The Present Situation
Off the bat I would like to say that we should be at a time when no speech is disallowed. Kike, spick, dago, nigger, homo, faggot, dike, raghead, kraut, limey, sandnigger, scalawag, dothead, chink – in my view it should all be allowed, and If I left your particular sensitivity out you can be sure it was simply for the sake of brevity. While using words in themselves does not constitute hate (“There’s a dago”) they can be used for insulting purposes (“That’s a stupid dago”), or even threatening purposes (“Let’s kill that dago”). For me, only the latter should be disallowed, without inviting a hate charge or a justified punch in the mouth, and disallowed only because a crime is implicit in the statement (threat to kill). But because I would allow them doesn’t mean they should be used, or used haphazardly.
But of course, I also think society should be advanced enough by now so that we can keep our doors unlocked, and that crime should be something largely in the past.
I understand that these ideals might not appeal to everyone, so I want you to know what I believe in here, which is the sticks-and-stones-may-break-my-bones-but-names-will-never-hurt-me mentality. Such an outlook is necessary for one who knows what free speech means, which is nothing less than unconditional free speech. As a writer and lover of liberty my idea of free speech is a holy matter, and I would allow you to direct any of those epithets at me if it means the right to say them will be preserved. Excepting criminal implication, I am for not only unconditional free speech, but also the freedom of the press and freedom of expression which follow from it. As probably the great Voltaire said, I may not agree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it. This is the position which must be held by anyone who values free speech and its derivatives. Yes I have had my feelings hurt by words, yes words can lead to blows, and yes, none of that changes my opinion.
But what if everyone felt or thought this way, you ask? We may just find out. Right now most of the world is in a period of transition, of change, nearing a situation many would call instability. The newfound legal protection of, among other things, homosexuality and gay marriage, for one, and the strange modern phenomenon of acknowledging – and considering as worthy of special treatment – genders other than male and female, coupled with gender becoming “a matter of choice” for another, along with Europeans and Americas being forced to accept into their lands an influx of unchecked immigrants, have all invited criticism, especially from those who do not want their children exposed to such behavior, and who find such infusions detrimental to society. In effort to stifle the opposition the standing governments have enacted odd new laws into place, not the least of which are the blatantly unconstitutional “Hate Speech” laws which in effect nullify inalienable and guaranteed free expression of one’s opinions. Apparently, now, it is OK to use the guarantees of free speech to say “I like homosexuals”, but not OK to say “Homosexuals disgust me”.
Bear in mind the issue here is not to put forward an opinion, or elicit one from you, regarding same sex relationships or the possibility of other genders than two. I’d be happy some day to tell you what I think about these issues if you ask. The issue is the human right to speak freely. Is it not odd, and even hypocritical, that you are permitted say “I hate Democrats” and “I hate Republicans”, “I love war” and “I hate war” “I love gays”…but you cannot say “I hate gays”? Similarly, forced immigration, the retarded brainchild of the European Union, is bringing mutual hatred among the races, a contrived sociological engineering attempt in the style of forced busing and integration in the States that was a proven abject failure. The important thing is that in putting forth these neo-policies, and to coerce people into accepting them, speech and writing which would insult or demean the gays, the transgenders, and the new influx of immigrants has similarly been restricted.
It all surely has the look and feel of a sociological experiment, a purposeful manipulation of society and its basic laws for the proliferation of a certain agenda. Some have gone so far as to see in this a type of social engineering, others see these developments as the influence of Satanic or evil forces, or the scheming of a type of cabal, and see them as part of an inevitable “master plan” wherein the ruling powers use the resulting schisms as a tool for us to destroy each other – while these oligarchs sit back and sell coffins.
The infamous Protocols Of Zion, said to be a forgery but deadly accurate on many points, is an example of this suspicious “doomsday” type of thinking:
1. To-day I may tell you that our goal is now only a few steps off. There remains a small space to cross and the whole long path we have trodden is ready now to close its cycle of the Symbolic Snake, by which we symbolize our people. When this ring closes, all the States of Europe will be locked in its coil as in a powerful vice.
2. The constitution scales of these days will shortly break down, for we have established them with a certain lack of accurate balance in order that they may oscillate incessantly until they wear through the pivot on which they turn. The GOYIM are under the impression that they have welded them sufficiently strong and they have all along kept on expecting that the scales would come into equilibrium. But the pivots – the kings on their thrones – are hemmed in by their representatives, who play the fool, distraught with their own uncontrolled and irresponsible power. This power they owe to the terror which has been breathed into the palaces. As they have no means of getting at their people, into their very midst, the kings on their thrones are no longer able to come to terms with them and so strengthen themselves against seekers after power. We have made a gulf between the far-seeing Sovereign Power and the blind force of the people so that both have lost all meaning, for like the blind man and his stick, both are powerless apart.
3. In order to incite seekers after power to a misuse of power we have set all forces in opposition one to another, breaking up their liberal tendencies towards independence. To this end we have stirred up every form of enterprise, we have armed all parties, we have set up authority as a target for every ambition. Of States we have made gladiatorial arenas where a lot of confused issues contend …. A little more, and disorders and bankruptcy will be universal ….
4. Babblers, inexhaustible, have turned into oratorical contests the sittings of Parliament and Administrative Boards. Bold journalists and unscrupulous pamphleteers daily fall upon executive officials. Abuses of power will put the final touch in preparing all institutions for their overthrow and everything will fly skyward under the blows of the maddened mob.
–Protocols of Zion III 1-4, my emphasis.
That we are being constantly put into more and more conflict with one another is easy to see. In Germany, Sweden, France, Britain, Spain and Holland, just to name a few, immigrants supposed to be limited to only displaced Syrians because of the tragic and senseless destruction of their nation (thanks, USA…), but who are really mostly opportunistic Africans and Muslims like the Sudanese, the Iraqis, the Somalians, the Afghanis, and the like, are being given entry into Europe and, to a lesser extent so far, America, at a rate resembling an Exodus. The insane assumption is, rather than help these people get their own countries straight, it would be better to destroy their homelands and relocate them, in blatant and unfathomable ignorance of the predictable fact that wherever these immigrants go will soon turn into what they left behind.
