Destroying History

[BjornP]

The inability to respect portions of a person, especially a historical figure, and denounce others is the problem many have, and the root that I've seen in this since I heard about it. Worse of all though, is that it doesn't seem to be that any major character flaw can disqualify one for memorialization. Only certain traits, like racism, do. Of course, this is self-defeating because nearly everyone in the past (specifically America) was racist to one degree or another.

Hence, the first problem is an inability to divorce good from bad to admire the good, and the second problem is an inconsistency bordering on hypocriticism (an certainly crossing that line in other issues).

I think on that bolded point, it matters that the definition of race and consequently racism, has moved away from the original biological meaning of race and racism, to "race" also meaning abstracts like culture, and even things you choose to be a part of (like religion). In the sense that one cultural group has considered themselves superior to another cultural group, there has and will always be racism. But in the sense of the word's original, biological meaning, racism only had a few centuries in the sun before its current death rattle.

If judging a man for his beliefs, and judging a man for his skin color gets treated as the same thing, judged with the same word supposed to have the same meaning for both acts, then we can truly talk of self-defeating.

[Speaker to Animals]

I didn't see them doing much, honestly. They were getting beat pretty badly. Dodge Man turned the tide, I guess, but he looks like a total cunt in the way he did it.

[TheReal_ND]

The inability to respect portions of a person, especially a historical figure, and denounce others is the problem many have, and the root that I've seen in this since I heard about it. Worse of all though, is that it doesn't seem to be that any major character flaw can disqualify one for memorialization. Only certain traits, like racism, do. Of course, this is self-defeating because nearly everyone in the past (specifically America) was racist to one degree or another.

Hence, the first problem is an inability to divorce good from bad to admire the good, and the second problem is an inconsistency bordering on hypocriticism (an certainly crossing that line in other issues).

I think on that bolded point, it matters that the definition of race and consequently racism, has moved away from the original biological meaning of race and racism, to "race" also meaning abstracts like culture, and even things you choose to be a part of (like religion). In the sense that one cultural group has considered themselves superior to another cultural group, there has and will always be racism. But in the sense of the word's original, biological meaning, racism only had a few centuries in the sun before its current death rattle.

If judging a man for his beliefs, and judging a man for his skin color gets treated as the same thing, judged with the same word supposed to have the same meaning for both acts, then we can truly talk of self-defeating.

Sorry dude. Skin color is only skin deep but race is even deeper. One only has to deal with blacks and Hispanics on a daily basis. I know you don't and hardly expect you to understand the difference between races when the extent of your racial awareness hinges on a National Geographic magazine but some of us have to deal with the consequences of multiculturalism.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Sorry dude. Skin color is only skin deep but race is even deeper. One only has to deal with blacks and Hispanics on a daily basis. I know you don't and hardly expect you to understand the difference between races when the extent of your racial awareness hinges on a National Geographic magazine but some of us have to deal with the consequences of multiculturalism.

Oh come on. I deal with blacks, hispanics and whites on a daily basis.

Don't act like 'the truth' of dealing with different folks is some sort of red pill for racism.

[SuburbanFarmer]

IMG_1829.JPG

[TheReal_ND]

Sorry dude. Skin color is only skin deep but race is even deeper. One only has to deal with blacks and Hispanics on a daily basis. I know you don't and hardly expect you to understand the difference between races when the extent of your racial awareness hinges on a National Geographic magazine but some of us have to deal with the consequences of multiculturalism.

Oh come on. I deal with blacks, hispanics and whites on a daily basis.

Don't act like 'the truth' of dealing with different folks is some sort of red pill for racism.

So you enjoy that development then? Some people do, I have no doubt. I do not. I would prefer working within my own culture and race for the most part.

[BjornP]

The entire Spartacan revolt was, essentially, a Dionysian revolt. Spartacus' wife was a preistess of Dionysus. His army was made up of former slaves and Romans who wanted to overturn the order of Roman civilization.

