Alexander the Great

they were gay, but not ‘gay’ gay, if you know what i mean (not yet, anyway). the feminine demeanor usually developed within the high ranking aristocratic classes. the greater your access to luxury, your power to command and order people about, and your avoidance of having to do any real labor, the softer you got… and the less masculine you felt. you find most of these fruitcakes among the royal families, priests and educators (philosophers). and what enhances even more that feminine spirit in these dudes is their secret envy of the masculinity of those men of the lower classes; soldiers, athletes, farmers, tradesmen, merchants, etc. this envy gave them greater joy in the privilege of being able to control them.

a great example would be that pansy commodus in ‘gladiator’. you can literally feel the seething self disgust this guy secretly felt… especially when rejected by that one chick (forget her name): youtube.com/watch?v=X5tM3FOjTZc

anyway this was typical of a lot of aristocratic dudes back in those days.

Ok KT you win. Being schooled in greek and latin I am not really well versed in ignorance.

Still. Lets make a point of it. Of course healthy men prefer sex with a woman. Naturally they weren’t faggers, classical gaymess isn’t even about sex, only about vanity, narcissism I should say. Its just that power eroticizes and men get carried away when they drink and talk of victory. Its obscene, but so is much of war.

Alexanders story ends when the troops rebelled and compelled the king to cease the Indian campaign. All beyond that is irrelevant actually, as India carried the great yogi culture in which Jesus was also steeped in his long absence after which he is transformed from rebellious boy to magician.

India remains the invincible nation. It gained as much from England as England did of it - but of course this was always the trick of the vowel-shifters; they had something to offer. And so did Alexander. He offered the savages mathematics and woud have found, had he penetrated India, that here the folks already had their own. Imagine that - he woud have had something to bring home.

Instead of feeding back ancient Indian logic to Greece the whole affair ended in a puerile dream. And so the myth remained true, Achilles and the phantasmagoric nature of power. Caesar, our world.

Life as a mass phenomenon is so easily moved into precarious and nonsensical paths, simply because there are no “normal” paths. The invention of a Norm is what poses the largest problem; one needs at once to be sublimely fantastical in creative whim, that temperament of the evil clown, and one needs a steady high voltage of disciplined unfolding force.

An interlude.
These are examples of non-Alexandrian, normal human thinking at war.
We can see the extrapolated opportunism of Hannibal which was all too proud

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjxYJBWcS08[/youtube]

and the already advanced evil of the Germans.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmF3VBA_RcM[/youtube]

and we will see some Augustinian faith and some accidental elephant charges

Greek men primarily took to homosexuality because they were unhappy with the passivity of their women
So had the latter been more enthusiastic the desire to seek satisfaction elsewhere would not have existed

Also Spartan boys were taken from their mothers and trained in an exclusively male environment from the age of seven onwards
In such an environment it would therefore have been perfectly natural for them to develop an attraction to each other over time

surreptitious 75

But a sexual, physical attraction? Have human beings changed so much since then? Would a boy who was heterosexual automatically or otherwise develop that kind of attraction simply because he was thrown together with other boys? I wonder about that.

I guess the wokers have a point and somewhere, sex is sex Arc. Human warmth and flesh and passion is always going to have its effect no matter what gender. Maybe a revolting effect, maybe erotic, often in case of homosexuality, both. Much depravity. This is not something that changed. Prisons, which are filled to the brim with testosterone, are seething with homosex. And I think homosex is actually a prison or the interpretation of the passions as a prison. I dunno it seems like weary men fall for that shit.

Surreptitious is right by the way, the Greeks loathed the passivity of their women. Even though Spartans, which is an interesting story, had an all female oligarchy.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppGCbh8ggUs[/youtube]

Yeah, the point of this thread is supposed to be about superior wartactics, magic, the Gods, the stuff of the male psyche.

Zeus rayo-2.jpg

in fact, homosexuals are a very small minority in prisons. most inmates absolutely detest gay inmates. homosexuality is associated with weakness and emasculation, something reserved for what are called the ‘punks’… usually the flaming fags who do hair and laundry for a little commissary on the side. and it didn’t matter if you were the pitcher or the catcher. you’re still a fag, and you didn’t interact with other inmates unless it was for business.

what you’re talking about are hollywood prisons where you, and i quote, ‘don’t drop the soap’. however, in the prisons i was in, you didn’t even take a shower the same time as the fags. the fags had their own designated shower time. who wants to be in the shower while some freak is staring at you the whole time? i seen a nigga get laid out for staring before. bet you he didn’t stare no more.

