Category Archives: Roman Empire

Hollywood and Acting in General Have Been Sleazy Forever

Back in the 1950’s, your average right-thinking Christian White person thought Hollywood was a debased sleazeathon full of fags, lezzes, poofs and perverts. Here it is 2017, and we learning that the previous generation’s “bigoted” assessment was simply flat-out true.

If you study Roman history, you will learn that acting was considered to be a sleazy profession even by Roman standards. Many morally upright Romans (to the extent that there was such a thing) wanted nothing to do with the profession. Acting was thought to be full of…guess what? Fags, lezzes, poofs and perverts! How did you guess?

Fast forward to 1950’s and 2017. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Human nature is what it is. Some things are largely rooted in human nature and may show little change across time or perhaps even space.

There is nothing new under the sun.

1 Comment

Filed under Antiquity, California, Christianity, Cinema, History, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Religion, Roman Empire, US, USA, West, Whites

Guess the Quote

Let’s play guess the quote!

Opposition there was none: the boldest spirits had succumbed on stricken fields or by proscription-lists; while the rest of the nobility found a cheerful acceptance of slavery the smoothest road to wealth and office, and, as they had thriven on revolution, stood now for the new order and safety in preference to the old order and adventure. Nor was the state of affairs unpopular in the provinces, where administration by the Senate and People had been discredited by the feuds of the magnates and the greed of the officials, against which there was but frail protection in a legal system forever deranged by force, by favoritism, or (in the last resort) by gold.

1. Who wrote this? If you are close, that’s ok. He was a very famous writer, I will give you that much.

2. What is the name of the work that this is written in? Any of the author’s works would be ok.

3. Where in the book can this quote be found? Approximate pages ok.

2. Where was this written?

3. When was this written? Approximate times are ok.

4. What language was this originally written in? This is an English translation from another language.

5. What is the writer discussing in this paragraph?


Filed under Antiquity, Government, History, Law, Literature, Roman Empire

Cultural Left Theory of Homophobia: The Cultural Left Is Wrong Again

The Cultural Left says straight men are afraid of gay men if they are afraid of being gay themselves or if they have gay tendencies themselves. There is no evidence whatsoever for this, but obviously reaction formation does form in some straight men who have some minor gay tendencies but deny them. There are also a few closeted gay men who are very self-hating such as Omar Mateen, the Orlando shooter. But by and large, it’s just not true.

The corollary of this silliness is if you are secure about your masculinity, you do not fear or hate gay men. So straight men who fear or hate men are not secure about their masculinity. This stupid lie is just not true, though of course it may be true in a few cases where you see some projection and especially reaction formation defenses.

What I have noticed in my life is the opposite: the more masculine or macho the man is, the more he fears or more properly hates gay men. At the very least, they make him very uncomfortable and they do not want to get close to them. They also do not want to be seen out in public with a gay man for fear that people will think that they are gay too.

The masculine the man is, the more uncomfortable he is around gay men. And the most masculine men of all were the most homophobic of all. These were men who straight up say things like, “I hate faggots!” They also tend to vastly overestimate the number of gay men and seem to think that ~20% of the straight male population is gay because they are not masculine enough for these guys. Any straight man who doesn’t measure up in the masculinity department is automatically seen as gay by this type of men.

I have been around an awful lot of men in my life and I have had probably hundreds of male friends. Of course most all of my good friends have been straight because frankly I do not associate with gay men, and I think this is very much for the best because to me they are nothing but trouble with a T.

The interesting thing that I have noticed is that many straight men are not exactly completely straight. They are straight of course because they are maximally attracted to women and much of their lives revolve around women. However, quite a few men like this do have some minor gay feelings.

Of course, the Cultural Left  would say that these men are gay because the Cultural Left scum want to claim as many gay men as possible for their sick Gay Agenda. According to the Cultural Left, any man who has any gay feelings at all is automatically a homosexual! This is absolutely insane, as minor gay feelings among straight men are about as common as weeds. They’re everywhere.

Look at the chart below.

