||"dawnbreak in the west"|
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
Upload #90: destroying the icons
Al-Farazdaq was a (belated) help to House of War. He has not been so helpful to certain other projects up here. But I should learn to be grateful for that.
I had first posted "The Iconoclast" slightly over four years ago. It was my pride and joy; the project had nailed sura 21 to AD 721, maybe even to a specific season.
See, it was my notion that the caliph at the time, Yazid II, was a fan of sura 21; which sura he used to support his iconoclastic programme. God's Caliph notes (in passing) an ode by Jarir b `Atiya for this caliph, that cites the sura in question - this much shouldn't be controversial. I've also found sura 21 quotes in suras 23, 29, and 44; and I think that these three suras are all pretty late - this much might be considered controversial; or would be, if more people read my stuff. But anyway: my point is, the sura was famous in the Near East by 720ish AD, and likely infamous to Christians.
But I'd also thought that sura 21 was never cited before Yazid II. To support this (in February or April or May of 2011, I don't recall exactly) I brought forth The Correspondence Between Leo and `Umar: which attacked iconolatry and by way of several Qur'an quotes. These quotes did not include anything in sura 21.
Well, as Emily Litella would say...
Now that I've got (bits of) al-Farazdaq translated here, I now know that the poet delivered a paean citing sura 21 at the court of al-Walid, praising the demolition of the Damascus Cathedral. So - we're talking less like 721, more like 706. I'd already known from God's Caliph that a technical term also in that sura (fhm) was cited in a poem for al-Walid, somewhere; but I didn't have the context then, and I refused to believe that fhm was anything more than a throwaway.
And, just this afternoon, I ran across al-Nu`aymi's anecdote about al-Walid's act here. Which anecdote also cited Farazdaq. And the same verse of the same sura. Seems I've been checkmated.
So, I have rewritten "Iconoclast"; and whilst I was at it I have inlined al-Nu`aymi's material into "Treaty of Khâlid". I also noted that where "Iconoclast" relates sura 21 with sura 38 (except where both relate to sura 34), it's weak; so I've trimmed that out, until I can figure out 'oo cited 'oo. "Against Jihad" has taken on some (unrelated) tweaks in the meantime, so that may as well get a repost too.
UPDATE 4/23/2014: Found Nu`aymi's original text - also, Ibn `Asakir's. Brought this into "Iconoclast" and "Treaty".
A non-upload: al-Farazdaq on the Day of Maskin
Over the past few years, I've repeatedly trolled through Patricia Crone's and Martin Hinds' God's Caliph for references to Islamic slogans. The book focused on poetry; I found quite a bit of that herein which I could use in House of War. But I needed more text from two poets in particular: Jarir ibn Atiyya, and al-Farazdaq. Al-Farazdaq especially, for the earlier Umayyads.
Sometime around 15 April, I stumbled upon a reference in God's Caliph to a French translation of Farazdaq's "Diwan" done in 1870. It then struck me: there might be a copy of this on the Internet. Because "1870" means "it's out of copyright", and if it's out of copyright then someone could have scanned it and uploaded it. I mean, for heavens' sakes, that's how I got into translating Frank-Kamenetzky and the bulk of Symeon the Magister (on 620-710 anyway).
The 1870 translation was annoying to locate, because Google (the engine I'm pretty much bound to) doesn't seem to like when you go after FREE STUFF!! but, eventually, I did find it. It was separated into two volumes by one R. Boucher, Paris: 1870, and the twain now reside in the archive.org. More: the kindly soul who scanned the pair also ran OCR on it all. That meant I could copy-paste the text to my machine... and clean up the French... and use Google Translate on the result. This helps a lot for those of us who need that little bit more of aid when translating Arabic, especially poetic Arabic. I managed to decipher therein the original text to several (likely) citations in God's Caliph, and several more poems besides (note: don't click that link).