Plutarch writes:

The insurrection of the gladiators and their devastation of Italy, which is generally called the war of Spartacus,11 had its origin as follows. A certain Lentulus Batiatus had a school of gladiators at Capua, most of whom were Gauls and Thracians. p337 Through no misconduct of theirs, but owing to the injustice of their owner, they were kept in close confinement and reserved for gladiatorial combats. 2 Two hundred of these planned to make their escape, and when information was laid against them, those who got wind of it and succeeded in getting away, seventy-eight in number, seized cleavers and spits from some kitchen and sallied out. On the road they fell in with waggons conveying gladiators' weapons to another city; these they plundered and armed themselves. Then they took up a strong position and elected three leaders. The first of these was Spartacus, a Thracian of Nomadic stock,a possessed not only of great courage and strength, but also in sagacity and culture superior to his fortune, and more Hellenic than Thracian. 3 It is said that when he was first brought to Rome to be sold, a serpent was seen coiled about his face as he slept, and his wife, who was of the same tribe as Spartacus, a prophetess, and subject to visitations of the Dionysiac frenzy, declared it the sign of a great and formidable power which would attend him to a fortunate issue. This woman shared in his escape and was then living with him.

They were interested in absolving all class and gender distinctions. All sexual mores were abolished. The law was that of the mob. Even Spartacus couldn't reign in their depravity.

I know the first Servile War was also led by Dionysians. It was started by a slave who was presented himself as a prophet of Dionysius. It was the same concept: eradicate all class and gender roles and distinctions. No hierarchy. Utopia would ensue (it didn't).

This was the ancient world's version of our marxists.


It's a mistake to conflate them with the likes of the Gracchi brothers or guys like Clodius Pulcher. Those guys were more interested in rebalancing power within the system, not destroying it entirely. These degenerates will always try to connect themselves to the more legitimate movements of the past (like feminists tried to refashion the suffragists as "first wave feminism" to confer legitimacy to what is essentially a cultural marxist hate group). Don't let them snow you.

Did you get that from the History Channel "Aliens!" guy?

A couple things:

For nearly two centuries Communist historians and ideologues have claimed Spartacus as their guy, despite there being - as your own source suggests, btw - no evidence at all of him being some sort of "proto-Communist", proto-SJW or whatever else modern popular fad you might want to link him to.

The idea that Dionysus and people worshipping him were also some sort of proto-Marxist or proto-post-modernist, actively seeking the destruction of their civilization through degeneracy...and that worshippers of Dionysus, who'd rather be drinking and whoring in some grove somewhere, led a slave revolt to overthrow.... what? Civilization? Come on. You're engaging in anachronistic projection games, wanting to bind a present day narrative together with events over two thousand years ago. Sort of like some of your black people who need ancient Egyptians to be black, despite all evidence pointing to the contrary. Projecting present day values unto ancient peoples is even more silly than expecting 19th century American white abolitionists to genuinely consider Africans their human equals.

Of course, the idea that Spartacus worshipped Dionysus at all, kinda conflicts with his stated origin being... Thracian.

This is really "Roman sources 101" stuff, but when a Roman source writes that a Thracian or Gaul worshipped "Dionysus", that does not mean that that Gaul or Thracian actually worshipped Dionysus. Even if he knew the names and characters of Gaulish or Thracian gods, his audience did not. Roman sources mention Germanic tribes worshipping "Mercury" as their chief deity, for example. Doesn't mean they worshipped Mercury or considered Mercury their chief deity, means that they worshipped a god that mostly resembles what a Roman reader would associate with Mercury.

[C-Mag]

Well, pictures tell another story:



How hard is it to say that Nazis, the KKK, and Neo-Nazis are bad?

There bad, will you say the same thing about AntiFa, BLM, etc. ?

[Speaker to Animals]

The entire Spartacan revolt was, essentially, a Dionysian revolt. Spartacus' wife was a preistess of Dionysus. His army was made up of former slaves and Romans who wanted to overturn the order of Roman civilization.

