Turkish haters of the West against "temples, courts of justice, and dwelling-houses" and Turkey as a "flourishing democracy"

Submitted by Ianus (Poland), Feb 1, 2010 at 16:56

Turk wrote referring to :

It is interesting - beside your mastery of Latin - how Tacitus - a staunch Roman could ever identify himself with the speech of the barbarian who was fighting against his own father-in-law Agricola? What the barbarian said about the Romans and what the Romans all stood for are two different things and nobody knew it better than Tacitus.It is the barbarians that were involved in incessant robbery, butchery and rapine. The Romans always put an end to that.They brought Roman Law, built roads and introduced higher culture and institutions to these woodlands and marshes and deserts.Your conclusion is premature and wrong then, Turk, and you'll definitely need to peruse the whole life of Agricola and other works of Tacitus (although I am sure you'll never do ) to see that Tacitus had no doubts about the superiority of the Roman civilization over illiterate barbarity of the Celts with their human sacrifices and mad druidism - the ancient fanatical cult comparable to to Islam.Anyway, what Tacitus puts in the mouth of Galgacus exactly prevailed in Britain after the fall of Rome- some 400 years later with the new age of barbarity in the island and an unparalleled cultural regress and decay.

> "But there are no tribes beyond us, nothing indeed but waves and rocks, and the yet more terrible Romans, from whose oppression escape is vainly sought by obedience and submission. Robbers of the world, having by their universal plunder exhausted the land, they rifle the deep. If the enemy be rich, they are rapacious; if he be poor, they lust for dominion; neither the east nor the west has been able to satisfy them. Alone among men they covet with equal eagerness poverty and riches. To robbery, slaughter, plunder, they give the lying name of empire; they make a desert and call it peace." Chapter 30 , Agricola by Tacitus...

Above are the last few sentences of Calgacus' speech made to his warriors prior battle of Mons Graupius in either AD83 or 84.

Even Tacitus describes Calgacus as "the most distinguished for birth and valour among the chieftains" and admires him , but without having a single clue , you are reverting with a strange , superficial and funny statement asking 'How Tacitus could identify himself with the speech of the barbarian who was fighting against his own father-in-law Agricola'<

I assume that you have received your 'education' in the police state aka Ataturkistan aka Turkey where neither standards of learning nor achievements are very high. We haven't heard of any scientists or scholars of any value. Just like in every police state conformism, platitudes, slogans are promoted and rewarded. Critical thinking is discouraged as it is too dangerous and censors and Islamo-Kemalist despots in power are watchinmg you day and night. And the result -general intellectual stagnation and mediocrity.

You pretend to possess "knowledge" which on closer examination displays the same deficient characteristics all products of Turkishness do. I'll spare you the epithets I was about to add here.

From what you have written so far I infer you are not interested neither in Tacitus [ and I am sure you haven't read a single book by him] nor in Roman or Medieval history. You're too much of a Turk to show real interest for gavurlar past or present. You have come here to do the jobs Turks always do best - plunder this, distort that, invent a lie on this and on that so that to go on straight to your main theme - self-praising litany of "Ne mutlu turkum diyene" and other crap.

Now you write : " but without having a single clue , you are reverting with a strange , superficial and funny statement asking 'How Tacitus could identify himself with the speech of the barbarian who was fighting against his own father-in-law Agricola'"

Now thansk for your 'clues' from which nothing follows.

I consider Tacitus to be both one of the best and deepest Roman historians and an outsanding and impeccable Roman patriot and adherent of the superiority of Graeco-Roman Civilization over barbarity. Just a look at what sort of lessons and philosophy he gives in his treaty on rhetoric assures of that.

He was a good psychologist and knew what to put in the mouth of the barbarians to be realistic. Yet, what the barbarians thought and said is not what Tacitus thought and said at all! I challenge you to prove Tacitus thought Calgacus was right by give me a single clue - you have so many clues around you , don't you - where Tacitus was against Romanization of Britain or other parts of the barbarian lands !!!

What Tacitus clearly believed in follows not from Calcagus words and his anti-Roman propaganda quoted by tacitus but from what Agricola said and did to Romanize Britain. How could you notice this e.g.

