Foundations of Thought

Hi, I'm Andrew. I made this profile to talk about the foundational truths necessary to foster a moral, free and thriving civilization.

[Foundations of Thought @FoundationAD33]

"The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me." (John 17: 22-24)

[Foundations of Thought @FoundationAD33]

"It is because we love the West that we want to preserve it. We love our civilization. We love our country. We love our children." ~ JD Vance

[JD Vance @JDVance]

Henry Nowak died the same way a civilization dies: abandoned, handcuffed by authorities who neither trusted nor cared for him, and accused of hate crimes he did not commit. His murder is as tragic as it is enraging. He should still be alive today, and he would be if the last few generations of European elites had stood their ground against the politics of self-hatred and the mass invasion of migrants, many of whom despise the West and the people who love it.

Henry was far from the first to so needlessly lose his life, and I fear he won’t be the last. Each time a life like his is lost, the proper response—the only response—is righteous anger. One of the most important things the Trump administration has proven to the world is that stopping the flow of mass migration and defending national sovereignty is a matter of political will and leadership. Anything else is an excuse.

It is because we love the West that we want to preserve it. We love our civilization. We love our country. We love our children. And nobody—nobody—should ever die the way that Henry Nowak died. May God comfort those who loved him, and may God rest his soul.

[Foundations of Thought @FoundationAD33]

@12sTwelve @AncientHistorry I love Rome, I know those brave legions held the line in Britannia, it's a joke about how 3 legions could hold Egypt, North Africa, and Spain but 3 legions couldn't fully conquer Britain.

[Foundations of Thought @FoundationAD33]

Hi @blyatmanhsk2 I'm happy to clarify for you. Let's work point by point:

[1. When did he judge the "entire comment section"?]

- Right here in his exact words:

"You, nor ANYONE IN THIS COMMENT SECTION will raise that baby...All these people talking about "I'll raise the baby." NO they won't."

- This is called pronouncing judgment. He is stating with certainty that he knows the thoughts, lives and intentions of "anyone in this comment section" and he calls them all liars.

[2. "if that beautiful unique baby could have had an amazing life with loving parents..."
***IF*** <<< there you go.]

- I think you're confused because you cut my sentence in half. The full quote is:

"we'll never get to know if that beautiful unique baby could have had an amazing life with loving parents, because sadly the parents that brought that baby into existence also killed the baby."

- The "IF" is in that sentence because they murdered the baby. IF they hadn't murdered the baby then we wouldn't need to wonder, would we?

[3. What are you? Do you provide support for the parents? Do you take any responsibility? Stop pretending.]

- Are these your 3 qualifiers for being able to see a monetized murder and call it what it is?

If I met your criteria would you admit they killed a 21 week old human infant?

[Foundations of Thought @FoundationAD33]

@jacqueboatman Thank you for sharing this quote...Unfortunately it's incredibly relevant and timely.

[Foundations of Thought @FoundationAD33]

When the unborn, the sick, the poor, the elderly, the disabled are treated as disposable, the moral foundation of society collapses.

"The greatest destroyer of peace today is the cry of the innocent unborn child. For if a mother can murder her own child in her own womb, what is left for you and for me to kill each other?"~ Mother Teresa

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." ~ Thomas Jefferson

[Foundations of Thought @FoundationAD33]

@McJuggerNuggets So when did your baby stop being a moving, wiggling, beautiful, LIVING human? ...When it wasn't convenient anymore ...The baby's only crime was existing and for that the punishment was death.

https://t.co/KWJyDkMF4Q

[Jesse Ridgway @McJuggerNuggets]

first look at the little nugget. 😱

[Foundations of Thought @FoundationAD33]

@McJuggerNuggets "Thankfully, we had a choice." - Too bad the little baby you murdered didn't get one.

[Foundations of Thought @FoundationAD33]

Absolutely, and I appreciate your civility. Here it is:

"You, nor anyone in this comment section will raise that baby...All these people talking about "I'll raise the baby." NO they won't."

- He prounced judgment on Collin and "anyone in this comment section" by stating that nomatter what they say, they won't raise a baby with Down syndrome.

That's the definition of passing judgment on another person's words, actions and intent. Except in this case it was "anyone in this comment section".

[Foundations of Thought @FoundationAD33]

@fronanass @CollinRugg If I was, would you agree this is murder?

[Foundations of Thought @FoundationAD33]

@NiketGandhir @CollinRugg So your argument is, I may or may not have adopted a child with Down syndrome, so this poor baby deserved to be murdered and never given a chance?

