The House of David

"dawnbreak in the west"

Tuesday, January 22, 2019

Steve Sailer goes to the movies

Which is more than I did, except for Bohemian Rhapsody. Besides that one (in the interest of at least having a marker on this blog) the nominees are: “Black Panther”, “BlacKkKlansman”, “The Favourite”, “Green Book”, “Roma”, “A Star Is Born”, “Vice”.

That heterosexualish Copt playing that homosexualish Farsi, sure, deserves to be in the running for Best Actor; and Bohemian Rhapsody is a good picture. But that's not Best Picture. Otherwise these movies listed are all Left-pandering rubbish and everyone in them should all feel shame for themselves.

I'd raise Alpha as a Best Picture. Throw in Director and Screenplay, as well.


posted by Zimri on 18:55 | link | 0 comments

David Reich strikes back (situationally)

Via Razib, David Reich explains that admixture was the order of Europe.

Since I am an asperger case I will confirm that from the IndoEuropeans and the Yamnaya (however defined), there was admixture. There was more of that admixture during the Iron Age. And all of Twitter can point out some tyrant like Alexander or de Francia (h/t YeyoZa / hbdchick) or, screw it, Congressman Bullworth demanding admixture.

But - since I am also a jerk, I must also cite via Razib - admixture was not the order of the Celtic British Isles. Admixture also, we can gather, was not the order of the Bronze Age generally when the first farmers kicked the hunter-gatherers into the forests. And it was hardly the order of Eurasian man before them all, when (most of) our ancestors starved out and/or butchered the Neanders and Denisovans. (Yeah... 3% admixture. Forgive me if I say this smells like Exceptions Testing The Rule.)

Sometimes the rule was Crom's Law: Demic Diffusion - or, Discontinuity. Much of this comes from the same lab. Reich's own lab.

And if I can read behind these lines, from the dissident Right; so can Reich's enemies, from the Left.


posted by Zimri on 17:28 | link | 0 comments

Monday, January 21, 2019

The MLK post

I was really hoping not to post a MLK Day post this year. We still have He-Was-A-Republican-You-Know commenters lurking around, including our President and Vice President. I was going to let even THAT pass. But Alveda herself has propagated this meme today. Note: "Republican". Not "American patriot" or "pro West" or "Capitalist"; party affiliation, is what matters here.

For all the moments Michael Junior spent on identifying with "Republicans" before 1960, he spent years NOT supporting conservative values afterward. Up to supporting "democratic socialism", and the destruction of America's ally in South Vietnam. MLK also invoked the blood-libel upon the white race in America and, one assumes, outside it.

Alveda is serving up Conservative comfort-food. Alveda denies the (true) legacy of her uncle; and, in doing so, cannot contribute to the greater good of the West. She fails on all levels.

It's a pity that Trump and Pence have failed too. Even more, perhaps, pity that Gateway Pundit has failed. But that's what rules us. Even the best must bow to Rimmon.


posted by Zimri on 19:36 | link | 0 comments

The Assyrianisation of Aramaic

Those of us studying the Near East are dealing with languages that existed for thousands of years, before being replaced with others. In Iraq alone, Akkadian replaced Sumerian; and then a language related to Akkadian - Aramaic - replaced that. In between, other languages - like Attic Greek - showed up and then retreated.

Meanwhile some languages were replaced by other versions of those same languages. Egyptian got swamped out by Sahidic. Achaemenid Persian, by the "Pahlavi" Persian of the Sasanians. And then there was Aramaic.

Søren Wichmann has proposed a definition of language-versus-dialect. In the 1960s one Vladimir Levenshtein, a computer scientist (or, algorithmist) laid down a definition of language-distance. Normalised Levenshtein Distance has turned out to be useful, like the Shannon Entropy to define language complexity. Wichmann further detects a phase-shift at 0.48 LDN: either a tongue is well under .48 relative to other speakers, in which case it is a dialect; or it is well over, and a language. Thus, why languages and dialects really are different animals.

Wichmann says the mean is 1059 years for a dialect to achieve definition as a language. Some assume Semitic conservatism in which case it might have taken longer in Aramaic. This post is not assuming that. More serious are claims that LDN doesn't work, like Simon Greenhill (pdf). So - let's test this for Aramaic and its best-attested successor, Syriac.