100-0: Maximum heterosexual, minimum homosexual
90-10: Maximum heterosexual, incidental homosexual
80-20: Maximum heterosexual, significant homosexual
70-30: Maximum heterosexual, strong homosexual
60-40: Maximum heterosexual, very strong strong homosexual
50-50: Maximum heterosexual, maximal homosexual
40-60: Maximum homosexual, very strong heterosexual
30-70: Maximum homosexual, strong heterosexual
20-80: Maximum homosexual, significant heterosexual
10-90: Maximum homosexual, incidental heterosexual
0-100: Maximum homosexual, minimal heterosexual

According to the best data that I have, 62% of all men are 100-0’s. Nevertheless, I am convinced that many or most 100-0’s are capable of having sex with males and even enjoying it if the culture opens the door wide for such things. We have only to look at cultures like Afghanistan and Ancient Greece and Rome to see that in some cultures, up to 95% of men engage in homosexuality. No doubt most of them are 100-0’s, assuming the 62% figure is a biological average.

The best study I have seen is that 38% of all men have some level of gay feelings, albeit generally at a low level. Most of these men are 90-10’s and 80-20’s. I am convinced that men like this are everywhere in the straight community, and you can’t spot them. Probably only 6% of men actually lean gay according to one study. Since minor gay feelings are quite common in straight men, why should it be so shocking that some men have issues with these feelings, do not like them, and possibly defend against them via reaction formation? It should not be surprising at all.

I have noticed in my life that the more a straight man was ok with homosexuality, especially to the point of being almost violently ok with it like, “There’s nothing wrong with it! There’s nothing wrong with it! Who cares!” that if I watched that man for a number of years, quite a few of them engaged in gay activities with other men, I would say at least once.

The ones that I followed up had all been predominantly straight when I knew them. They were somewhere  between 90-10’s to 60-40’s. The gay activity phase was in their late teens to early 20’s, and it seemed like they aged out of it after a bit. A few were in it for the money. These were very goodlooking mostly straight men who hooked up with older gay men who became their sugar daddies in order to get nice clothes, lots of money, fancy cars, etc. It was pretty close to being male prostitution. However, even this phase did not seem to last long, and they often aged out of it.

The last I heard about most of them was that they were living in a big house somewhere married to a woman, and they had a couple of kids. In other words, they were regular suburban husbands and fathers. As the obviously leaned straight anyway (so for all intents and purposes were straight) it makes perfect sense that they trended towards marriage, children and a house in the suburbs by their 20’s and 30’s like most straight men.

The gay stuff seemed to be a more  minor interest that they grew out of. Keep in mind that I did not monitor these men closely because very soon after I found out they were having sex with men, I bailed on them because I am not going to associate with you if you are doing such things. Instead I simply heard about what they were up to.

So I am a bit wary of straight men who are vehemently to almost violently “ok” with gay men. I consider it a warning sign of some incipient bisexuality. There just a bit too “ok” with homosexual behavior, wink wink.

Yet, I have noticed  that many regular straight men who were anywhere from 100-0’s to possibly 80-0’s do have some minor gay interest. How do I know this? Because they tried to have sex with me, that’s how! This happened especially when I was young and I was reportedly a very goodlooking man. I had offers to be a male model, and I even interviewed for an agency. As I pointed out, these men are not gay at all (a 100-0 to 80-20 is considered a straight man), but let’s put it this way, an awful lot of straight men, while often extremely heterosexual, are not exactly completely straight if you catch my drift.

Anyway, the Cultural Left line is a lie. The Cultural Left says the more secure you are with your masculinity or heterosexuality, the more ok you are with gay men, and the more worried you are about your masculinity or heterosexuality, the more you fear and hate gay men. This theory is not only wrong, it’s completely backwards!

I have observed that instead of the most uncertain men being the most homophobic, it’s the other way around. The more strongly and solidly to unmovably heterosexual (the type who say they would not have gay sex if you put a gun to their head) a man is, the more uncomfortable he is around gay men, and often the more he dislikes gay men. And there is much better correlation with masculinity. The more hypermasculine or macho the man is, the more he dislikes gays even to the point of hating them.

So the Cultural Left has it backwards. It’s the studs and the he-men who are the most homophobic of straight men, not the men who are most worried about their masuclinity and heterosexuality. And the more accepting a man is of homosexuality, instead of making him more securely straight as the Cultural Left theory says, instead this is correlated with a willingness to engaging in sex with men.


