, Cynics and Skeptics WERE NOT allowed in Sparta!!!

(And I think I see some Jews on this board.  I can always tell, the deconstructionist spirit of some posters portray their Jewish identity.)

Posted by ben tillman on March 12, 2007, 01:13 AM | #

“...but they were not sexually repressed Christian puritans either.”

The Puritans weren’t sexually repressed.

Posted by Robert of the Rohirrim on March 12, 2007, 02:10 AM | #

Lindsay,

Help me sort out your statement that Christianity is not Semitic.  I agree that it has been changed by Europeans.  But that is not what I see as its “fatal flaw” today.  The problem I see is that its roots are still Semitic.  Its Holy Book is 98% or more of Semitic origin.  Its interpretations of the popular stories and mystic religions of the time and area are Semitic.

Posted by Daniel J on March 12, 2007, 02:44 AM | #

What’s being suggested here is the Spartans symbolized “rational secularity” but clearly they didn’t, judging by all that’s been discussed at MR.com the past few topics.  “Rational secularity” would be the view “Daniel J.” just expressed in the other thread, where he said he wouldn’t lay down his life in defense of European EGI -FS

This is a most devious interpretation of what I said. I will not fly to France to fight off the invading hordes of North Africans-that is not my responsibility. (At least right now I wouldn’t)

I would however welcome with open arms refugees of South Africa, or any other occupied territory, into my home.

Isn’t it obvious due to my presence that most certainly will do battle for my extended family?

In fact due to the age of most of ya’ll here, I am the one most likely to fight in the event of an actual war.

My point in the other thread was an ill defined EGI with muddled principles and talk of ‘transcendence’ wasn’t something worth dying for.

I deny your accusation or implication-whichever you prefer to call it-that I am any sort of rationalist, or any kind of yeller.

Posted by PF on March 12, 2007, 02:54 AM | #

WLindsayWheeler:

Do you feel your position as Greek expert assaulted?

Edith Hamilton is not a historian that I take seriously.
Here is a quote in which she summarizes her view of history:

“A people’s literature is the great textbook for real knowledge of them. The writings of the day show the quality of the people as no historical reconstruction can.”

Do you realize what that means? It means that for her, sufficient knowledge of the Greeks can be gathered by reading Aeschylus and rhapsodizing about the picture of Greek society which she has gained from it. To put it frankly, she makes me sick, as does anyone who thinks they can distort the past into being some kind of ideal picture of their own values.

Edith Hamilton’s vision of Greece reminds me of the Jewish fellow-travelers who lionized the Soviet Union under Stalin in the 30’s, without knowing the reality of what was taking place there. The same mental gymnastic of idealizing distant societies is taking place.

If you can behold something from a distance, it is easy to mould it to become the expression of all your ideals- and if done long enough, this kind of thinking is no longer curable.

All this talk of the Greeks has something masturbatory about it, to be perfectly honest. If you believe in the Christian God, just say it, stop putting words in Plato’s mouth. I just did a word scan of Alcibiades and the word ‘Gods’ came up 8 times, until I stopped scanning out of boredom. Most every reference to ‘God’ is like this one: “Socrates: well, if the god to whom you are going should even now appear to you...”

The Greeks had some good ideas, they were righteous brothas, lets leave it at that. I don’t want to know how many times you’ve distorted their legacy in an attempt to prop up your own opinions. A classical historian of any high calibre would cringe at what you are saying. Your emphatic use of ‘never’ in regard to historical events about which even our original sources could only be third or fourth-hand: in ancient history there is no ‘never’ and no ‘always’, its touch and go.
How much of Plutarch do you actually think is true, written hundreds of years after the fact in some cases? Your respect for Edith Hamilton the Drama-Dyke Philosopher-Historian is on par with your literal understanding of ancient historical anecdotal evidence.

Does an analytic view of history raise the percentage of DNA in me that is Jewish, which last time I checked was 0? Ooh, spooky, I better swallow some of your “The Greeks Did This..” generalizations so I can raise the percentage of my DNA that is ‘Western’. What do you think the modern Greeks were thinking when they made Hamilton an honorary citizen of Athens at the age of 90? “She sure did glorify us.” And she was to stupid to think back, “I sure did glorify them.” οχα κακος διαλογισμος΄

Posted by PF on March 12, 2007, 03:31 AM | #

“Christianity in its beginnings was addressed to the Greeks.  The Gospels are in Greek.  St. Paul wrote in Greek to Greek-speaking Christians.  Plutarch never came into contact with the new religion; ...although his spirit was naturally Christian, as was said of Socrates”.

The Gospels were written by hellenized Jews, and often addressed to the same. Here is Edith making the Hellenistic Greeks into the rightful founders and incipitors of Christianity, because guess what, she loves Greeks and she is Christian. The continual repetition of the word Greek in the above quote is meant to solidify this equation in your mind:

GREEK = EVERYTHING GOOD
and then
GREEK = CHRISTIAN

She even declares the past luminaries of Greek literary tradition to be Christians ‘in spirit’, though they were pagan in practice. Truth doesn’t seem to matter to this woman.

Posted by PF on March 12, 2007, 04:13 AM | #

My work is the continuation of the 300 Spartans who sacrificed their lives at Thermopylae in obedience to the Delphic Oracle.  These 300, the king, 298 Spartiates, and their priest, died in order that the West might have its liberty. (And the Sacrifice of Jesus completed it.) The Graeco-Persian War is not over, neither is the Peloppensian War.

My work is the continuation of the Teutoberger Forest Battle, where Varus’ legions were destroyed by a group of Teutons under the lead of Arminius. The Romans were once again forcing Meditteranean culture on Northern Peoples who wanted no part of it. This is part of the eternal, never-ending battle between North and South, between Mediterranean man and Northern European man.

I am the good guys (Arminius) and you are the bad guys (Varus).

Seriously, though, this kind of thinking is for little girls. Truth is going to be a casualty when you start reifying and even personifying abstract concepts into ‘Greeks’ or ‘Persians’. Maybe you wrote a thousand pages about Ancient Greece, with a million footnotes, and maybe you cited Edith Hamilton a million times, it still means nothing.

Posted by Rnl on March 12, 2007, 05:22 AM | #

Hamilton: “A people’s literature is the great textbook for real knowledge of them. The writings of the day show the quality of the people as no historical reconstruction can.”

Do you realize what that means? It means that for her, sufficient knowledge of the Greeks can be gathered by reading Aeschylus and rhapsodizing about the picture of Greek society which she has gained from it. To put it frankly, she makes me sick, as does anyone who thinks they can distort the past into being some kind of ideal picture of their own values.

You may be right, but you shouldn’t be so contemptuous of the idea that we understand a culture from the best of what it produces. That was how one studied culture in the era before our own culture was degraded.

Do you realize what that means? It means that for her, sufficient knowledge of the Greeks can be gathered by reading Aeschylus and rhapsodizing about the picture of Greek society which she has gained from it.

She is not planning to rhapsodize about her picture of Greek society; she means to rhapsodize about the best that the Greek mind produced. She believes she can thereby “show the quality of the people.” Graffiti scrawled in a urinal doesn’t, from her perspective, show the quality of the people, whereas its literature does.

Perhaps she is over idealistic, but there are worse sins.

Posted by gnxp stinks on March 12, 2007, 10:45 AM | #

“Does an analytic view of history raise the percentage of DNA in me that is Jewish, which last time I checked was 0?”

Can you please let us know what genetic test assays specifically for Jewish ancestry and can tell a person that they have “0” percentage of that ancestry?

Posted by D.S. on March 12, 2007, 11:23 AM | #

PF wrote:

“Asserting that Plato and his circle were monotheists is contrary to your own quotes: if they were monotheists, why do they always say θεοι, “Gods”, instead of, like the later Christian writers, θεος, “God”?”

The Greek thinker Epicurus is basically the founder of Deism ... the Greeks had a concept of a creator or creative force (ie… the great watchmaker in Deism), but NOTHING remotely close to the heavenly pie in the sky nonsense that people are talking about here.  The concept of resurrection, etc… would have been comical to the Greeks.  Everybody and anybody who has taken religous studies 101 will know that Christianity maintains a rooted semetic world-view, but a lot of tid-bits of Greek Epicurean thought, mashed with a whole lot of Roman Mithraism, run fully through it.  Of course, Christianity wasn’t all that popular, as it was completely contracty to the ethos of “master morality” (vide Nietzsche) that the Romans so much personifed; however, Constantin’s batty mother Helena, being a litter liberal of the day, most certainly had a part of convincing her son to make it the state religion (and in Semetic tradition, it backed up the claim of a king appointed by god, thereby, giving more ligitimacy to his throne.).

As for the Spartans not “harming civilians”—this is a romantic view.  However, during the Peloponnesian War, the concept of “Total War” really started—each burning whole cities to the ground, ignoring previous stops in war for religious festivals, and completely going full out when capturing cities:  enslaving the women, and killing all toddlers (after all, you were considered a bad son if you did not avenge the death of your family) to ensure they would not be around to fight when they got older.  This last war was so brutal, it completely extisguished the Golden Age of Greece.