" 21. The succeeding winter was employed in the most salutary measures. In order, by a taste of pleasures, to reclaim the natives from that rude and unsettled state which prompted them to war, and reconcile them to quiet and tranquillity, he incited them, by private instigations and public encouragements, to erect temples, courts of justice, and dwelling-houses. He bestowed commendations upon those who were prompt in complying with his intentions, and reprimanded such as were dilatory; thus promoting a spirit of emulation which had all the force of necessity. He was also attentive to provide a liberal education for the sons of their chieftains, preferring the natural genius of the Britons to the attainments of the Gauls; and his attempts were attended with such success, that they who lately disdained to make use of the Roman language, were now ambitious of becoming eloquent. Hence the Roman habit began to be held in honor, and the toga was frequently worn. At length they gradually deviated into a taste for those luxuries which stimulate to vice; porticos, and baths, and the elegancies of the table; and this, from their inexperience, they termed politeness, whilst, in reality, it constituted a part of their slavery." ?

" temples, courts of justice, and dwelling-houses ..." Where did Calgacus tell about such things? Does he know them at all? Roman roads, Roman laws, public security instead of incessant bloody tribal wars and lawlessness ? Unimaginable for a Turkish hater of the West based on Rome! And yet if you take a look at Roman archaelogy of Britain you'll see that the barbarians left behind scanty and primitive culture while Roman "temples, courts of justice, and dwelling-houses" are being unearthed even now. And that with the advent of real barbarty after the fall of Rome all this disappears and is replaced by the old ways ...with human sacrifices and thatched huts instead of stone and brick houses with baths, mosaics, statues. But why bother? The Turk knows "better".

> and jumping to druidism , consequently trying to create a cripled analogy between with Druidism and Islam.(!)

You're also an expert on druidism? How interesting! I understand that Turkish imams (I suspect you're an imam yourself by now) would be very angry if they learned they are like the druid caste among the Celts -a caste of brainwashed fanatics spreadding unverifiable myths, worshipping holy places with pilgrimages and indulging in human sacrifices and bloodshed ... All like in Islam, isn't it ? Which prophet was sent by Allah to teach that early form of Islam ?

> And this is what exactly I was trying to tell to you in my comment with quotation from Tacitus , this was a reply to your statements blabering about your 'untouchable, civilized angels' like Romans and Byzantines , and perception of the same by some others whom you claim to be 'Barbarians' but whose 'devastative' sentences like above, clearly expressing his point of view , are still alive even today.<

Again ,what he put in the barbarian's mouth is not what he believed in. Show me where Tacitus opposed Romanization of Britain ? His world and values are centred around "temples, courts of justice, and dwelling-houses" , Roman roads, Roman civil society... In short, all your nomadic soul of a Turkish barbarian hates and wants to destroy.

You Turkish barbarians have been the most efficient destroyers of this higher civilization. You have imposed your Moslem savagery upon people superior to you culturally and now come here to continue the same job of barbarization of the West by scolding and desecrating what you yourself have never been able to create and what shows your ugliness. You stole Hagia Sophia and changed it into a mosque because you weren't able to build something better or even similar. You destroyed the superior Byzantine , i.e. late Roman civilization.You enslaved and reduced to the state of slaves its citizens and dare come here to preach "morality" to us! What a parody and outrage !

> Tacitus, Agricola, Dominiatus are only known by a handfull of people now , but the last sentence of Calgacus 'They make a desert and they call it peace' is still everywhere.

That you know neither Tacitus, nor Domitianus nor Agricola goes without saying. That you distort, falsify and plunder Roman history also goes without saying. You are not here to spread or acquire knowledge. You are here to destroy and distort - the only things the Turks have ever excelled in .

> This is the biggest victory of the 'barbarian Calgacus'.

While your pro-Turkish proganda only exposes the biggest victory of barbarity which knows or appreciates no "temples, courts of justice, and dwelling-houses" over civilization. You're here to steal and plunder in the spiritual sphere as you Turks have stolen, plundered and destroyed in the material sphere.

> Meantime you may like to know ; Agricola was against the invasion of Britain and was called back to Rome immediately after the Battle at Mons Graupinus.<

Wha sort of invasion do you mean? Britain was long in the Roman hands as he arrived there as governor. He also favoured the ivasion of Ireland and thought a legion would do to bring Irland under the Roman rule for ever.

24. [...]I have frequently heard him assert, that a single legion and a few auxiliaries would be sufficient entirely to conquer Ireland and keep it in subjection; and that such an event would also have contributed to restrain the Britons, by awing them with the prospect of the Roman arms all around them, and, as it were, banishing liberty from their sight.

