Genesis Of A People

Footnotes:

{1  By the time Abraham would have lived, the Isin-Larsa period would have come and gone.  Note that the Hebrews were allegedly in Egypt for about two centuries (early 15th century to the early 13th century), which correlates with the duration between Joseph (great-grandson of Abraham) and Joshua (contemporary of Moses): which accounts for approximately six generations.  Hence a century corresponds to about three generations, which sounds about right.  Extrapolating backward from Joshua, that puts Abraham at c. 1600 B.C.}

{2  This occurred just before Egypt’s Pharaoh was a women: Hatshepsut.  Evidently, this was not something adequately importune to warrant mention in the (decidedly patriarchal) Torah.}

{3  Note that this Abrahamic tale was likely a reworking of the ancient Greek legend of Agamemnon of Mycenae.  In order to appease the gods (spec. the goddess, Artemis), the Spartan leader was told he must sacrifice his daughter, Iphigenia.  To curry favor, he was willing to oblige.  Yet at the last minute, he was allowed to replace her with a deer.  (Ref. Aeschylus’ account from the beginning of the 5th century B.C.)  The Hebrew version was likely composed in the early 6th century B.C., the Greek tale likely predates it by at least a century.}

{4  The etymology of “Semitic” from the Biblical figure, Shem, began with the German philologist, Ludwig von Schlozer in the early 19th century.}

{5  Note that several languages simply refer to Jews as Hebrews (e.g. “Ebri” in Farsi and “Ebreo” in Italian), thus not making a distinction between the two.}

{6  As it turned out, the Abyssinians played a key role in Mohammedan lore.}

{7  These groups hailed from trans-Jordan and northern Hijaz, and may have been conflated with the Nabataeans.  They were demonized (as dark-skinned Ham-ites, typically associated with Africans), and eventually became emblematic of anti-Semitism (i.e. iconic adversaries of the Jewish people).  Ironically, such a stigmatization was itself racist.  One of the explanations for the Ham-ites’ tainted nature is that they were progeny of the ante-deluvian “Nephil-im”…via the so-called “Repha-im” (associated with the dreaded “Philistines”; alt. the Amorites of Ugarit), as well as the so-called “Emim-im” (Edom-ites) and “Anak-im” (Moab-ites).  We should bear in mind that Judeo-Supremacy is the mirror image of anti-Semitism.  Behold bigotry in opposing directions.  (To wit: They are both deranged; and for the same reasons.)  Ham-ites encompass the Numidians, Nubians, and Abyssinians–including the Berbers.  The descendants of Esau who are most focused upon are the progeny of his son, Eliphaz (who was associated with the Edomites): Teman, Zepho, Gatam, Kenaz, and Amalek (the last via the Arab concubine, Timna).  Along with the Edomites and Midianites, the Amalekites were a vilified people hailing from the southern Levant / northern Arabia (i.e. Nabataea).}

{8  Amongst Japhet[h]ites, Cappadocians are also thrown into the mix somehow, perhaps via the Cimmerians (who originally hailed form the Eurasian steppes).  The Medes (proto-Persians, of Media) were considered the descendants of Japhet[h]‘s son, Madai.  Other groups are simply assigned ad hoc genealogies–as with, say, the giant “Repha-ites” (that is: “Repha-im”; progeny of the “Nephil-im”), from whom descended the fabled “Anak” (forefather of the so-called “Anak-im” of Moab and “Emim-im” of Edom; antagonists of the Hebrews).  Other demonized tribes that the Abrahamic deity ordered exterminated: the Zamsumm-im, the Hor-im, and the people of the vilified Amorite king, Og of Bashan / Argob…all deemed remnants of the dreaded “Nephil-im”.}

{9  Historical evidence points to the fact that the Ashkenazim are actually descendants of the [k]Hazars who adopted Judaism in the 9th century…and then refashioned themselves as not only as “Jewish” qua religiosity, but “Jewish” qua bloodline (that is, not merely Semitic in religious tradition, but ethnically Semitic).}