So Shawshank Redemption is kinda true?

Anyway. Obviously the gaynarrative is obfuscation of power, the obstruction of the love of power.
So is the antiJew narrative. Its like veil after veil. Well never find out who is managing at the inner lodge. Certainly we would NOT want to know.

Also here, Alexander is refreshing. A rare episode in history where there was no power in the shadows.

nah that’s hollywood. you’d never find a gang of fags like the sisters who’ve got the muscle to extort you. okay so there’s two kinds of homos in prison. the most common kind, accounting for probably 90 percent of them, are the flaming gays. these guys didn’t turn gay in prison, but already were gay, and going to prison was like hitting the jack-pot. they love it. the other kind of gay was usually a lifer who’s already been down for twenty years… typically a big black fella named clarence or something like that. and these guys always target the fresh meat… usually the skinny white boys who don’t know the ropes and are pulling their first bid. i knew one, actually. he got beaten up in the canteen line by a lifer who’s advances he wasn’t answering to. but here’s the thing. these prisons are relatively small, and everybody knows, or knows about, everybody else. keeping in mind that nobody associates with gays unless they’re punks (harmless queers), the predator type doesn’t last long before he gets shipped. now this little white dude didn’t report that he got beaten up. instead it was someone who saw it happen, knew about the dude, and anonymously reported the event to the POleece. the dude was put into solitary and shipped to another prison in a week. found out later that he’d been through like four prisons, and did the same thing at every one. so the predators get rooted out by the inmates as soon as they become known.

being gay in prison simply isn’t cool, man, and nothing is more important and necessary than being cool while in prison. you gotta be a cool hand luke, and you can do this is a few simple steps: don’t talk to the POleece, don’t snitch, mine ya business, and put that work in on the weight pile. extra credit if you smart. inmates are literally mesmerized by intellectuals in prison. they’re treated like a species of wisemen; ‘yo see that dude over there? that nigga smarta then a mawfucka! he be all talkin’ bout god and politics and shit, man. that nigga sharp.’

Well thanks for clearing that up.

wait, you asked me something like ‘what do you think about the female intellect’, didn’t you? or was that in another thread?

really though, think about that question. it’s so incredibly general that i’d not know where to start in answering it.

i’ll make you a deal. tell me what you think about cardboard boxes and i’ll try to answer your question.

I think you can put stuff in them.

Alexander was once humbled by a man who lived to tell, at least in histories and anecdotal remnants we have of such events happening. This was the sage Diogenes, who lived in an amphora and was very witty on top of that. He is reputed to have asked, to the offer extended by the great King on his own behalf to the Socrete (in Diogenes it is best seen how the poison of down-going genius spread and took hold of Athens, the extreme quality of wit compared to the radically diminished quality of life) which was that he need merely speak his wish and it would be granted, that Mr Alexander could step aside, out of his sun. Then Alexander reputedly said that if he wasn’t Alexander he’d want to be Diogenes to which Diogenes replied that if he wasn’t Diogenes he’d also want to be Diogenes.

If true it would have been a brilliant event which it might have been because these Atheneans were really very clever people, but less consequential. Sometimes, people who aren’t as witty are still better at life. I think Alexander wasn’t very witty at all - how can one be so devout and religious and singleminded for territorial expansion and personal glorification and afford to relativize everything in a good quippy remark? One cant. One must be a bit of s stuck up asshole to get anywhere in this world, even comedians, and we all know Alexander was not a comedian.

How boring the comedian in light of the emperor, for how trivial life seems entirely, if even the Rams Horn King can be put aside for the mere grimace of a philosopher.

Same thing with a woman.

Shit this worked out pretty well. Apologies for the interrogating manner of my last post.

My lure worked, you’re now officially a sexist pig.

omg I’m so sure! I was talking about trust, dude. You can put trust in a woman.

Hahaha. Well ok a leftie after all, rather wrong than being accused of sexism.

A very nice lecture by Dimitris Almyrantis

Did Turks ever fight with Vikings or Scandinavians throughout history?

