Calling Gorbachev a revisionist is far too charitable. It presupposes that he had even an ounce of Marxism in his thinking.
seen from Sweden
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from Sweden
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from Malaysia
seen from China
seen from China
seen from Malaysia
seen from China
seen from Brazil
seen from Türkiye
seen from China
seen from United Kingdom
seen from China
seen from China
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
Calling Gorbachev a revisionist is far too charitable. It presupposes that he had even an ounce of Marxism in his thinking.
PSL celebrates getting at least one vote in 61/81 counties in Ohio with the tagline "Ohio is ready for socialism"
This misleading headline and image is just another part of the PSL's strategy to legitimize their cartoonish commitment electoralism and right opportunist line.
Down with the PSL!
Down with Neo-Trotskyism!
Down with labor aristocratic social fascism!
Who the fuck is calling the plantation of Ulster “decolonization?”
No it wasn’t!
Miss me with that Ian Adamson Fanfiction revisionist bullshite!
(It literally served as the blueprint for England’s colonial settlements in other places! Whether in the Americas or Africa or anywhere else!)
Any historian would know that isn’t even remotely true! It’s LESS than wrong!
You are the latest link in an unbroken chain of survivors
By: May 14, 2026
Approximately 430,000 years ago, someone inflicted two blows to the head of a Neanderthal. Either blow would have killed him. “Cranium 17 recovered from the Sima de los Huesos Middle Pleistocene site shows two clear perimortem depression fractures on the frontal bone, interpreted as being produced by two episodes of localized blunt force trauma”, reads a 2015 paper by an archaeological investigation team.
The dead Neanderthal was found in a cave at the bottom of a shaft. He had either been thrown into it or placed there as part of a funeral ritual. Geology and predators have been ruled out as causes of the skull damage. While time and the pressure of soil broke the skull into 52 pieces, the science team was able to reconstruct the skull and determine the “depression fractures” were perimortem, meaning they were inflicted from outside at the time of death and no healing took place afterwards.
Both fractures were inflicted with the same weapon, making them “almost indistinguishable”. This makes it highly unlikely that the injuries were natural, for “any scenario related to the free-fall would require the highly improbable occurrence of the same object striking the skull twice.” The authors conclude that “the most plausible explanation for the perimortem fractures on Cr-17 is as the result of intentional and repeated blows during a lethal act of interpersonal violence” — homicide.
Buried along with 27 others, this Neanderthal “represents the earliest clear case of deliberate, lethal interpersonal aggression in the hominin fossil record, demonstrating that this is an ancient human behavior”, they write. Murder is as old as the hills, however, and Cr-17 merely represents the oldest proven case of homicide. Much earlier evidence is suggestive, but the conditions of the remains make it difficult to be sure.
A new human ancestor, Homo antecessor, was discovered at the Gran Dolina site in Spain during 1995. During an excavation in the 21st century, 170 fossils and more than 800 lithic artifacts were found, all associated with what is believed to be the last common ancestor of Homo sapiens and Neanderthals. A 2016 paper concludes that the materials “were dragged by debris flow processes from the outside, and introduced into Gran Dolina cave”, which was located on a floodplain. The site is between 1.2 million and 800,000 years old.
About 75 percent of the skeletons in Gran Dolina were pre-adolescent children. They were not buried as part of a ritual. Instead, their flesh was stripped from their bones in “the oldest known case of cannibalism to date”, according to a 2019 paper. The authors calculate that human bodies are more nutrient- and calorie-dense than other prey animals, a finding that is consistent with Optimal Foraging Theory. Gran Dolina is not even the earliest evidence for human cannibalism, anymore.
That would be a shinbone recovered in Kenya and analyzed in 2023. It was found to have cut marks associated with butchering. It is 1,450,000 years old. Put simply, the logic of cannibalism was obvious to our ancestors. So obvious that our ancestors ate each other out of proportion to other animals. And they were our ancestors. Yours, mine, everyone’s.
The story of Cain and Abel mythologizes the collision of lifeways in the distant past, most likely recalling a dim memory of pastoralists in competition with agriculturalists during the Neolithic. Cain survived to marry a woman, the Bible says, and they had a son, Enoch, whose living descendants are supposedly still with us. Abel had no descendants, the Bible says.
None of us can claim a lineage from the innocent victim in the story. Perhaps Cr-17 was the loser in a contest for power with another Neanderthal, or maybe his death was the end of a protean grudge. Whatever the reason for his killing, the killer was left with the potential to survive, thrive, and leave descendants.
Efforts to project modern ideas of pacifistic equality on the past are a form of magical thinking. Everyone alive today is the latest link in an unbroken chain of survivors owing their existence to murder and cannibalism in the deep evolutionary past. No human on earth can claim a special lineage that exempts them from this category of people descended from cannibals and killers. We are all equal. This is the only true human equality.