{10  Indeed, the earliest Celtic peoples hailed from central Europe–as Celt-Iberian and proto-Gaulish (e.g. the Hallstatt culture).  As for the early civilizations of the Indus Valley [the proto-Vedic people of Harappa c. 3,300 B.C], the plains of the Yellow River [the archaic Chinese of Jiahu c. 7,000 B.C.], and the Americas [the Norte Chico of Huaricanga c. 4,000 B.C.], the Mikra has little to say.  Was there another (unattested) ark predating the Biblical flood by several millennia?  Never mind that the Hassuna / Samarra / Ubaid peoples were settling in northern Mesopotamia by 6,000 B.C.  And once the Sumerians established Uruk c. 4,000 B.C, they still had over a millennium remaining before Noah would sire his progeny.  Hence: Short of there being some clandestine program involving time machines and artificial insemination, we can safely dismiss ALL patrilineal lore as hokum.}

{11  The Kingdom of Judah (in the south) and the Kingdom of Israel (in the north) became separate shortly after Solomon’s death.  The latter lineage was actually divided into nine Houses: Jeroboam, Baasha, Zimri, Omri (which included the notorious King Ahab), Jehu, Shallum, Menahem, Pekah, and Hos[h]ea.  The House of David proceeded from Judah’s tribe.  Meanwhile, Moses came from Levi’s tribe (via his father, Amram, who was son of Kohath).  Joseph’s tribe was actually comprised of three lineages: that of Ephraim (most famously: Joshua), that of Manasseh, and that of Benjamin (as with King Saul of Gibeah).  Jacob seized Isaac’s blessing from his brother, Esau; thereby rendering his progeny (the sanctified lineage) the result of a stolen birthright.  Joseph (Isaac’s grandson) was the first of Jacob and Rachel’s sons; the 11th of Jacob’s total 12 sons–each of whom was progenitor of a so-called tribe of Israel; or so the story goes.  This Balkanization of the early Hebrews occurred as follows: The northern Kingdom was comprised of ten of the tribes (Zebulun, Issachar, Asher, Naphtali, Dan, Manasseh, Ephraim, Simeon, Reuben, and Gad); the southern Kingdom was comprised of two of the tribes (Benjamin and Judah).  As we’ve seen, Levi–whom Jacob sired via Leah, and who’s progeny would entail a thirteenth tribe–is typically not accounted for in this explanation.  His progeny were deemed the high priests: “kohen-im” (see footnote 20 below).  At any rate, the Kingdom of Judah yielded the prophet, Isaiah (among others); while the Kingdom of Israel yielded the prophets Jonah, Amos, and Hos[h]ea.  The former was mostly Judaic.  Ironically, it was the latter that was mostly pagan; though WHY the moniker “Israel” was adopted by those who were mostly pagan remains somewhat of a conundrum.  Perhaps it was done retroactively by later chroniclers for reasons that made sense at the time.}

{12  The irony is that those who support Palestinian rights are often deemed “anti-Semitic” when, in fact, Palestinians are Semites.  To wit: Persecuting Palestinians is just as anti-Semitic as persecuting Jews.}

{13  Esteem / status can derive from either an “Aition” (first cause) or a “Telos” (final cause).}

{14  These regimes have all claimed descent Mohammedan bloodlines.  The claim itself is preposterous, yet the most disturbing thing is that they find the need to do so.  Even more disturbing is that so many take such claims seriously.  The obsession with bloodlines seems to persist in the most Reactionary / parochial precincts, irrespective of culture.  To this day, we find the same daffy atavism in England (the House of Windsor is an offshoot of the Germanic House of Wettin from the Holy Roman Empire; thereby tracing bloodlines that go back over a thousand years), Japan (the Imperial House claims direct decent from Emperor Jimmu from the 7th century B.C.), Thailand (the Chakri / Rama line, dating back to the beginning of the Rattanakosin Era in 1782), and even America (Mayflower fetishism, harkening back to 1620).  All of it is ridiculous; yet it continues to be taken seriously amongst the uneducated.}