Over the 700s BC, the Assyrian empire conquered its way to Adme in the north Jazira foothills, and a common Aramaic spread across its lands as a universal language (this post will be getting to, how). After the Assyrians collapsed, eventually a Persian empire retraced their steps and retained Imperial Aramaic. But then in the 300s BC the Greeks conquered all the Persians' lands - and renamed their cities, like Adme to "Edessa" and then "Calirrhoe" - and didn't bother retaining Aramaic at all. Although their "Hellenism" didn't insist on Greek this far out, either.

We don't see or hear Aramaic again outside sacral texts, but we do see her daughters. From Calirrhoe, the Christians there wrote in their own dialect which they named "Syrian". I am told that the first anyone in Adme / Callirrhoe even noticed that Suryāyé was nonstandard anymore, and insisted on it, was in an inscription of (what we'd call) 6 AD, presumably 320ish in the Seleucid calendar. When Christianity became legal and prestigious; this dialect spread as the Christian way to speak Aramaic - starting in the 200s AD. Not without rivals. (There was a Christian way to speak Latin, as well; and, later, a Carolingian way to Romance and German.)

That suggests that the roots of Syriac in Calirrhoe should be no later than the 700s BC - when it was still Adme. Adme was already Aramaic by then. This, then, agrees with the Assyrian-driven standardisation of their own Aramaic as "correct". The locals seem to have remembered that this was of "Ashur" and foreign, hence "Suryāyé".

To me, this looks (first) as if the Assyrians insisted on *Ashuryāyé among the very citizens of Adme. The Assyrians were out to make Adme into an Assyrian city. This looks (second) as if - like the Greeks - the Persians had no interest in making Aryans out of the locals as long as they paid taxes and kept scribes around to read the receipts. So Ashuryāyé, in Adme, gradually became Suryāyé; and nobody minded.


posted by Zimri on 10:42 | link | 0 comments

Sunday, January 20, 2019

March for life; get doxxed and disowned

Several American bishops (purportedly) in the Catholic communion, without asking for all sides of this latest fake-news smear campaign, threatened their own schoolchildren with expulsion.

The bishops - additionally - imply that these kids had sinned. Sin means, to a Catholic and I think to all Christians, deviance from alignment with G-d. The sinner cannot take Communion. I have been in this unhappy situation myself (disclosure: I was in the wrong). Especially since it was bishops calling out minors, I can assure you that some of the weaker kids in this video will question their own motives and show up in a confessional. Yeah, Catholicism guarantees a seal. But we're talking about unethical conduct among the bishops already. Is the seal strong enough against a bad priest?

This comment absolutely Goes There: And when you see the Catholic hierarchy rush to throw these innocent kids to the wolves, you begin to understand the dimensions & persistence of the Church’s pedophile crisis. They are not the faithful & reliable stewards of our children they claim to be. CYA > justice.

I can say more on that. These kids are the most Catholic stratum of Catholic youth. Most Catholics don't spare the time on marches for life. A hbdchick might observe that Austrasian Catholicism has promoted a guilt society, in which cognitive-dissonance is supposed to lead to introspection. By contrast in honour/shame societies, a shamed man must restore his social "face". A shamed man is a vindictive man. These bishops, by their actions, have demonstrated they know that they are lesser in their Catholicism.

I suppose that's a first step toward contrition, at least. These bishops should think more upon that.


posted by Zimri on 16:31 | link | 0 comments

Rheinlanders

Davidski at Eurogenes has been mulling the Bell Beaker / Yamnaya relationship. He has settled on Bell Beakers - who are R1b-P312, and spawned the Island Celts as a people - as having settled the lower Rhine, circa 3000 BC. In Davidski's timeframe the Yamnaya are the later Indo-Europeans, ancestral at least to the Aryans, the Greeks, the Balto-Slavs, and the Armenians; whose patrimony is R1a but also strains of R1b like -Z2103 and even I2a-M223.

