'Start with the Greeks' was not a meme afterall. The Greeks seemed to have knew it all.
>>23326283This is not a book, this is a blog-post printed on paper for me to wipe my ass with. Take it to another board.
>>23326283No one wants your bookAnd they definitely don't want 2 threads on your book on the same board at once
>Whiteness was associated with femininity. Aristophanes’ Thesmophoriazeusae 191-192 has Euripides criticising Agathon as λευκος (white), γυναικοφωνος (woman-voiced), and ‘απαλος (soft). His Ecclesiazeusae 428 similarly has a young man described as λευκος proposing that women should rule the city. Xenophon’s Hellenica 3.4.19 records Spartan soldiers, on seeing that their enemies are λευκος, deciding that fighting against them would be ει γυναιξι δεοι μαχεσθαι (like having to fight women). Euripides’ Bacchae 457 has Pentheus describe Dionysus as λευκος, and also ουκ αμορφος […] ‘ως ες γυναικας (not ill-formed […] as unto women, 453-4). The association is quite consistent.> Meanwhile, Aristotle’s Politics makes a ‘golden mean’ argument about geography and ethnicity, if not precisely skin colour, claiming that Europeans and people living in cold places are θυμοῦ μέν ἐστι πλήρη, διανοίας δὲ ἐνδεέστερα καὶ τέχνης (‘full of courage but lacking in intelligence and skill’), and thus are too disorganised to conquer their neighbours, whilst Asians are διανοητικὰ μὲν καὶ τεχνικὰ τὴν ψυχήν, ἄθυμα δέ (‘intelligent and skilful, but without courage’, Politics 7, 1327b), and that Greeks occupy the perfect mean between the two and thus have intelligence, skill, and courage. Pale-skinned northern Europeans, then, he represents as inferior.> As with Ancient Egyptians, Mycenaean Greeks and Minoans generally depicted women with pale or white skin and men with dark brown or tanned skin. As a result, men with pale or light skin, leukochrōs (λευκόχρως, "white-skinned") could be considered weak and effeminate by Ancient Greek writers such as Plato and Aristotle.> White skin was so strongly associated with women that Aristotle felt compelled to offer a biological explanation: women lose so much blood during menstruation, that it makes them pale.> The examples given in LSJ indicate that leukos, meaning "white-skinned" (entries II.b and c), is "a sign of youth and beauty" (II.b) when applied to women, but means "weakly, womanish" (II.c) when applied to men.> Furthermore, Agathon's effeminate good looks feature white skin (leukos, 191). Stehle notes that "His mask was probably white, the standard type for an effete male in Aristophanes"> In Xenophon pale skin comes to signify 'physical debilitation,'> Aristophanes’s schema is simple and essentialist: white skin = woman, tan skin = man, and suggesting the opposite = comedy.This is why you start with the Greeks
>>23326288is he wrong though?
>>23326288>>23326293Samefag
>>23326283Tbh, I don't like this book. It reads like the author is projecting a current situation rather than outlining one that was happening in antiquity.
>>23326436Constin has always been honest that he believes dishonesty is okay, that cunning makes his like Odysseus. There's no reason to trust anything he says. He should have been a fiction writer instead of a sham scholar and plebeian exhortationist
>>23326467>>23326283>>23326297Go away, jew
>>23326479What are you talking about? What was Jewish about this comment? >>23326467 You Fuentes fags are something else
>>23326488You're right, my bad. I'm retarded and read it to be in favour of BAP, yet upon rereading you are in fact confirming his jewishness. I'll be sure to read things carefully before I sperg out.
How does Mr ((Alamariu)) do it, bros?
>>23326503She is ugly. If you actually believe this girl is pretty you must be hideous. Log off from this board and never come back. We don't want ugly people here We shall wage war against ugliness.
>>23326496no worries desu
>>23326467The dissertation as a whole doesn't seem like a lie. More like a genuine projection. He may lie a little in it, though.And well, if you couldn't tell BAP/BAPism/etc is a GOP op at the very least in spirit then I don't know what to tell you.