{15  Pre-Exilic Hebrew theology was polytheistic.  Asherah / Astarte was probably worshiped as the godhead’s consort.  Temples seem to have existed in Jerusalem, Bethel, and Samaria.  Moreover, Yahweh seems to have been worshipped along with the Canaanite deity, Baal…until, that is, the Deuteronomic sources formalized Judaism as an explicitly monotheistic religion.  I explore this subject at length in my essay: “City Of The Beloved”.  The first texts would have been composed in Babylonian Aramaic, as with the Story of Ahikar.}

{16  Note: ONLY THREE of the names prior to Jesus’ father are in common between these two Gospels: El-i-akim (who occurs much earlier in Luke) and Shealt-i-El with his son, Zer-u-Babel (typically rendered “Zerubabbel”).}

{17  Interestingly, in all four canonical Gospels, only a Joseph of Arimathea is mentioned.}

{18  The gimmick of retroactively re-writing lineages goes back to time immemorial.  Take, for instance, the infamous House of Rothschild [Red Shield], which traces its lineage back to Moses ben Kalman [Bauer], who begat Amschel in 1710, who begat Mayer in 1744.  Mayer was considered the modern patriarch of the family, and had five sons: Amschel II, Solomon, Nathan, Carl, and James.  Nathan, who was based in London, died in 1836.  Coincidentally, the other four all died in 1855.  I explore the Turkic roots of this lineage in Postscript 1 to my essay: “The Forgotten Diaspora”.}

{19  The best that can be done is trace this lineage back to Richomer[es], who lived in the late 4th century.  He begat Theodemer[es], who begat Marcomer[es], who begat Chlodio, who begat Merovech.  Another version stems from Marcomer[es]’s brother / son, Faramond.}

{20  Levi was actually cursed by Jacob for having massacred the residents of Shechem in the northern kingdom (as vengeance for the rape of their sister, Dinah).  The Levites (i.e. Kohen-im) were categorized according to Levi’s there sons: Gershon and Merari (keepers of the tabernacle), then Kehath (grandfather of Moses and Aaron via Amram).  It seems that most Kohen-im fashion themselves as being in the line of either Aaron’s son, Elijah (adversary of Ahab)–specifically, through the line of Iddo the Seer, and on through Zechariah.}

{21  The Nazis and the earliest RZs actually shared a foe: the British.  Of course, this was for different reasons.  In the former case, the British stood in the way of Nazi hegemony across Europe.  In the latter case, the British were in charge of the Mandate of Palestine (an arrangement made in the advent of the Ottoman collapse), and so stood in the way of RZ designs in the Levant.  Today, many forget that the first terrorist attacks in Palestine were by RZs (esp. the Stern Gang) against the British.  Many also forget that the first RZs allied themselves with the Muslim Brotherhood–actively supporting the precursor to Hamas as a countermeasure to the dreaded (secular-socialist) Palestinian Liberation Organization.}

{22  Of course, up UNTIL 1945, the Jewish people of Europe WERE in desperate need of sanctuary; as they had endured oppression and persecution since Classical Antiquity, and had just incurred the most horrific chapter in their history.  Ironically, it has been SINCE the Second World War that European Jews have had to contend with anti-Semitism the LEAST, and so have LEAST required refuge.  And even to the extent that some may have still sought a safe haven, doing so does not require the establishment of an ethno-State; nor does it confer license to displace and viciously persecute OTHER ethnic groups.}

{23  Of course, RZ has never really been based on a sincere concern for anti-Semitism; as its policies serve as the world’s primary instigator of anti-Semitic sentiment.  (This is not an excuse for anti-Semitism, it is a causal explanation.)  Indeed, Judeo-fascism exploits the perception of anti-Semitism to justify its existence, as its existence is predicated on a siege mentality.  RZ thrives off of anti-Israel animus…which is (perfidiously) equated with anti-Semitism.  RZ policies endanger the lives of Israeli citizens more than even the fiery sermons of the most virulently anti-Semitic Salafi imam.  One wonders how Hamas emerged; and how it marshals support, look no further than the opprobrious policies of the Israeli government in Palestine.  One cannot be at the same time against anti-Semitism and a proponent of RZ.}

