Is there a conspiracy against HISTORY?
Sigge
this group, is that of HISTORY. As an intellectual discipline it is
considered the Queen of the Humanities. Even for persons belonging to
the other Culture (C.P. Snow) i.e. Science and Mathematics, sooner or
later History becomes important. But there is a great unpleasant
surprise for such persons when they come in contact with modern
writings.
The basic assumption that there is a fundamental distinction between
Myth and Historical Truth seems to have come under attack.
Is there a conspiracy against HISTORY?
To be more provocative! Is there a conspiracy against the Superiority
of White Male Europeans? All the recent efforts to revise history had
a common denominator. White male Europeans are bad and every other is
Good or at least equally important. Eurocentrism is bad,
Afrocentrism, ANY-centrism is good.
As a minor example that has fascinated me: Is there a concerted effort
on the part of the Jews to transform the Myth of Chanukah into a
Historical victory over the Greeks, with many battles of large armies
of Greeks against Jews, where Jews emerge victorious!?
A small sample of what can be read today in the internet:
1) The Wikipedia article about Chanoukah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Hanukkah) claims that the Jews defeated the Greeks in several battles!
Several battles are mentioned and details are given. But all the
references are jewish. The writer gives even links to Hanoukkah
songs and Kosher Hanukkah recipes. No contemporary sources are
mentioned.
2) I quote from another site (http://www.isolomon.com/channel.aspx?
channel_id=197)
"Despite the odds - 47,000 well-trained, well-armed warriors vs. 4,000
ill-equipped Jews - the Jews persevered. "
Is that a joke?
Alexander's 30,000 well-trained Greeks defeated repeatedly immense
Persian armies and 47,000 lose to 4,000 ill-equipped Jews? Can that
be true?
But it was not like that before!
Several years ago, scholars (even Jewish ones) denied flatly that
such a victory had ever taken place. They claimed that at its best it
was a quarrel between the "orthodox" Jews and the Hellenised Jews and
that the orthodox won but they applied the program of the Hellenised
Jews.
I quote Rabbi Nota Schiller (http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/1327)
from the article Greeks vs. Torah:
"Historically, at Chanukah, the Jews warred with the Greeks, yet there
is no megillah, no written work chronicling that battle. Why? Because
it is a story that must be transmitted orally, for at the center of
this battle was the Greeks' attempt to destroy the Oral Torah. Instead
of being conquered, we persevered and created a new holiday that could
only have been orchestrated through the mechanism of the Oral Torah."
What an admission! "there is no megillah, no written work chronicling
that battle."!
And the final argument, that cannot be refuted! "a story that must be
transmitted orally". How can anyone argue against such a claim?!
Something has changed! Outright lies and Myths are presented as
historical truths!
Perhaps I am wrong! I am simply out of time! Let me guess. New
documents supported by archaeological finds have surfaced and shed
new light on the period. And I missed it totally.
Can any of the scholars participating in this group write anything
authoritative?
Martin, can you help with more than one line?
Is HISTORY being replaced by Myth?
Agamemnon
"Sigge" <Riace....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:62841c8b-22ae-48f7...@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
There were no such things a Orthodox Jews at the time of the Maccabbees.
Orthodox Judaism was invented in the middle ages. At the time of the
Maccabbees the Jews were polytheistic and always hade been and two main
factions of Jews dominated both of which wanted to control the temple. One
faction worshiped Baal Shamen who they identified with Zeus (who was also
syncretised with Zeus Belus or Dushara in Arabic, the son of El) whereas
another faction worshiped Elyon his father who was syncretised with El
(Alohi in Hebrew or Allah in Arabic and referred to as Orotalt by Herodotus)
who was identified by the Jews with Dionysus.
The Jews who worshiped Dionysus El Elyon were allied with the Ptolemaic
Egyptians and were admitted into the mysteries and branded with the Ivy Leaf
symbol of Dionysus. Those that supported the claim of Zeus Baal Shamen to
the temple worshiped were allied with the Seleucids. The temple was in fact
original the temple of Elyon and Judas Maccabbee led the Jews that worshiped
Dionysus to retake if from those that wanted to worship Baal Shamen there
instead. From the First Book of Maccabbees we know that when Judas finally
capture the temple he celebrated by worshiping Elyon by waving wands covered
with ivy, which of course was the Thyrsus as carried by Dionysus and his
followers.