A process that used to take prospective citizens months and sometimes years to accomplish, that is, gain entry into a free foreign land, whether through the immigration process or by the invasions of war, is now being done overnight. The influx of foreigners into these nations, at the rate of sometimes tens of thousands at a time, and without much regard to available resources or the will of the people, has all the markings of wolves being given free reign in the henhouse, a danger to the entire population. Looked at from above, in elapsed time, what is going on in Europe looks like an invasion by barbarian hordes:
Do these sound like racist words to you yet? Would you have me censored? It’s amazing what the sensitivities of people can project. Let’s continue with the example. Even should a country adopt the idea to close its borders completely, it would be silly to be against immigration as a rule. Exceptions would have to be made for real asylum seekers and people from abroad who have something to contribute. Isn’t that what it’s all about? Helping our fellow men in need? Being able to select the best and brightest, and helping the helpless, as much as we are able?
Our gripes should never be against entire populations or races, and here is no exception. It is always certain individuals that are the problem. Our complaints would be better used directed against those warmongering whores who have somehow gained control of the world, and who have dictated, and continue to dictate policy in the EU and everywhere else. We should send our criticisms at the “elected officials” who, given the keys to our homes, have promptly opened them up to all sorts of unnecessary threats. The ingrates we call “leaders” are setting up the conditions for conflict.
Remember their credo, these political infidels, which is 1) create a threat, 2) publicize and expand the threat, 3) offer a solution. That this “final solution” usually ends up costing something, and always more than the original problem, makes no difference to the contractors and financiers benefiting from the charade. To stir us up against each other, it seems, is what the oligarchs want at the present time. They want us to save them the trouble, want us to fight each other, some say so that our rights can be suspended or revoked in the name of “National Security” (think Patriot Act on steroids). Others have claimed that this current state of affairs is to bring about a Police State, and it has been proposed that most people will welcome the ensuing atrocities for the sake of their beloved security.
Indeed, it is likely true that many, if not most, people will choose bread and safety over even freedom. When over half of the adults in America are currently receiving one type of check or another from the government, it’s not hard to envision such a scenario. In some countries in Europe it’s even worse, Ireland for instance working on upwards of a 70% dole rate, when unemployment and welfare are combined.
Acts of true love should never expect gratitude, or need thanks. But to add insult to injury, upon entry into these nations, these immigrants are given food and shelter, something about which they have had the inclination to complain. The thanklessness of many of these invaders has not gone unnoticed, as thirsting men are being given water, and their response is to complain the water is too cold. It is little different with the new-found “gay rights”, where now specially protected lifestyles nevertheless clamor for further special treatment, rights, facilities, and recognition. To accommodate them we have gone so far as to even change the laws about what constitutes marriage, and yet these gays and third-sex types continue to demand they be recognized and specially cared for, and protected. Ungratefulness all around, I’d say.
Speaking of complaints, and evidence of the problems such policies have caused, thousands so far have been lodged by native citizens against these new immigrants, especially in Sweden and Germany, crimes which are disproportionately sex-related. In response to this new threat, the indigenous populations have formed groups like citizen militias, and in turn these militias are getting denounced as racists, mostly by the immigrants but often by their own neighbors – the same people who held up the welcome signs in Scandinavia, Germany, and elsewhere when these allegedly displaced people began moving in.
All during this process, while economies and national unities are being upended if not destroyed, we are witnessing yet another disturbing pillaging. Many ancient places, not just buildings and monuments, but even whole cities important to the history of Western civilization, if they are not being destroyed by bombs at a daily rate, are tinkering on the brink of cultural chaos due to the upheavals instigated by outside forces.
Monuments one of a kind, one by one, are being decimated, as sure as Damascus itself, which as of late has sadly come to resemble post-firebombed Tokyo. It’s almost as if here, too there is a plan to intentionally destroy all known and famous historical landmarks in the Middle East, perhaps to change or eliminate certain aspects of history?
As the officials of the world tighten their tolerance in response to the racial problems, imposing gag orders, curfews, and the like, a development more about protecting the new immigrants than the citizens under threat, we in America should keep in mind the freedoms we have already won, and remind ourselves not to let those who would ruin a good thing interfere with our way of life. Instead of curtailing speech, it needs now, more than ever, to be extended. It needs to progress, and so, get even more free, in the face of these threats.
Consider Change, and Changes
The Earth we live on, the people in it, and the organizations they form, as a matter of course, change over time. This inevitable aspect of life in the world, this notion that individuals and their associations (as well as the globe and its arrangement) are works “in progress”, is nothing new, and the discussion of change, or apparent change, has had a long tradition. From Heraclitus‘ ancient idea of the constant flux, to the archaic theory of “evolution” which began at least with those ancient Greeks, continued with men like Lamarck, and ended with the fictions of Darwin, on to the Catastrophic theory of Velikovsky, and then to the modern idea of “an ever–expanding universe“, the thesis that change is a fact, and perhaps necessary fact of the world, has been constantly reiterated in different ways.
The Caucuses…probably, you are not from there.
Regarding race, whatever that might be, our attitudes have changed, as sure as have the faces, and the places where you find them. Consider the status of the Irish, or the Italians, in America today, compared to 150 years ago. Once considered both low-class humans, treated at first not unlike the freed slaves, today, with a grin perhaps, the geniuses of ethnology have found them alike enough to be the same race, “Caucasian“. In fact, generally these days what you are has become less a matter of actual genealogical history, and one more of, in keeping with the times, self-identification.
In actuality, you are in many ways the same person today that you were when you were 5 years old. You have the same personality, the same cadence and meter, and the same motor. Your birth certificate shows you to be the same entity. But, in other ways, you are quite different, and change is evident just to look at you. You have grown, you have learned more and become more experienced and intelligent. You have mastered crafts you didn’t know before. You yourself are a good example of change. All of this without yet taking into account your family and the culture you live in, the upbringing and environment so much more important than race. Change is inevitable in life.
To understand inevitable sort of changes in another way, look at the Earth. We know it has endured floods, global catastrophes, ice ages, species coming (over 18,000 last year alone) and going, and so on. It is still the Earth, but change is its most apparent quality. Every day brings its own weather. I offer this not to be pedantic, or illustrate the idea of the “category mistake“, but to get us on the same page. I want you to understand that change is a reality on this Earth. We can tip our hat to Parmenides and those like him, who find something wrong with the prospect of a world in flux, and we can agree that the mind deals with the absolute, but at the same time we know it is change, and often sudden, drastic change, which most affects our planet, and ourselves individually. Permanence is not for the things in the material world.