>>23326283>Plato might seem to blatently disagree with me>but you see, there is a secret esoteric intended reading of The Gorgias that only I can extrapolate that says he actually agrees with meDo Strausscucks really?
>>23326283I quite enjoyed this dissertation, I thought it’s core premise to be very enticing. I do agree with the sentiment that it seems like he was insinuating modern day politics in his writings thoughever. >>23326696I think there is 100% an argument to be made for his interpretation. Plato wrote Callicles in a much more sympathetic light compared to his other conversational partners, at the very least he shared similar sentiments.
Coatin Alamariu? Is that the Romanian immigrant? The Jewish homosexual Romanian immigrant?
>>23326696>BlatentlyStopped reading
>>23327334There is nothing to stop, I already know Costins goy cattle cant read anything longer than a substack article
>>23327496goy cattle???
>>23327505Yes
>>23326680>>23327022His dissertation is retarded starting from the first few pages. The Brits married for love... the proof? Romeo & Juliet.Fail.
>>23327496We are going to do things to you that have never been done before.=
>>23327746stfu jewish guy
>>23326696>Do Strausscucks reallyStraussians like Dustin Sebell have been calling this shit out.>Sometimes Alamariu will make claims about a text so false you have to wonder whether he ever read the book, as when he says that “the principle concern” of the Oeconomicus “seems to be the estate holder’s relationship with his wife, including their meeting and courtship” (15), neither of which is ever discussed. Other times he will take giant leaps, unaware that he has been refuted in advance by our most reliable sources, as when (uncritically accepting the word of an ancient gossip) he says that “Aristippus is a Socratic” (219–22), evidently because he never read Xenophon’s Memorabilia. Maybe the most important example of this—I will stick with Xenophon, whom Alamariu rightly takes to be an authority on Socrates (94, 199, 223)—is Alamariu’s obliviousness to the fact that Xenophon takes up and roundly rejects Alamariu’s entire thesis in Memorabilia IV.1–2, where Socrates explains in great detail that those who think they are good by nature—the erromenesteroi, in fact—are bad natures incapable of an education, though they’re held by opinion (convention) to be best. But the most striking failing of Alamariu’s interpretations, to which I have referred once already, is that they are often contradicted by the passages he himself quotes.
whats crazy to me is that i saw no one make the obvious jew joke, when this jew prettied up his dissertation and sold it at an ungodly price for his pea-brained gentile followers
>>23327776(1/2)Lmao, the first claim this guy makes is literally a lie. >when he says that “the principle concern” of the Oeconomicus “seems to be the estate holder’s relationship with his wife, including their meeting and courtship” (15), neither of which is ever discussed“Smiling at my question, [3] ‘How came you to be called a gentleman?’, and apparently well pleased, Ischomachus answered: ‘Well, Socrates, whether certain persons call me so when they talk to you about me, I know not. Assuredly when they challenge me to an exchange of property in order to escape some public burden, fitting a warship or providing a chorus, nobody looks for the “gentleman,” but the challenge refers to me as plain “Ischomachus,” my father's son. Well now, Socrates, as you ask the question, I certainly do not pass my time indoors; for, you know, my wife is quite capable of looking after the house by herself.’ [4]“‘Ah, Ischomachus,’ said I, ‘that is just what I want to hear from you. Did you yourself train your wife to be of the right sort, or did she know her household duties when you received her from her parents?’ [5]“‘Why, what knowledge could she have had, Socrates, when I took her for my wife? She was not yet fifteen years old when she came to me, and up to that time she had lived in leading-strings, seeing, hearing and saying as little as possible. [6] If when she came she knew no more than how, when given wool, to turn out a cloak, and had seen only how the spinning is given out to the maids, is not that as much as could be expected? For in control of her appetite, Socrates, she had been excellently trained; and this sort of training is, in my opinion, the most important to man and woman alike.’ [7]“‘But in other respects did you train your wife yourself, Ischomachus, so that she should be competent to perform her duties?’“‘Oh no, Socrates; not until I had first offered sacrifice and prayed that I might really teach, and she learn what was best for us both.’ [8]“‘Did not your wife join with you in these same sacrifices and prayers?’