{24  Hobsbawm noted that such groups conform to George Simmel’s observation: “Groups, and especially minorities, which live in conflict…often reject approaches or tolerance from the other side.  The closed nature of their opposition, without which they cannot fight on, would be blurred [by such diplomacy].  Within certain groups, it may even be a piece of political wisdom to see to it that there be some ENEMIES in order for the unity of the members to be effective; and for the group to remain conscious of this unity as its vital interest.”  For more on the use of a trumped-up adversary in getting people to rally behind an ideological agenda, see my essay: “Nemesis”.}

{25  This is Sanskrit for the “dense forest” of Madhu.  It was the basis for the name of the ancient city of Madhu-pura (later rendered “Mathura”) on the Yamuna River, which would serve as the kingdom’s capital.}

{26  This lineage is also hallowed in Buddhism, as it traces itself to Buddha’s disciple, Katyayana.}

{27  This also had to do with the Christian majority who spoke the Serbian dialect until the end of the 19th century–yet another excuse to delegitimize the Muslims of Kosovo, who are ethnic Albanian.)  Claims upon land based on a toxic cocktail of ethnic supremacy and divine Providence (i.e. an obsession with “blood and sand”) is a contentious ideological fulcrum–nay, one of the most incendiary pretensions imaginable.  Insofar as one’s claim of ownership is believed to be divinely ordained; it is seen as unimpeachable.  Shlomo Sand noted: “From the Italian fascists, who claimed the Croatian coast because it had earlier belonged to the Venetian Empire (and, before that, to the Roman Empire), to the Serbs, who claim sovereignty over Kosovo based on the battle of 1389 against the Ottoman Muslims, and the existence in the region of a Christian majority that spoke Serbia dialects until the end of the 19th century, reliance on the principle of historic rights has fueled some of the ugliest territorial struggles in modern history.”}

{28  Note, for example, the nomenclature used for RZ organizations like the “World Jewish Congress” and the “Jewish Defense League”.  Such titles conflate a fascist ideology with Jewishness.  This unfounded generalization only ends up derogating Jews.  (Tellingly, a related enterprise was dubbed the “World Zionist Organization”; thereby revealing what the titles REALLY mean.)  Insofar as being Jewish is held to be equivalent to being Zionist, RZ disqualifies the majority of the world’s Jewish population–an invidious proposition.  Judeo-Supremacism–as with ALL brands of supremacism–works towards self-segregation; as Judeo-Supremacists don’t want goyim amongst them; and they’d prefer not to be amongst goyim.  In effect, RZ is the largest self-segregation program in history.  Those of us who are cosmopolitan / humanist work toward the opposite goal.  We embrace diversity, and so encourage those of any given ethnicity to intermix–in all senses–with those of all other ethnicities.  The only “tribe” that really matters is the tribe of mankind–wherein we are all members (simply because we are all fellow human beings).  Meanwhile, there are only two nations in the world the existence of which is based on a racial purity campaign: Choson (a.k.a. “North Korea”) and Israel.}

{29  This acrimonious smear (often perpetrated using the vulgar epithet, “self-hating Jew”) has been leveled against such stalwart Jewish scholars as Hannah Arendt, Noam Chomsky, Shlomo Sand, Ilan Pappe, Norman Finkelstein, Tanya Reinhart, etc.  The approach: “I don’t like what you say, so I’ll paint you as a bigot” is merely an act of projection.  It has the same rhetorical ballast as the juvenile retort, “I know you are but what am I?”  It is made even more perverse in that it conveys the message: “You are ethnically one of us; so you are obligated to embrace the ethno-centric ideology that we are promoting.  Otherwise, per said ethno-centric ideology, you are a traitor.”  This inversion of racism normally passes without comment.  We encounter the same inversion with PIA–where the epithet du jour, “Islam-o-phobia”, makes even less sense; as Islam is not a race…and, in any case, the Ummah is comprised of dozens of ethnicities.}