Now if change is real, perhaps all there is, we must spend another minute to understand its nature. For instance, is change a matter of mutations and chance, a numbers game, or is change something purposeful, toward a desired (or desirable) end? What do we mean by “progress”? Is all change progress?
Progress is a specific type of change, a change that improves and advances, whether it be you, something you are making, or the human condition you work in. While all progress is evidence of change, not all change is evidence of progress, and indeed, some change is very regressive when the total fallout is examined. There are too many of you who look upon the past as if it was tutti a primitive, unenlightened, or comparatively ignorant time. You insist typing is better than penmanship, TV better than theater, email better than letters, this year’s model better than last, and so on.
While I would be the first to admit and laud the advances in certain few fields of technology, the convenience of modern amenities often obscures the detriments produced by those very same advances (never mind the byproducts, fallout, etc.). We once sent messengers, letters, and telegrams, now we can communicate instantly by telephone or email. Here we see change regarding human communication is real, and it can be seen as progress. We change, society changes nonetheless, in response.
Think about the current state of general scientific theories, or what qualifies as “proof” in the social sciences, or the rewriting of (certain only) history. Professionals and laymen alike, it appears to me, see the changes within and from the sciences – the new theories – and automatically assume that the “new science” is some sort of advance on the “old science”. And certainly, one would think that, given the advancement of time and accumulation of further knowledge, these theories would indeed improve. But do they really? Might some theorists be conflating “newness” with “progress“?
Atlas…or Gravity?
As a global population, for instance, we have changed from believing in an “Atlas” (or pillars, or the ether, or…) that holds up the world, to believing – most of us quite blindly as to why – the theory that “gravity” and/or “electro-magnetism” does the job. But one glance in reflection shows there is no advance in this renaming, since as little is known about gravity (or electricity…) as is about Atlas, and they could be the same.
An example from another area of Science could be that for all our years of medical “practice” people still live only as long today as they did in BC times. Assuming they were well-fed, and conditions were good, some evidence exists that the ancients lived even longer, and perhaps fuller lives than we do today; certainly our food and water would be enough to shorten their lifespans. Anyway, that it was once believed the Earth is flat, that the stars and celestial bodies are contained within our firmament, that we ourselves are the center of the universe, that the planet and its situation is conducive to life as a creation of God, are more examples of superseded theories that have changed us, but not necessarily advanced us. It escapes me as to how we are better for the change.
Times Of Change
Today there are, about a quarter of the population, those of the atheist mindset, those who hold the belief that our existence in the universe is due to chance. The people who say there are no gods think our cushy, yes, comparatively luxurious position in space, is a matter of luck and circumstance. They preach that our marvelous variety and forms of life are the consequence of probability and genetic mutation, with little or no Intelligence, or even plan, behind it all.
Even though the Big Bang and Evolution systems justify themselves as the product of “honest research”, and this they may be, still we have to ask if we are any better for the latest moves. We’ve discussed in past chapters the way these chameleonic theories change themselves at any sign of being wrong, in order to accommodate the conflicting data without having to discard the theories. The way Science works now reminds me of the thousands of self-described astrologers, seers, palm readers, and prophets of all kinds, who keep changing their dates and predictions when things don’t go as originally forecast.
We have discussed how it is therefore logically, or really in any way save force, impossible to get rid of either Evolution and the Big Bang, Bangolution. Like gods (ironically, and widely believed-in…) they are omnipresent, they are omnipotent in the minds of the journal-mongerers, and they are omniscient, in that they continue to expand in scope, like a plague, whether right or wrong, sucking up all the evidences against them like a multi-headed plecostomus. Is this an advance on the human condition? Is it better than the idea that everything is contained and ordered by God for us and us alone in the universe?
The many gaps and irregularities this type of social engineering has produced, and the problems they have caused for any possibility of a unified and coherent body of knowledge spanning all disciplines, cannot be underestimated. Less than 150 years ago we had no idea what DNA was, but less occasions for having to determine paternity, or guilt. No, when it comes to new theories and new technologies, change is by no means always indicative of advancement, or progress, at least not any more than a man who thinks his tattoo or piercing has somehow made him more handsome.
I can now zip to your home 60 miles from me in just an hour, a trip that would have, by horse and carriage, taken me at least all day, and so, I should reckon this combustion motor also a progressive change. But what do I miss along the way, as I speedily pass by all those places that could have been my horse’s watering holes, my friends I now could never meet? What sights and sounds are now reduced to blurs and roars?
Not all change is progress, and it can be argued that much supposed modern “advance” is really not progress at all. Even given all our intellectual advances, and financial expertise, if you spend some time finding out where your country ranks as to, for instance, child health and education, or the economy, you will not be pleased. The policies and theories have changed, sure, but there is no real advance to show – for all the effort. Practical sociology is a demon.
Now let us consider history for a moment. History is the human account of what once was, what has already happened. It should be the most certain of all disciplines since it deals with what has occurred in retrospect. History need not predict outcomes. After a war, the historically-minded journalist, for example, need just tally the bodies and report the number of casualties, a number which should not change significantly once the tally is complete. But, as time moves on, we see even the most obvious of historical facts have come under scrutiny, whether the ancient history timeline of Manetho, the amount of dead reported by Herodotus – or the Anti Defamation League (ADL) – or the honesty of the contemporary writers doing the critiquing.
Realize that today we are living in a world where instant communication has closed our distances one to another. We are at a time when authors of numerous merit, reporters of dubious associations, and politicians of questionable origin, crazy people and children alike, all can and do have equal time on the pages of the internet. The genius and the imbecile might have blogs hosted on the same server, and this is more the case than not.
While allowing a plurality of voices avenues of expression is a good thing, no verification of facts is required to publish, and that is a bad thing. It is also bad because, for all its rabid anti-censorship campaigns, still a warped, arbitrary – and often downright totalitarian – person-driven censorship still exists. What usually gets censored are those voices antagonistic to beliefs of the moderator, or the standpoint the web site embraces. Just visit a chat room or discussion board and see how fast you get banned for not drumming the company tune, or for putting up any kind of fight.