Davidski doesn't want his readers to confuse Bell-Beaker with contemporary Yamnaya. Where there exists a site with elements of both, like Szigetszentmiklós in Hungary: he reminds us that, although shared elements can derive from a common source; they can also derive from a later harmony. For those versed in Christian literature: think Diatesseron; not Mark's Gospel.

R1b's been out there for awhile. If the R1b-ers could push -V88 to Chad and -V1636 (and -Z2103) to the southern parts of Caucasia, and to the Taklamakan... they could push -P312 to the Rhine. In the linguistic Indo-European family, the Italians and the Celts are archaic, quite comparable to the Tocharians.

As the (actual) Bell-Beaker Blogger reminds us, nobody literate was recording the Rhine or the Atlantic coast in 2800 BC (yeah, there was an amber trade, but I think it only got as far as Sardinia). Therefore we don't know what they spoke. An outlier IndoEuropean language older than Mycenaean Greek can fit the timeline.

So whence did the Rhineland Bell-Beakers come? Davidski being more genetic-focused than the archaeologically-minded BBB puts in his application for a NYT hit-piece and dares an answer. Davidski argues from Single-Grave and these, from the Corded Ware / Battle Axe culture. David Anthony noted over a decade ago that Italic and Celtic already shared wheel terminology, not loaned in from Scythian. That, from Peter Mallory two decade before Anthony. As for R1a(-M417) in Single Grave: If R1a's could adopt some R1b's in the Crimea, then R1b's could adopt some R1a's in the Black Forest. I guess.

Eurogenes' posts read to me a roundabout way of saying, "From Yamnaya Before It Was Cool". It still looks like an incursion into western Europe from the steppe. Whence all R1.

It's just an earlier one; perhaps bypassing the then-vibrant cities of the Balkans, to roam the transalpine forests. And then there was a pause. During this time, the Bell Beakers organised themselves at the Rhine and became a nation; meanwhile, the (Neo)Yamnaya did the same in the now-postapocalyptic Balkans. The two estranged kinsfolk met in the Pannonia in the second half of the 2000s BC where likely-Yamnayae I2a-M223 and R1b-Z2103 fathered the stiffs in the Szigetszentmiklós gravesite.


posted by Zimri on 12:26 | link | 0 comments

Defending David Reich

I am not in the habit of defending those who would never defend me, in which camp That Other Ashkenaz David R. has definitively enlisted himself. I also approach mainstream journalism as NuCorp propaganda, here not to inform but to degrade. So when the New York Times' journ-o-listers wrote about Dr Reich, I glided over where they made him look bad. I preferred to defend Jim Hutton.

Reich does have defenders. Since he doesn't want me among them I will do the next best thing, and link to their defences.

The best support I can find, in terms of quality and charity, is Razib's: If you want to “know” what David Reich is about, read his book. Razib's got a few other posts. Gregory Cochran has a more ornery take on the NYT, involving the word "pinhead". HBDChick links to several of these defences, and also to Peter Turchin. Aylwyn Scally commenced her own thread on Twitter.

Steve Sailer posted something too but, again, the good professor won't want it.

Finally and inevitably, David Reich has defended himself.


posted by Zimri on 11:34 | link | 0 comments

What would a corporate Putsch look like?

In the post below, I suggested how international corporations could Become Worthy, in Moldbuggian terms; and attain the moral (relative) superiority necessary for the people to shift their loyalties against their rivals and toward them.

Before that happens - before the successful coup - we tend to see failed Putsches. Hitler and Chavez themselves each failed at taking power, before being granted it roughly a decade later. If the corporations wanted to make themselves great at the expense of the elected government, how would they do it?

I suggest they'd start by finding the most formidable support of the régime, and weaken it. I'd expect a nationwide gaslighting of this group: make them ashamed to defend themselves, call them names, unite their enemies against them, hit their wallets, deprive them of business. Call their inheritance into question as something unearned, a "privilege". Find their men and scorn their masculinity; find their women and scorn their loyalty.

In the meantime: the ambitious corporations should put their creatures into struggling newsrooms. Put their products into undercapitalised schools. Encourage e-reading which can be altered or retracted at any point.

That all these evils are being done to us by corporations is evidence that the corporations are, indeed, those who intend to master us. This will all be cheered by the mainstream Left, and - I predict - by Noam Chomsky. Chomsky has cheered, and still cheers, much worse.