Filed under Afghanistan, Ancient Greece, Antiquity, Culture, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Left, Man World, Roman Empire, Sex, South Asia

What Was the Worst Cultural Genocide Ever?

How about the Romanization of the Celtic World?


Yes, all of that land was formerly controlled by the Celts. Even Southwest Poland was Celtic. There is an endangered language spoken there called Silesian that has at its very base a Celtic layer which is the oldest layer of this Slavic language. The French language was Celtic Gaulish, the influence of which can still be seen in the odd French phonology. I do not think there is much Celtic left in the Iberian languages, but I could be wrong on that. Surely there is little or no Celtic left in Turkish. One wonders about Celtic traces in Dutch, German and the rest of Slavic.

In our modern era, Celtic languages only (barely) survive in Ireland (Irish), Scotland (Scottish Gaelic), Wales (Welsh), the Isle of Man (Manx) and Cornwall (Cornish) in England, and Brittany (Breton) in France. In Eastern Europe, Celts were supplanted by Germanic, Iranian and Slavic tribes. In France, Iberia and the Balkans, the Celts were assimilated to the Roman Empire.

It is not particularly difficult to convert a native elite to the language of a conqueror, but converting an entire population to a new language in a short period of time is quite a feat. The Romans did this mostly by showing the superiority of the Latin language and convincing the natives to give up their Celtic words.

In fact, the Romanization of Dacia where the original Celtic speaking people were completely converted to Latin which then turned into Romanian is cited by Wikipedia as one of the worst cultural genocides ever.

Of course there are many other examples of cultural genocide, some of them ongoing.


Filed under Antiquity, Balto-Slavic-Germanic, Britain, Celtic, Culture, Dutch, Europe, European, France, French, Geography, German, Germanic, History, Indo-European, Ireland, Italic, Italo-Celtic, Language Families, Linguistics, Maps, Poland, Regional, Roman Empire, Romance, Scotland, Slavic, Sociolinguistics, Turkic, Turkish

Yes Virginia, There Is a Christian Catholicism

One of the most bizarre things about own homegrown rightwing Christian Protestant fundamentalists is that they subscribe to the belief that somehow the very first Christians of all, the Catholics, are not Christians. Whether the Papists are apostates or simply heretics is not clear, not that it matters since crazy is crazy. Some of these kooks even push philosophies that say that all evil today is coming out of Catholic Central in the Vatican.

Of course this is scriptural madness. There is no such thing as Catholics and Christians. Catholics are Christians, and I do not care how many times these schismatic born-again nuts insist that they are not.

In fact, they are the very first real Christians of all, ignoring the original Christians who were so Jewish that no Christian today in their right mind would practice their religion though many insist that they do. Yes, you ask one of these Protestant nutcases what sort of Christianity they practice and they all say that they practice “the original Christianity” of say 60 AD or so. Well they don’t practice Judaism, so no they don’t.

But in going back to what they see as the original pure untainted ideal from 2,000 years ago, these Protestant fruitcakes are the equivalent of Muslim Salafists, and when they excommunicate everyone else, they are as bad as Muslim Takfiris like ISIS. So our modern Protestant fundies are sort of a Christian ISIS without all the head-chopping. Wonderful.

Anyway, yes, Christianity and Catholicism were the same thing for 1,500 years until Martin Luther, ignoring a few heretical Catholic splits like the Cathars, who were my ancestors by the way).

The first actual church, the Syrian Orthodox Church founded in 60 AD, now being destroyed and genocided by the “Christian” United States, UK, and  EU, in addition to the jihadist Muslim Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, was a Christian or Orthodox church. Catholicism and Orthodoxy are the same thing. One looks to Rome and the other to the east, formerly to Antioch but now to wherever the head of their local branch resides, as there is no Vatican of Orthodox since the Hagia Sofia was turned into a mosque by those lovely Muslims.

It’s all one church. The Western branch is headquartered in Rome, and the eastern branch is headquartered in various nations in Eastern Europe and the Near and Middle East. Even though love to slaughter each other in the modern era, it’s still all one big church. Cain and Abel if you will.

When these fruitcakes say that Catholics are not Christians, they are actually saying that there no Christianity for 1,500 years!

