||"dawnbreak in the west"|
Sunday, September 02, 2012
I have interests in antiquity, in race, and in propaganda techniques. So I'm checking out the ruins of Zimbabwe.
I must preface this, with no pleasure, that there exist white people who are parallel to "Black Athena" type Afrocentrists.
The worst offenders, in my opinion, are those who hold to the so-called "Solutrean Hypothesis", that Canadian-Shield First Nations like the Algonquin and Mohawk are Pleistocene immigrants from Europe. To that, I first found out about the Solutrean Hypothesis at, I think, Richard Spencer's "Alt Right" website. The Solutrean primary text "Across Atlantic Ice" is commonly bundled with Kyle Bristow's answer to the Da Vinci Code, "White Apocalypse". Bristow imagines, as all kooks do, that a conspiracy of mind-controllers is Keeping The Truth From The Sheeple. In fact the reason the Solutrean theory is not taught is that, first, there's no evidence and second, it's tendentious - it's too convenient to a certain sort of crank.
I consider myself pro-white, but I cannot swallow bullshit that is bullshit, even if it is white bullshit. Maybe especially if it is in my name, because it shames me as a white man - and besides, it undercuts us all whenever we call out (say) The Bureau of Indigenous Muslim Affairs for their nonsense.
Besides, HP Lovecraft proved the theory first. At least give him credit for the discovery. Or the shoggoths will get you.
But this is all by the way. We're here for Zimbabwe.
There are ruins there. They are actually pretty impressive ruins; reminiscent of the cisterns, walls and towers at Jericho from an absurd number of millennia ago. The one labeled "Great Zimbabwe" is the standout and certain capital of this empire. So - who built it? Blacks today aren't all that good at sustaining cities beyond the village level.
Most people have assumed - to borrow a term from our illustrious President - "you didn't build that". But some of these have had a motive for that assumption. Certainly the whites who took over that area from the 1800s to 1980 AD had motives for not accepting that their subjects could have built this city without help. As with Lovecraft and the men of Lomar; so with British Rhodesians contemporary with Lovecraft. And as with Bristow, the modern white Right is reviving these hypotheses.
The white Right's chosen mavericks have settled upon the Lemba. David L. McNaughton has offered one article just now. I do not like how the article laid out its case, because it mixes consensus with analysis; but it does give us the consensus on various aspects of the case, and it does show us one direction we can take it all.
Here is the consensus on the Lemba, accepted by liberals as well: the Lemba are a tribe in Africa whose patriarchs are, in fact, Jews - well, okay, to get all specific, Banu Levi. The Lemba also hold to a number of customs shared between Jews and Muslims. Certain names that they've retained appear to be east-of-Sinai Muslim ("Haji" - the J implies the mediaeval G->J shift, which never did hit Egyptian Arabic). There is plenty of evidence for Near Eastern voyages down that east coast of Africa - far down it, and starting in the Near East's Iron Age. Further, if I may offer some (kosher and halal) meat for the racists: the Lemba had earned, in centuries past, a reputation for stonework and for general artisanry which surpassed the works of Bantu (and definitely of Bushmen). All this implies a period of South Arabian - Lemba contact, which cut out no earlier than the 200s AH / 800s CE.
Where the mavericks like McNaughton step in, is in claiming that the Lemba - then, Semitic men alongside their black wives - traipsed into the interior and built Great Zimbabwe. There, they lorded it over the rest of the land until, I take it, they couldn't. As to why the Zimbabweans couldn't, I suppose the racists would say that the Zimbabwean genome got diluted with Africans; and that the Zimbabweans weren't willing to practice the stringent self-eugenics which the Ashkenazim would practice on the other side of the Old World. So: idiocracy. McNaughton doesn't offer that reason directly; but he does note that the Lemba post-Zimbabwe and pre-colonialisation were inferior as artisans to the artisans of Zimbabwe.
This theory might seem like Solutrea thus far. But there are a number of reasons that this theory, unlike Solutrea, at least can't be laughed offstage.
First, unlike Solutrea it is not a "pro-white" theory. The white Right doesn't much like Semites either. This theory has Semites (worse, miscegenated Semites) creating a civilisation without Europeans anywhere near it. So, to the white Right, the Lemba Zimbabwe theory can work only as a "Stuff Black People Don't Like" theory.
Second, in this case the evidence-by-absence works for the theory rather than against it. "Across Atlantic Ice" requires that the Solutreans' stonework got lost in the Atlantic. It is falsifiable to the extent one is down with 20000 year old arrowheads ON THE FLOOR OF THE FUCKING OCEAN. (You go first!) For Lemba Zimbabwe, to falsify that one must merely find pre-Zimbabwean ruins elsewhere in southern Africa. If this has been done - as Inca archaeologists have done for the Moche - I haven't heard of it.
On this site
Property of author; All Rights Reserved