But you say "Agricola was against the invasion of Britain"? Where have you googled that ?

Besides, I wonder what you have googled on what was going on in Domitianus' court or on the Danube at that time ? Nothing? Try again!

> Tacitus always emphasized the honesty,loyalty , determination of Agricola, his father in Law, against despot Emperor Dominiatus. His book was only 'published' after AD 96 following the assasination of Dominiatus and change of the regyme.<

Your google machine works well.

> So dont give me that 'Staunch Roman' argument, for this specific period.<

But it is not enough to learn about what Tacitus really stood for, especially with your backward Islamic mentality and the Turkish record of the brutal extermination of Eastern Rome. You must deny the civilizatory record of Rome not to confronted with your record of extermination of Eastern Rome. So go lie on !

Mutatis mutandis Tacitus' quote is fully applicable to Islamic barbarity and the Turks. What is more, Tacitus has even something valuable to say about today's Kemalism and Turkishness. Idque apud imperitos humanitas vocabatur, cum pars servitutis esset. "Because they didn't know better, they called it 'civilization,' when it was part of their slavery."(Ibidem)

Huh ! This quote is used by Tacitus to describe Britain after the Roman invasion describing their slavery , and now you are distoring the meaning , trying to use it against Turkishness ?

Yes, I do use it to descrieb Turkishness. It has a universal value, even though I admit that "temples, courts of justice, and dwelling-houses" are perhaps too valuable a thing to be compared to the theft and plundering of Greek and Armenian property and cultural values after the genocides upon which today's Turkey's economy and property system was built.

>Inde etiam habitus nostri honor et frequens toga; paulatimque discessum ad delenimenta vitiorum, porticus et balinea et convivorum elegantiam. Idque apud imperitos humanitas vocabatur, cum pars servitutis esset..

'They adopted our dressing fashion, and begun wearing the togas ; little by little they were drawn to touches such as colonnades, baths, and elegant talks. Because they didn't know better, they called it 'civilization,' when it was part of their slavery"

It supports my argument indeed It is a quote to be used against Western Imprealism you are trying to present under 'enlightenment' BS, not Turkishness...

I quote the whole passage above. And my comment on "It is a quote to be used against Western Imprealism' is contained in the title of my reply to you.

I can also remark that "Western Imprealism' is a favourite phrase of Ghazi Mustafa Kemal Pasha's best friend and savior Vladimir Ilych Lenin. Lenin - just as you and your Kemal he was against Rome and was persuaded of the superiority of raw barbarity over civilization that wasted its time on creating "temples, courts of justice, and dwelling-houses" instead of slaughtering the enemies of the Two Big Friends Brothers - the Kemalist Turk and the Bolshevik!

Anyway, seaking of arguments against 'Western Imprealism' what you Turkish haters of the West would do without teh transfer of Western technology to you? You would hav to revert to the lifestyle of the Yuruk nomads that still keep the old noamdic traditions of the Turks alive. that's good. Who knows perhaps one day more Turks will be forced to live like that too.

> You are scraping the previous part of the text , changing all the meaning and presenting the same as if it supports your argument. Something you always do , something you master in.<

No, I quoted the text in full and commented on it to show exactly the opposite of your silly claims on Calcagus and Tacitus. You don't know Tacitus, of course. What you have managed to google is not enough to hide your defects. You hate what exposes you. And I find it good.

> Additionally , I felt like hearing ' Today's Kemalofascism or Islamo Turko Barbarity' kind of juvenile YouTubish Trivia , I would go and comment on YT instead of coming to this forum.<

That Kemal created a fascist state that has survived until now is as obvious as the absence of freedom of speech in Turkey or the denial of repeated genocides committed by the Turks. But wait...Don't you want to say that Turkey is a flourishng democracy, a paragon of all political freedoms and the highest achievement in mankind's historical development ? ;)

> I already told you not to waste my time , please don't…<

No dissimulations! If you didn't feel so uneasy and insecure about the Turkish lies exposed here, you'd never insist on writing your erratic apologies to defend the indefensible - Turkish barbarity with its consistent record of oppression, recurrent genocides and all possible crimes against civilization now presented by you as a paragon by which to castigate and reject one of the greaest civilizations you Turks destroyed and exterminated since Byzantium was Eastern Rome.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".