According to our modern evangelical loons, apparently there was some sort of primal Christianity in the Levant in the 1st Century (which was really just ultra-Reform Judaism). These incipient “Christians” kept kosher! Since when do Christians keep kosher? See how retarded these millenarian charismatic boneheads are?

Then apparently “Christianity” went away for 1,500 years. How likely is that?

I guess the real deal was crucified or something just like its prophet. Anyway in both cases, the Romans did it.

And then in re-run of the original, in imitation once again of its prophet, Christianity somehow rose from the dead, came back from extinction, shoved the Catholic Stone aside and strode out powerfully into the glaring sun of the brand new day. The man who resurrected the church and created Zombie Christianity or Protestantism is named named Martin Luther.

Nope. Catholicism in all of its baffling forms is the real deal – the original Christianity, and it doesn’t matter how many modern Protestant Flat Earthers say it’s not true. Historical facts are historical facts, and in this case, revisionism is just lying and some very stupid and transparent lying at that.

The first World Christian Church was headquarted in Rome in the 300’s with the conversion of the crumbling Roman Empire. Those who used to feed the heretics to the lions embraced the same heresy they once persecuted so savagely. That was the shot in the arm that the religion needed, and it was smooth sailing from then on. It mattered not that Christian Rome fell because soon enough the German pagans of Rome were automagically Christians themselves. Soon afterwards, a rival Catholic Church was established in Antioch in Christian Turkey and a rather restrained rivalry was on. All attempts to marry the two ends of the compass failed, but all in all it was an amicable divorce.

If anyone is a splitter or God forbid a heretic, it is the Protestants who frankly began their journey as blood-soaked Catholic heretic genocide victims. Tortured and murdered by the million for a century, the heretics became schismatics became a bona fide branch of Christianity not long after Luther died. The two branches of Western Christianity kept slaughtering each for a while, but familial homicide is actually one of the most common types, so the massacres go are not as counterintuitive as you would think.

Anyway if you have read this far, you can see that the point of this post that anyone who says, “No, I’m not Catholic. I’m Christian,” as you hear so often around my intellectually blighted environs, is a certified idiot and a delusional lunatic.


Filed under Antiquity, Catholicism, Christian, Christianity, Comparitive Religion, Conservatism, Europe, History, Idiots, Islam, Judaism, Lunatics, Middle East, Near East, Orthodox, Political Science, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, Roman Empire, Turkey

Last Word on Phoenicians, Phonetics, Etc.

It looks like we finally got the answer to whether Phoenician and phonetic, phonology, phone, phoneme, etc. are related – they are not, but both are from Greek words. Phonetic, phone, phonology, phoneme, etc. are derived from Greek Phonein, which means quite logically “to sound.” Phoenician, on the other hand, derives from a Greek word Phoenikoi for the people and region, derived from the word Phoenix which originally meant a particular conch shell that yielded a nice purple dye and later acquired the meaning via legend of a bird that rises from the ashes after it dies. I am not sure what the Phoenikoi were named after – perhaps the conch shell?

Anyway, the roots have no relationship to each other, but it was a nice hypothesis anyway. “Scientists” always like to chortle with ridicule at the notion of a “bad hypothesis” but I think in many cases, most hypotheses that seem prima facie reasonable are not bad hypotheses. Furthermore, I dislike the very notion of bad hypotheses as it smacks of the horrific arrogance all of the sciences engage in these days, even the ridiculous fake social “sciences” like my own pitiful specialty, Linguistics.

Miville writes:

Phonein (to sound) should first be sounded as the ancient Athenians did: not phoney-in, but pf-hone-een (or pf-honey-an as the Spartans did): the important thing is to try to sound out an f not with the teeth against the upper lip but with both lips as gently as to let off a beautiful soap bubble instead of ordinary spittle.

The Romans despite being the new lords on the block felt they were no match for Greece however decadent and derelict so they made that effort to sound the Greek ph the Greek way rather than like their own f, at least so as to spit gracefully down upon their own people, hence the spelling we inherited from them despite the fact no longer any Roman nor Greek knows any other sound than our own vulgar present f.