[Foundations of Thought @FoundationAD33]

"You don't get to judge them at all."

- Proceeds to judge an entire comment section:

"You, nor anyone in this comment section will raise that baby...All these people talking about "I'll raise the baby." NO they won't."

Mr. Wick, we'll never get to know if that beautiful unique baby could have had an amazing life with loving parents, because sadly the parents that brought that baby into existence also killed the baby.

Evil.

[Foundations of Thought @FoundationAD33]

Exactly. If Nolan doesn't care about portraying the characters physically to the best of his ability, then what else does he not care about?

The Odyssey and Iliad have inspired countless generations. Homer and his beautiful, masterful words have caused many of us to reflect on our own character, choices and passions through the telling of these epic stories. They are built into the DNA of the western world.

[Foundations of Thought @FoundationAD33]

I am not 100% sure I understand your question, but I will do my best to answer.

I believe Noemon (I will try desperately not to misrepresent him) is arguing that Homer doesn't describe his characters definitively in his works and that Hollywood has always pushed multicultural representation in its films (even when it isn't present in the source material), so why are we surprised or irritated that they are doing it again?

The thing is, we aren't talking about an inner-city middle school in Chicago or a small town in Kansas, where perhaps you are limited by the actual availability of people in your area. We are talking about Hollywood, California, and Christopher Nolan.

I read yesterday that many of the actors didn't even read the script. When he called, they instantly agreed. Why? Because it's Nolan! It's going to be a big-budget spectacle, something people won't forget!
Why can't Nolan (who has been blessed with talent, success, fame, and wealth), with the financial backing of Hollywood, create a masterpiece that tries its best to respect and follow the source material?

I am passionate about this topic because I believe words have real meaning, and we use them to write our history and stories...stories that warn us of the mistakes our ancestors made or inspire us with tales of heroes, both real and mythological.

Once we start changing the stories and history to fit our "modern audience," then, as a society, we've stopped looking in the mirror and started looking at a photo filter on our phone... and that's how we become okay with repeating the mistakes of the past.

[Foundations of Thought @FoundationAD33]

"Whose country are you referring to?"

- I was referring to the United States as that is where Hollywood and I are located.

...Again I beg of you to think about your own life's work anonymous or not...

Why is it so hard for you to admit this is a Greek story written to Greeks and understood by them with relevant cultural references and descriptions they would have understood intrinsically?

You mentioned Hollywood using tokens and how it's a running joke, yet still defend it by arguing for the modernization of classics because it's a modern audience?

I think we have reached the point of clarity and understanding but not agreement.

I truly appreciate your dialogue on this topic and the hours you've put into your work. I appreciate the time you spent on your replies and the fact that they remained civil.

I wish you the best!

[Foundations of Thought @FoundationAD33]

"First of all, you ignored my reply to your post.."

- I apologize.

"I guess you agree with me then that those who make the movie can put whatever actors they wish:"

- I do not agree. That is absurd. They CAN do whatever they want, but I firmly believe they shouldn't.

"This is a separate question, as this is not made by Greeks, but rather by people who are imagining things consistently as they prefer for a rather long time now. So it does not reflect anything on the Greek cultural heritage because it is not made by or for it, but instead by Hollywood for a global audience."

- You are allowed a preference on imagination when you are the original creator and the one doing the imagining. However if descriptors exist (and they do) who are you to rewrite those words?

"Greek Odyssey is made with Greek actors, English one with English, French with French, Syrian with Syrian and Hollywood with Hollywood. This should not be controversial. And it is not obtuse understanding as much."

- I was not aware that our world was so small and our country so monochromatic that we could not find a few dozen Greeks, or those with Greek heritage, who also enjoy acting.

"The physical description of his own Kyrix is demanded by the scene itself."

- I fail to see how the 'why' of something being described matters.

"On the contrary, Helen is never described by Homer, her appearance is left to anyone's imagination."

- She is. I gave you the word-for-word descriptions from the Greek.

"Odysseus himself is also called "Black" by Homer but I do not see you calling him African."

- Odysseus is literally described as follows:
"god-like Odysseus" | "smaller indeed in-head than-Agamemnon son-of-Atreus, but broader in-shoulders and in-chest to-be-seen." | "dark-skinned he-became" | "god-like Odysseus"

- Since Odysseus was the Greek king of Ithaca, Homer's audience would have imagined a swarthy, Greek king of average height, strong frame, a cunning personality and noble bearing.