>>23328185(2/2)“‘Oh yes, earnestly promising before heaven to behave as she ought to do; and it was easy to see that she would not neglect the lessons I taught her.’ [9]“‘Pray tell me, Ischomachus, what was the first lesson you taught her, since I would sooner hear this from your lips than an account of the noblest athletic event or horse-race?’ [10]“‘Well, Socrates, as soon as I found her docile and sufficiently domesticated to carry on conversation, I questioned her to this effect:““‘Tell me, dear, have you realised for what reason I took you and your parents gave you to me? [11] For it is obvious to you, I am sure, that we should have had no difficulty in finding someone else to share our beds. But I for myself and your parents for you considered who was the best partner of home and children that we could get. My choice fell on you, and your parents, it appears, chose me as the best they could find. [12] Now if God grants us children, we will then think out how we shall best train them. For one of the blessings in which we shall share is the acquisition of the very best of allies and the very best of support in old age; but at present we share in this our home. [13] For I am paying into the common stock all that I have, and you have put in all that you brought with you. And we are not to reckon up which of us has actually contributed the greater amount, but we should know of a surety that the one who proves the better partner makes the more valuable contribution.” [14]“‘My wife's answer was as follows, Socrates: “How can I possibly help you? What power have I? Nay, all depends on you. My duty, as my mother told me, is to be discreet.” [15]Theres literally pages and pages of this. Whoever this 'academic' is, he's either a retard or a fucking liar lmao. You could have just checked this yourself lmao.
>>23328185>>23328187It's cool that you made to effort to look up the Oeconomicus, but you've misread Sebell, and misread the passages you quoted. The chapter you're looking at is chapter 7 in a work that goes on for 21 chapters, if anything, you've just highlighted that Sebell is correct in asserting that Costin is wrong to claim that "the principle concern" is "the estate holder’s relationship with his wife, including their meeting and courtship." The second thing to point out is that Sebell's also correct on the details: the passage doesn't have Ischomachus discuss how he met his wife or the process of courting, *he only g8ves a characterization of what she was like before*, and everything else he's talking about, re: training her, happens *when she's already become his wife*.I get the impression you'll object that it's still about their "relationship", but that would be wrong, for the Oeconomicus from ch. 7 on is narrowly about how Ischomachus trains his wife to manage the estate, which it would be misleading to call the same as a discussion of their "relationship".
>>23328262Sounds like you're splitting hairs desu. It was a passing summary. Managing the household is an important part of the husband-wife relationship, and other aspects of the relationship were considered as well.
>>23328262That is an extremely pedantic way to dispute Costin at best and it requires you to be as ungenerous as absolutely possible regarding the usage of meeting and courtship. I highly doubt Costin is referring either to romantic courtship in any modern sense, in which case you would be correct.> the Oeconomicus from ch. 7 on is narrowly about how Ischomachus trains his wife to manage the estate, which it would be misleading to call the same as a discussion of their "relationship"That is their relationship, we're talking about the 4th Century BC In Greece. The idea of a romantic fixation between a husband and wife as you're implying is necessary to sufficiently match the words courtship is an absurdity for the time we're talking about.
>>23328282Agreed.
>>23328282That's not splitting hairs. The dialogue's "principle concern", contra Costin, is order, and this is clear on account of it being the thing sought in the first six chapters where Socrates talks with Critobulous. The rest of the dialogue past where you quote is not about the husband-wife relationship as such, but about household management, and not about household management as an important element of marriage, but narrowly household management. You're sounding like Alamariu, did you read any of the Oeconomicus prior to ch. 7 or any of the rest of it, or are you bluffing like he does?
>>23328302>That is an extremely pedantic way to dispute Costin at best and it requires you to be as ungenerous as absolutely possible regarding the usage of meeting and courtship. I highly doubt Costin is referring either to romantic courtship in any modern sense, in which case you would be correct.I'm happy to grant it's pedantic, but it's not wrong, nor is it ungenerous to point out that Costin makes a claim about the book that actually reading it doesn't bear out; cite the very passage where Ischomachus meets her, cite the very discussion of courtship--where is it? If it's the passages about her before their marriage, there's no discussion of meeting or courting, and if it's the passages where he discusses what he taught her, then that comes after any meeting or courtship on account that happening after being married.Costin misread and was incorrect both specifically and generally. That's the quality of his work as a scholar.