Phonein in Greek is written with an Omega, which was sounded Oh like in OMG in Athens and like Awe or (Golden) Dawn in Sparta. Phoenicia is derived, as regards the Greek language, from Phoenix, which was written with the false diphthong (original simple sound lacking a proper letter in the alphabet and therefore written two ones) oi which bore but little relationship whatever with either simple o or Omega and was rather sounded œ as in German Goethe or u as in turn depending on the city. Phonein meant to sound, phoenix rather derives from a word meaning a conch, the particular one whence came a very precious dark red dye, purpur or purple.

It also meant a legendary bird capable of rebirth after having passed through burnt offering. The legend was common (and still is in works such as the One and Thousand Nights) to all Near and Middle Eastern countries and the red color also pictured the Rising Sun, the Orient, hence the name given to the mariners stemming from the land of the rising sun also most renowned for its production of purple dye from the conch and for having given to Greece the alphabet.

The Phoenicians themselves called their own language and nationality Cana’an, so the name we use is a pure Greek creation, like the name Greek which is a Roman appellation for a people who call themselves Hellenes. The letters, of Phoenician origin, meant sounds, or phonemata.

The conch could also be used as a sounding horn, as is the symbol of the primeval creating divine vibration in many cultures, apart from the fact that in many languages a telephone receiver can be called a conch (Muschel in German). The proximate sounds, however, prove no common etymology, even though they are marvelous for poetry.

The early Roman soldiers when it came to name the same people that had settled Carthage did not make the effort their betters made when trying to pronounce Greek names and sounded Phoenikoi like Punici, simplifying the very peculiar Greek ph into p rather than into f. By regressive derivation they likened the word to their own poena, a punishment, and to the verb punire, but there is no common etymology.


Filed under Afroasiatic, Ancient Greece, Antiquity, Greek, Hellenic, History, Indo-European, Indo-Hittite, Indo-Irano-Armeno-Hellenic, Language Families, Linguistics, Roman Empire, Science, Semitic

“Rodbusters,” by Alpha Unit

For millenia humans have created structures out of concrete. The Romans preferred concrete to all other construction materials, and their unique formula is the reason so many of ancient Rome’s monuments are still standing. The concrete we use today, while different from Roman concrete, is an excellent building material but as strong as it is, it has almost no tensile strength: it can’t withstand much pulling or stretching. For that reason builders reinforce it with rebar.

These metal rods, which have spaced patterns of bumps or swirls to help the concrete grip them, allow concrete to bend and flex without cracking or breaking. Rodbusters, the ironworkers who install rebar, have one of the most physically demanding jobs in construction.

Rodbusters will tell you that their shoulders especially take a pounding. They do a lot of lifting, and routinely carry heavy rebar on their shoulders. During hot weather, shoulder burns from hoisting hot steel rods are common. Here’s how one rodbuster describes his work:

Your back is shot, shoulders are raped, you can’t walk from being in the SLDL position all day long, and you literally have no free time aside from our [mandated] breaks.

Another rodbuster has pretty much the same view:

It’s good clean work…but it’s hell on the body. Carrying 150-180 pounds of 30′ rods all day gives your lower back, shoulders, and legs a beating. Not to mention tying [rebar] all day long as well. Picture being in the SLDL start position for five minutes at a time.

SLDL stands for Stiff Legged Deadlift.

Once a rodbuster positions the rebar, he ties it together with wire. He has to wrap wire securely around any area with two or more rebar sections that intersect or overlap. Tied corners are weak, so he installs bent rebar at corners. A job might involve cutting or welding.

Tying rebar requires fast, repetitive hand and arm movements while applying a lot of force. When a rodbuster ties rebar at ground level, he typically works in a stooped position, with his body bent deeply forward. A rodbuster informs us:

For a career as a rodbuster, you’re always bunched forward. You can always tell a rodbuster by how he looks.

Ironworkers in the United States have been represented since 1896 by the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental, and Reinforcing Iron Workers. But throughout the country there are rodbusters working without a union contract.

Some non-union rodbusters have walked off the job to protest working conditions. They report making significantly less than the national average for reinforcing ironworkers. They say they can work 18-hour days sometimes, without warning. There are no health benefits, and if there is an accident, it might not get reported to OSHA. Such protests have taken place in Vancouver, Washington; in Houston, Texas; and in Manchester, Tennessee.