{30  The other version: Those who criticize the policies of the Israeli government (i.e. its crimes against humanity) are, in doing so, somehow denigrating all the world’s Jewish people.  This is analogous to holding that those who criticize the KKK are bigoted against WASPs.  ANYONE can be a fascist, and they must be indicted for their fascism, irrespective of the ethnicity in which it happens to be couched.  Jews who support fascism (i.e. the Judeo-fascism of the Israeli government) must be called out for their support of fascism QUA FASCISM.  It must be borne in mind that it is the Judeo-fascist who makes their agenda all about their ethnicity; and THAT is the problem.  The point is to STOP making it about their ethnicity.  Turpitude itself has no ethnic biases.  What many don’t understand about anti-Semitism is that it is a matter of RACISM, and so is directed against people who are Jewish because they are ethnic Jews rather than due to some bone to pick to specific dogmas.  Anti-semites are not motivated by the fact that Jews won’t eat ham and cheese sandwiches; they are consumed by antipathy toward a certain racial group–irrespective of doctrinal points.  Those who conflate criticism of DOGMAS with bigotry against those who espouse those dogmas must always be called out for their perfidy.}

{31  If Choson had a Korean diaspora, then it too might have a “birth-right” program.  Had it prevailed, Nazi Germany certainly would have had such a program.  Special entitlements based on race is the obverse side of special limitations based on race: one logistically entails the other, even if tacitly.  Positive discrimination in favor of one ethnic group cannot exist without a concomitant negative discrimination–whether implicit or explicit–against all other ethnic groups.  Aryeh Eldad (former member of the Knesset) put it best when he said, “If we are not here because of what’s written in the Bible, if we are not here because this is the land that god promised to the Jewish people, then we have no good reason to be hear.”  Ironically, the most noble-minded humanist could not have put it any better himself.  So, according to Eldad’s own phantasmagoric logic, the Jewish people QUA JEWISH PEOPLE have no good reason to be undertaking an ingathering in Canaan.  As if to confirm his insanity, Eldad added, “When we rebuild the temple, then we’ll know the Messiah will come.”  This is no less delusional than Juche.  Statements like this reveal the raison d’etre of RZ in the clearest terms; thereby verifying its spuriousness.}

{32  It is common practice for RZ to project their own (unwitting, tacit) anti-Semitism onto critics of their fascistic ideology; all in a gambit to discredit interlocutors (via a programatic onslaught of disparagement).  In reality, RZ demean the world’s Jews by insinuating that to be Jewish is to be RZ, and vice versa.  They thereby (inadvertently) derogate all Jewish people.  For the insinuation is that Jewish-ness is concomitant with endorsing the crimes against humanity perpetrated by the Israeli government; so criticism of said crimes is ipso facto criticism of Jews qua Jews.  This is a textbook case of projection.  To be Jewish is no more to be a Judeo-Supremacist than to be WASP is to be a white nationalist.  Moreover, virtually ANYONE can be a fascist–though certain Faiths (Quaker, Jain, Tibetan Buddhist, Druze, Sikh, Baha’i, Wicca, etc.) make such an ideological bent intractable.}

{33  The political equivalent of this is corrupt regimes that criminalize any exposure of their corruption–as if being against crime were itself a kind of criminality.  The flawed logic in this contorted taxonomy can be demonstrated with an analogy:  Person A is a heavy drinker; while person B practices temperance.  Persona A has contempt for people who don’t drink.  Person B has contempt for people who have contempt for people who don’t drink, though has nothing against those who happen to drink.  In a sense, person A is a drinker-supremacist–what might be called a “drinkist”: someone who thinks those who imbibe are in some way superior to those who don’t (and, by dint of that fact, should be accorded special privilege).  And what of person B?  It is not that he is a temperance supremacist; he is simply anti-drinkist (that is: against those who judge people simply based on whether or not they happen to regularly imbibe).  B’s approach is pluralistic: to each his own.  Ergo B is NOT the analogue of A.  To take the analogy even further: To be against excessive drinking is not tantamount to bigotry against those with a drinking problem.  Such an activist does not seek to harm heavy drinkers; he seeks to identify the problem–a problem, it might be added, that harms EVERYONE.  He has nothing against the person; his grievance is with the dysfunction.}

