I understand Cassius' desire to see Loborubro's remarks in the most positive light possible, but sometimes the facts allow little room for interpretation. This is one of those times.


Cassius writes:

> .... Salvete,

> .... My internet connection has been down lately, so I have
> .... seen neither the original posting referred to, or ANY
> .... communication between these two individuals. (1)

> .... However, as I read this post something occurs.
> .... Is it possible that "Loborubro" was simply pointing
> .... out that the Romans and Germans originally were
> .... of similar origin, rather than implicitly trying to insult
> .... all other racial groups? (2)

S/he did both. (Please keep in mind that I'm not questioning Loborubro's manhood/feminity; I simply don't know which gender to attach to that name). The flaws in Loborubro's factual arguments have already been largely pointed out. I never ceased to be amazed at how easily simplistic, discredited 19th century theories can be passed off as "cutting edge research" or even "proven fact" online. I wonder if some people were even awake during their common core classes, lately.

Having dealt with that subject, let's briefly focus on Loborubro's racial attitudes, since these seem to be your primary area of concern.

> .... I may well be wrong, but I read the statement
> .... as intending to say this:
>
> ................ "The Germans and Romans are both
> ................ Indo-European peoples, so if you want
> ................ to call the Germans "dogs" you're pretty
> ................ much calling the Romans "dogs" too." .. (3)

Er, no. The Ibo and the Ashanti in West Africa are certainly closely related peoples, in terms of ancestry. It would be difficult to imagine two cultures more radically different in everything but language.

Sometimes the apple falls very far from the tree.

> .... In short, an attempt to show the absurdity of the insult.
> .... It doesn't seem to me that "Loborubro" was trying to
> .... say this: "Anyone who isn't of Proto-Indo-European
> .... stock is a "dog".

Hmmm. Let's take a look at what s/he said elsewhere in the thread. In message 2353, Loborubro wrote:

> > .... "Antonio Grilo" wrote:

> > : .... I spoke about ethnicity, not about level of civilization.

> > .... Yes but son't you agree that the second is more
> > .... important than the first from the point of view
> > .... of quality of life and ethics?

> .... No. The main element of a life of quality
> .... and ethics is a proper sense of ethnicity.
> .... Of identity. Identity is always first, by
> .... it's own definition.

This is racism. It's what the word means. Nor is this an isolated example, even in this thread. Let's take a look at message 2351:

Loborubro writes:

> > : .... An Indo-European ethnicity is still alive, both
> > : .... in language, in traditions and also enriched and
> > : .... over-indo-europeanized by germanic migrations.
> > : ....

> > .... With this I do not agree. The barbarian invasions
> > .... were a period of decadence
> > .... for peninsular economy, culture, etc.

> .... I spoke about ethnicity, not about level of civilization.

> > .... the Bizantines had managed to
> > .... expel the Visgoth dogs from Lusitania ...

> .... What a respectful manner when speaking about
> .... an indo-european non-mediterranean folk....

Loborubro, with his/her usual level of integrity, has backpedaled and denied that s/he ever said anything racist. But, take a good look at the above quote. If s/he isn't saying that "Indo-Europeans" are entitled to a special level of respect, then why does the "indo-europeanaity" (sic) of the Visigoths matter?

The meaning of this passage is clear. What is unclear is where Loborubro got the idea that s/he could bluff his (or her) way out of this one.

> .... There were only two people's being discussed -
> .... Germans and Romans. Not mentioning other racial groups,
> .... racial groups, (or not taking the time to specifically
> .... exempt them from insult) may not be an intentional
> .... slur against other races. (4)

Racial privilege is a zero sum game. One can't make one group of people more privileged, without making another group of people less privileged. "How dare you talk rudely to somebody?" is a call for good manners. "How dare you talk rudely to a white person?", would be a whole different matter, and there would be no doubt as to what was being implied. Replacing "white person" with "Aryan" or "Indo-European" doesn't make matters any better.

> .... However, I could be wrong about this. Even if I am,
> .... I can't help but wonder if perhaps racial issues and
> .... the topic of language aren't a little off topic on a list
> .... about Roman Religion... (5)

Perhaps, but Loborubro and his friends decided to make it on topic. I tend to agree, though. Roman religion is not especially race conscious by its nature, the way Asatru is by its founder's own description. People should not try to make it so.

I think that I've heard about as much from Loborubro as I care to. Further rantings from that individual will be ignored.




..................................................................................................................... Medius



(return to the previous page)

(1) A non-excuse, as ReligioRomana was archiving its posts at the time of Cassius' commentary.

(2) Perhaps Medius was crediting Cassius with more decency than he should have. Let's take a look at just how far the man is willing to go, in order to secure a quick, easy and to be blunt, dishonorable peace.

Note the way in which the respondant is advancing a very questionable hypothesis, part of what Loborubro was trying to argue in favor of, as if it were a given. While the audience is distracted by the hostilities aroused by Loborubro's offensive attitudes, and our time is being taken up by that, he wants to take the point of substantive controversy and toss it on the rhetorical table, using a tone which implies that no reasonable person could disagree with this portion of Loborubro's hypothesis, at a time when the audience is not going to welcome the initiation of a second, simultaneous fight. By doing so, he forces a choice on Medius, between initiating that second, unpopular fight and suffering the political consequences (and maybe thus being ignored), or leaving the position unchallenged, and thus affirming it through his silence, in the minds of the audience.