Unfortunately, and in large part because of this “net neutrality”, it is becoming almost impossible to determine true from false and fact from fiction about anything seen online. Just think about photographs alone. It’s reached the point that any picture, story, or claim we hear, that we don’t see or witness with our own eyes, whether we receive it through TV, in print, or online, we must be skeptical about, and check the legitimacy of the source(s). Most people are not natural researchers inclined to investigate every fact they hear, and most are not inclined to sustain a many-faceted inquiry into anything at all. They just want to know the best car/toothbrush/toaster to buy. So, most people find sources they like or trust, and take their words as fact.
Moral choices and ethical considerations are no less difficult. So, most people pick a faith, pick a political party, and let those define Truth for them. When we trust a source, we have put our faith into that source, and actually, we are acting on faith, that what we are being told is true.
This world of ours is a far cry from the recent past, where what was true or not was decided by our father and mother, or our church, or our teachers, or by direct observation. For nearly every positive statement available today there exists, or will soon exist, an antithesis to take into consideration. Sometimes these are good alternatives. Sometimes they are just unsubstantiated drivel meant to confuse people just because, just for a laugh, or to “go viral”, or sell some product. What is true is that as soon as you read an article saying “Proof There Was A 9-11 Coverup”, in today’s world, you will soon come across one saying “Proof Of Coverup Debunked”.
When change is inevitable, but not necessarily indicative of progress, and this condition occurs simultaneously with our being in a time when we cannot be certain any secondary source a true or legit one, we can have a very difficult time even accumulating legitimate data to evaluate. And this is precisely the state we are now in. One who would judge things based on reason, so as to help make choices perhaps, now finds him or herself confronted with contradictory information at every turn, rendering the actual facts, let alone rational judgement of them, nearly impossible.
What happens, usually, to summarize, is we accept certain sources, and we believe what those sources tell us. Whether really true or not, it is difficult today to determine, especially in the face of rapid change, where finding Truth takes more work than should be necessary, and than most will attempt.
Semites, Or Shemites: Moses and Sargon
Now, given these facts, I want to discuss the meaning of some concepts which have undergone change, some to the point of unrecognizability. We begin with the “hot-button” word “Semite”, and particularly how it’s meaning has evolved, and whether how it has been refined is indicative of progress. Biblically, and somewhat historically speaking, a Semite is a descendant of Shem, one of the three sons of Noah charged with repopulating the world from the area of Ararat after the great flood. According to the tradition most in the West know very well, and which probably goes back to ancient Sumer, God became angry with all the sinfulness on the Earth and decided to flood it to get rid of all the vermin. He saved Noah and his family by having Noah build an ark, load up all the animals in pairs, and so on. When this ark finally landed, upon Mount Ararat, Noah and his family set to work starting the world again.
Upon landing and the clearing of the waters, when the bird did not return, Noah’s family disembarked and began reestablishing society. Ham, the dark-skinned son who had previously angered Noah, was sent to the south; Japeth (Japheth), the white-skinned son, was sent north; and Shem, the favored son, was sandy-skinned, and stayed in the local area. It is from this Shem that the Israelites claim descent. As we have discussed in previous chapters, this story of Noah is nearly a carbon-copy of the ancient Sumerian story of Zisuthra, and some variation of it is found throughout the traditions of the world.
We should also remark, about these Shemites, that perhaps every human being existing today hails from a Shemite, and also that these Shemites historically are not one but many people originating in Mesopotamia. In fact when Sargon of Akkad took nearly every single city along and between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers all of those cities had a different type of people who worshiped a different type of god.
As we can compare the story of Noah to Sumerian legends, so can we compare Moses, and in fact the parallels are striking. Here, first the birth and early life of Moses:
Now a man of the tribe of Levi married a Levite woman, and she became pregnant and gave birth to a son. When she saw that he was a fine child, she hid him for three months. But when she could hide him no longer, she got a papyrus basket for him and coated it with tar and pitch. Then she placed the child in it and put it among the reeds along the bank of the Nile. His sister stood at a distance to see what would happen to him.
Then Pharaoh’s daughter went down to the Nile to bathe, and her attendants were walking along the riverbank. She saw the basket among the reeds and sent her female slave to get it. She opened it and saw the baby. He was crying, and she felt sorry for him. “This is one of the Hebrew babies,” she said.
Then his sister asked Pharaoh’s daughter, “Shall I go and get one of the Hebrew women to nurse the baby for you?”
“Yes, go,” she answered. So the girl went and got the baby’s mother.
Pharaoh’s daughter said to her, “Take this baby and nurse him for me, and I will pay you.” So the woman took the baby and nursed him.
When the child grew older, she took him to Pharaoh’s daughter and he became her son. She named him Moses, saying, “I drew him out of the water.”
One day, after Moses had grown up, he went out to where his own people were and watched them at their hard labor. He saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his own people. Looking this way and that and seeing no one, he killed the Egyptian and hid him in the sand.
The next day he went out and saw two Hebrews fighting. He asked the one in the wrong, “Why are you hitting your fellow Hebrew?” The man said, “Who made you ruler and judge over us? Are you thinking of killing me as you killed the Egyptian?” Then Moses was afraid and thought, “What I did must have become known.”
When Pharaoh heard of this, he tried to kill Moses, but Moses fled from Pharaoh and went to live in Midian, where he sat down by a well.
Now a priest of Midian had seven daughters, and they came to draw water and fill the troughs to water their father’s flock. Some shepherds came along and drove them away, but Moses got up and came to their rescue and watered their flock.
When the girls returned to Reuel their father, he asked them, “Why have you returned so early today?” They answered, “An Egyptian rescued us from the shepherds. He even drew water for us and watered the flock.”
“And where is he?” Reuel asked his daughters. “Why did you leave him? Invite him to have something to eat.”
Moses agreed to stay with the man, who gave his daughter Zipporahto to Moses in marriage. Zipporah gave birth to a son, and Moses named him Gershom, saying, “I have become a foreigner in a foreign land.”