Union or non-union, if you can set and tie rebar, you have a skill that’s in demand. Some ironworkers say that in their line of work, the sooner you get in and get out, the better off you are. As one of them put it:

I was a rodbuster for over 30 years, and if you go that route you will find out GOD fucking hates you. The first two weeks every muscle in your body will fucking hate you. But remember this, you are not the only one that will do it or has been through it, and you will survive.


Filed under Alpha Unit, Antiquity, Guest Posts, History, Labor, Roman Empire

The Decline and Fall of the Indus Valley Civilization

Judith Mirville does a superb writeup on this matter about which I honestly know very little. However, I think she is onto something and a lot of her narrative strikes me as accurate in particular the details about what actually went down. It was in a sense a slave revolt or a peasant rebellion. Or a rebellion of a mercenary army, even better.

Recall that the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire was also in part brought about by hiring foreign mercenaries as paid fighting men. Really soldiers for hire know little if any loyalty but to the coin. That should be clear by now. That the US in its mature decadence is also increasingly hiring out paid mercenaries to do the Empire’s dirty work is most disturbing. Say what you will about the US military, but one thing they are not are traitors. They fight for the land, the nation and the flag. They are not a 5th column from within.

Also the IVC people bringing in Aryans as cheap, lousy labor to save money and hire a more docile workforce for lower pay by replacing their increasingly consumptive and demanding middle classes reminds me a lot of the US elite’s hiring consumptive and demanding largely White middle class and working class workers with treasonous Mexicans and Indians who know no loyalty to the land and in fact are often hostile to the homeland itself. To some extent both are intent on taking over industries or perhaps the whole nation by the overthrow of the hated White man.

As the cheap labor Aryans made increasingly lousy cities, so we see illegal Mexican labor creating increasingly worse structural products as competent White construction workers are replaced by inferior illegals who cut corners and do shoddy work.

By the same token, our great White programming class is being replaced by cheap labor “Aryans,” descendants of the destroyers of yore, being used as a scab force to replace demanding and consumptive upper middle class White programmers with inferior Indians writing shoddy code. Our software infrastructure has begun to decline to lousy cheap labor code the same way as our physical shelter infrastructure declines due to sloppy illegal aliens working for $10/hour.

Recrudescence is a bitch.

First as tragedy, then as farce!

Those who do not learn from Time are in for a re-run!

I happen to know the matter in greater detail. It was more, and also worse than an invasion. It was first a slow-pace immigration, probably willed by a more and more decadent and conservative oligarchy who needed a sturdier-built, more docile, less questioning, less short-tempered manpower as laborers, as soldiers and as security guards, and the Aryans from the neighboring mountainous regions proved the best and better built for sustaining harsher life, less equipment, lower pay : this is clearly visible examining the later parts of the IVC cities, which were far less well-built, at a lower cost, with less equipments and comforts, a clear sign of more greed and less benevolence from the ruling class’s part.

We may very reasonably surmise that, for this is what happened in European history too at least twice. The Germanic invasion of Rome also started as an immigration influx of the same kind for at least three centuries before it transformed into a downright military invasion from without, it was facilitated by the fact most Roman soldiers and the best, less decadent Roman or Gallo-Roman families also spoke or knew some kind of German.

Earlier in European history, the Dorian invasion that ended with the Minoan-Mycenaean civilization was also a like long protracted invasion through immigration. In both cases there were explicit arrangements between the ruling oligarchy that agreed upon replacing their too demanding, too much consuming, too capricious population with another one.

In Harrappa, though, the final blow was not an invasion of the Alaric kind, it was a very violent and explosive revolution by the Aryan manpower and security force having gone berserk, aiming at destroying the whole infrastructure and bringing back primeval conditions of like, not at edifying a new, more efficient empire. The thing most like it in our times might be the Hutu genocide against the Tutsis in Rwanda.

The invasion of Rome by Alaric and others did not put the city into ruins, actually those Germans had greater admiration for what Rome had been in the past than the last Roman themselves, and invaded the city to put it into worthier hands.

The worst material and intellectual ruining of Rome, when many arts in many domains were lost for ever due to the general ambiance of superstition and cynicism, had already taken place during the most woeful part of the Empire, just before Diocletian took on. As the empire was gradually taken over by Germanic tribes, it was more like sovereign nation-states taking their independence from an Empire that for centuries had no longer brought about any good to the commoners for long, this was clearly the case as Gaul transformed into what was to become France.