A lot of the other posts here are just fantasy, but if people want to believe in dead Jews on a stick, and that his mother was knocked up by a ghost, more power to them.

Posted by Daniel J on March 12, 2007, 11:43 AM | #

I apologize to Daniel J for misinterpreting his comment made in the other thread.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Monday, March 12, 2007 at 11:01 AM | #

Actually, I meant to add this as well:

I think ya’ll should primarily be concerned with correcting what you perceive to be error in my position as I am trying to inherit the mantle, so to speak, from those of you (of respectable intellect) at MR.

Of course I am not saying you have not done that, but that I think the attitude of response to me-as opposed to older and less ignorant posters-should be one of instruction and correction with “loving” reproof. I don’t mind asking for it and I think it is fair.

Also, Guessedworker I was wondering if you had a particular list of book recommendations.

I plan on working my way through When Victims Rule (because I am transcribing it for my website) then Kevin MacDonald’s stuff, the maybe Salter…

What are your suggestions?

Posted by gnxp stinks on March 12, 2007, 11:48 AM | #

I wonder what people here, particularly the post’s author, James Bowery, think of Razib both downplaying the potential impact of a Persian victory in their Greece, as well as the outcome of Tours:

“2) but, i don’t think that we should overemphasize the extent to which greek cultural creativity was dependent upon a particular political order, or, the nature of persian despotism. ancient states were not totalitarian, because they couldn’t be, and that surely explains why many greeks (e.g., the thessalians, thebes) sided with the persians (out of self-interest of course). much was at stake, but not everything. after all, the ionian philosophers lived in the shadow of asian despots, and they were the first of the greeks to be fired by reason and rationality.

3) on a pedantic note, the victory of charles martel, from what i have read, is more an illustration of the general trend of the muslims reaching the limits of their expansionary capacity than a turning of the tide. that is, it seems unlikely that a muslim victory at tours would have resulted in the conquest of francia seeing as how it was more a raid than anything else, and muslim raids would continue into the provence and thoroughout italy for decades.”

Posted by gnxp stinks on March 12, 2007, 11:49 AM | #

correction: “in their war with Greece”

Posted by PF on March 12, 2007, 12:11 PM | #

Razib (apparently) wrote:

“after all, the ionian philosophers lived in the shadow of asian despots, and they were the first of the greeks to be fired by reason and rationality”

Did Ionia really exist ‘under the shadow of Asian despots’? Ionia in ancient times was bounded by the Hittite kingdoms and their successor states, Lydia and Caria. The Hittites spoke an indo-European language, thus it would be a stretch of the tongue to call them Asian in the sense that Razib means it.
Phoenicians, a semitic people, were also present in the region, if memory serves. If ancient States could not be totalitarian, as Razib observes, they probably could not make their presence felt- in any way other than militarily - in States that were hundreds of kilometers away from them. So what exactly does it mean to live ‘under the shadow of Asian despots’? They didnt have CIA, or campaign contributions, or spies, so how could Persia make its presence felt in Greece other than by direct military conquest? Sending envoys and later, merchants, was the extent of social mixing.

Posted by gnxp stinks on March 12, 2007, 01:34 PM | #

I don’t know, a number of scholars in the pre-PC age felt differently, and in historical rankings of the important battles in world history, both the Persian-Greek wars and Tours rank high.

This is, of course, a game of historical “what if”, but one could speculate that being part of the Persian Empire may have sidetracked the development of Hellenic culture.  If successful in their conquest of Greece, would the Persians have moved further west?  Perhaps, and with consequences that we cannot foresee, in hindsight.  However, it stretches credulity to believe that extending the political dominion of Asia to Europe would not have had its serious consequences.  As to the influence of Persia on its occupied territories, consider that these foreign armies that fought for Persia did not do so out of love for Persia or the empire, there was coercion involved.

Tours is another matter.  “Raid” or attempt at conquest, a successful “raid” could have set the stage for more “raids”, which were often softening up attacks preceding attempts at full conquest.  A loss at Tours for the West may have led to, eventually, conquest of western Europe by the Islamists.

One can understand however where a guy like Razib would want to minimize the possible effects of Asian or AfroAsiatic incursions into Europe (or into the West generally), as his presence in the United States constitutes the present-day manifestation of such an incursion, an example of the not-ended battles between Occident and Orient.

Given that Hollywood is said to be “shocked” by “300’s” 70 million weekend take, one can expect the “reaction” to be swift in coming.  Given that “Lord of the Rings” was labeled as “Eurocentric” by the usual suspects, attacks on “300” as “racist” should be coming.  Indeed, a commentator on “Gene Expression” has already asked why we are identifying with the “authoritarian racist” Spartans against those nice “authoriarian tolerant” Persians.

One hopes that Frank Miller and company don’t “cave” and start denouncing the anti-PC interpretations of their work.  If they do, they may undercut much of the appeal of their work that is fueling the “unprecedented” weekend “take.”

Meanwhile, we should expect Razib and company to obfuscate the probable historical impact of the conquest of the Occident by the Orient.  After all, we can’t have people making connections to the current day situation, can we?

Posted by gnxp stinks on March 12, 2007, 01:49 PM | #

Some folks who disagree with Razib:

http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/imperialism/notes/tours.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fifteen_Decisive_Battles_of_the_World

http://physics.usc.edu/~crathfel/marathon.htm

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GREECE/PERSIAN.HTM

Let us not be too hard on Razib.  Imagine how difficult it must be for him to sit in a theatre there in a majority-white area and watch a movie like “300.” Perhaps in the audience were some young white guys – the sort of “redneck” cowboy types Razib writes about when he wishes to romanticize the schoolyard fights of his youth – who may have looked from the screen to Razib and back again, thinking to themselves, “hey, wait a minute…”

That “hey, wait a minute” is the sort of thing that gnxp wishes to avoid at all costs.

Posted by Daniel J on March 12, 2007, 02:27 PM | #

I went out last night and bought the Lord of the Rings trilogy after going over this post again…

I drank too much and fell asleep before the end of the first movie…

Eurocentric.... That is the funniest criticism anyone could ever come up with. How did they turn such a beautiful idea into a nasty slur?

On a side note, Mozilla spell check will not recognize the word ‘Eurocentric’ and suggests ‘Afrocentric’ as a correct term.

Posted by Daniel J on March 12, 2007, 02:28 PM | #

Judeocentric garnishes the suggestion of ‘Egocentric’ amongst others....

Posted by gnxp stinks on March 12, 2007, 03:20 PM | #

And So It Begins....

Quotes from the Wikipedia article on “300” (linked to by James Bowery in the post):

“The New York Times film critic A. O. Scott, described 300 as “about as violent as Apocalypto and twice as stupid.” He also criticised the color scheme of the film and racist undertones promoted by the film..

Holman also expressed concerns about the content of the film as “In the wrong hands, 300 could be a lethal weapon.”....

[note: whose hands would that be, eh?]

The film has attracted controversy over the portrayal of the Persians. Greek critic Dimitris Danikas claimed the film showed Persians as “bloodthirsty, underdeveloped zombies,” and went on to say, “They are stroking (sic) racist instincts in Europe and America.”

The president of Iran’s Art Affairs Advisory also expressed strong condemnation over the movie which he said insulted the Persian civilization. Javad Shamqadri, who is also a filmmaker, said the film specifically had racist intentions but called the film’s effort fruitless however, saying, “values in Iranian culture are too strongly seated to be damaged by such plans.”

[note: we are not interested in the effects of the film on “Iranian culture”, but rather, on westerners]

As in the graphic novel, the Persians are depicted as a barbaric and demonic horde, while the Persian emissary and King Xerxes are depicted as androgynous. This meant to stand in stark contrast to the masculinity of the Spartan army

Furthermore, the “bad guys” are depicted as black people, brown people, handicapped or deformed people, gays and lesbians...”

[note: art imitates life; life imitates art]

Well then, as predicted, the hysteria has begun.  Will Miller and Snyder do the mandatory groveling now?

Regardless, the more I hear about the film, the more I like it.  Anything that inflames the EC/NEC divide is all to the good, and one can imagine the gnxpers gnashing their teeth over all of this…

Posted by Andy Wooster on March 12, 2007, 03:44 PM | #

Just a small note: I see some of you referring to “Wheeler” as “she”. Wheeler is not female. I am familiar with WLW as he sometimes posts on another blog I read regularly. 

As in the graphic novel, the Persians are depicted as a barbaric and demonic horde, while the Persian emissary and King Xerxes are depicted as androgynous. This meant to stand in stark contrast to the masculinity of the Spartan army

Furthermore, the “bad guys” are depicted as black people, brown people, handicapped or deformed people, gays and lesbians...”

Sounds like a ringing endorsement to me.