During that long period, the king of Egypt died. The Israelites groaned in their slavery and cried out, and their cry for help because of their slavery went up to God. God heard their groaning and he remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac and with Jacob. So God looked on the Israelites and was concerned about them. [Exodus 2]
Here is the legend of Saru-Kan, or Sargon of Akkad:
Sargon of Akkad ( Sargon the Great, Shar-Gani-Sharri, or Sarru-Kan, meaning “True King” or “Legitimate King”) ruled in Mesopotamia from 2334 to 2279 BC. … He was born an illegitimate son of a “changeling”…and, according to legend (a cuneiform clay tablet…) never knew his father. His mother could not reveal her pregnancy or keep the child, and so he was set adrift in a basket on the Euphrates River where he was later found by a man named Akki who was a gardener for Ur-Zababa, the King of the Sumerian city of Kish. From this very humble beginning, Sargon would rise to conquer all Mesopotamia and create the first multi-national empire in history.
In time, he came to be considered the greatest man who had ever lived, celebrated in glorious tales down through the Persian Empire, along with his grand-son Naram-Sin. The historian Paul Kriwaczek sums up the impact Sargon had on later generations in Mesopotamia, “For at least 1,500 years after his death, Sargon the Great, founder of the Akkadian Empire, was regarded as a semi-sacred figure, the patron saint of all subsequent empires in the Mesopotamian realm”.
“Sargon” was not the name given him at birth but the throne name he chose for himself. It is a Semitic name and so it is generally accepted that he was a Semite. Nothing certain is known of his birth or younger years… He was unknown to the modern world until 1870 CE when the archaeologist Sir Henry Rawlinson published the Legend of Sargon which he had found in the library of Ashurbanipal while excavating Nineveh in 1867 CE. The Legend of Sargon reads:
My mother was a changeling, my father I knew not,
The brother of my father loved the hills,
My home was in the highlands, where the herbs grow.
My mother conceived me in secret, she gave birth to me in concealment.
She set me in a basket of rushes,
She sealed the lid with tar.
She cast me into the river, but it did not rise over me,
The water carried me to Akki, the drawer of water.
He lifted me out as he dipped his jar into the river,
He took me as his son, he raised me,
He made me his gardener.
Akki adopted the boy and raised him as his own son. Sargon rose in stature at court to become the Ur-Zababa’s cup bearer (in Assyria, the cupbearer was second only to the king)…
…Sargon had the king’s trust but this was put to the test when a neighboring king, Lugalzagesi (Lugal Zage-Si), King of nearby Umma, embarked on a military campaign and began conquering the cities of Sumer…[he] conquered the city-states one by one, uniting all of them under his authority. He would be the first Sumerian king to accomplish this…and the was last Sumerian king before the rise of Sargon.
…After conquering Uruk, Lugalzagesi decided to move on Kish…Ur-Zababa…had grown suspicious of Sargon and, although there seems to be no evidence that the cupbearer had given him cause, decided to send him to Lugalzagesi ostensibly with an offer for peace. [n.b: Some say Sargon had relations with Ur-Zababa’s wife, others that he refused to follow orders, what we do know is he intended to get rid of Sargon]. Whether Ur-Zababa actually included in the message anything about terms and conditions is not known; what is known is that message asked Lugalzagesi to kill Sargon upon receiving it. For whatever reason, Lugalzagesi refused to comply and instead invited Sargon to join him. Together, they marched on Kish and took the city easily. Ur-Zababa escaped and went into hiding.
Precisely what happened next is unclear owing to the many legends which grew up around Sargon’s life and reign over the centuries. It is possible that he had an affair with Lugalzagesi’s wife at this point or that he was sent on a mission which he turned into the first engagement of his own conquest of the region. Whatever happened between him and Lugalzagesi, they were as quickly antagonists as they had been allies. Sargon marched on Uruk and took it. Lugalzagesi marched his army from Kish to meet Sargon in battle and was defeated. Sargon then put him in chains, tied a rope around his neck, and took him to the city of Nippur, sacred to the god Enlil upon whom Lugalzagesi had relied, and forced him to march in humiliation through the Enlil’s gate.
Clearly either Moses is based on Sargon, Sargon on Moses, or both are based on an earlier rendition of the same person. Both Sargon and Moses are said to be Shemites, or Semites, both were illegitimate or unwanted children, both as infants sent down a river, both saved by servants of a king, both raised in royal households, both became seen as threats by their king, both were nearly killed by their king, both went on to become revered leaders of their people, and so on. What this all makes clear for us is that even at that time a Semite, or Shemite, or those tracing their genealogy through the bloodlines of Moses’ son Shem, were already of mixed heritage, already with different customs and views, and already worshiping different gods.
Shemeria, Semites, And The Possibility Of Other Races
Today, Sumeria would probably be better renamed Shemeria, and maybe that is what it was supposed to be. I justify this because everyone from this region and vicinity is identified by contemporary anthropologists and ethnologists to be Semitic, this despite all the evidence of the differences in the many cities and peoples. Academia is not sure where Sumer ends and Assyria and Elam begin, and for that matter, they cannot differentiate Semitics even from Aryans.
Left to right: Japeth, Ham, Shem
So before we dismiss the idea of a Semite straightaway as a product of myth and fable, or a joke from the imagination of a drunken orientalist (sorry Eichhorn…), let us understand that despite these dubious origins the idea of a Semite persists in our society today for several other reasons. First of all, because the ancient Babylonians, Sumerians, Assyrians, Hittites, Canaanites, and several other groups are often cited by academia, still today, as being Semites, the term has been adopted to actual contemporary ethnographic use. This while at the same time Aryan has all but disappeared.
There is, also, quite a bit of discrepancy between the Shemites spoken of in the Bible and the Semites spoken of by historians. Part of our mistake in understanding the term Semite today lies in this discrepancy.
By 1855, the French scholar Ernest Renan, one of the pioneers of Semitic philology, wrote complaining: “We can now see what an unhappy idea Eichhorn [sic; should be Schlozer apud Eichhorn] had when he gave the name of Semitic to the family of Syro-Arab languages. This name, which usage obliges us to retain, has been and will long remain the cause of a multitude of confusions. I repeat again that the name Semite here [Renan is referring to his pioneer study on Semitic philology] has only a purely conventional meaning: it designates the peoples who have spoken Hebrew, Syriac, Arabic or some neighboring dialect, and in no sense the people who are listed in the tenth chapter of Genesis as the descendants of Shem, who are, or at least half of them, of Aryan origin.”