Rousseau’s fantasy of peaceful, uncorrupted primitives, the ‘noble savage’ myth, is not simply wrong, it is racist. It denies our shared ancestry to some peoples by pretending their ancestors were somehow exempt from the homicide and cannibalism that shaped every human lineage. Such nonsense infantilizes non-Western societies while flattering moderns who want to believe violence is a recent corruption.
Pacifistic interpreters of the past would deny their own birthright as fierce, hungry creatures. It does not make them morally better than the rest of us who acknowledge what we really are. It just makes them tedious and pretentious.
"your theory of gravity is too dogmatic," he says, "it doesn't predict that i can fly from this roof."
he flew for a second
As a Native American Studies student, who has to take lots of sociology, history & anthropology classes:
This is the era where diaries & journals matter. Even if it's just you writing down headlines & sharing excerpts. Or writing down quotes about what's happening on social media. If you can manage to write your day-to-day & thoughts & feelings, that's a bonus & matters too!
A digital journal or diary can be fine with precautions & backups. But physically written, typed or printed is better.
Someone in the future, even future society itself, is going to want these glimpses of what's happening now. It also sets the record straight for revisionism & forgetting what really happened altogether.
idk if you do those anymore but I was reading your Mythology revisionist posts and I was wondering if you'd be willing to do one for Medea?
It's kinda hard to revision Medea since her story is so narratively tight and clear, but for thee, I shall try.
Here's the thing about Medea. She's not human. Not really.
She's a Goddess in human form. A granddaughter of Helios himself. A child of the sun. She doesn't have to be among these humans, but she is. Her killing and forsaking her family isn't just to show her character, it's her slowly shedding her humanity, destroying the things that attach her to mortality.
Killing her children is the final severance. It's why she departs the world on a flying chariot, something typically reserved for the Gods. She's finally shed the last of her humanity. She's ascended through blood. Destroyed the last of her humanity.
So, how might this story have played out differently? How might a journey of such degeneration and ascension be averted?
Perhaps another Argonaut catches her eye? Perhaps Heracles, perhaps the only demnigod that might be her equal? Perhaps Orpheus, who's music reaches even the hardest of hearts?
Or, perhaps, it's the odd one out.
Atalanta is strong. She is brave, powerful, a thing that defies every convention of reality the Greeks hold deer. A woman who fights. A woman who lives as she chooses. A woman who refuses the role placed upon her by the Gods and the world itself. She has the respect of Heroes and Kings despite it all.
Medea looks at this woman, and feels a twisting envy in her gut. a desire to make what is hers Medea's own. Medea, who must choose between the weakness of humanity and the cruelty of the Gods, envies this woman, raised by beasts and favored by wild things.
She covets this woman, strong and free, and it is her to whom she gives her gifts. It is through Atalanta the Fleece is claimed. Medea longs to sink her claws into her, to subsume Atalanta and live as she does, break free of all the things that bind her as Atalanta has done.
All her attempts, all her manipulations, slide of Atalanta's skin like a spear off the pelt of the Lion of Nemea. She is immune to Medea's charms. After all, Atalanta is free. She is wild and unnameable, save by what she chooses.
It enrages Medea to no end. For deep within her, all she desires is closeness. Intimacy. Love. But she is a God in human form. And Gods can only conceive of love through ownership. Domination. Worship.
And Atalanta will never do that.
And so, Medea must do the one thing she never thought herself capable of.
She must be human.
She must embrace these things that make her human. The ties that bind her to Earth. If she wishes to have Atlanta, she must be willing to be had. She must open herself to this wild thing, this lioness in human form.
Atalanta is sometimes more beast than human. More she-bear than woman. but when she feels Medea in her arms, when this strange, powerful woman from across the sea finally bears her heart to her, open and honest?
They are both truly, painfully, human.
They vanish out of the mythos after that. There are tales, of course. The wild woman and might-have-been Goddess who walks in her stride. Untameable. Unwilling to be what the world demands them to be.
Human. Nothing less, nothing more.
Funniest bit of revisionism in the Maleficent movie is making King Stefan a villain and a metaphorical rapist.
Like tf did he do in the original movie? The worst thing he’s done was burn all the spinning wheels of the kingdom which probably made some seamstresses lives more difficult but this is a FAIRYTALE characters do insane things in fairytales all the time it’s not supposed to be taken seriously we’re supposed to look at this and see that Stefan would go to impossible lengths to defend his baby. So otherwise all he’s done in the movie was get drunk with his homie and loving his wife and daughter. He’s just a silly little guy how is that villain material?