The good doctors Crone and Hinds didn't cite everything - that wasn't their aim. At least one of these "new" Farazdaq poems I've found, I wish I had known about for House of War. Specifically: for chapter 10, "Against the Lunar Jihad". This chapter is one of those too-short chapters; Ulrich's review noted, amongst other critiques, that my chapters were lopsided and I completely concede the point on this chapter. It was lack of data that stymied me; and, yeah, the Third Edition didn't address any of the review's concerns. But now...
In lieu of a Fourth Edition, I provide the translation of the poem here:
When the sons of Marwan met [the enemy], they drew swords; for the sake of God’s religion (li-dîni ’llâhi), furious!
Al-Farazdaq 1.67 ed. Boucher, 82; aided by French tr. 215.
If you bought the book, then feel free to append this poem as a marginal note to the discussion of the Battle of Maskin in chapter 10.
I think that this poem adds some small support to that too-short chapter, and to my argument generally. I hope that you agree.
Monday, April 21, 2014
Here is The Federalist (h/t Ace), on the "Closing of the Academic Mind".
This title alone has tipped me off. The title, for those who don't know, nods to that classic work by Allan Bloom. But I don't think anyone who posts comments under such titles, these days, has actually read Bloom. Ever since The Closing of the Western Mind, that antiChristian screed about Alexandria, I've come to see "The Closing of the... Mind" as a cliche to rank with "soft bigotry". It invites a head-tilt. Where a head is tilted; between the shoulder and the hat, I see a neck bared for the blade.
Now, I will concede: this article actually started off pretty well. But then... well, this:
Sadly, this is precisely what has happened to the work of Bernard Lewis, one of the world’s most renowned Middle East scholars. Because he has written about clashes between Islam and the West, and is willing to look at the Middle East outside the utopian academic optic, Lewis has been “dis-credited” and replaced with authors like Tariq Ramadan in college or graduate course syllabi. Similarly, Michael Oren, a former Israeli ambassador to the United States and visiting professor at Harvard, Yale, and Georgetown universities, has been dismissed as “not a historian” by some academics, presumably because of his pro-Israeli stance. Kambiz GhaneaBassiri, an associate professor at Reed College, strips the scholar Daniel Pipes of his status as a historian, writing that he is a “historian of Islam turned pro-Israel activist,” implying that the two are mutually exclusive. ... Nowhere has this been more evident than in Brandeis University’s withdrawal of an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali -
For my part, if I may speak as one who has posted (on CreateSpace, so I cannot say "has published") a work which cited both Bernard Lewis and Daniel Pipes: these scholars are not being cited at The Federalist for their scholarship. (Which scholarship, I've already conceded, is fine. Not as good as Crone at her best. About as good as Donner at his best. In both cases given the more recent books' advantage that they've stayed current.)
Dr Lewis and Dr Pipes are being cited, here, because Lewis was the mentor of the neo-conservative movement, up to the invasion of Iraq; and Pipes is, also, a blogger. There are plenty of Islam-skeptics in academia who are getting stuff published; people like the aforementioned Dr Crone, and beyond. But they don't sit in on national-security briefings and they don't run blogs.
As for Ali: she is a politician, not a scholar at all. What historical knowledge she has, she has picked up by osmosis from wrecking a historian's home. Refusing to grant Ali an honorary degree means about as much, for academia, as granting her one... which is to say, nothing. This mention is, to me, what demonstrated the Federalist as unserious.
Now, I do have my suspicions that the kids are being fed crap these days. And there does remain an argument about whether scholars-turned-opinionators should still be heeded in a scholarly capacity. I would tentatively agree - but only so long as they are still contributing to scholarship. Pipes's best work was a generation ago; Lewis's, two. (That's the real reason Lewis's 1960s textbook on the Arabs isn't cited anymore; since then, we have Hawting's textbook from the 1980s, and even Donner's from the 2000s.)
I agree that academia and politics shouldn't mix. I think we're seeing here an illustration why not.
Senator James Inhofe explains why the GOP is fascist
You’ve got a bunch of people there trying to take the law into their own hands and they shouldn’t be doing that. And the Bureau of Land Management is not government-owned, it’s publicly owned. There’s a big difference there. I blame both sides.