Posted by gnxp lol on March 12, 2007, 04:10 PM | #

Razib channels Lewontin:

“If there is no genetically heritable variation, then natural selection has no power. The classic problem with group level vs. individual level selection is that the former generally does not exceed the latter on the level of genes, that is, there is more within group variance than between group variance. Consider for example two groups, the Flemings and Walloons, the Germanic and Romance (French) speaking ethnic groups of Belgium. Though, on average, the Flemings maybe of fairer coloration (a genetically coded phenotype), it seems plausible that the variation within the Flemings and Walloons in hair color will exceed the difference between the two groups. In other words, on physical inspection alone one could not determine who was a Fleming or a Walloon with any great confidence, since the between group variance is dwarfed by the within group variance.”

I mean, do you guys still want to pretend that gnxp has anything to do with science?  As if Cavalli-Sforza hadn’t been able to cluster ethnic groups more than a dozen years ago, and as if the only difference between Flemish and Walloons are genes controlling hair color.  Looking at the “between” vs. “within” variances of single traits (or, analogously, genes controlling traits) is pure Lewontinism, as is “...that is, there is more within group variance than between group variance”. 

What a moron.  The ethnic identities of “Flemish” or “Walloon” are proxies for the differences of distinctive gene frequencies (and structure) between the groups.  Sure, there is going to be considerable kinship overlap between the two groups (although one can be confident that the median genetic structures will differ); reason enough for the two groups to settle their differences in a reasonable manner.

But to suggest that the two groups cannot be distinguished at the group level, given sufficient information, because “...that is, there is more within group variance than between group variance”, is just politically-motivated hokum.  That’s Lewontin, that’s Diamond, that’s Gould.  That’s pure horseshit.

It’s more of the “culture is more important than genes in group level differences, because I’m a genetic Bengali in a western land, but I am so well culturally assimilated, so...” argument.

Why don’t those guys at gnxp who seem to have an interest in science perform a “palace coup” and dump Razib, or, more realistically, just split off and form their own blog. Geez.

Posted by gnxp lol on March 12, 2007, 04:13 PM | #

So, gee, there is more “within” group IQ variance than between group variance.  Therefore, there is no difference in black and white IQ; you cannot cluster racial groups on IQ.  Got it?

You can’t cluster males or females on any of a number of traits, because there is more “variation within than between.”

Pop, pop, Popper!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 12, 2007, 04:23 PM | #

Given the quote from Razib, there’s no way to interpret things other than the way “gnxp lol” does here, as laughable “there’s-no-such-thing-as-race” sophistries straight out of the Jewish School of Race-Denial Pseudo-Science, in other words, pure anti-Euro ethno-racial politics, not science.

Posted by gnxp lol on March 12, 2007, 04:28 PM | #

“… in other words, pure anti-Euro ethno-racial politics, not science.”

Fred is correct, he gets it, do those who control MR get it, too?

Look at it - a blog which previously did debunk Lewontin, and interviewed Edwards, now has one of its founders, on his science (sic) blog sideshow, talking about how “greater variation within” invalidates group differences.

A classic example of politics trumping science, at an alleged science-oriented blog (or blogs).

Posted by James Bowery on March 12, 2007, 04:30 PM | #

I wonder what people here, particularly the post’s author, James Bowery, think of Razib both downplaying the potential impact of a Persian victory in their Greece, as well as the outcome of Tours

I’m not as versed in Greek history as I’d like to be so my answer will be in vague generalities:

I suspect it would have accelerated the decay of Greek civilization and possibly prevented the Classical Era from reaching fruition.

The reason empires wage war is to secure and extend their trade routes on which they collect economic rent.  Indeed, it was the mobility of the 111 way stations of the Persian Empire’s trade routes, heir to the Babylonian Empire’s trade routes (this could go back pretty far—how far I’m not sure), that I believe may have evolved Jewish virulence via horizontal transmission.  Alexander, by conquering the Persians, finally exposed the Greeks to this virulence which resulted in the decay of Greek civilization and the passing of the torch to Rome.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 12, 2007, 04:31 PM | #

“So, gee, there is more ‘within’ group IQ variance than between group variance.  Therefore, there is no difference in black and white IQ; you cannot cluster racial groups on IQ.  Got it?  You can’t cluster males or females on any of a number of traits, because there is more ‘variation within than between.’ ” (—gnxp lol)

Of course.  The exact same sophistry can be used to deny any categorization whatsoever:  races, species, genera, male-female, child-adult, all of them.  It can be extended to prove any category whatsoever does not exist.  It’s absolutely laughable.  The question is why do some Euro academics fall for it?  C. Loring Brace, for example (correct me if I’m wrong).  As for Jewish academics, we know why they fall for it:  they fricking invented it.  It’s like their religion for some of them, for crying out loud.  They cling to it for dear life.  It’s pure diaspora-Jewish politics.

Posted by James Bowery on March 12, 2007, 06:22 PM | #

Deleted distracting misunderstanding between bloggers.

Posted by Euroman on March 12, 2007, 06:42 PM | #

The racial and political implications of the movie were clear to my kids and their friends.  On the way home the eldest told the others, “They want us pumped to fight Iran, but we look like the Persians.”

Posted by stari_momak on March 12, 2007, 06:52 PM | #

Hey one David Kahane (!) gets it, almost

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjM0NDEyZjM1M2JlNjE0ZGMwNDEwMzk5MzlkZjJmYjA=

Posted by gnxp stinks on March 12, 2007, 07:54 PM | #

Note the latest tactics from gnxp to attempt to deflate interest in “300” and stress cross-national/multicultural “self-interest” vs. the “grand narratives”, as well as the attempt to dismiss the whole thing as clever Athenian psyops:

“Salman
Herodotus wrote in the time when the Persians effectively kept a lid on Greece by playing the Greeks against themselves. Herodotus is said to have been inspired to write the Histories, and the story of Thermopylae, by the Peloponnesian Wars between Sparta and allies (Persia included) against Athens and allies. Herodotus himself was an Athenian partisan. The Spartans were backed by Persia. As an Athenian on the losing side of the war, he would have an interest in playing up the Spartan heroism against the Persians to drive a wedge between Sparta and its sponsor Persia. It failed. Sparta and its Persian sponsors won the Peloponnesian War and Greece was a non-threat until Philip of Macedon unified Greece (you may know of his son Alexander).
Email | Homepage | 03.12.07 - 12:35 pm | #

razib
i believe that the spartans took persian subsidies toward the end though. just to be clear....

(from wiki: Following the destruction of the Sicilian Expedition, Lacedaemon encouraged the revolt of Athens’s tributary allies, and indeed, much of Ionia rose in revolt against Athens. The Syracusans sent their fleet to the Peloponnesians, and the Persians decided to support the Spartans with money and ships.)

[also, i believe sparta later attacked persia again, before going back on subsidies...the importance of self-interested and mixed strategies gets lost in he grand narratives]
Email | Homepage | 03.12.07 - 12:38 pm | #”

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on March 12, 2007, 08:47 PM | #

I quoted Thucydides that the Spartans granted quarter.

PF disputes:

- Whether the Spartans killed civies or not, and whether they mutilated those they killed, is a question that I dont trust any ancient historical source to be able to answer completely.

“""I don’t trust any ancient historical source"""""

If you have no other knowledge---How can you dispute?  That is non-sensical.  You have no CONCRETE evidence to the contrary and so he throws everything out.

Pick up the book by Gene Veith, Modern Fascism, Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview. He has a subchapter on *Deconstruction* It is preceeded by a chapter on *Relativism*. “...deconstruction begins with the existentialist dictum that there is no transcendent meaning, that meaning is a human construction. Deconstructionists go on to show that the way meaning is constructed is through language. Who is the originator of this. Paul de Man. Henri De Man was is uncle. “Henri was mentioned in the same breath as Heidegger as major thinkers for the new fascist order”

>>>“The act of writing, the simple assertion of meaning, becomes not only a “power play”, but an act of “arbitrary power”. pp 135-139
>>>“Deconstruction encourages this kind of moral detachment. It also tends to minimize the past. In a discussion of Nietzsche, De Man wrote that “the bases for historical knowledge are not empirical facts but written texts, even if these texts masquerade in the guise of wars or revolutions.” Just as literary texts have no determinate meaining in themselves and are ultimately unknowable, the same must be true of texts such as wars and revolutions.” pg 140.

Veith continues:”...the major theorist of deconstruction is not De Man but Jacques Derrida, a Jew.

“This Jewish approach is far different from Hellenic thought, which has dominated Western philosophy with its attempt to go beyond language to posit rational systems and idealized truths. Herbert Schneidau relates Derrida’s deconstruction to the radical iconoclasm of the Biblical tradition. G. Douglas Atkins, supporting both Handleman and Schneidau, employs Thorleif Boman’s Hebrew Thought Compared to Greek to place Derrida in the Hebraic traditon."pg 141.

Knowing that the Spartans were trained into Arete, into Virtue is corroborating evidence from whence Thucydides writes!

The movie 300 is in an absolute disaster when it shows Spartans killing wounded unscroupously.  Their society is not like ours.  It was much better. 