Maybe the corporations can't Become Worthy; but some of them can make themselves look it, and can make the American nation look worse.


posted by Zimri on 10:20 | link | 0 comments

Toward corpocracy

I read Cloud Atlas and hated the thing (I am told better of the movie). In it, however, I got the idea that a government by corporations might happen in the future. To the extent it's not happening already.

I also believe in the Zhèngmíng. You are at the blog which proclaims Ivo Shandor Did Nothing Wrong. Since this blog should be expected to support corpocracy, when it happens; I hereby resolve that in this post.

Currently we profess to live in a democracy; even if we're in practice at the mercy of partisan interests, of which corporations are one. Rather, many: a more-focused corporation, based on chemical products, has an interest in lower commodity prices, which are produced by another corporation. Corporations do have one fatal flaw, fatal at least in their actions within society: they are focused on their shareholders. Shareholders tend to want their money swiftly, and aren't concerned with the nebulous future even of the company, much less their effect on the rest of the country.

To the extent that the continuity of the human species and of human families is the šiyāti of humankind and the cosmic arta, corporations as structured today are a threat. Everyone knows that. The good news is that activists not interested in shareholder value can get themselves into boardrooms, where to pursue social justice. The bad news is... social justice is even more evil than pollution. In fact it causes pollution. Where the corporation gets politically correct, the government is too frightened to meddle. This way leads to the Soviet-era Volga (Chernobyl was a different case, where the government did feel strong enough to meddle). Today we have corporations like bp making a big thing about their carbon reductions, whilst dumping toxic oil into the Gulf.

You'd think that a representational republic would help. Er... no. It doesn't. Because politicians are obsessed with their stint in office by design. They are up for review at the end of every term. They cannot think of the long term; so they don't. Maybe if they still thought of "our posterity" they should resist that urge but only the Patriot Front and Vox Day make a thing of that anymore.

A corporation, structured in a certain way, could become that multigenerational concern which a representational republic cannot. Better screening away from social-justice and from all other politically-driven extranea would be a start. I could also envision reforms that prevented short-term thinking - like a restriction on selling stock before a certain span of time. The extreme Left has proposed that shareholders get criminal sanctions if the corporation commits a crime. But this isn't the blog for cowering before the "extreme" label; besides, when the CEO harms others, it's on the orders of his board. So let's go with that.

After such reforms, most of which I could easily see being enacted by Democrats in the House and signed by President Trump, we'll have corporations that behave with more wisdom and foresight than our Congress.

Making it formal will be a mere formality.


posted by Zimri on 09:46 | link | 0 comments

Saturday, January 19, 2019

Upload #175: dig

[18 Jan 6:53 PM MST] When I was looking at sura 76, I noted the same (Ubay) codex which cock-blocked that sura also didn't approve sura 85. For some sura-omissions I could blame a massive miss by Ubay's tradents but, not this one. (Not like I can talk. I've had to correct "The Central Suras" project tonight.)

I've written "From Hell's Ditch", just now, to handle sura 85. I say it's post-Zubayrid. As to its project, 'tis easily the shortest essay here but then, the sura is short.

MORE 1/19: this morn I have added a section in "The Testimony of the Jinn" to show sura 72 used 19. I improved "Building the Seven Heavens"'s links of sura 67 from 10 and 20; and "Blasting the Caliph"'s of 69 from 89.

The most important change is in "Provision is from God": sura 51 used sura 32. This, at long last, keeps sura 51 off the scope of Throne of Glass.

I'm shifting this post to noon, Saturday.

Madrassa.


posted by Zimri on 12:00 | link | 0 comments

Friday, January 18, 2019

Tim Scott is not of the West

It is WELL past time for the Republicans of South Carolina to see the obvious, that at least one of their Senators is not on their side. Tim Scott believes in Microaggressions and Institutional-Racism.

Since Scott can't actually ding Steve King for racism, because King isn't racist; Scott falls back to the weasel-word, "overtones". Just like David Perry and Matthew Gabriele do at the Washington Post.

