Comments on: Byzantium

By: richard

richard — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 00:48:36 +0000

Yes, his description of the Arian controversy was particularly interesting.

By: James Higham

James Higham — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 20:26:36 +0000

Have read parts and it is good – I presume you’re referring to The Early Centuries?

By: richard

richard — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 20:23:41 +0000

I can recommend “Byzantium” by John Julius Norwich, which is an entertaining and engaging history of the Byzantine empire. The importance of theology in those days cannot be ovestated: the most abstruse facets of religion were of absorbing interest to the average citizen.

By: James Higham

James Higham — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 08:04:46 +0000

Yes, I’d agree and as our two comments are close enough to the end of the article for people to see, then I’d say, here in comments, that false flags and red herrings abound as an issue hots up.

No doubt later it will be exposed as a hoax and then that’s the whole argument gone in people’s minds, people’s minds being what they are. So yes, I’m very much “vigorously debunking rubbish like this” in order not to dilute the main thrust of what we’re trying to say.

By: sackerson

sackerson — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 07:47:38 +0000

The “Protocols” document linked here is balls, utterly obviously. Its appropriate that it claims to be “Navel” Intelligence as it will only yield fluff. You run the risk of devaluing your genuine insights by referring to such paranoid, deceitful twaddle. “The solution of today’s problems requires an approach which is ruthlessly candid, with no agonizing over religious, moral, or cultural values.” Real-life Dr Evils do not condemn themselves in this way.

You should be vigorously debunking rubbish like this so that you can be believed when you talk of the centralizing tendency of power and money.