Socrates said, “We insist on the verbal Truth”.  Until there is EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY one believes what is written.  To judge requires E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E.  PF judges on a vacuum.

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on March 12, 2007, 08:55 PM | #

Yes, PF I understand where you are coming from.  My aunt was in Greece when it was invaded by the Teutons in 1940.  The Barbarity of their occupation speaks volumes of about Teutonic Barbarity.

Far from being “Civilized” the Armies of the Teutons in 1940, were the example of lawlessness and depravity of human nature.  My people experienced first hand brutality and inhumanness of the Teutons.

When is the German ever going to be civilized?

The Movie 300 would have been a perfect training film for Nazi Stormtroopers.

Yes, Life does imitate Art and when you show the Spartans, the epitimy of masculinity and virility and virtue, scandously killing the wounded and the descecration of bodies, TEACHES impressionable euro children who have been barbarized by our socialist/marxist/secular schools to BEHAVE THE SAME WAY.  That is why Socrates asks that the Poets be censored!

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on March 12, 2007, 09:03 PM | #

Hey Stari momak THANKS A BILLION for posting that review by Kahane!

Posted by James Bowery on March 12, 2007, 09:03 PM | #

That’s funny but I know a guy whose uncle is on the Greek equivalent of the Supreme Court who claims that to this day Greek men toast the memory of Hitler because the occupation of Greece was so restrained compared to other occupations—specifically the harsh way in which Germans dealt with their soldiers who defiled Greek women (they were routinely executed according to this young Greek man’s recollections of his father).  This of course stands in stark contrast to the use of Norwegian women by Germans for their Lebensborn program which generated hatred of Germans among Norwegians that simmers to this day.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 12, 2007, 09:07 PM | #

Stari, what a good review that was!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 12, 2007, 09:55 PM | #

“The question is why do some Euro academics fall for it?  C. Loring Brace, for example (correct me if I’m wrong).” (—my comment, above, 4:31 PM)

Unfortunately, I’m not wrong.  I wish I were.

Can anyone believe what an asshole this schmuck is?  And a full professor, yet!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 12, 2007, 10:02 PM | #

Here’s that middle C. Loring Brace link (doesn’t work in my post above) — maybe it’ll work in expanded URL form: 

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/BookReviewTypeDetail/assetid/14354;jsessionid=baa7dvhhM6gjX6

This guy is a complete fricking joke.  Why have we been losing big time until now?  Uhhh .... let’s see .... could it be because we have credulous assholes like this on our side who fall for any sophistry the other side trots out?

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on March 12, 2007, 10:19 PM | #

I have been on the island of Crete where people still remember the parachutes and the bombs.  I lived in Athens and met a former German soldier, part of a mortocycle unit.  He only survived because he was sent back to Germany by medical reasons.  His unit was wiped out in the withdrawal through Yugoslavia.  Also have read a fantastic scholarly book, “Inside Hitler’s Greece”.

My aunt and many many other Greeks nearly died of starvation.  My aunt to this day still goes into the backyard to pick dandelion greens.  She remembers kindness too of the Germans.  The soldiers threw her some potatoes now and again.

The German occupation sucked up much needed food.  It literally destroyed the Greeks as a people.  For every German shot by Communists, 10 people were lined up and shot.  There were massacres all over Greece.  The Greek communists acted with barbarity and the Germans responded in kind but also across the board.

What the Author remarks is that the Germans did NOT know how to combat terrorism.  They were very unsophisticated.  They knew how to win battles but not occupy. They had no training in counter-insurgency.  Hitler did not help matters when he just ordered reprisal shootings. Orders from the German High command changed things.

Posted by PF on March 12, 2007, 10:56 PM | #

To WLindsayWheeler:

The Spartan social structure, where every male citizen was also a warrior, was only made possible by slavery; without slavery, without the Helots, the Spartan system would not have worked.

Since you advocate the Spartans as models of virtue, do you also advocate slavery? Is slavery justified in your opinion?

Posted by Jim West on March 12, 2007, 11:21 PM | #

D.S. said
“They were not rainbow flag waving faggots, but they were not sexually repressed Christian puritans either.  Hail Sparta!”

So I take you think that an aversion to sodomy means you are sexually repressed.  That’s kind of ridiculous if you ask me. 

If what you say is true about the Spartans it would seem to me to be a mark against them.

Posted by James Bowery on March 12, 2007, 11:24 PM | #

I agree.  It is rather intersting that Tacitus reported the capital offenses among the Germanics were cowardice and sodomy while many report that the Dorians, who are supposed to be of similar stock, were the world’s premiere pederasts and sodomites.

Something needs explaining here.

Posted by Euroman on March 12, 2007, 11:37 PM | #

From Imposed German Guilt: The Stuttgart Declaration of 1945
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p-55_Lang.html

“While the senseless and unnecessary terror bombing campaign is well known, certain aspects of the hunger blockade which the Allies imposed on German-occupied Europe are less familiar. It is a little known fact that Allied leaders vetoed efforts of the Famine Relief Committee, formed in 1942, to send food to the hard-pressed civilians of occupied Europe after an initial success in Greece, where, in cooperation with the International Red Cross and with the permission of the Germans, tens of thousands of lives were saved by food supplied from Allied nations. Thereafter Allied leaders, above all America’s Franklin Roosevelt and Britain’s Winston Churchill, were obdurate in their refusal to cooperate with the Famine Relief Committee and the Red Cross. These men used food as a weapon during the war; afterwards they profited from the lurid images and descriptions of the horrors of the concentration camps at the war’s close. Many of these horrors were the direct result of Allied policy makers’ refusal to cooperate with international organizations such as the FRC and IRC.

“That this is not mere speculation is evident from the final report of the Famine Relief Committee. As the victorious Allies advanced into Germany, and the FRC handed over the balance of its funds to the Friends’ [Quakers] Relief Service, the Committee’s last report concluded:

“It should have been obvious to all intelligent people that our food blockade of the continent of Europe would bring untold torture and suffering to our friends and allies and would do little or no harm to our enemy ... It has been possible to obtain proof that our food blockade did not shorten the war by a single hour ... History will judge our government harshly for its futile persistence in the policy of total blockade of foodstuffs. [6]”

More, here:

Red Cross Humanitarianism In Greece, 1940-45
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v09/v09p-71_Lang.html

Posted by PF on March 13, 2007, 12:14 AM | #

To Lindsay, Re: The Spartan Debate

My other posts suffered from a lack of clarity, let me try and summarize what I find objectionable about your philosophy as you have expounded it here.

1) Your statements are largely based on an argument from authority, i.e. The Ancient Greeks did this, therefore it was good. You assume all you have to do is explain to us what the ancient Greeks did, and we will immediately do likewise.

2) Your idealization of the ancient Greeks makes an objective analysis impossible: at no point have you ever found fault with them, the implicit conclusion is, you find them to be perfect, and you feel that they can do no wrong.

3) You have distorted the reality of ancient Greek history to fit your agenda in certain instances: you have downplayed the role of homoerotic love in Greek culture, you have superimposed Christianity on a pagan people, and you have superimposed a chivalrous civilian-sparing honor code onto the most warlike people of the ancient world, on the basis of an anecdote from Thucydides, who as far as we know never once set foot in an Lacemaedonian camp.

4) Your sob-story about the treatment of your aunt under the Nazi’s seems to run counter to your glorification of a people who maintained an entire nation of slaves: Do you really believe that the Spartans were not obliged to do even more horrendous things to keep the Helots enslaved for hundreds of years, than the Nazis in their short occupation of Greece may have done? Are atrocities against the Helots somehow less serious than the Nazi’s offences against your people, because you are the bearers of all high culture, the Nazis are barbarians, and the Helots are not Greek?

5) You would have us overlook the fact that Sparta produced no philosophers, no great literary men, with the meagre exception of some law-givers. When it comes to taking credit for Athenian accomplishment, the Spartans are Greeks, but when it comes to taking credit for high military culture, they are Dorians. You cant have it both ways. They were great fighters but the cultural accomplishments of Greece are largely Athenian. The Athenians are Ionians and not Dorians.

6) No great cultural advancement has come out of the Pelleponese for, lets say, 1500 years. Greece today lives largely off tourism and support from other EU countries. The lack of modesty which you have about this, claiming still to be somehow the only truly civlized people, goes a long way in explaining why you need to refer back ceaselessly to your long-dead ancestors: you have nothing of your own to talk about.

7) “When is the German ever going to be civilized?”

Your country is a sponge for EU development funds and tourist dollars, your chemistry is German, your cars are German, and studying Anaximander and Thales and Plato will leave you without a word to say in a modern philosophy debate, unless you are familiar with the spiritual products of a people you just slandered as uncivilized. The glory of the Greeks was indeed something amazing- but it is also something long-dead. Indeed, the Mesopotamian Iraqis could also say that you are uncivlized compared to them on precisely the same grounds, indeed “When will the Greek ever become civilized?”. Your whole claim to fame is to be have started ‘European’ civilization, which is a way for you to leech off the success of Western powers, by claiming Greece somehow had something to do with the Industrial Revolution and what followed. In reality, you were subjects of the Ottoman Empire, begging for Western support in your war against an Asian superpower. Had Western Powers not romantized your poverty and taken you under their wing, you would be under the control of Turks, and that would be your ‘glory’ and the final word of it.