Should consenses on religious matters and scholarly issues, with all of their long-term implications, be decided by short-term political considerations? Should one be doing scholarship by compromise?

What we are seeing out of Cassius is the rhetorical equivalent of one partner starting a fight while the other partner rifles through the possessions of the onlookers. Loborubro's offensive behavior is being used as a diversion, in a wholly manipulative way. A question to ponder - is it reasonable that his position should become likelier to be accepted, because he said something offensive? Is this just, and is it wise to reward bad behavior in such a fashion? To raise such questions may be poor "ettiquette", but real civility has little chance of enduring if they are ignored.

Which has been exactly the problem which has defined Nova Roma, in our view. We see a lot of political maneuvering in the Nova Roman forums, and very little honest or open discussion, this unwholesome reality only being reinforced by the "rapid peace at any price" ethic which has been as typical of it, as it has been of Neo-Pagandom in general.

(3) Very slick, and not at all honest. Notice how the rest of Loborubro's hypothesis is being slipped under the table, with the implication that if Medius were not such a hothead, he would agree to it - as if it were the point of substantive controversy (the Indo-European hypothesis), and not Loborubro's assertion of an entitlement to racial privilege on behalf of "Indo-Europeans", that was the source of Medius' anger.

But Loborubro's basic assumption is there, being made implicit in the commentary, in a subtly racist fashion, but a racist one, nevertheless. While we would not endorse any attempt to call the Germans "dogs", notice, not only the manipulatively low key assertion of the very point of the controversy - that linguistic, ethnic and cultural closeness are synonomous - but with an added implicit assumption that similar origins imply similar character. If we were to accept this assumption, then given the clear reality that the "Disciples" (a street gang in Chicago) are a pack of "dogs", we would be forced to conclude, by this bad theory, that the same could be said of those of similar ethnic and cultural origins; ie. the mostly peace-loving Puerto Rican community of West Town. This would be racism, by definition.

So how does one try to coax the reader into accepting the conceptual basis for racism, and maintain that one isn't being a racist onself? Unless one wishes to maintain that the attempt to short-circuit the reader's critical faculties so that he doesn't really think about what he's being asked to agree to - ie., to be manipulative - can make, what would otherwise be deplorable, become honorable, one has no choice but to maintain that what we are seeing out of Cassius is wholly reprehensible. If anything, it's worse than ranting which, if undesirable, at least advertises its own undesirability in a way in which more readers will spot. It's like the difference between pulling a knife on somebody openly, or slipping poison into his cup. What a strange ethic it is, indeed, that holds that the second would be far preferable.

And indeed, what a very selfish one.

(4) An absurd assertion, given both the historical context of the remarks, and the geographical context of the Southern Europeans - those neighbors who would be left unprivileged in Loborubro's racialist scheme would, in many cases, be among the Semitic and Hamitic forbearers of today's Sephardim (and other North African and Middle Eastern peoples). Who does Cassius think that he's fooling? There are clear reasons why a Jewish person, especially one of the Sephardic variety, would take offense at these comments, as would anybody who was genuinely opposed to anti-semitism.

Also, note the attempt to mislead the reader into thinking that the whole exchange came out of Medius' reaction to that one passage when, in fact, that passage came late in the discussion. This is what one might call the Neo-Pagan spin: equating the rebuttal of weak arguments with the making of a personal attack upon the one making the weak arguments, sometimes (as in the case of this discussion) followed by a deliberately infuriating (and thoroughly dishonest) attempt to "sooth the nerves" of the one allegedly launching the alleged attack. This, in the pop psychology terms of the self-help movement that did so much to define the New Age, would be known as "playing the psychoanalysis game", and those who play it know that they're being irritating. That's the point - to needle one's victim into losing his temper, and then play the aggrieved victim to an audience which one will hope is too suggestible and too dull-witted to understand what is going on.

(5) Capping off the manipulation with a show of deliberate obtuseness, Cassius plays a game for which he has become justly notorious in some circles - playing "moderator" on a list on which he is not the moderator. As the initial topic was the question of the propriety of one of the Asatruar coming to a Roman festival (leading to the absurd insistence that the Romans were a Germanic people), however foolish many of the arguments seen might have been, this was very much on-topic on a Roman religious list.

But one has to love this notion that having been given good reason to take offense, Medius should feel that he has no reason to say anything about that, because any objection to what he has just seen written would be "off topic". That's absurd. If one were to accept that as a guiding principle, then those refusing to respect the spirit of the agreement to stay on-topic would be able to toss out any number of outrageous remarks with little fear of effective rebuttal, implanting them into the minds of the audience. No sane policy can be designed to selectively empower those who ignore it or its spirit. Even if Cassius were the moderator - which he knows that he is not - his response at this point would be glaringly inappropriate.