And then Scott makes some blather about how Unhelpful it is to have a discussion about who Americans are, whilst Scott is trying to get out the Republican "message". Well - I haven't heard a "message" for the Republican platform from Scott. I certainly haven't heard a comment supporting the Western philosophy. From Scott, I just keep hearing about how racist his fellow Republicans are.

Scott resents the West and - more to the point - is not a Republican. Scott is a mole for Black Nationalism, weakening the Party from within. He needs a primary challenge. He needs off the Senate.


posted by Zimri on 15:26 | link | 0 comments

Thursday, January 17, 2019

If you tell people they are ...

Since I'd got my read of the NYTMag from HBDChick, I hadn't looked at Razib's take on it: so, here's that. Razib mentioned something interesting: Creationist Duane Gish explaining that if you tell people they descend from animals, they will behave like animals.

I cannot find this quote... from Gish himself. I do however find it among those who quote from Gish; and I've heard it in Christian hadith - pretty-much all my life. So I propose to attack this from another angle: those who are told they descend from G-d's Image, will behave like G-d's Image.

Except - that we men are not G-d.

Such men as are convinced they are like G-d, will become arrogant: alladhîna yatakabbarûna fî'l-ardi. And others will notice. The Creationists, as all men of hubris, must meet Nemesis. This is what happened in Dover, Pennsylvania in 2005. The Creationists lost; and readied the road for the Congressional beatdown 2006 and, then, for Obama.


posted by Zimri on 18:18 | link | 0 comments

Let's put in a good word for Hutton

NYTmag talks deep-history. Pretty good as far as it goes. But, when Gideon Lewis-Kraus (or anyone) talks about how we figured out our timeline; I'd like them to show more respect to the geologists. Kraus mentions the geologists in abstract. He should name at least two, specifically.

It weren't Darwin or "the Darwinists" who taught us the age of our Earth. It was the geologists (and, later, the radiologists). A century before the discovery of radioactivity, James Hutton had estimated the millions of years of our Earth just by dint of studying natural erosion-patterns. Charles Lyell then interpreted Hutton such that Darwin (not a geologist) could understand his findings.

If you have been minding my chronology here, Hutton was before Darwin as well. Hutton and Lyell had - if I may wax Biblical - created the world. Only upon Hutton's ancient planet, was Darwin's biology even possible.


posted by Zimri on 17:37 | link | 0 comments

Wednesday, January 16, 2019

Boom

As of 2007, younger Muslims in the U.S. are much more likely than older Muslim Americans to say that suicide bombing in the defense of Islam can be at least sometimes justified. I doubt it's different in 2019. h.t some pale primate on Twitter who gonna get banninated for noticing...

To get this out of the way: if Islam be true, then death in The Sabîl is death for the highest cause possible for mankind. The younger Muslims learnt this from re-reading their own texts; the older ones didn't have the leisure to do that, so are not in full submission to Allah. Still: I doubt this accounts for the discrepancy. The younger Muslims have to suspect the full Islamic farrago already, just like most Christians perceive a few problems with the Bible here and there.

I've already posted that the Quran was a MacGuffin as of 120/740. For most Islamic hotheads today, "Islam" remains so.

The Muslims are heeere as the loonwatch tamâsîh put it; living in the West. But they're not Westerners. They haven't undergone the shared centuries which Europeans underwent, before they came to European-themed lands; and they don't know (or care) how arduous was our journey. They don't know how we (especially in America) figured out Church / State Separation - which separation they reckon as overrated, and which separation they can claim isn't well observed in the West anyway. All the Muslims know is that they are different from us, and similar to each other.

There used to exist other ideologies as could unite nonWesterners in Western countries. We forget that the Third-World started out as just such an ideology - Baathism, Nasserism, Nehruism, Liberation-Theology, Afrocentrism all participated. But by the time I heard about the Third World, it had become a synonym for failed states - so clearly it had failed (hard) by then. "Islam" is more credible. I mean, at least Islam has definition and history.

Even if Islam is not true, the Muslims propose that to die and to kill "for Islam" is, at least, to improve the lot of their family and friends. Any soldier who jumps on a grenade to Take One For The Team is doing the same. The Tigers did this in Sri Lanka, for the Tamil people there; Muslim Tamils and Hindu Tamils both.