8) You are speaking with non-Greeks, and people without any link to Greek society. To ask them to give ancient Greece, or your distorted vision of it, the kind of unconditional respect which you are suggesting it deserves, is to ask them to forget their primary loyalties, which are to other peoples. The Greeks may have once been great, but if we are not Greek, then we don’t really care that much. It’s obvious that we have to find our own way.

Oh yeah, and Spartans probably had homoerotic sex, probably massacred innocents, and definately did practice slavery, and they definately were not Christian. And they never produced any writer or philosopher of any distinction, if their is one exception to this, it only proves the rule. Are these the people who we are supposed to model ourselves after in every respect, LindsayWheeler?

Posted by DM on March 13, 2007, 03:03 AM | #

I find the arguments here immensely satisfying, for their civility, incisiveness, and for the little facts one picks up while follwing them. Keep up this standard or make it even higher: there aren’t nearly enough forums of discussion out there dealing with this general subject intellectually.
I just wish more intelligent people from the ‘other’ side would come to the site to state their view - intelligent, in this case, meaning able to spell, having a working knowledge of English grammar, etc. Seriously! It seems that the best rebuttals that most commenters seriously disagreeing with Majority Rights come up with here are along the lines of “yo yo u KKK cRaCkers is fuked”, or some puffed up woman proudly proclaiming that regular contributers here must have no girlfriends/wives - QED!
I’m sure there are smarter lefties out there, and it’d be great to see them up against some really good arguments, doing it properly - conceding points here, making actual GOOD points there, and, above all, addressing the arguments put to them.. Perhaps I should follow the bloggers of this site to lefty places where they comment. Any assistance here would be much appreciated. Though maybe it’s hard to find ‘smart lefties’: if they regularly employed my desired combination of real life evidence and reasoned thought they’d probably become trad-cons too. Keep up the good work! DM

Posted by Rnl on March 13, 2007, 04:51 AM | #

gnxp stinks wrote:

I don’t know, a number of scholars in the pre-PC age felt differently, and in historical rankings of the important battles in world history, both the Persian-Greek wars and Tours rank high.

If we’re talking about reaction to the film, it doesn’t really matter whether these pre-PC scholars were correct, though I’m sure they were.

It was once almost universally assumed that preventing an invasion of your civilization by another civilization was good. That assumption now appears dangerously xenophobic to many, so a film that embodies it elicits concerns about possible “racism,” which tells us quite a bit about “racism” and nothing about history.

That the Battle of Tours saved France from Islam seemed obvious when there were few Muslims in France. It has become problematic today, not because there have been paradigm-shifting new discoveries that have revolutionized historical understanding of the event, but simply because there are now millions of Muslims in France and a new ideology of Western capitulation that defines their presence as cultural improvement. The old Eurocentric interpretations of Thermopylae and Tours seem to stand in judgment of the present, as do the events themselves. If you’re a PC media multiculturalist, you feel uneasy in their presence, especially since the director of _300_ apparently hasn’t attempted to subvert the traditional heroic story of the battle.

Would Leonidas and Charles Martel have approved of multiculturalism and Third World immigration? Probably not. But the more important observation is that, not so long ago, almost everyone unreflectively understood that defending the Occident from the Orient is virtuous, not “racist.”

Gimli speaks up for the West
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=1618

Posted by Rnl on March 13, 2007, 05:04 AM | #

Gimli Battles the Race Card
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11870

LOTR Films Too Eurocentric
http://www.vdare.com/francis/lotr_racist.htm

Posted by James Bowery on March 13, 2007, 05:38 AM | #

DM, the problem with the adversary is their self-deception.  Their descriptions of their own actions are the self-description of a clockwork orange.  Anthony Burgess, author of the book “A Clockwork Orange” was the artist in residence while I was in the undergraduate program at the Iowa City Writer’s Workshop back in 1974. I think he based his book on the work of Jose M.R. Delgado, M.D. published under the book with the damn spooky title: Physical Control of the Mind: Toward a Psychocivilized Society.

I managed to get a copy of the book finally, and discovered wonderful passages such as the following on page 115:

ESB [electrical stimulation of the brain—JAB] may evoke more elaborate responses. For example, in one of our patients, electrical stimulation of the rostral part of the internal capsule produced head turning and slow displacement of the body to either side with a well-oriented and apparently normal sequence, as if the patient were looking for something. This stimulation was repeated six times on two different days with comparable results. The interesting fact was that the patient considered the evoked activity spontaneous and always offered a reasonable explanation for it. When asked, “What are you doing?” the answers were, “I am looking for my slippers,” “I heard a noise,” “I am restless,” and “I was looking under the bed.” In this case it was difficult to ascertain whether the stimulation had evoked a movement which the patient tried to justify, or if an hallucination had been elicited which subsequently induced the patient to move and to explore the surroundings.

This passage is eerily reminiscent of a passage from Richard Dawkins’ ”The Extended Phenotype” chapter titled “Host Phenotypes of Parasite Genes”:

“Many fascinating examples of parasites manipulating the behavior of their hosts can be given. For nematomorph larvae, who need to break out of their insect hosts and get into water where they live as adults, ‘...a major difficulty in the parasite’s life is the return to water. It is, therefore, of particular interest that the parasite appears to affect the behavior of its host, and “encourages” it to return to water. The mechanism by which this is achieved is obscure, but there are sufficient isolated reports to certify that the parasite does influence its host, and often suicidally for the host… One of the more dramatic reports describes an infected bee flying over a pool and, when about six feet over it, diving straight into the water. Immediately on impact the gordian worm burst out and swam into the water, the maimed bee being left to die’ (Croll 1966).”

This phenomenon of suicide-on-behalf-of-parasite is observed in other hosts of the parasite.

Posted by D.S. on March 13, 2007, 08:55 AM | #

Jim West wrote:

“So I take you think that an aversion to sodomy means you are sexually repressed.  That’s kind of ridiculous if you ask me. 

If what you say is true about the Spartans it would seem to me to be a mark against them. “

Why do you ‘take it’ that “I think an aversion to sodomy means you are sexually repressed?” Because I am basically implying the fact that Christians basically mortify flesh and consider nudity SIN, SIN, SIN?  Generally, they’re the same happy bunch that wants to put covers on the genitalia of Classical Greek and Roman statues?  How silly ...

I personally have nothing against sodomy—consenting adults can do as they please as far as I am concerned.  You may look to the bible for your inspiration, but I prefer the old Roman saying:  Sic mulcet, fondit!  If it moves, fondle it!

I most certainly do not consider the Spartans’ penchat for ocassional sodomy to be a mark against them ... quite the contrary, I consider it a fond memory of happier times in the White world (ie… slave morality nowhere to be found).

Posted by Andy Wooster on March 13, 2007, 01:05 PM | #

I personally have nothing against sodomy—consenting adults can do as they please as far as I am concerned.  You may look to the bible for your inspiration, but I prefer the old Roman saying:  Sic mulcet, fondit!  If it moves, fondle it!

I’ll be sure to keep you away from my kids and pets.

Posted by Al Ross on March 13, 2007, 01:50 PM | #

Rnl’s thoughts re the film’s Occident v Orient dichotomy are surely somewhat unformed. The ancient Persian ‘Orientals’ were predominantly Aryan in origin and were DNA tests available in those days it is more than likely that the results would show a closer affinity between the combatants than could be obtained by a similar random test conducted in Harvard Yard.

Posted by D.S. on March 13, 2007, 03:13 PM | #

I’ll be sure to keep you away from my kids and pets.

That’s fine, I have no interest in kids, pets (or men) ... you can have them all to yourself, you sicko.

Posted by D.S. on March 13, 2007, 03:57 PM | #

Rnl’s thoughts re the film’s Occident v Orient dichotomy are surely somewhat unformed. The ancient Persian ‘Orientals’ were predominantly Aryan in origin and were DNA tests available in those days it is more than likely that the results would show a closer affinity between the combatants than could be obtained by a similar random test conducted in Harvard Yard.

While I am skeptical also on the “genetic” part, this most certainly was not the case from a cultural stand-point.  The Greeks considered the Persians “outter Babarians” of sorts, as opposed to the “uncivilized” reference given by Greeks to many other Europeans at the time (The Greeks had emporium in the Balkans, Italy, France, Spain, Turkey, and the Ukraine—they were well familiar with other Euros).  They considered the Persians as a completely different race of people (the word, “Europe,” after all, is from classical Greek/Myth).  They were not indistinguishable from other Europeans (specifically, Greeks) for sure.