"Yes, and on a large scale. Though “Viking” is the Western name for the Norsemen, and associated with their raids on the coasts of northern Europe, they were as or more focused on the east, where they were called “Varangians” or “Rus’” - the origin of the name of modern Russians, whose country originally took shape as a land of mostly Slavic tribes ruled by a Rus’/Viking elite from their fortified garð forts/cities along major rivers, reaching from the Baltic to the Black Seas. The core of the Rus’ empire - basically a militarized trade enterprise - was to control the river-based trade between the Romans, the Persians, the Chinese and the Scandinavians/Europeans, making them fantastically rich. Thanks to this Eurasian trade, silver dirhams from the Islamic mints of Central Asia formed the most stable currency of the Baltics and Scandinavian trading ports, and even English kings patterned their currency after the caliph’s.

The Rus’ empire with its centre in Kiev lasted from the 9th to the 13th century, though the ruling Norsemen were Slavified in the process. The cultural succession to these is a point of contention between Russia and the Ukraine - which latter occupies the heartland of what was called “little [=inner] Russia”; Belarus is part of its legacy, too."

main-qimg-40d77c675388c06cabeea9b1304b7211.jpg
“These Nordic traders were routinely threatened in their trade from the nomadic Turks who lived in the steppes adjoining the rivers - ancestors of the people now called “Tartars”, living within the Russian Federation. The most hotly contested point was the “Volga Portage”, the 70km span of solid land between the river Don (which empties on the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea) and the river Volga (which empties into the Caspian): Norsemen had to disembark from their shallow-keeled longships and carry them on their shoulders, often running the distance between the rivers - a dangerous process leaving them open to attack by the Turks who wanted to get their cargo.”

16th c. Russian fishermen, crossing the Volga portage much as their ancestors did 900 years before them.

main-qimg-e1c78baef28d36f162f4721f0d42b44a.jpg
"Now the greatest Turkish power on the Pontic-Caspian Steppe, which had emerged in the 7th century and lasted until the 10th, was the Khaganate of the Khazars, a tribe that emerged as dominant in the region after the breakup of the old “Blue/Celestial” Turkish khaganate reaching from Europe to China; these Khazars are mostly remembered in modern historiography for their conversion to Judaism sometime in the 8th century, making them perhaps the only major Jewish empire in history. At their peak, the Khazars were a major power dominating the western Eurasian steppe, and held many nations along the forests to their north and the eastern boundary of Europe as tribute-paying subjects, defeating many nomadic rivals - often sending the defeated fleeing for shelter in Europe, where they displaced and ruined the region much as the earlier barbarian invasions had done. The older Khazar empire and the newly emergent Rus’ were in direct competition for the riverine trade and hegemony over the southeastern Slavic lands: making for a large-scale war between a Viking-Slavic empire and the major Turkish power of the age, ending in the latter’s defeat.

The Khazar capital lay on Itil in the lower Volga (‘Itil’ or Atil being the Turkic name of the river), and their heartland in the Caucasian steppe to the south, though their empire reached from the Crimea to the Urals, and perhaps further. They were ruled by a dual kingship, with a sacred or ceremonial monarch, the Qaghan acting as an elected religious figurehead with a fixed term and a chieftain called the Qaghan bek acting as actual military and political leader, always showing great deference to the Qaghan. Another interesting institution was the maintenance of a guard of Moslem Khwarizmians (see map below) as the personal royal guard, acting as a semi-autonomous tribe of great importance in Khazar politics, with their own formal treaty with the Khazars outlining that they would not be made to fight fellow Moslems. In one case, these Khwarizmians broke ranks and massacred a group of Norsemen the Khazars had let through the portage, presumably to raid Islamic lands.

This empire acted as a “third power” between Christianity and Islam in its time, but mostly allied to the Romans, and engaged in extensive warfare with the Arabs on both sides of the Caucasian mountains - the Khazar raids were often seen by the Arabs and Persians as a forerunner of the end times, which were to be heralded by the descent of the demonic peoples of the north (Gog & Magog), who were sealed beyond a wall of iron at the end of the world by Alexander the Great, the Lord of Two Horns. Islamic writers, who are our primary sources for the period, are very influenced by these eschatological themes when speaking of the Khazars."

main-qimg-a26ba560afd0773e87da320cb83e3ff4.jpg

quora.com/Did-Turks-ever-fi … ut-history