All this means that explaining, in painstaking detail, how Islam is false will not work to integrate new citizens from Islamic backgrounds. Islam is an identity. Muslims are "their people" - I've heard it from naturalised citizen Muslims here, that Muslims are "their people", which nonMuslim Americans are not. The pro-bombing Muslims are that way because they support their subset of the new America.

As for legacy Americans: not the Muslims' problem.

UPDATE 1/18: For the MacGuffin meme I have to credit Ace 2013. Ace is calling people out on this now - as he should. I was lazy not to go search his archives. And mine own.


posted by Zimri on 18:09 | link | 0 comments

Tuesday, January 15, 2019

Jared Rubin can't Hajnal

Razib has noted Jared Rubin's Rulers, Religion, and Riches: Why the West Got Rich and the Middle East Did Not. The GNXP verdict: Skeptical of the thesis, but fascinated by empirical data. I'd rate myself a full believer in the thesis as stated.

I haven't bought this one yet, so I'll refer to R.Albin and to Gderf.

This book Considers the mixture of Security and Information, Harmful. It concludes that political authority must never (or hardly ever) be driven by "religious" concerns. This is extensible, in our day, to Social Justice concerns; but Rubin is writing an historical analysis so doesn't have to cover the texto implícito.

Having abstracted all that out, Rubin is able to compare Islamic societies and Christian societies on an even field. There is nothing explicit in Islam or in Nicene-defined Christianity to make one society better or worse than another, in terms of openness to scientific and engineering advances. Christendom floated the same bans on technologic innovations as Islam did. It's just that the Church was too weak in the western Christendom to act on it.

Rubin then wonders about what is implicit in Christianity v. Islam. He sees a Christian tendency toward church/state separation. That would (if true) account for Christians' success despite their priests' dictates.

According to Albin, Rubin (who I'm guessing isn't Christian himself) has a blind-spot on the variant forms of pre-Protestant Christianity. (Albin brings up other issues: on whether Islam was All That Bad over all its history, and on Islam's border with the great Turco-Mongol steppes. I, personally, don't count either - I think that no form of Islam can ever solve the information \ security puzzle, and I think all the European nations had to deal with raids by foreigners too over the same timespan. But, then, Albin is writing a review so he's not asking me to argue the point; he's asking Rubin.)

If Rubin had gone on to discuss Chalcedon (and Toledo), and then bipartite manorialism... he might have found, inside "Christendom", something that forced the filioque Church into its weakened role. This allowed filioque Christians to take a stronger role.

I hear that Rubin didn't discuss mediaeval Italy. If he had, he'd have to raise the question why The Kingdom(s) Of The Two Sicilies, despite lying across the Mediterranean's most vital sea-routes, stagnated whilst that malarial swamp Venice got to a point it conquered Byzantium itself. He'd have to discuss John Hajnal.


posted by Zimri on 19:16 | link | 0 comments

Steve King is right

Stephen "Steve" King, a Representative from Iowa, doesn't allow emails to his direct site, so I needs lay my marker here. King didn't say anything wrong and the only thing he did wrong, was to trust the enemies of the people.

The national Republican Party has cucked out, as usual, and I'll bet - based on my personal experience - that they didn't even stop to ask Steve King what he'd meant.

This is how you get more Patriot Front, bruvvaz. Republicans should be making the important points the Patriot Front makes, at least when the Front're trolling for recruits (and yes, I am well aware that the Front are antiSemitic fascists, beyond the flyers). For a start: where are the Republicans' pro-male flyers, blasting the Psychological Association and - now - Proctor and Gamble? and relevant here, how come the Republicans aren't the ones making the case for America's and Americans' right to exist as a sovereign nation?

We see here how the Republican Party national apparat, like its state-level apparat, won't make the case for their own base. Because they're controlled-opposition. A protection-racket. Cucks.


posted by Zimri on 18:21 | link | 0 comments

Sunday, January 13, 2019

Right-wing Yes Men

The Yes Men are the Alinskyite clowns whose Thing is to put out bogus press-releases about some social-justice-converged corporation, claiming - in their name - that the corporation is set to be even more socially just than the corporation likes to claim. Their predecessors ran an (amateurish) campaign against George Bush in 2004, called Yes Bush Can. That didn't work but their hits on the corporations seem to be working better since, well, look around.