Kudos to Drudge for linking this. (Kudos are a step above "h/t".)
Whenever and wherever a State-run entity is labelled "public", that's almost always a Democrat doing the labelling. Republicans, by contrast, prefer to draw a distinction. They prefer to set up private entities and to grant them State charters. They keep the State's hands clean... whilst the "public" entity does the State's bidding.
Yanno how the Left likes to call the Republicans fascist? That's because the Republicans are fascist. Vote Republican! Fascism Forward!
Sunday, April 13, 2014
Over the past week, by the way, we've seen the difference between Right activism that gets results and Right activism that doesn't. [Aside: I'm in no mood to debate what "Right" means in this context.] Right activism that works makes Rightists want to join your cause. Right activism like, I dunno, shooting children - even if they're leftists-in-training - this makes Rightists not want anything to do with you.
It also gives the Left something else to talk about this week, when we could have been discussing the ranch issue.
And this makes me wonder if someone put the jerk up to it. Per Crotchety Jar Head @ Ace: if he was convicted of weapons charges, where'd he get all that firepower? And I'll go further. Note Professor Embree in the first linked article, who invited the clown into his classroom three years ago, to do his little minstrel-show for the students. Why'd Embree put him on, and not - say - Karl Boetel of then-Unamusement Park?
Saturday, April 12, 2014
The Bundy Ranch, as (not) viewed from the Right
Twitchy was on it. The Blogmocracy was on it (via DorianGrey and as a sidenote). Drudge and InfoWars were on it. And the commenters in several sites spotted 'round the 'web - they were on it. I haven't checked the Sipsey Street lads, but I'll hazard a guess they were on it too.
But the mainstream Right wasn't on it. I don't see anything at, say, Instapundit as of 10 April to now. Very few Right politicians dealt with it. I didn't touch it either.
For my part, I was cautious and, I'll admit, a little afraid. As mentioned, I think Sipsey-style bloggers are a little... excitable. Also in this narrow case I wasn't entirely sure who were the good guys. And a part of me even worried that the Feds might shoot up the protesters; they've certainly been running a decades-long dehumanisation campaign against that sort of Conservative. I need hardly mention that such a crackdown would have long-reaching effects throughout the body politic.
Now that we know the ranchers are in the right, and now that we've seen the Great Blinking of the bureaucratic machine of DC - I'm going to sound the all-clear. Y'all come out, now!
China's weak vassal
The Feds use some dubious regulations and (allegedly) environmental jurisdiction to run a rancher off his land. A Tea-Party guy compares the standoff to Tiananmen. InfoWars posts about Harry Reid's sweet deal with China for this land. Feds back off. So, now there exists an outstanding order by an American court which cannot be enforced . . . which has some implications I'll get to, below.
I usually consider InfoWars and the Tea-Party to be, well, a little goofy. But one can't easily argue with internal-consistency, and one really cannot argue with empirical results.
Maybe China should call in their agent Harry Reid and fire him. Or at least demote him within the Communist Party ranks.
ALSO: Last year some district-attorneys were murdered in Texas. These crimes were at first blamed on OMGNAZIES!! A prosecutor publicly tucked tail and ran, begging for mercy. It turned out the murder was completely unrelated to anything to do with OMGNAZIES' activities.
So, the Feds are hypocritical, venal, lawless, malicious, anti-white, anti-Christian, and beholden to foreign powers - we knew all that. What happens when word gets around that the Feds are, also, incompetent and cowardly? If it smells like weakness to me, what does it smell like to the Aryan Nation?
Tuesday, April 08, 2014
Eric Holder has a proposal: bracelet keys for firearms. Holder's thought-balloon here seems like it could end up law before you know it.
What follows is no original insight of mine own. A few months ago I read something from an Ace HQ's "moron" on how "voluntary" liberal programs become law, or at least become custom. So what follows is - I'm going mainly by memory here - how it will happen.