{34  It is interesting that both Hebrews and Muslims have employed the idiom of a HOUSE (Bet[h] Israel; Dar al-Islam)…even as the common Semitic term “Beit” / “Bet[h]” / “Bayt[h]” was available.  The Old Semitic lexeme for house, “bit” may have had Akkadian origins.  The palace of Aramaean King Kapara of Guzana (c. 1,000 B.C.) was known as “Bit Hilani” [House of Pillars].  That was likely Old Aramaic.  Thinking of one’s tribe as residing in a physical enclosure–a safe place to call home–is a useful semiotic; as it serves as an apt analogy for the tribal mindset, which, it might be noted, has been at the root of so many problems.  This is analogous to the broader usage of “oikos” in Greek–as found in the Gospel of Luke: “Go into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled” (14:23).  This is, of course, not a literal house.  Here, “oikos” is a metaphor for a global religious community.  The same goes for Classical Hebrew–as when Isaiah states: “For my house will be called a house of prayer [beit tepilah] for all people” (56:7).  Hence the moniker “Beit Yisra-El”, whereby the global Jewish community is referred to as a house.  I explore this idiom in my essay on “The Land Of Purple”.}

{35  Eleazar ben Aaron was the progenitor of the Levite line of high priests.  Interestingly, “Azar” seems to have come from the Persian term for fire; which would make the name “El-i-Azar” mean “god of fire”.  However, the etymology is alternately taken as “El-Azar”, which is Semitic for “god helps”.}

{36  “The Forgotten Diaspora” has two points.  First: To show that Jewish people who happen not to have Semitic genes are no less Jewish.  Second: To show the lengths to which hidebound ideologues will go to obfuscate any history that does not comport with their preferred narrative (in this case, an etiological myth that abets their ethno-centric agenda).}

{37  The direct translation of the title, “Mein Kampf” in English is “My Struggle”.  However, the English word “struggle” does not capture the religious connotations of “kampf” (as it is used in this context).  Nor does it have the dual meaning of “kampf”: on the one hand, an existential struggle; on the other hand, a militant struggle.  The Arabic “jihad” succeeds on both counts; as I discuss in the Appendix to part 2 of my essay on “The History Of Salafism”.  “My Religious / Political Crusade” would be another way to interpret the book’s title.  A good indication that “My Struggle” is an inadequate translation is the fact that it is ALSO the translation of Karl Ove Knausgaard’s 2009-11 memoir (from Norwegian).  The German translation of Knausgaard’s book even went so far as to ALTER the title so as to avoid a conflation with Hitler’s book, which used “struggle” in an entirely different manner.  Suffice to say, the Arabic translation of Knausgaard’s book is NOT “Jihad-i”; it is “Sirae-i”.}

{38  Armenians were banished from original ethnic homeland: “Van” (alternately dubbed “Hayk”, after the mythical patriarch), which was located in Eastern Anatolia (now part of Turkey).  It was dubbed “Urartu” during the Iron Age, and included Art[s]akh.  What is NOW “Armenia” is in the southern Caucuses.  While the modern nation-State does not correspond geographically to the original homeland, Armenians now consider this new territory their home.  As Eric Hobsbawm put it: “‘Armenia’, one might say, was what was left when Armenians had been exterminated or expelled from everywhere else” (“Nations & Nationalism” p. 165).  The willingness to refrain from designating a certain tract of land divinely-ordained (based on ancient historiographies) may serve as a lesson to RZs, who simply claim to want a place for Beth Israel to call home.}