As the Germanic-led nations came to power, there was to be no economic decline for a century or more (actually health improved due to more abundant nutrition for most than under the last Roman bureaucrats : the myth that people no longer washed because there were no longer Roman baths is a lie, bathing facilities improved during the Middle Ages though with lighter equipment, it is from the Renaissance onwards that European peoples accustomed themselves to much dirt), and culture was recovering somewhat though at a very low scale compared to before the 3th century nadir point.

What just later on pushed Europe and Rome into far deeper ruin thereafter were the indirect economic consequences of the Muslim invasion of the Mediterranean, by sundering West from East for good, by making sea voyages and road travel perfectly impracticable, and this took place as the Normans from Scandinavia also plundered from upper north without any intention of building anything.

The Aryans of India, on the other hand, had absolutely no admiration for the cities that had been employing them or bought their cattle resources, they seemed thus intent on destroying every trace of former sophistication to perform a civilization reset. Why so? Given what I know about the character of Indian oligarchies, my opinion is that once those cities were built the ruling professional class decided to acquire competences not in what might bring about further material progress, but mind control techniques on a background of economic regression for most, as can be seen with the architectural evolution of those cities in time.

The oligarchy would prevent more and more talent from flourishing except their own mind-control techniques, and rather dumb down the rest, so as to prevent an evolution or a revolution. But one day came that the frustration energy among the people that were thought to be most brutish and docile and muscular exploded in a sheer unpredictable and mechanical way, like what happened in Rwanda, probably following an episode of extreme scarcity : the river beds that had made these cities so prosperous were rapidly drying up as the Thar Desert was forming.

In America, where the elite no longer cares for any material progress, to the point of despising more and more scientists as losers, and cares only for mind control through culture or virtual reality to secure its position, where stupidity is more and more a plus on all vitae and on immigration forms, the same process may be building up leading to a Yellowstone-like social explosion with nothing planned thereafter than a continent of warring obscurantist tribes probably at the behest of contending foreign powers.


Filed under Antiquity, Asia, Culture, Europe, European, History, Illegal, Immigration, India, Labor, Regional, Roman Empire, Sociology, South Asia, USA

Why America Is Cancer


George Friedman, Jew, psychopath, explains the psychopathic foreign policy goals of the Dictator of the World, America. Mr. Freeman is one of the men who run our foreign policy. Freeman is for all intents and purposes the voice of the CIA or better yet, the voice of the Deep State. Note the rank cynicism and viciousness of this man. The fact that he is a Jew is not surprising. There is no longer discrimination against Jews in America. On the contrary, Jews run the whole damn country.


Filed under Afghanistan, Antiquity, Asia, Britain, Colonialism, Economics, Eurasia, Europe, Geopolitics, Germany, Government, History, Imperialism, India, Iraq War, Military Doctrine, Political Science, Politics, Radical Islam, Regional, Republicans, Roman Empire, Russia, South Asia, The Jewish Question, Ukraine, US Politics, US War in Afghanistan, USA, USSR, War

Zionism and Protestant Fundamentalism: The Role and Genesis of Apocalyptic Thinking

From a great study, Ancient Israelite Zion Theology, Judeo-Christian Apocalypticism, and Biblical (Mis)Interpretation: Potential Implications for the Stability of the Modern Middle East, by Taylor Halverson:

What were the causes that led to the catastrophic defeat and destruction (of the Kingdom of Judah first and of the second destruction of the Temple by the Romans)?…(It) had to do with the misinterpretation and misapplication of a popular theological notion, Zion Theology, which led many of the leaders and people of Judah to believe that they were impervious to Babylonian threats.

God was on their side; not even the Babylonians could assail such an awesome power. This misinterpretation of a theological concept contributed to Judeans severely misreading the political and military situation of their day and thus helped to precipitate the very crisis Zion Theology ostensibly promised to avert…

In essence, Zion Theology comprised three core, though originally independent but mutually reinforcing beliefs.