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on March 13, 2007, 04:00 PM | #

>Help me sort out your statement that Christianity is not >Semitic.  I agree that it has been changed by Europeans.  >But that is not what I see as its “fatal flaw” today.  The >problem I see is that its roots are still Semitic.  Its Holy >Book is 98% or more of Semitic origin.  Its interpretations >of the popular stories and mystic religions of the time and >area are Semitic.

Posted by Robert of the Rohirrim

So all things Semitic or Asian need to be bounced?  We are into “purity”?

That is NOT the Western Way.  Plato said, “...whenever Greeks borrow anything from non-Greeks, they finally carry it to a higher perfection.” That has been the Western Way.

As we are sitting here at our computers we are using basically ALL Asian and Semitic things!  The Zero which is essential for Computers, what all we see is just a bunch of zeros and ones, is an invention of India!  It is not the product of the Indo-European Man!

Writing is an invention of the Hamatic/Semitic peoples!  What German had writing?  NONE.  There is absolutely NO written literary evidence for any Indo-European people except the Greeks who borrowed that writing from the Phonecians.

Crete, home of the Minoans, wrote in Northwest Semitic Script. Linear A is Semitic. The Minoans were Semites!

So, if we are going to be Eurocentric all the time every time---Then Please Stop writing; Stop using a Computer because their basis is all products of NON Europeans.

Even the food you eat was developed in the Euphrates Valley!  Maybe you should stop eating too.

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on March 13, 2007, 04:20 PM | #

The Spartan social structure, where every male citizen was also a warrior, was only made possible by slavery; without slavery, without the Helots, the Spartan system would not have worked.

Since you advocate the Spartans as models of virtue, do you also advocate slavery? Is slavery justified in your opinion?

Posted by PF

The Spartans were a very very philosophical people.  They saw that the World was full of Dichotomies.  One can’t have Heat without Cold, Day without Night, etc.  Well, you can’t have Freedom without Slavery.  Their Republic was based on a combination of different things in their right proportion.  Two Thirds were free while One third was feudalized.  Someone had to do the Work.

You know PF, I have lived the agrarian lifestyle.  I lived at the barest minimum.  Most People of today don’t have any concept of what it takes to live.  Life back then was very strenous and TIME-Consuming!  The most simplist tasks were time consuming.  Slavery is a necessity for any High Civilization. 

See, the Greek Ideal was Order.  Just like the Cosmos is Ordered--So they too imitated the Cosmos.  All things are righteous in Nature.  Everything has ONE Job and they keep their station--The same was true in the Spartan Commonwealth.  Slavery is a Necessity.

Furthermore, the Bible does NOT teach that Slavery is Morally wrong!  The Orthodox Church has NEVER condemned slavery nor will it.

Slavery is an INSTITUTION just like the Family is an institution, the Church is an Institution, any Military organization is an Institution.

If you complain about slavery amongst the Spartans, then one has to give up the victories obtained at Thermopylae and Plateia because Slavery made those victories possible!

Posted by Jim West on March 13, 2007, 04:25 PM | #

D.S.:
“Why do you ‘take it’ that “I think an aversion to sodomy means you are sexually repressed?” Because I am basically implying the fact that Christians basically mortify flesh and consider nudity SIN, SIN, SIN?  Generally, they’re the same happy bunch that wants to put covers on the genitalia of Classical Greek and Roman statues?  How silly ... “

Jim:
I have dabbled in Christianity and am currently in a church Bible Study group.  I like to get information direct form the source as opposed to media portrayals which are universally negative and reflect the opinion that you hold.  I personally haven’t made up my mind as to the meaning of life, death, etc and am still open to various ideas.  Anyway, I am happy to tell you that Christians are anything but sexually repressed.  They simply believe that sex should be limited to married couples for the purpose of having children and for sexual pleasure.  They see sex as God’s reward to faithful couples.  What is wrong with that?

As for the covering of statues.  That has happened in the past but I can tell you that the majority of conservative Christians appreciate ancient art for what it is.  You’ll ge the Ashcroft types from extreme sects but that is the exception not the rule.

D.S.:
“I personally have nothing against sodomy—consenting adults can do as they please as far as I am concerned.  You may look to the bible for your inspiration, but I prefer the old Roman saying:  Sic mulcet, fondit!  If it moves, fondle it! “

Jim:
I personally find it revolting and it really has nothing to do with the Bible.  The fact is that is an unhealthy practice.  You are much more likely to get STDs not to mention irreparable physical damage to the entry point.  I never really understood why a guy would want to use that entry point when there is another one specifically for ther purpose at hand right next to it.  It’s cleaner and was made for the act.  The man on man thing is also just plain weird to me. 

D.S.
“I most certainly do not consider the Spartans’ penchat for ocassional sodomy to be a mark against them ... quite the contrary, I consider it a fond memory of happier times in the White world (ie… slave morality nowhere to be found). “

Jim:
Well you must really be enjoying the current epoch then!  Sodomy abounds this day and age.  How do you think things are going with that?  How does the typical sodomite behave in this society?  They are, frankly, degenerates for the most part.  They lack any respect for the society and culture in which they live and live, by and large, personally destructive lives devoted to sex and making money.  No wonder they are held in such high esteem this day and age.

Posted by Andy Wooster on March 13, 2007, 04:32 PM | #

That’s fine, I have no interest in kids, pets (or men) ... you can have them all to yourself, you sicko.

You contradict yourself: Sic mulcet, fondit!  If it moves, fondle it!. 

You just made a blanket pro-homosexuality statement which could certainly be interpreted as pro-pedophilia (do children not move also?).  How exactly did I misinterpret you?  Given the fact that I didn’t, your insult was unwarranted, not to mention childish. 

An aversion to male homosexuality is almost ubiquitous among heterosexual males, Christian and non-Christians alike.  (I myself am not Christian).  We could argue about whether this aversion is hard-wired (I think it is) but it is clearly rational, as homosexuality is unquestionably a social negative.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 13, 2007, 05:00 PM | #

“The Zero which is essential for Computers, what all we see is just a bunch of zeros and ones, is an invention of India!  It is not the product of the Indo-European Man!” (—Lindsay Wheeler)

The Aryan northwestern Subcons at the time the zero was first coming into focus as a new invention (centuries BC) were closer to Indo-Europeans than that population is now:  they’ve become more mixed now but they weren’t so much then, if at all (there were stringent laws against mixing).  It wouldn’t be wide of the mark to call the Subcons who invented the zero Indo-Europeans, which is exactly what they’re thought to have been originally, of course, all the way back at the time of their first appearance in the northwestern subcontinent.  Sanskrit was as closely related to Indo-European as any other I-E language:  Latin, Greek, Baltic, proto-Germanic, Lithuanian, proto-Celtic, and so on.

One could say the zero was an Indo-European invention (which came to Italy via the Arabs who got it from their contacts with the Indian subcontinent).  It was not, however, a European invention.

Posted by PF on March 13, 2007, 05:12 PM | #

LindsayWheeler:

I don’t object to Spartan slavery on moral grounds, that not being my ‘thing’. I am against a selective application of moral universalist criteria, thats why I bring this up. You don’t have to be moral in my book, but insofar as you are moral, you have to be consistant.

For example, you talk about Nazi occupation. If slavery is OK for Spartans to use against Helots, whats wrong with the Nazi’s invading and running your country?

You’re an advocat of moral universalism when your own people needs succor from Western powers, but when your ancestors enslaved an entire people, it is OK because its just an ‘institution’, and a completely necessary one: and it’s OK to glorify them, even to hyperbolically idealize them.

Please don’t fool yourself, the Spartans and the Nazis were very similar, in some ways deliberately so because the Prussian’s emulated the Spartans. The only difference was that in one scenario you were doing the ass-kicking, in the other you were getting your ass-kicked. This, and no moral principles of yours, determines your interpretation of events.

That is why you just lamented the harsh treatment of your Aunt and advocated slavery within the space of a few paragraphs. You have no moral principle on this particular issue and you are being steered entirely by ethnic interests.

I just don’t like two-facedness.

Posted by James Bowery on March 13, 2007, 05:17 PM | #

I must rhetorically ask, then, Fred, where did the Aryans come from?

Would you say the transistor “was not a European invention”?

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on March 13, 2007, 05:36 PM | #

Yes, you right on that Fred.

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on March 13, 2007, 05:56 PM | #

Dear PF

The Nazi’s entered Greece only because the Greek Army kicked the Italian ass.  Greek Armies pushed the Italian army not only off their land but even pushed them back into Italy and took land!!!  In order to save face and to save Mussolini, did Hitler order the invasion of Greece.  So no, the Germans did NOT invade to occupy or to “""run""" Greece but to save Mussolini’s ass and then to kick out the British. 

The Germans then launched a paratroop attack upon the island of Crete to deny Crete to the British and control the Mediterranean Sea.