Plutarch writes:

The insurrection of the gladiators and their devastation of Italy, which is generally called the war of Spartacus,11 had its origin as follows. A certain Lentulus Batiatus had a school of gladiators at Capua, most of whom were Gauls and Thracians. p337 Through no misconduct of theirs, but owing to the injustice of their owner, they were kept in close confinement and reserved for gladiatorial combats. 2 Two hundred of these planned to make their escape, and when information was laid against them, those who got wind of it and succeeded in getting away, seventy-eight in number, seized cleavers and spits from some kitchen and sallied out. On the road they fell in with waggons conveying gladiators' weapons to another city; these they plundered and armed themselves. Then they took up a strong position and elected three leaders. The first of these was Spartacus, a Thracian of Nomadic stock,a possessed not only of great courage and strength, but also in sagacity and culture superior to his fortune, and more Hellenic than Thracian. 3 It is said that when he was first brought to Rome to be sold, a serpent was seen coiled about his face as he slept, and his wife, who was of the same tribe as Spartacus, a prophetess, and subject to visitations of the Dionysiac frenzy, declared it the sign of a great and formidable power which would attend him to a fortunate issue. This woman shared in his escape and was then living with him.

They were interested in absolving all class and gender distinctions. All sexual mores were abolished. The law was that of the mob. Even Spartacus couldn't reign in their depravity.

I know the first Servile War was also led by Dionysians. It was started by a slave who was presented himself as a prophet of Dionysius. It was the same concept: eradicate all class and gender roles and distinctions. No hierarchy. Utopia would ensue (it didn't).

This was the ancient world's version of our marxists.


It's a mistake to conflate them with the likes of the Gracchi brothers or guys like Clodius Pulcher. Those guys were more interested in rebalancing power within the system, not destroying it entirely. These degenerates will always try to connect themselves to the more legitimate movements of the past (like feminists tried to refashion the suffragists as "first wave feminism" to confer legitimacy to what is essentially a cultural marxist hate group). Don't let them snow you.

Did you get that from the History Channel "Aliens!" guy?

A couple things:

For nearly two centuries Communist historians and ideologues have claimed Spartacus as their guy, despite there being - as your own source suggests, btw - no evidence at all of him being some sort of "proto-Communist", proto-SJW or whatever else modern popular fad you might want to link him to.

The idea that Dionysus and people worshipping him were also some sort of proto-Marxist or proto-post-modernist, actively seeking the destruction of their civilization through degeneracy...and that worshippers of Dionysus, who'd rather be drinking and whoring in some grove somewhere, led a slave revolt to overthrow.... what? Civilization? Come on. You're engaging in anachronistic projection games, wanting to bind a present day narrative together with events over two thousand years ago. Sort of like some of your black people who need ancient Egyptians to be black, despite all evidence pointing to the contrary. Projecting present day values unto ancient peoples is even more silly than expecting 19th century American white abolitionists to genuinely consider Africans their human equals.

Of course, the idea that Spartacus worshipped Dionysus at all, kinda conflicts with his stated origin being... Thracian.

This is really "Roman sources 101" stuff, but when a Roman source writes that a Thracian or Gaul worshipped "Dionysus", that does not mean that that Gaul or Thracian actually worshipped Dionysus. Even if he knew the names and characters of Gaulish or Thracian gods, his audience did not. Roman sources mention Germanic tribes worshipping "Mercury" as their chief deity, for example. Doesn't mean they worshipped Mercury or considered Mercury their chief deity, means that they worshipped a god that mostly resembles what a Roman reader would associate with Mercury.

His wife was literally a priestess of Dionysus. I quoted first sources but you never actually bothered to read it before posting that word vomit.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Sorry dude. Skin color is only skin deep but race is even deeper. One only has to deal with blacks and Hispanics on a daily basis. I know you don't and hardly expect you to understand the difference between races when the extent of your racial awareness hinges on a National Geographic magazine but some of us have to deal with the consequences of multiculturalism.

Oh come on. I deal with blacks, hispanics and whites on a daily basis.

Don't act like 'the truth' of dealing with different folks is some sort of red pill for racism.

So you enjoy that development then? Some people do, I have no doubt. I do not. I would prefer working within my own culture and race for the most part.

I am neutral to it. Typically, the unpleasantness of any interaction I have is determined by class.

I enjoy my interactions with blackie and brownie well enough though.