"White-armed" does not mean Polish or German or Lithuanian, it means a woman obedient enough to stay in the house."

- You're right it certainly doesn't mean Eastern European because you are reading it with context you seem wary to apply in other locations of the story. It means a Greek noble woman who had the privilege of staying inside a house/palace and therefore did not have sun damaged skin.

"So not only you ignored basic film-making choices but you also misinterpreted Homer."

- I certainly did not misinterpret Homer as proven above, and 'film-making choices' is generally short for 'we ignored the source material'.

"You can make the Odyssey however you wish, you cannot moan that Hollywood does Hollywood as Hollywood does for decades now."

- You are right, you CAN make the Odyssey however you wish, but let me ask you a serious question @noemonas , no debating, no 'gotcha'.

Why do you talk/post on X?

I believe it's because you have something to say. You believe in your worldview and your life experience. You are a unique person who has value with unique thoughts. Those thoughts are communicated through words that have meaning to your current audience. In fact this whole debate is over words, because words have meaning and they have meaning because they represent our own unique thoughts. Would you be ok with someone taking the title of an essay you wrote, but deciding they know better than you and changing all the contents but still claiming it's your work...your thoughts?

[Foundations of Thought @FoundationAD33]

Nolan's Odyssey: Do we respect the author and his literary works, or in our arrogance do we think we can do better?

[Foundations of Thought @FoundationAD33]

This argument always devolves into skin color, which completely misses the real issue and produces discourse at the lowest common denominator.

The argument is about respecting the original author’s words and story. We can see a lack of respect shown for other, more recent literary works such as The Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, and Harry Potter, to name a few.

You do well to mention Eurybates. Here is his literal, word-for-word description: “Curved/round in the shoulders, dark-skinned/black-skinned, woolly-haired; Eurybates was his name.” This excellent description clearly paints the picture of a sub-Saharan African or “Ethiopian” appearance that the Greeks of that age would have understood perfectly.

Let’s examine Helen’s literal, word-for-word descriptions: (1) “Iris came as a messenger to white-armed Helen”; (2) “divine/shining among women”; (3) “terribly she resembles the immortal goddesses in face/appearance.” Again, when we don’t intentionally try to obfuscate the author’s words, we can imagine a noble Greek woman of surpassing beauty and presence, fair-skinned from a life as royalty, with a beauty that rivaled the goddesses of Olympus.

So which is it? Do we respect the nearly immortal words of Homer, or do we arrogantly proclaim to be a better storyteller, nobly sent to right the literary and cultural wrongs of those authors before us?

This is my opinion: As with all literary works, the Iliad and Odyssey should be made with actors who best fit the descriptions of the original work. Poems were sung in many languages, and though a movie could be made with subtitles and be a success (as with Apocalypto), speaking the language of the country in which the movie is produced also makes sense.

[Foundations of Thought @FoundationAD33]

@Pirat_Nation “We’ve talked about Faye for years,”

We know...

[Foundations of Thought @FoundationAD33]

This argument always devolves into skin color, which completely misses the real issue and produces discourse at the lowest common denominator.

The argument is about respecting the original author’s words and story. We can see a lack of respect shown for other, more recent literary works such as The Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, and Harry Potter, to name a few.

You do well to mention Eurybates. Here is his literal, word-for-word description: “Curved/round in the shoulders, dark-skinned/black-skinned, woolly-haired; Eurybates was his name.” This excellent description clearly paints the picture of a sub-Saharan African or “Ethiopian” appearance that the Greeks of that age would have understood perfectly.

Let’s examine Helen’s literal, word-for-word descriptions: (1) “Iris came as a messenger to white-armed Helen”; (2) “divine/shining among women”; (3) “terribly she resembles the immortal goddesses in face/appearance.” Again, when we don’t intentionally try to obfuscate the author’s words, we can imagine a noble Greek woman of surpassing beauty and presence, fair-skinned from a life as royalty, with a beauty that rivaled the goddesses of Olympus.

So which is it? Do we respect the nearly immortal words of Homer, or do we arrogantly proclaim to be a better storyteller, nobly sent to right the literary and cultural wrongs of those authors before us?

This is my opinion: As with all literary works, the Iliad and Odyssey should be made with actors who best fit the descriptions of the original work. Poems were sung in many languages, and though a movie could be made with subtitles and be a success (as with Apocalypto), speaking the language of the country in which the movie is produced also makes sense.