Renan was of course right in pointing to the dangers of taking “the generations of the sons of Noah” as a basis for philological classification. He might have gone further. The descendants of Ham, conventionally the ancestor of the Africans, include, in addition to [those of] Egypt and Ethiopia, Canaanites and Phoenicians, who lived in the Syro-Palestinian area and spoke a language very similar to Hebrew.
Phenotype? Language relationship (often obscure)? A glance at the people of the world does seem to show very observable and distinguishing region-based characteristics. All around the Mediterranean coast, to this day, from the north shores of Africa to the southern beaches of Europe, the people native there for generations do look predominantly similar. They are in the main, the non-imports, of wavy or curly dark hair, of average height and weight, of tanned or swarthy, but not black complexion, and they are lively and loud in demeanor. Head north into Europe and you find people of lighter features, greater height, who are in the main more reserved, more thinkers than actors on impulse. Head south and you will find “blacks“, with the liveliness of the Mediterraneans, excellent physical skills, and ancestor worship, ranging in size from pygmies to giants. We can imagine, then, how people in the immediate vicinity of Ararat can have their variety, based on the story.
But what about all the other people of the world, who seem unexplained by the story of Noah, like the island peoples of the Pacific, the American Indians, the Chinese and Japanese, and the indigenous peoples of all lands? Are they also a product of the re-population by the Noah family? Were they spared from the flood? Were they renegades or exiles from the main population groups? Is this why they get a separate box to check on government forms and applications?
Many lively answers exist for these questions, but it is not my purpose here to relay them. Some light is shed on these questions by apocryphal books and later commentaries, but little by actual history. According to some of these ancient texts Japeth, Ham, and Shem stand for human types based on the triumvirate constitution of Man, that being his mind, his soul, and his body, and it is for this reason that they were singled out from among all Noah’s children. Ham, we understand, was faulty because he dedicated his life to, and emphasized, the physical or bodily aspect, at the expense of the mental and spiritual aspects. Similarly, Japeth stands for the people who emphasize the mind, to the expense of spirit and body. Even Shemites, who emphasize and concentrate on the spiritual, do so at the expense of the mental and physical aspects. It seems that Israelites claim to be Semites based on being the most perfect. But whether Semites and Israelites are actually related by descent is another story entirely.
Origins Of Race
We spend this time deciding what a Semite is because by the historical record this is not entirely clear. If I were a king in 3000 BC times and I needed to decide my “origins” to relay to my people, why would I choose either Ham or Japeth when it was Shem who was favored by God? Abraham, literally A-Brahm, or Abram, we know, came from Ur in Mesopotamia. The foundations of his beliefs then must have been instilled in him while he was in Babylon, or at least a Sumerian city-state – which would do much to explain the several versions of the early Hebrew tales also being discovered in Mesopotamia. Or, maybe we should say, Hebrew versions of the Sumerian tales.
In fact, some have argued that there were no Jews before the Talmud and Talmudists, the concept of “Jews” being due to developments in Persia around 500 BC. Others find the origins of the Pentateuch in Canaanite religion. What seems clear is that before the onset of rabbinical vindictiveness and chest-pounding superiority – some have said, a hijacking of a creed by polytheist pagans – a Hebrew was a member of a certain tribe. Possibly it was the Habiru (or Khabiri, khabiru, etc.), a sect that believed in a single God, in origin a Mesopotamian tribe, that is their origin. We do know that upon moving west this band settled in the Levant, and their trials and tribulations afterward have been handed down to us as the Greek Septuagint, the oldest books of the Bible.
While academia usually considers Judaism an outgrowth from Sumeria, or Sumer, there is a counter argument which would claim that it was the Mesopotamians and Egyptians who stole these stories from the Hebrews, that is, that the Hebrews pre-date both the Egyptians and Babylonians. This is where the identification of Hebrews with Semite becomes a necessity for the Jewish chronology.
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Judges, and the rest carry us on a genealogical and historical exposition following this small “favored” tribe steered all along the way by God. They were “Semites” because they hailed from a so-called Semitic people originating in Mesopotamia. In earlier days, scholars supposed the main rival of Semites to be the Aryan race, possibly the race of Sargon I we just discussed, and most likely Sargon II, father of Sennacherib. The races had so mixed, though, by even the time of David, that any claim to being either pure Semite or pure Aryan would seem to have been just a distant memory, and perhaps neither type ever really existed at all.
God punishes his favored people numerous times in the Hebrew Pentateuch, or Greek Septuagint, for, among other things, marrying and having children with pagans. Add in to this admitted race mixing the blood of the Scythians, and the Iberians and other Caucasus people around the Black Sea, the Afghanis (Achimedeans), the Sea Peoples, and the Philistines, the Elamites, and the rest, and by the time of Solomon, an Israelite, or Hebrew, ceased to be an identification of a person of a specific race and had instead become the name of a believer in a certain religion or member of a certain tribe. Aryans, Semites, Nubians, and their mixes could all be Hebrews, at least up until the time of the rabbis, when rules for descent and restrictions on marriage were imposed.
Characterized by belief in a single God, at a time when most of Babylon was still pagan-inclined, could help explain Abraham’s move out of Ur, at around 1700 BC. We should note, though, that under the rule of Akhenaton (Ra, around 1400 BC) Egypt itself turned away from polytheism for a time, and through Zoroaster (Ahura Mazda, or Zarathustra, about 1500 BC) the Mesopotamian regions as well were gravitating toward the idea of a singular, all powerful God. The chronologies are close enough that who came up with the idea first is presently difficult to say.
The Biblical chronicles give us the generations after Noah in detail, carefully noting the lineage and reign of his children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, on down the line, who together served to repopulate Earth after the great flood. While the Bible follows the line of Shem, we know the lines of Ham and Japeth, as well as the rest of Noah’s progeny if there were any, also contributed to the expansion. We are told stories that sound strangely believable, as “Jews” are often scolded and punished by God, not merely coddled as the favored child in every verse. But He also allows them, his chosen people – according to these chosen people – many transgressions He would not tolerate in people not so selected.
On The Possibility Of Semites, Anti-Semites And Chosen People
For one who thinks, who can read between the lines, we find that an Israelite, or person of God, favored by God, is of no certain race or even ethnicity whatsoever. To prove this remember the fate of the Hebrews and the “Nation of Israel” in the Bible. They were divided by God into the ten “lost tribes of the north”, who eventually become distributed amongst all the other peoples of the world.