>>23328308I think you're the one that's bluffing anon, because more than chapter 7 regards Ischomachus relationship to his wife in both educating her and managing their affairs. You're being disingenous when you claim this is only narrowly described in chapter 7. I can refer you to quotations from the next 5-6 chapters if you like?
>>23326297Yeah, go check out Warosu, this has been talked to death. He's trying to make a square peg fit in a round hole: you cannot produce a virile European society from a clique of Rabbis squabbling over minutiae.
>>23328322Anon, their courtship IS her training, as I suggested in my previous post. You're being extremely ungenerous regarding the usage of the word. What would you expect to be sufficient instead? Should he describe taking her on a date to the movies? Kissing at the drive through? Be real.
>>23326283If there were to be "Selective Breeding", "Bronze Age Pervert" wouldn't make the cut
>>23328338Chuds support all these ideas and systems that would exterminate them if implemented. I'm convinced it's some self-hating personality trait.
>>23328322If you are seriously going to criticize Alamariu for arguable exaggeration then you must admit Sebell is a complete fraud, as he said that housekeeping wasn't even discussed in the Oeconomicus.
>>23328351nevermind I misread lol
>>23328326>I think you're the one that's bluffing anon, because more than chapter 7 regards Ischomachus relationship to his wife in both educating her and managing their affairsIt's evident you're bluffing, but I'll call it: go ahead and demonstrate that the "principal concern" of the Oeconomicus is the estate holder's relationship with his wife, and do so with reference to the first several chapters that build up to chapter 7. After all, if that's the principal subject, it'll be the overarching subject between Socrates and Critoboulus leading into the Ischomachus conversation that Socrates relates.
>>23328360Don't move the goalposts anon. I never said I agreed with Costin's overall point, just that Sebell was a liar in suggesting the specific things Costin mentioned were not actually described in the work. You suggested the things described were only narrowly discussed in Section 7, and we both know that's false. I'm not prepared to consider Costin's overall point, I'm not going to try and I never said I agreed with it.
Friendly reminder that this thesis is so clearly a meta or self referencial work where every paragraph is written with a sht eating grin: it's about how Plato needed to cover up his proto-Hitlerism by disguising his ideas and this is CLEARLY what the author thinks he himself is doing by releasing this fascist interpretation of political philosophy as a haha tee hee this is about analysing Pindar's vocabulary and le edgy twitter personality but watch out libtards those high IQ Aryan supersoldiers will be able to see through this mockery and become devout followers of literally whatever political trend that executes the most minorities
>>23328390sounds pretty based desu.
>>23328376How about not moving the goslposts yourself? Sebell is shown to be correct both specifically on the count that no meeting or courting is ever discussed or depicted, and generally, but you don't want to argue that point, even that point is the one underlying Sebell's rebuke of Costin.If there's a meeting and courting between Ischomachus and his wife, cough it up. And if you have evidence that the Oeconomicus is about the relationship between Ischomachus and his wife, cough it up. But claiming that Sebell's lying, when you're backing away from showing either of the two just mentioned points, which are the points under contention, suggests precisely to me that you're bluffing and looked it up last second.The dialogue is about household management, and pays attention to a relationship *only with reference to relevance to household management*.
>>23328308I'm just a bystander, anon. I think Alamariu is a Zionist shill, and I think he's disingenuous for not responding to some of the other long-form rebuttals to his work (e.g. Roger Morrison's lengthy Substack critique). However, the very worst that Sebell's criticism proves is that there are competing principle concerns at stake, not just the domestic relationship. That's a weak stylistic criticism considering that all Alamariu meant to do was give a passing summary of the text so he could move on. It would have been pointless and distracting to have begun a thorough analysis of the dialogue.
>>23328390>>23328396it seems based until Alamariu retired TND
>Jew larps as le NaziI've heard this one before. It won't end wellhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_German_National_Jews
>>23328390You say that like it's a bad thing >>23328466Do you people seriously think not wanting to eradicate ALL Jews is some unforgivable concession that means you've drank the zog cool aid. This is like a black seeing someone has white skin and thinking they want to kill niggers. Maybe! Very well maybe! But #notall.