The first stage - after the suggestion is made - is for the local Left to implement it, somewhere. This is couched in buzzwords: voluntary, local, grass-roots, blah blah blah. The grass-roots would be a large assortment of volunteer organisations, which all seem to have the same people on staff. Some will be obvious, like public-sector unions; some will be mainline or left-Protestant churches and reformish synagogues; others will be names you haven't heard of - "Mothers For Fluffy Puppies", say; more will be avowed moderates who always happen to go against Right extremism - "Coffee Party".
The program then gets implemented; partially, in the most Left region possible. The program usually "works": partly because the Leftists follow along, partly because of "incentives" - which means everyone else is taxed more to fund this Leftist whim. More citizens are browbeat into the program. Later the resisters are simply fined and otherwise punished.
The program becomes State law; the program crosses into other States, and then it becomes just the rednecks who resist it, and the Feds do the rest.
So, if you was wonderin' about how Earth Day became more important than Memorial Day at your office, well- there ya go. The weed-roots. It's a pretty well-proven strategy; I can't see it going away.
Monday, April 07, 2014
If past is prologue
What invariably occurs in liberal tyrannies, like the United States, is chaos. Many rival tyrants will promise to stem the chaos. The first tyrant who's good at tyranting will set out to hunt pedobears, to burn the gay bars, and generally to order up new padlocks for the closet.
These measures tend to be greeted with great applause by the people. Because the people understand sex as chaos, they want order, and they want a symbolic gesture that order will be restored. Homosexuals are an easy target, especially males.
And, yes, by the way, I did intend that link to the Castro brothers. I don't know if our first unelected tyrant will be a Castro, a Hitler or a Pinochet. I just know what he'll do. And I'll know why he did it.
Bye bye Firefox
And I won't make the mistake of Lot's wife.
I was more disappointed with okCupid (disclosure: I was on that site myself for some years). OkC'd made their name in the alt-right by datamining without regard for PC. I'd thought they just didn't care about all this neo-puritan humbug.
Well, that's their choice. The clientele skewed waaaay Left; by my last few years I'd just given up and played the troll. (I'm probably most proud of introducing the masses to Don Colacho.) Ironically I got more female attention then... but, well.
As for the replacement browser: I figure that my blog's on Google, and I use Youtube a lot, so I can't exactly make my situation any worse by using Chrome. Until something better comes along.
Sunday, April 06, 2014
At the company I'm now contracting with, I am on the email-distribution list for the entire company. That means I get the same emails employees get. I have learnt, from these emails, that the company I work at is - well, I don't want to use that commonly-used word, but if it's not that word then I'd love to know what word I should use instead.
This company discriminates against whites (and against men). It implements this policy, at minimum as I observe it, by offering incentives for "leadership" to which only "minorities" (and women) may apply. There is, ongoing, a "leadership award" for some lucky person of this privileged "minority" caste (there exists another award for women, but I am sub-alpha enough that I don't care much about that - last parenthesis, promise). Minority means non-white, in exactly the way gentile means non-Jew: all whites are guilty of the sins of some whites over here, as all Jews are guilty of the deicide which some Jews did over there.
Technically it is some insurance company which is sponsoring this "minority leadership" award; but, post-Obamacare, insurance companies are utilities and not real companies. They work as agents of the State. So what they do, they do because Obama wants them to do it. And what my employer allows to be done under its roof(s), it allows because it fears to cross Obama.
So anyway. I expect that some "minority" will win this award which was rigged on their behalf; like various white Sudafrikaners got to win various rugby trophies in South Africa where blacks weren't invited to compete. I also expect the company will send its email-list a happy-talk email, and that I'll have to read it: "join me in congratulating [name redacted] in his/her achievement blah blah blah". I do hope that whoever "wins" this rigged contest refuses the award - but based on various election results I'm looking at, I am not holding my breath. Even if the winner - whoever it is - were a staunchly ethical person, refusing such an award would blackmark that person. ¡Plata o plomo!
