Genghis, Bolivar & Delusion
This show was inspired by viewing three different “historical” films. The Liberator (2013), about Simon Bolivar’s campaign of freeing South America from Spanish rule and racial disparity. ’71 (2014), a soldier’s tale, about the complicated situation in Northern Ireland. Lastly, Mongol (2007), about Genghis Khan’s rise to prominence.
The question that came up [repeatedly], the same which had come up before (during the look into genocide), is what is a director’s responsibility [or obligation] to the truth when shooting a historical drama? The answer to that question may, like many things in this complex world, not be as simple as we would prefer.
In one case, it could be argued that truth borders on outrageous lies, yet the same film also provided us with a slice into the heart of matters that cuts deeper on a level the pathetic alternative media can never hope to reach. I have to apologize in regards to being confused as to the origins of the line, “If you keep dancing with the devil, one of these days he’s going to want to fuck.” Still at a loss as to source.
If we put expectations on the the makers of a historical films, then should we heap the same level of trutherian ideals on pornographers? Do they bear responsibility for the idiot masses who mimic the behavior viewed on ventures designed purely with the bottom line (i.e., money, in this case), without the slightest mental process if the acts they witness are performed solely for market-driven considerations?
The topics this show is willing to broach, are but one of the reasons this broadcast has more value than all the conspIndustry shit combined. Outside of imaginary top-down speculative conspiracies, these are real events that may impact your real life. And the impact of a penile fracture is definitely something every male out there would be best served by gaining a little knowledge on how to best avoid.
Our very survival, is aided by our natural instinct to mimic while young. However, when we refuse to grow up, a [fascist] nanny state may feel the need to rise around us and protect us from our worst enemies, ourselves. If we provide the nanny state with enough impetus to be overbearing, who can we realistically blame when those nannies turn out to be no better than us (when they suffer from the same malignant failings as we)? Away from the conspiratorial “answers” [which amount to a pile of shit], we can ask questions: such as, when we put someone in a position whose livelihood is based on their avoiding obsolescence, are results not predictable?
It really is a shame that there are those out there so poisoned, they even interpret truths like Snowpiercer in a conspiratorially negative light (fully reviewed from a reality based perspective). But as I said within, “A person who is suffering from delusion will overlook any facts and any logic that run contrary to that delusion.”
Though I may have overused the word “phenomenal,” if ever there was a word well-suited to describe Genghis Khan’s accomplishments, that would be the one. In light of these labors, we must face the question of why are they under-appreciated by so many historians of all branches and so many among us? Beyond implicit perverse reasons and explicit conspiratorial factors known to cloud history, we are obliged to add a couple more to the list: ethnocentrism and cultural bias.
What saved Europe from Genghis Khan? Distance. Though I do realize that the word “saved” is a subjective term [see next paragraph], this simple herdsman would change the shape and makeup of the precolonial world like no other. Had Mongolia been located just a little further East, not only would the map of the world be entirely different today, so would the global power structure and its ethnic makeup.
Here’s another perspective [found after the show, from a book I’ve yet to read]: “The Mongol army led by Genghis Khan subjugated more lands and people in twenty-five years than the Romans did in four hundred. In nearly every country the Mongols conquered, they brought an unprecedented rise in cultural communication, expanded trade, and a blossoming of civilization. Vastly more progressive than his European or Asian counterparts, Genghis Khan abolished torture, granted universal religious freedom, and smashed feudal systems of aristocratic privilege.”
Within this podcast, you will find a frank discussion of Mongol military tactics of value found in few other places. It was a fascinating field of exploration for me, and hopefully, for many of you as well. One item implied, though not specifically delved into was the egality among the Mongol ranks. The Khans placed such a high value on the individual Mongol warrior, they outfitted and equipped him to the benefit of his success and survival like no other army before or [arguably] since.
During the show, I should have said “Western Civilization” is based on post-Roman world built on top of a Greek/Alexandrian foundation. This foundational back-bone of the modern world, upon its consideration as the time-frame shaping our reality, can lead to some rather interesting avenues of discourse (see Fomenko show).
In relation and of interest are modern Russian efforts to reclaim Genghis, after the Soviets spent years trying to wipe his memory from hearts, minds and archives. With no official sanctioned portrait left behind, many have tried [and failed miserably] to reshape the image of the Great Khan to their own biased view.
When the Mongols came, they came with a tenacity and ferocity few could withstand. Add to that the [begrudgingly by those subjugated] granted cunning and intelligence, and you have an unstoppable force. Imagine yourself a common soldier [trying to] stand your ground as they approach. Can you? Try not to shit yourself.
Once again, this show was not a review of or about the aforementioned movies, but the thought-streams they helped produce. The most intriguing of which may be, that those mirrored lenses we use to shield ourselves from the prying eyes of others, may best serve us were we to flip the mirrors to face inwards.
Note A: In regards to the discussion to comparison with English Longbowmen, worth noting (but not mentioned) is that the [inferior] European longbow technology did not come into play until long after the Mongol peak.
Note B: A few [not already linked] shows those who found this of interest may want to check out: Skeptic Descartesian Philosophy, A 100 Years of Calamity, 2000 Yeas of Military Tactics [not available yet].