For the past decade or more, Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson has been playing a double game: of portraying macho-yet-caring Alpha Male, We Support The Troops, Coloured Boy You Could Take Home To Your Momma In Des Moines in the movies; supporting Barack Obama and Colin Kaepernick in the media. Well, now Johnson's been called on it. The Daily Star put out a news piece that Johnson had blasted the social-justice Twitter mob.

This report - if true - would be like what the Clintons did against Sister Souljah in the 1992 campaign. Sister Souljah, for her part, was ahead of her time; her statements were in full line with what the Obama campaign was selling in 2012 (although not in 2008). The Clintons, although absolutely as Left as Souljah (Hillary was an Alinsky acolyte), gauged the American electorate 1992 / 1996 as unready for what they'd planned; so publicly dissociated themselves. If true, Johnson would have positioned himself as the face of the "Intellectual Dark Web" - still Left, but "reasonable" Left, like 1992 Clinton.

But the story wasn't true. Johnson has a base and it's not you, and he wants to make clear that it's not you. His base is the hard Left and Hollywood. This was not to be the Souljah Moment. Johnson hasn't got it in him.

This was the Yes Men moment. Some Right mole got into the Daily Star, to make Johnson own up to that; and Johnson owned up to that.

On the one hand, the mole burned the Star and, also, all the media - mostly Right - who passed it along. That sucks for, to give one example, Ace of Spades. On the other hand... he burned Johnson, who deserved it.


posted by Zimri on 19:09 | link | 0 comments

Evangelical altruism

Steve Sailer asks: Has any publicly pro-diversity white male authority figure ever resigned voluntarily, before retirement age, from a desirable job to promote diversity?

I propose that Dr Holger Zellentin counts. He was pretty high up at IQSA, and as a scholar is respected by other scholars (and by me, to the extent that I count, or that he cares). He was a Feminist Ally in the conferences. And when he resigned he requested more "diversity" in the IQSA leadership.

I thought (and think) Zellentin's self-abasements were misguided (here's the real structural racial discrimination in academe), and they annoyed me - so I trolled him. But his resignation seems sincere; at least, I much doubt there was Anything Else At Work. Cases of (honest) evangelical altruism are recorded even in academia.

Evangelical altruism is still irritating; and I'd rather Dr Zellentin had stuck to his books and - at IQSA - ensuring its scholars were effectively explicating the Quran, not in being Representative or Relevant or whatever. But he did walk the talk. However nonsensical the talk.


posted by Zimri on 12:26 | link | 0 comments

Saturday, January 12, 2019

Upload #174: another brick in the wall

Now, finally, I present to you, dear readers: the sura 18 project. "Between Us And Them".

As of the early 2000s, I'd accepted the Orientalist meme that sura 18 was full of apocrypha, even by Qâric standards; and, therefore, a sideline. In December 2010, I think it was, I'd found that sura 28 might have cited it and, not long after that, I was pretty sure 41 had cited it. Then I found out about Neil Robinson and read his Discovering the Qur’an; this proposed 17>18. So I went with 17>18>41, as of this past decade; and I worked around that. It was still a sideline but at least a constrained sideline . . .

That schema maybe did okay when I was concentrating on suras 22 and 41 in House of War. Surely when I was writing Throne of Glass, the sequel: it did great. But that 17>18>41 schema won't do this year, not anymore.

That's why I called myself out. I need to deal with all the "early" suras, like 36 and 67 - and 7 and 11. We can't do that so well without constraints from other suwar.

I can, here, propose: 6 > 18 > 7. I think sura 18 is a product of the (uneasy) truce between Mu'awiya and 'Ali, late 30s/650s.

I've also fixed up: "The Central Suras" because it was slapdash, and needed clarity. "The Test of Man" because it was wrong about khuḍr. "Building the Seven Heavens" because it needed to distinguish sura 67's parallel with sura 11, against both's with sura 18.

Madrassa.


posted by Zimri on 11:41 | link | 0 comments

On this site




Sophia



Politics



Random crap

Powered By Blogger TM

Property of author; All Rights Reserved