Why would I read anything written by a faggot kike?
>>23326294Aristophanes clearly talks of pale skin as skin not burned by the sun. As women were restrained to their homes, they have pale skin, whereas a man, training in the nude will obviously have a bronze, sun-burned skin in greece. This is consistent with him mocking men who cover themselves up in the nude etc. He was a firm believer in the athletic spirit of athens. How is anything youve pasted related to race? Yes, having a tan is a sign of masculinity as it means you engage in physical activities.
The Brown Age Mindset
>>23328535This is like saying "My grandpa was one of the perpetrators of the Katyn massacre, he's on the left in this photo"Very good thing to be proud of
>>23328308that's why its called a dissertation :^)you are leaving out the context of why this is mentioned, the argument that breeding, marriage and matchmaking were common topics to casually bring up upon meeting someone. Something that is more or less taboo or at least shamed upon today. Sebell comes off as the academic fraud for ignoring this context and nit picking over literal interpretations. >Define "principle concern" for me, huh? smug-wojak.jpg Can't do it? HA gotcha!you have no substance or argument if semantics is all you have to bring up
>>23328595I think he's trying to say that identifying the ancient Greeks as belonging to some sort of "White" super ethnicity is ridiculous considering those comments, like including Norwegians and Greeks as belonging to the same group
>>23331906You must be unimaginably fucking retarded to think that white means pale skin. It refers to a broad group of peoples who have inherited a Christian and Greco-Roman culture which would obviously include both Greeks and Norwegians.
This dude absolutely wrecked the internet right. Nowadays two internet right-wingers can't have a conversation without pecking each other about who is the most uber ubermensch lmao
>>23331939"White" is a racial category not a cultural one, at least to 99.99% of people these threads are aimed at, so the guy you originally replied to would take issue with categorizing the Norse pagans with ancient Greeks, which 99.99% of online racists do
>>23327560Read about the Hajnal line, retard.
>>23331992Culture and race are inseparable. He did not say Norse Pagans and Ancient Greeks
>>23330134>Something that is more or less taboo or at least shamed upon today.Really? The other day I met some boomer and he complimented my robustness and started asking about my family tree. And americans are always talking about how they are 1/64 cherokee or 1/32 corn syrup or whatever.
>>23332055This isn't the point, culture and race are linked but different peoples can inherit the same culture, you're moving goal posts because simply stating the belief on its own that Greeks and Scandinavians are the same race is retarded enough, the definition changes depending on how much the online racists wants to claim, so of course Italians are "white" now
>>23327163yeah
>>23326680>he thinks the GOP is cunning enough to have ops
>>23332077Not who you're replying to but I think making normative statements about one's lineage is taboo with as growing share of the population. Most Americans are obsessed with lineage but to say one is good with the implication that others may not be so good and that this goodness is entirely a function of factors beyond one's own control (your ancestors genetic stock) will get you into hot water with a lot of people, obviously more true the younger you go. Boomers mostly just won't think twice about it but a lot of left-of-center normies will certainly see this as some kind of dog whistle if you say it seriously, or at the least be a bit uncomfortable about it.
>>23333668That's why I said in spirit. Regardless of if the guy is actually a GOP operative he functions like one because his one piece of concrete advice is voting for Gonald Gumpf the based overweight septuagenarian reality star who will definitely not get cucked by his own bureaucracy like last time.All his positions bar his position on Ukraine are just the neo-con position with racism tacked on.>Uhh Israel is good and Zionism is great, but ONLY because they kill brown people.>We need to STOP China guise! But it's because they are hecking mean bug people.>I tranny heart Japan doe.Even if this wasn't true, BAPism is essentially a restoration of self masturbatory anglo-exceptionalism one hundred years too later and helps no one.