In this regard, PF, you wrote, “...the Spartans and the Nazis were very similar...” There was SOME similarity between the Spartans and the Nazis but there were major major differences!!!  Nazis were egalitarians who hated aristocracy and royalty!  The Spartans were hierarchical who had and maintained and treasured their aristocracy and Royalty!  Big Difference.  The Spartans were arch Conservatives and Arch Traditionalists.  The Nazis were Neither. The Nazis were progressive and psuedo-conservatives.  They mixed being progressive with “re energizing” some “mythic past” that had NO real factuality.  The Spartans were PIOUS, the Nazis were really atheists and agnostics who played at paganism.

The Spartans were OBEDIENT to the Laws.  Nazis were obedient to Hitler.  Hitler brought back and was the embodiement of Asian Monarchical Despotism.  No Spartan King spoke the Law!  Every Spartan King was obedient to their religion and their laws. 

There was NO demogagoery in Sparta.  Spartans didn’t follow men--They followed the Law.

The Spartans were admired by All.  The Nazis aren’t admired by practically anybody.  The Spartans were religious people.  The Nazis were nihilists.

The Germans when they occupied Greece, shipped all the food north to Germany.  That is called raping the country.  The Germans were close to committing Genocide in Greece because of their confiscatory practices.  The Germans did not come down to Greece to live, but to rape the country and its resources!

What part of justice is it that you line up villagers willy-nilly and machine gun them?

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on March 13, 2007, 05:58 PM | #

Furthermore PF, the Spartans lasted 1000 years on their land unmolested.  The Nazi reign lasted 12 years and ended in bloodshed and destruction.

The proof is in the pudding.

Posted by Robert ap Richard on March 13, 2007, 06:13 PM | #

Lindsay,

Your examples are just silly.  Have you actually read the Bible, for heaven’s sake?  The Old Testament is 100% Jewish; it’s all about the Jews, period, end of story.  The New Testament is based on the Old, referring back to it constantly; the New is the fulfillment of the Old, they are inseparable.  It was written in Greek but the authorship, the thought patterns, the metaphors, and the structure of the writing is almost entirely Jewish. 

You’re right in one thing, Lindsay: the Christian Holy Book is not pure—it’s *only* about 98-99% Jewish.

Posted by PF on March 13, 2007, 07:06 PM | #

WLindsayWheeler:

Nazis were egalitarians who hated aristocracy and royalty!  The Spartans were hierarchical who had and maintained and treasured their aristocracy and Royalty!  Big Difference

You have things ass-backwards there, I’m afraid. Both peoples had egalitarian tendencies and aristocratic tendencies, but behind the Prussian military movement was the whole Junker aristocracy/Prussian Officer system which was actually the most feudalistic in Europe, and they retained effective power after their nominal deposition in WWI. Have you ever seen the picture of Hitler kneeling before Von Hindenburg- it has more than merely symbolic meaning.

The Spartans, when they are mentioned in Ancient sources, are almost always mentioned in light of their egalitarian, communitarian practices- let me paraphrase Plutarch, ‘all Spartans eat the same black broth out of the same wooden bowls and share the same table, this prevents them from becoming corrupted.’

The Spartans were arch Conservatives and Arch Traditionalists.

These are words that correspond to concepts you regard as ‘good’, but which must have meant totally different things to the people living then. The Spartan Mind is something little known, because so little writing exists about them, virtually none of which comes from Spartan authors themselves- do you think you have summarized the Spartan mentality with these two words?

The Nazis were Neither. The Nazis were progressive and psuedo-conservatives.

The Asian societies you deplore are often very traditional and arch-conservative, are they therefore good? The Turks are pretty conservative, generally speaking, arent they?

The Spartans were PIOUS, the Nazis were really atheists and agnostics who played at paganism.

The Spartans were admired by All.  The Nazis aren’t admired by practically anybody.

Both of these above statements are more about PR or cultivating a certain image than you may realize. This explains itself in regards to the latter quote, in regards to the former, we only have the pro-Spartan literature of neighboring peoples, but nothing from Sparta itself. So of course they can be viewed as pious, having the benefit of thousands of years of historical distance and historical amnesia due to the lack of textual evidence. They could really be whatever you want them to be, actually. All we concretely know is a few details of their laws and customs, a list of kings and battles, and the fact that they were awesome fighters. Attribute whatever good qualities you want to them, no one will be able to say otherwise.

Furthermore PF, the Spartans lasted 1000 years on their land unmolested.  The Nazi reign lasted 12 years and ended in bloodshed and destruction.

So let me get this straight- if the Nazi’s had been sufficiently religious and conservative like the Spartans were, and if they were admired by all, they would have the right to enslave you like the Spartans enslaved the Helots? It’s just a matter of being enough like the Spartans, and then one gets license to enslave? As far as the proof being in the pudding, does that mean that if the Nazi’s had succeeded in overrunning and conquering Greece, and not been defeated by the Allies, then you would agree to be enslaved by them? The proof very nearly was in the pudding, Lindsay.

I just want it to be clear to the other members of the forum how this person is playing upon Anglo-Saxon moral universalism when it suits him, and justifying murder and slavery when it suits him. Nazi’s cannot murder or enslave, but Spartans can- they had to, it was necessary. And they are glorious. We should all try and be like them.

The same people demand for Greek statues to be returned from museums, claiming it to be the rightful property of Hellas, even though British, French, Italian or Austrian teams often enough dug it out of the ground, even locating the site of the dig and funding it, and paying for reconstructive work.

It’s always this way: when you’re on the ground, you scream “Equal treatment for all”, when your opponent is on the ground, you scream “Woe to the vanquished.”

Posted by Daniel J on March 13, 2007, 07:09 PM | #

Regarding the Christianity debate: Wheeler is Catholic, I believe, and one of the achievements of the Reformation was a correction of the semitic influence Jews had by infiltrating the Catholic church. Not that there wasn’t a struggle by Catholics themselves against Jewish influence, but Protestantism defined by Luther was anti-Judaic. I am sure everyone here is well aware of his writings on the subject.

Also, I would consider Christ himself a corrective of the Babylonian Jewish thinking that had infused itself throughout Judaism at large.

But, I think Wheeler is right in pointing out that Occidental man can take things from the Orient and bring them to perfection-i.e. gunpowder and some other things (Apparently zero has been determined to have been of Aryan origin)

Yes, the Old Testament is about Jews and the New Testament is not based on the old, but a clearer interpretation of the old. If you must call it such, it is the Mishna of Jesus Christ. You feel free to dismiss the antagonism between Christianity and Judaism (throughout history and currently) as simple internecine fighting between Rabbinic schools of thought and label me as a Jew. Call me your enemy then, and ask not my help in an endeavor I am committed to.

Now to address Wheeler, you have failed to adequately address the 8 points PF brought up. I also do not understand why you feel the need to combine Spartan living with Christianity. They are/were obviously at odds. Consider the inferior children’s skulls being dashed upon the rocks. (Unless that is a myth, in which case I apologize)

Slavery is also an issue I think not at odds with Christianity morality. It is, in fact, a consistent theme of the Bible with no mention of an outlaw of the practice, but rather, the exhortation that: the slave is the Lord’s freedman.  Not to mention many whites in the New World we envision will be of a worker class and de facto “slaves” through wage labor (if not de jure since they probably will not vote or participate in civics in any meaningful way-not to denigrate our need for them)

In fact it is for the mass, the not-as-smart mob that we labor for is it not? The common white man that we love for his piousness and unquestioned loyalty to his aristocratic Lords. A White elite determined to do justice for as many as we can, and I think that is what the Lord of the Rings typified. A tireless, irreproachable and educated intellectual and cultural vanguard determined to save Western Civilization which comprises white “slaves” and “masters.”

As far as the 300 is concerned I don’t know from what I have seen in previews, that it takes the glorious and grand narrative that the Lord of the Rings does… I think it is probably some glorification of violence without context, outside of some important lines people have quoted here.

Ok fellas, feel free to tear me apart

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on March 13, 2007, 07:13 PM | #

That Kahane fellow is intriguing.  He clearly has an insight into the Semitic mind - a critical one.  But, is he a “self-hating” jew or an “anti-Semitic” non-jew?  Until the last paragraph I assumed the former, but “Kahane” is just the sort of ironic pen name the latter might assume.  Either way, it’s amusing to consider him scurrying about the Hollywood screenwriter’s milieu.

An aversion to male homosexuality is almost ubiquitous among heterosexual males, Christian and non-Christians alike.  (I myself am not Christian).  We could argue about whether this aversion is hard-wired (I think it is) but it is clearly rational, as homosexuality is unquestionably a social negative.

Well, consider it from an evolutionary perspective.  A lack of a ubiquitous barrier to sodomy would not bode well for reproduction.  To me that implies the existence of an inherent barrier.

To Lindsay: not to pile on, but no, family is not an “institution” that belongs in that context.  Family arises wholly organically and is inherent.

Posted by James Bowery on March 13, 2007, 08:33 PM | #

Traitors and deserters are hanged on trees; cowards, shirkers and sodomites are pressed down under a wicker hurdle into the slimy mud of a bog. —Tacitus Germania

I think it is safe to say that “sodomy” was considered something that needed to be suppressed among the Northern Europeans as vigorously as they suppressed military defection.  This indicates a very serious condition.

