I found most of what I've read on this blog incredibly thought-provoking and quite brilliant but there is something that bugs me: why are you consistently wrong about historical details pertaining to particularly Western culture, details which are neither hard to verify nor particularly hard to extrapolate towards accurately given a rudimentary understanding of history?
In this article what immediately struck me was your claim about Spengler in the beginning of your post. What do you mean a "Spartan" at mount Vesuvius, it was a Roman legionary, everyone knows this, Vesuvius is in Italy, Sparta in Greece - it's a quite famous example on part of Spengler...
I've noticed this pattern in your writing before.
For example, in another article you make some strange factual error regarding the inheritance of the Kingdom of Denmark bringing up some strange guy called "Oleg the Old" that is not usually afforded a major part in Scandinavian historiography (a good third of his Wikipedia article is about his precence in some strange Khazar-Jewish document called the "Schecter Letter"). There is certainly no idea that he was anywhere close to inheriting the Kingdom of Denmark, to claim this is absurd. You also made some strange claims in that article about a perceived connection between Christianization, political centralization and external peace. Huh? What's going on?
I don't understand why an otherwise brilliant writer would make these kinds of mistakes. It's not quite that you seem to lack fingerspitzengefühl I think, although to begin with I suspected it was, it feels more like you make consistent factual errors in details which are very strange to make. It almost seems like there is a literary quality to these errors.
What are you doing? What's your angle with this? If it is what I think it is, are you sure it's beneficial, in this particular respect, for the particular interests that you *should* care about, if you are who you purport to be? Is it a dialectic that helps?
It's a suspicious form of behaviour, and far too clever by half. It makes me weary. But perhaps that is the desired effect, and if so I congratulate you!
I have the sources for each of these claims included in the bottom of each article, the Spartan one was a mistake but a relatively benign one but the Oleg the Old one was pulled directly from a history of the Vikings (not just the Wikipedia entry, which seems to be your primary source.) Your third issue wasn't even really described, you just said I made a claim about Christianization and political centralization without explaining what specifically doesn't make sense. Perhaps you'd like to explain more about why you are so confused.
If your claim is that I just made it up for some dialectical or subversive reason I think you're overreacting.
Is it just those two main points or do you have other errors?
I found most of what I've read on this blog incredibly thought-provoking and quite brilliant but there is something that bugs me: why are you consistently wrong about historical details pertaining to particularly Western culture, details which are neither hard to verify nor particularly hard to extrapolate towards accurately given a rudimentary understanding of history?
In this article what immediately struck me was your claim about Spengler in the beginning of your post. What do you mean a "Spartan" at mount Vesuvius, it was a Roman legionary, everyone knows this, Vesuvius is in Italy, Sparta in Greece - it's a quite famous example on part of Spengler...
I've noticed this pattern in your writing before.
For example, in another article you make some strange factual error regarding the inheritance of the Kingdom of Denmark bringing up some strange guy called "Oleg the Old" that is not usually afforded a major part in Scandinavian historiography (a good third of his Wikipedia article is about his precence in some strange Khazar-Jewish document called the "Schecter Letter"). There is certainly no idea that he was anywhere close to inheriting the Kingdom of Denmark, to claim this is absurd. You also made some strange claims in that article about a perceived connection between Christianization, political centralization and external peace. Huh? What's going on?
I don't understand why an otherwise brilliant writer would make these kinds of mistakes. It's not quite that you seem to lack fingerspitzengefühl I think, although to begin with I suspected it was, it feels more like you make consistent factual errors in details which are very strange to make. It almost seems like there is a literary quality to these errors.
What are you doing? What's your angle with this? If it is what I think it is, are you sure it's beneficial, in this particular respect, for the particular interests that you *should* care about, if you are who you purport to be? Is it a dialectic that helps?
It's a suspicious form of behaviour, and far too clever by half. It makes me weary. But perhaps that is the desired effect, and if so I congratulate you!
I have the sources for each of these claims included in the bottom of each article, the Spartan one was a mistake but a relatively benign one but the Oleg the Old one was pulled directly from a history of the Vikings (not just the Wikipedia entry, which seems to be your primary source.) Your third issue wasn't even really described, you just said I made a claim about Christianization and political centralization without explaining what specifically doesn't make sense. Perhaps you'd like to explain more about why you are so confused.
If your claim is that I just made it up for some dialectical or subversive reason I think you're overreacting.
Is it just those two main points or do you have other errors?