>>23333754I don't think you're right about his views on Israel? I remember like 5 or 6 years ago before he was even doxed as a heeb he wrote a giant piece on Israel for the American Sun and it definitely wasn't Zionist, it basically just pointed out that both sides are anti-White so why even get involved. That's definitely not what neocons want. His biggest influence on right imo was bringing fitness to the forefront of the online DR zeitgeist. I think that's generally been a pretty positive thing and I don't remember it being nearly as widespread before him. He has some positions that are pretty cringe, like he used to tell people to join the military as officers just to get the bennies/skills/institutional prestige that comes along with that but I'm pretty sure he's walked back on that now.I don't get why you'd be against Anglo exceptionalism though? The US is an Anglo country and racially the core of the American ethnogenesis is Anglo with some Irish and German admixture. Everyone else is a guest that's overstayed their welcome and eventually we're going to have to send back all of the spics, jeets, and niggers.
>>23326283>have knewwaow
>>23333894some of you really dont get it. him arguing indifference to israel is in effect its ensured continuation as is."why get involved"the point is, western countries already are, you have to be anti. zionism is also not a local project but a universal one.
>>23333968If not giving Israel material and financial support isn't "anti-Zionism", then what is in practice? Giving support to Palestine? Then you have the same problem just with Muslims instead of Jews. That makes no sense. You've just replaced one group of disgusting sand people with another. Disengaging entirely is the only sensible solution.
>>23333968I support Israel just because I really, really hate muslims. You Americans just don't get how bad it really is.
>>23334491I hate bedbugs but if Satan had bedbugs I'd root for the bedbugs
>>23326436You could say the same about any history book
>>23326288
>>23326283refuted by Roger Morrison (pbuh)https://rmorrison.substack.com/p/a-historical-criticism-of-costin
>>23326467>that cunning makes his like Odysseusthe dude ain't no Odysseus, that's for sure
>>23326283jew
>>23333754I have to add, realizing what the ethnic affinities of these people are entirely contingent on how much of a perceieved threat they might be has pissed me off a lot.Permanently ocuppied and subjugated Japs are hecking wholesome honorary ayyrians who need space to live (as illustrated by their gigantic bug-hive cities) but mildly independent Han chinese are a hive of disgusting uncreative subhuman bugs that must be erradicated by at all costs.Native americans too few in numbers and plagued with endemic alcoholism problems are a wholesome chungus noble martial Herrenrasse but Spics are bestial Tzotzil communalist slavecattle.Not to mention a suspicious amount of epic race science diatribes against indians have arised ever since they started coming to the west in bigger numbers.
>>23334491Who do you think created all the Muslim refugees and subsequently created open border policies to let them in, genius? Damn you people are stupid
>>23328390Is it a parody of Strauss then?
>>23335759It's not refugees, it started way before that. It's the children and grandchildren of guest workers in the 60s and 70s, so please do not talk about things you have zero clue about. The muslims here feel more and more emboldened by the leftist traitors supporting their cause. More "protests" every week. Their spirits need to be totally crushed and they need to be demoralized through and through. But I really fear we are already beyond saving. You fucking Americans don't know how bad things really are here in Europe.
>>23335797So how does Israel destroying Palestine/Iran help the Europe situation for Muslims? If anything, it makes your situation worse. Egypt doesnt want the Palestinians, where do you think they will go when Israel pushes them out of Rahfa? The same place Afghanis went, Iraqis went, Syrians went, and Iranians will also go. They will inevitably get dumped into Europe.
>>23335771I don't think it's that, though he leans on Strauss as the only way to make any of his idiocies sound probable. I think he thinks he's doing something more like Nietzsche's treatment of history, where strict accuracy is beside the point, and it's mined and abused for whatever gives you renewed sense of power.
>>23326283>hyles radically outnumber us>psychics are capricious and largely not worth the effort>pneumatics are dispersed and must find each other AFTER proper recollection and recognition/theurgyIt's clumsily broaches the Hidden Doctrines and true import of The 'Republic'-- but it's (very) one dimensional.>>23326503Romanian heteroflexible pulled a gypsy witch. Anon is surprise?>>23328390Every last 'Straussian' alive and the man himself were closeted Stalinists-- calling them Italians flatters them.
>>23335858I think you are just reading gnostic subtext into a much more terrenal dissertation.