About these “most favored” of people, whose blood is now distributed through all the peoples of the world, it is said God will now have to “sift” through them, like grain through a mesh. A careful reading of these passages in the Bible seems to indicate that the name “Israelites” is not the designation of a race, or even a certain religious group, or identifiable single creed. Rather, an Israelite is a particular type of person who is a chosen favorite of God, the sum total of them being, collectively, his “favored” people. You are not destined by race, according to my reading of these scriptures, to become person of God, or an Israelite. You will be chosen, if you qualify wherever and whoever you are, and even, whatever you currently believe. Whether or not you are a chosen one will be based on your deeds and actions. Together, the sum of these chosen, is Israel.
Now, given what we know from history and the texts, there cannot be any such thing as an anti-Semite. This is because any true Semite has long since ceased to be one in any identifiable sense. Saying someone today is “Semitic” is, at best, like saying a contemporary Swede is a Viking.
It is not even clear what one could do today that could be considered anti-Semitic, given the Semite’s more or less extinction as a distinctive workable phenotype. That people who live in the nation called Israel today, and people who call themselves Jews, by mother or by decree, think they are related to the earliest Jews, is a monumental error. Without doubt more Arabs are related to the old Semites as any current day Israeli, most of the imports to that region being of European descent, from Khazar origin, or benefactors of the Balfour Declaration. The relative silence that has met the Biblical evidence proving that between dispersion, dissemination, and destruction by Aryans and Romans, on top off the textual evidence such as the divine order that all God’s people be distributed amongst all the nations of the world, is indicative of historical, and perhaps literary, corruption.
More questions remain, such as what about the pre-apocalyptic rebuilding of the church, the Third Temple of Jerusalem, and the rest of the prophecies. Who will be doing this work then, if the Semites no longer exist as an independent race? Self-proclaimed Jews, or actual Hebrews as we describe them, chosen by God as his kingdom? Again, many books have been written in these regards, which we do not have time here to cover, and which are just indirectly related to the changing nature of knowledge about Semites and race that is our present matter at hand. See here and here for example.
Now, what people mean by anti-Semitism today is another thing entirely. What they mean is discrimination against a self-identification, a slur or insult against people who consider themselves “Jewish”. Remember that many people today call themselves, as a collective body, “Jews”, whether they follow the rule of law or not, and think of themselves and describe themselves as a distinct race, to be protected as such, even though they are no recognizable “race” at all. They often trace themselves back to Abraham and David’s line, but in reality a pagan in Ethiopia might be more related to both. Palestinians and Lebanese, native to the area, are definitely more related, by blood, to Abraham, than any of the 19th and 20th Century imports who colonized their land.
These present so-called Semites, for the most part, are children predominantly of Japeth’s, and not Shem’s line. They are Germans, Slavs, Turks, Russians, and so on, no more genetically superior or evident of God’s chosen than an American Indian or Australian Aborigine, both of whom might well be, according to Scripture as I see it, one of The Chosen.
What people mean today, when they use the term “anti-Semite”, is that the person so accused hates Jews, or speaks against Jews, or stirs up hatred against Jews. But is something called an “Anti-Defamation League” not on its face a challenge to freedoms of speech and expression? For that matter, are not critics of, say Jews, or gays, or immigration and race mixing, not entitled to the same expression of opinions as are Jews, gays, and proponents of immigration and race mixing? Is not the Constitutional liberty respecting free speech precisely meant to defend objectionable and possibly inflammatory language?
These questions are extremely relevant and important and deserve immediate attention, but what is presently most frightening is that charges levied by powerful lobbies and “special interest groups” (like ADL, NAACP, LGBT, Council On Foreign Relations, Blackwater, etc.), such as racism, or ant-Semitism, or nationalism threaten all our guaranteed liberties. Whether the charges are valid or not, true or not, they are usually the death knell for those accused, so much so that most so charged have been found “guilty” merely by the accusation. Say someone is an evil person and you’re fine. Say they are Jewish and an evil person and, although it may be fact, you can be levied with a hate crime or discrimination charge. Refuse to serve someone because you don’t like them and that is your right as a business owner. Refuse to serve them because they are gay, and you are a bigot and liable to a criminal charge. Once again, what we are currently seeing in the world is free speech being curtailed in effort to protect the social engineering, the aims and dictates of Sociological conditioning.
Today, a Jew is someone who either belongs to the Judaism church, or who considers him or her self Semitic based on family lineage. What this usually means is that their mother, or one of the maternal line, declared herself a Jew and by this, those of her blood line are considered Jews. These people, then, identify themselves as Semitic, and so thereby attempt to justify the use of the term “anti-Semitic”. Of course, anti-Jew would be more appropriate, but this too is misleading because, as we have seen, anyone could be related to Abraham by blood. Even a proven blood line would not in itself be a guarantee of that line being Israelite, or God’s Chosen. A self-determination of you being king doesn’t make you one.
As you can see from the map above, over 95% of today’s so-called Jews are of European ancestry. God himself said he dispersed His People amongst all peoples, and so quite possibly, the alleged or even real anti-Jew today, or Fascist, or Nazi, could actually be more Jewish – related to Abraham, favored by God – than the self-proclaimed Jew he rails against. And truly, the ADLs of the world, and the way the government of Israel often operates, does call to mind talk of superior races, and murderous oppression, and all while building up “the Homeland”.
Concentration Camp?
Summary and Conclusion: Nothing Trumps Free Speech
Now, given what we have discussed so far, let’s summarize. As God’s people we are born free, and one of those liberties we are guaranteed is free speech. God’s chosen people, we have learned, hail from no race distinguishable in these, our times. The mingling of blood and moving of people from place to place, for thousands of years, has rendered any such relationship unlikely if not impossible. The people who call themselves Jew today, we have seen, are nearly all “whites”, “Caucasians” of European origin, possibly even Aryans that have relocated from southeastern Europe and whose families somewhere along the line adopted the Talmudic religion. We have discovered that while “Aryan” has long since been discarded as useless and with racist undertones, its contemporary “Semite” holds firm in the academic vocabulary.