It’s interesting that the founder of Stop Prisoner Rape, Stephen Donaldson, noted a fundamental difference between Mediterranean cultures and cultures “north and west of the Alps” regarding homosexuality:  Mediterranean cultures tended not to regard masculine penetration of another male as “homosexual” whereas cultures “north and west of the Alps” (his phrase) drew no distinction between masculine and feminine roles in classifying people as “homosexual”.

I don’t have the cite available at the moment but I also seem to recall there having been reports from Roman legions regarding their enjoyment of male rape of northern Europeans—if memory serves me correctly it was the male Gauls being raped by Roman legions.

Posted by Rnl on March 13, 2007, 08:43 PM | #

Al Ross wrote:

Rnl’s thoughts re the film’s Occident v Orient dichotomy are surely somewhat unformed.

Keep in mind that I was describing standard _interpretations_ of famous historical events. The Occident-Orient dichotomy isn’t my invention, nor is the belief that Persian despotism was non-Western.

There is no doubt that pre-PC scholars - correctly or not, though I believe the former - regularly interpreted the Greek victory over the Persians and the French victory over Islam as notable episodes in the Occident’s long resistance to incursions from the Orient. This Eurocentric bias assumed that the various parts of the Occident, despite their differences, collectively constituted a civilization worthy of preservation.

As our belief in our civilization’s value declined, the traditional interpretations became problematic, not because new evidence had been unearthed refuting them, but only because we no longer felt the old cultural confidence that the traditional interpretations once unreflectively assumed. A contemporary ideology of Western capitulation has been turned on the past, so thoroughly that it is now increasingly difficult to unreservedly celebrate successful Western resistance to _invasion_. 

Since today we are allowing ourselves to be invaded in the name of anti-racialism, the more PC among us feel embarrassed that our most heroic ancestors evidently held a much different view of alien invasions. It’s better therefore not to think of our most heroic ancestors as especially heroic, and it’s better to deny the historical significance that pre-PC historians once ascribed to their heroism.

When a film comes along that asserts the traditional interpretation of the Greek defense of the West, multiracialist film reviewers start worrying about “racism.” From their perspective they’re right to worry.

Posted by Rnl on March 13, 2007, 08:50 PM | #

James Bowery wrote:

I don’t have the cite available at the moment but I also seem to recall there having been reports from Roman legions regarding their enjoyment of male rape of northern Europeans—if memory serves me correctly it was the male Gauls being raped by Roman legions.

Christian monks in Britain were raped by Viking marauders, so I doubt your Nordicist distinction will hold. The Norsemen had a strong aversion to homosexual practices, but that didn’t prevent them from inflicting them on enemies.

Posted by Rnl on March 13, 2007, 08:54 PM | #

I personally have nothing against sodomy—consenting adults can do as they please as far as I am concerned.

Almost everyone agrees, even most Christian conservatives. Yet homosexual activists have taken our tolerance as a licence to demand much more: the right to publicly display their perversion; the right to marry other homosexuals; the right to adopt children; the right to use the educational system to extirpate heteronormativity, etc.

We reasonably allowed homosexuals to practice their sexual inclinations without fear of punishment, but our reasonable concession then formed the basis for a series of unreasonable and unacceptable demands.

That’s the normal pattern of minority activism, and it won’t stop until the majority consciously refuses to concede more.

Posted by James Bowery on March 13, 2007, 08:56 PM | #

The reports of rape by Roman Legions were by the Romans themselves.  Were the reports of rapes of Christian monks by Vikings themselves in one of the sagas?

Posted by James Bowery on March 13, 2007, 08:59 PM | #

BTW: The “Nordicist distinction” I quoted from Donaldson is something that is here and now.  Calling something Nordicist doesn’t invalidate it.

Posted by Rnl on March 13, 2007, 09:11 PM | #

Calling something Nordicist doesn’t invalidate it.

No, but it does describe it.

Were the reports of rapes of Christian monks by Vikings themselves in one of the sagas?

By the victims.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on March 13, 2007, 09:27 PM | #

OK, I saw the movie yesterday and I want to raise a few points. First, I liked it a lot. There’s a lot to enjoy about this movie from the perspective of a White man. The movie underscores manly and Pagan virtues such as honour, loyalty to your comrades-in-arms, total and unquestioned obedience to your leader, discipline, physical beauty, strength of character, a will to power, ruthlessness in battle (at one point in the movie King Leonidas shouts to his troops: “we’re taking no prisoners and we’re showing no pity!” (or words to that effect), indifference to pain and suffering, and, most of all, death itself. Actually, the Spartans aren’t so much indifferent to death as they welcome it. Indeed, we’re told at the beginning of 300 that the Spartans believed that the noblest death a man can encounter is on the battlefield. I also loved how the 300 not only praises Spartan eugenics but its greatest villain is a deformed and physically ugly (repulsive, really) Spartan whose parents refused to discard him at his birth out of a misplaced sense of weakness and sentimentality. (Did I mention that it’s a deeply anti-Christian movie?) The ogre in question turns out to be a reprehensible traitor whose treason is ultimately responsible for the Spartans’ defeat at the hands of effeminate Persians (they appear as having a peculiar predilection for massive body-piercings), portrayed in the movie as a luxury loving and debauched niggers and mongrels (I didn’t see a single White face among the corrupt Persians, while the Spartan Greeks are exclusively lily White). Only through their overwhelming numbers and the hunchback’s treason could they defeat the racially and morally superior Spartans. Finally, I believe that the 300 got some bad reviews (for example, see here) because of its very obvious celebration of the warrior-ethic and, as pointed out above, overall political incorrectness. See trailer here. I give it 4 stars out of 5. Go see it!

Posted by James Bowery on March 13, 2007, 10:39 PM | #

its greatest villain is a deformed and physically ugly (repulsive, really) Spartan whose parents refused to discard him at his birth out of a misplaced sense of weakness and sentimentality.

One of my favorite lines was Leonidas speaking to the hunchback just before Leonidas was to knowingly die due to the hunchback’s treason:

“May you live forever.”

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on March 13, 2007, 11:51 PM | #

Marriage is called an Institution by the Roman Catholic Church.  There is a plethora of references to the “Institution of Marriage” in Roman Catholic written articles and papers.

----------------
Someone on the IMDb boards said Frank Miller and Zack Synder are Jews.

Furthermore, I found out that Frank Miller is an Atheist.  Isn’t that quite funny, The movie 300, disparges religion.  It paints the ephors as syphilitic lepers who are corrupt and sanctimounous.  But in Real LIfe Frank Miller would NOT have been allowed to tread on any part of Spartan soil, this man places HIS prejudices ontop a very pious and religious people.  Frank Miller is spreading his atheism via a movie and comic book, smearing the god-fearing Spartans with impiety and worse irreligion.

It is NO wonder that Socrates, that Philodorian, called for the Poets to be censored!  To Smear the Spartans with Atheism is a lie!  It is a tragic misrepresentation!!!!

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on March 14, 2007, 12:00 AM | #

the right to marry other homosexuals

Just a quibble (pet peeve of mine): homosexuals do not want the right to marry homosexuals, they want the right to redefine (pervert) marriage.  They either care not a whit, or relish, the fact that what they propose is the destruction of marriage.

We reasonably allowed homosexuals to practice their sexual inclinations without fear of punishment, but our reasonable concession then formed the basis for a series of unreasonable and unacceptable demands.

I refer to this as the compact between normal people, and homosexuals:

Homosexuals agree to keep their deviancy out of the public eye, to discretion, and to keeping their hands off our children (in every sense possible).

Normals agree not to visit their homes with torches and pitchforks.

Homosexuals have been in breach of the compact for at least two generations.  They need to clean house.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on March 14, 2007, 12:09 AM | #

Friedrich, yes, the eugenics angle was hard to miss.  Did you notice the treacherous Spartan politician was the swarthiest of the lot?  Lol!  The hits just kept on comin’ in 300.

But, I did see a white or two amongst the Persians: one of the Immortals, and the Ogre (not the hunchback) who almost kills Leonidas.

I didn’t enjoy the movie that much, outside of the political sense.  Politically it was great, but otherwise it wasn’t my cup of tea.  Felt like I was watching Sin City or something (general mood, surreality), the CONSTANT slow-mo was a serious pain in the ass (I frickin’ hate the overuse of gimmicks like slo-mo, if I want to see that shit I can watch MTV), etc.

Posted by James Bowery on March 14, 2007, 12:15 AM | #

In a free world—a world in which territorial secession with assortative migration lets people vote with their feet—I would prefer a territory within which homosexuality, as defined by the Germanics of Tacitus, was excluded.  I would, of course lend at least moral, if not military, support to those who differ from me here, as long as they did not prevent those who shared my preferences from having our own territory.  If, however, they prevented us from having our own territory, as most homosexuals these days would do, they would find me quite “hateful”.