Also, I just work there. I don't have a say in how the company chooses to run things; and that is how it should be. It would be improper for me to complain about such side-issues on company time. It would also be improper for me to name the company (firstly, you don't need to know; but mainly, it doesn't even matter, as it's probably no different from the place you work at). Except - I will note, here on my own time, as a contractor who does not report to its CEO, but has the CEO as a customer: if I am offered a permanent position under that CEO, I will refuse it, on ethical grounds.
But back to this anti-white farce. On the chance that the winner of same doesn't see it as such, and keeps the cash: then, no, I will not congratulate the winner; and if I am transferred under his(her) leadership, I won't even wait for The Talk.
Saturday, April 05, 2014
The hat-trick: James Cameron, Titanic; James Cameron, Avatar and now Darren Aronofsky's Noah. I'll throw in Elysium based on overseas sales (its intended audience).
All these films were wished into oblivion. Many many articles were written - mainly on the Right - about how too much money had been spent, on a dull and preachy and obnoxious message; and how Nemesis was going to have Her way with the studios involved.
Um. Okay then.
Look: I don't have to like it either. The insider-information on all these flicks while they were being made really did read like a Software Death March. The movies really are dreadful (okay, I haven't seen Noah, but I can guess at it). They sold well anyway.
This means there's a market for Left propaganda. A lucrative market.
Friday, April 04, 2014
The High Chronology has a boost: The Ahmose ‘Tempest Stela’, Thera and Comparative Chronology. Add to this, Baldi's musings on the Red Sea Trough (h/t, circuitously, archaeology.org).
Nothing new's been discovered. What has happened instead is that a few older documents have been retranslated and reassigned; the linked article mainly argues (in forceful language) for the retranslation. These revisions pull Pharaoh Ahmose back in time to the most commonly-accepted dating of Thera, which is 1628ish BC - at any rate, to not-very-long afterward.
I also note that the very high chronology, of 1645ish, is here excluded as well. If I recall, that date derived from volcanic tailings found in Greenland. This much turned out to be from Aniakchak and not Thera.
Monday, March 31, 2014
Tonight, I have plown through two more Stargate season-five eps. These two are here to develop themes from earlier seasons. They are intriguingly anti-Progressive. Quality-wise... well. Read on.
First is Between Two Fires. This focuses upon the advanced Tollan race, who previously had refused to share their tech with Earth. We learn that the Tollan have biometrics and GPS attached to all their citizens, "to help". Turns out the Tollan have their own internal politics; and if someone falls out of favour, interested parties find ways for the tech not to help. The themes aren't explicitly developed but hey.
2001 is, as promised, the Aschèn sequel (to the previous season's 2010). This ep turns out to be the best of the season so far, by far. Here, our intrepid crew have run across a borderland planet over which the Aschen have long ago assumed their benevolent patronage. There's more to it than that of course. This planet wasn't always a backwater. It used to be an analogue to modern Western Europe, in which the influenza pandemic struck before the First World War. The Aschen had conveniently showed up and then cured the pandemic... with a vaccine... that did the 2010 sterility thing. This time, though, Earth has the advance warning from the 2010 episode. So we avoid the fate of that world and of the alternate future of this one.
Unfortunately Senator Kinsey made his appearance in the latter, doing his Kai Wynn thing, getting everything wrong and evil because that's just what politicians do, especially when they are white and old and Southern-ish. Here Kinsey supports the Aschen; despite that the Aschen are inherently a Left enemy. Know ye this: when I give the finger to the television screen on a Kinsey appearance, I give the finger not to him and not to his character, but to the wankers who wrote the character that way.
Evangelical Covenant Church
The ECC does have a cross for a logo. Barely. But it's a cross.
The immigration sheet I linked is key. It's "immigration reform" the way John McCain likes it - illegal invaders are conflated with "immigrants" and, yes, the race-card is thrown. They also note current immigration law as unjust and arbitrary (for the alien - not for us with citizenship) and suggest civil-disobedience as a Biblical solution.
Hoo boy, and then there's this pdf.
Seems to me, the ECC're right; for the same reason Gibbon was right. Christianity is a religion that opposes borders, at base; especially such borders as keep the bums out.
On this site
Property of author; All Rights Reserved