First, God had made eternal promises regarding the perpetuity of the Davidic dynasty. Davidic kings were God’s anointed earthly representatives. Though relevant to Zion Theology, not least because the idea of eternal kingship of the Davidic line was related to the eternal kingship of God at his temple, this paper will primarily focus on the next two aspects of Zion Theology.

Second, God had chosen Zion (i.e., Jerusalem) as his earthly abode and that evidence was visibly manifest through the physical structure of the Jerusalem temple, the symbol of God’s enduring presence. As long as the temple stood, God’s glory was undeniably there.

Third, God was a divine warrior who provided unassailable protection against all antagonistic forces natural or human. This protection was believed to extend from the temple to encompass the entire city of Jerusalem and by extension all her citizens…

In a nutshell, apocalyptic thinking in the Christian theological tradition assumes that the end of the world is soon to happen when in the midst of terrible suffering and chaos God will come, destroy evil and suffering, and lift up the oppressed and the righteous to live in peace. This Christian idea derives in part from Israelite theological Zion traditions…There is a long historical trajectory of apocalyptic theology among Biblical interpreters, much of it misguided.

Also note the hubris and the tendency to see the enemies of Anglo-Zionism as paper tigers. This view bizarrely goes right along with seeing every enemy as an existential threat.

In other words, Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela and the Salvadoran revolutionaries were and are existential threats to the almighty United Snakes, yet on the other hand, all of them can be smashed by The United Samson States like flies with a swatter. The same idiocy and insanity was seen in the run-up to the Iraq War, when Saddam Hussein was on the verge of wiping out the entire US with his bullshit WMD’s, while on the other hand, the United Samsons could easily destroy him (and anyone else for that matter) with the bat of an eye.

This ridiculous and near-psychotic combination of extreme paranoia combined by omnipotent hubris in which any enemy can be immediately destroyed by the US Leviathan has long characterized US foreign policy and the insane mindset of the average Moronican. “They are going to kill us all” applies to all US enemies – even the most petty, absurd and ridiculous of enemies is always on the verge of genociding the entire City on a Hill. Yet at the same time, there is no contest between the US military Leviathan and any adversaries.

This lunacy, a psychosis of which the majority of Moronicans are afflicted, is what enables such madness as a country that spends more on its military than the entire rest of the world combined needing to continuously ramp up military spending amongst constant bipartisan screaming that the US military is about to crumble before our eyes due to chronic weakness.

The endless ramping up of military spending even in recessions/depressions and times of austerity (such austerity of course never applying to the military) is enabled by the fact that Moronicans will never resist any increase in military spending, no matter how great it is, how bad the economy is, or how unnecessary it is. America is possibly the most militaristic nation on Earth and has been for some time now. Hardly anything to be proud.

Of this idiocy and insanity can be found in spades in the absurd nation of Israel. Israel can defeat any enemy or combination of enemies with a single slap, but on the other hand, the tiniest band of broke, poorly armed and luckless guerrillas or terrorists is always an existential threat to the silly Zionist nation, which is forever on the verge of a Second Holocaust yet nevertheless laughs at any pitiful enemy that might come its way.

This combination of absurd hubris, grandiosity, arrogance combined with diminution and mocking of any enemies or potential enemies is combined in the Jews with a preposterous over the top paranoia in which most of the planet is forever on the verge of exterminating every Jew on Earth.

The moral to the story is that the Jews are insane. But they’ve always been nuts. If you compare the US and Israel above, you can see that Israel’s nuttiness is precisely America’s nuttiness. Indeed, for a long time now, America sees the world through Israeli eyes. Israeli or more properly Jewish thinking has colonized Americans’ minds for a long time now, ever since the Six Day War. It was not always this way. During the Suez War in 1956, Eisenhower (a conservative!) properly told the Israeli, British and French colonial powers to get lost and cut off support for all of them amidst threats to each one.

Since 1967, the Zionization of America and the Americanization of Israel have continued apace to the point where there is scarcely any space between the two, and they are neatly merged into one country – Jewmerica, USreal, call it what you will.

We are all Jews now!

If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.


Filed under Antiquity, Christianity, Geopolitics, History, Iraq War, Israel, Jews, Judaism, Middle East, Middle Eastern, Military Doctrine, Modern, Regional, Religion, Roman Empire, USA, War, Zionism