Furthermore, ostensibly the imported Israeli citizens look nothing like the people native to the region, even today. The only things these historically recent emigres have in common with Abraham is a name (“Jew”), a name of a nation (“Israel”), and a self-description which astonishingly, indeed shockingly, omits or under-emphasizes the real culture and race from which they came – be it German, Slav, Pole, Ukrainian, or whatever else is in the contemporary Israeli citizen’s blood. Notable here, I think, is that in the face of all the forced immigration going on under the guise of helping the homeless from Syria, Israel has refused to take in even one single refugee.
So while on the surface it seems impossible that anyone today could be anti-Semitic, based on the fact that who knows anymore who is or not a Semite, or whether the appellation was ever a correct or legitimate one based on genealogical history at all, we do know there are instances when the “anti-Semitic charge” can indeed have some kind of validity. This is that, whether today’s Jews be actual Jews or not, whether there can even be such a thing or not, if they define themselves as such, and are attacked or prejudiced because of this self-identification alone, the charges would be legitimately discrimination. Men are not equal, but they must have equal opportunity.
But because this is the case, as it would be for all those persecuted for merely how they describe themselves (yes you have the right to describe yourself as Atlantean if you want to…), this does not mean we should stomp all over free speech and make it a criminal charge to say “I hate Semites, or “Jews suck” or “Homosexuality is a cancer”, or “AIDS comes from gays” or even “Atlanteans are Weird”.
What is decidedly not anti-Semitic, or even anti-Jew, but is treated as such, given this understanding, are the revisionist inquiries into historical events, such as:
- “The Holocaust”
- The Nuremberg Trials
- “Gas Chambers”
- Hitler and “his treatment of Jews”
- Monopolies on business and banking
- Influence of the Think Tanks and social engineering
- Nationalism
…and so on. It pains me, to this day, to know that men can write about, speak about, and make movies with gratuitous bloodshed and murder, endorse bestiality, depict mass murder, dismemberment, and cannibalism, possible life on other planets, how to make a living out of virtual theft, how to create bombs, berating religions millions of people believe in – but will not, in too many places in the alleged free world, discuss any of the matters enumerated above without facing the prospect of ostracism (in academia and nearly every publishing house), fines, and even, in certain European countries, imprisonment.
How can it be that nothing, nearly nothing is taboo to say or write about in this world, unless it concerns “Jews” or the Holocaust, or for that matter gays, or race, or gender? It sure seems as if these laws give an unfair advantage to all these now specially-protected types, effectively rendering them – like Bangolution – as god-like and immune to disapproval and derogatory criticism. You can talk about me but I can’t talk about you. We have learned and know for provable fact that such policies stomp all over our free speech and our rights to expression. It is only fair that if you allow the homosexuals and Jews and Communists to march, you must also allow the “homophobes” (a wrong word and in fact an unjustified slur against heterosexuals…maybe heterosexuals and non-Jews need an anti-defamation league), the Nationalists, and the Nazis. If you don’t find this equitable then you just don’t understand, or pitifully, and worse, you do not value essential human liberties.
Now all of this doesn’t take away the very real problems of racism and other forms of discrimination, nor problems of physical violence, which is not part of free speech or expression. But if we recognize, say regarding the events before the 9-11 Tower demolitions, that 11 of 12 members of the Port Authority of New York were self-described Jews, making a note of this, as well as perhaps of the disproportionate number of media outlets owned by Jews, or that a Jew suspiciously bought those towers (from Port the Authority…) just before the attack, or that a Jewish run company was in charge of security for the towers, that a double-worth insurance policy was bought for it, and so on, these accusations are by no means anti-Semitic, and not just for reasons of ethnic history we have already discussed at length. Such statements are, quite plainly, stating provable facts, and Truth cannot be overridden by sensitivities, especially those based in shadowy histories and exclusive to only certain groups of people. This is my concern.
When we note the ratio of power and money to numbers, concerning the self-called so-called Jews, we cannot but be shocked. Shocked, but mightily impressed, they are to be commended. To the observation that Jews control big business, Hollywood, the banks, and money, some Jews become offended, or more often feign offense, sometimes hilariously so, and respond with clever answers like the “most of the money” does not equal “all the money”, and so on. Also, we must mention Ariel Sharon’s declaration that the Jews, meaning his Jews – meaning Khazarian Europeans who have been given prime lands by those who did not own it to give away – “own America”. This, while their less than 2% of humans in the world own over 25% of all the wealth, and control many more businesses and means of production.
Finally, everyone must know that every year the United States, for some unknown reason, finds it necessary to donate to Israel billions of dollars a year of American taxpayer cash, the claim being it is for for military and other reasons. Current Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has even bragged about having America “wrapped around his finger”. Are we to understand that Israel and America are run by the same people?
This being said, whereas before these observations would be considered anti-Semitic, we now know that they are merely statements of fact and should be treated as such. It is not to round up and jail, or persecute and beat up people that we recognize this, nor do we mention them to condemn them en masse, as verily some of these so-called Jews are indeed good people and live humble lives. We mention these rather to state facts which do not correspond to the expected numbers or common sense. It is THESE abnormalities that attract, even demand our attention. Then again, keep in mind this is more about money than it is about religion, or race.
In sum, a person cannot be anti-Semitic in general because there are no Semites. You can be bigoted against people calling themselves Jews, however, as you can for discriminating against individual Catholics or Baptists or Hindus; regardless of their real ancestry, you have hindered their chance at equal opportunity based on nothing more than their beliefs, and this is abhorrent on both sides of the equation. You can speak your mind about anything, so long as your words do not involve threats and violence. Mere words, even slurs, we must accept them as a necessary byproduct of free speech, and move on.
Discrimination is refusing someone equal time, based on race or gender or whatever else, it has nothing to do with nicknames and epithets. Like many today, the protected minorities like to speak of tolerance, yet, like most of the allegedly “discriminated against” types today, they are too often the least tolerant of ideas and language which questions their own beliefs. You can believe whatever and love whoever you want, don’t ask us to pay for the wedding, or even force us attend it.
People ought not be discriminated against for any non-individual reason, whether race, culture, creed, color, sexual orientation, or religion. I repeat that while people are definitely not equal – another lie you have been taught – they should have equal chances and so equal opportunity. Free speech, and the other human liberties of expression, however, must never be compromised for any reason, and when it comes under threat, it is most usually by people afraid of, or offended by, what is being said.
I find any such limitations on free speech…offensive.
Truthopia 