The worship of Jehovah (who known to be a Hyksos Pharaoh of Egypt who ruled
over Palestine) did not become dominant until the time of Herod who led a
Jewish faction allied to Rome.
>
> I quote Rabbi Nota Schiller (http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/1327)
> from the article Greeks vs. Torah:
>
> "Historically, at Chanukah, the Jews warred with the Greeks, yet there
> is no megillah, no written work chronicling that battle. Why? Because
> it is a story that must be transmitted orally, for at the center of
> this battle was the Greeks' attempt to destroy the Oral Torah. Instead
> of being conquered, we persevered and created a new holiday that could
> only have been orchestrated through the mechanism of the Oral Torah."
There is NO SUCH THING as an oral tradition or oral transmission of history
or anything else. The oral tradition is a systematic LIE invented by people
who wanted to deny history and has absolutely nothing to do with it. There
is NOT ONE historical reference to an oral tradition or oral history. Not
one oral tradition has ever been proven to exist nor has oral transmission
of history. Both are improvable and neither can exist in a society which has
accost to wring.
>
> What an admission! "there is no megillah, no written work chronicling
> that battle."!
> And the final argument, that cannot be refuted! "a story that must be
> transmitted orally". How can anyone argue against such a claim?!
>
> Something has changed! Outright lies and Myths are presented as
> historical truths!
>
> Perhaps I am wrong! I am simply out of time! Let me guess. New
> documents supported by archaeological finds have surfaced and shed
> new light on the period. And I missed it totally.
>
> Can any of the scholars participating in this group write anything
> authoritative?
>
> Martin, can you help with more than one line?
>
> Is HISTORY being replaced by Myth?
It's being replaced by made up science fiction stories which were invented
in the early 1800's and elaborated on by revisionists in the 20th century.
By science fiction stories I mean stories which do not come from or have any
connection with historical documents by were concocted by non-historians in
order to explain mostly inaccurate archaeological finds.
bernardZ
5f3b59...@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Riace....@gmail.com
says...
>
> To be more provocative! Is there a conspiracy against the Superiority
> of White Male Europeans? All the recent efforts to revise history had
> a common denominator. White male Europeans are bad and every other is
> Good or at least equally important. Eurocentrism is bad,
> Afrocentrism, ANY-centrism is good.
Partly this is because until recently history was almost completely a
White Male European production. Now many others are getting into the
act.
>
> As a minor example that has fascinated me: Is there a concerted effort
> on the part of the Jews to transform the Myth of Chanukah into a
> Historical victory over the Greeks, with many battles of large armies
> of Greeks against Jews, where Jews emerge victorious!?
They did in that war.
Tell me what makes you think that the Greeks there by that stage who had
integrated into what is today Turkey, Syria and Israel are any more
white male Europeans then the Jews of the time who had also partly
integrated into that society.
Sigge
> In article <62841c8b-22ae-48f7-a13d-
> 5f3b594f0...@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Riace.Warr...@gmail.com
> says...
>
>
>
> > To be more provocative! Is there a conspiracy against the Superiority
> > of White Male Europeans? All the recent efforts to revise history had
> > a common denominator. White male Europeans are bad and every other is
> > Good or at least equally important. Eurocentrism is bad,
> > Afrocentrism, ANY-centrism is good.
>
> Partly this is because until recently history was almost completely a
> White Male European production. Now many others are getting into the
> act.
And so was Mathematics! And practically all other beautiful things in
Life!
You do not change Mathematics because it is the product of a specific
group.
But it seems that in Humanities the truth does not matter any longer.
What should be Revision because of new evidence is just new
interpretation.
Not Science, but Religion!
That is why I mentioned the C.P. Snow and Science and Mathematics
along with Humanities.
I was shocked with a 50-minute production of some enemies of
humanity,
where the Scientific interpretations of vulcanologists were compared
to Maori's goddess Pelle interpetation of the Hawaiian eruptions!
>
> > As a minor example that has fascinated me: Is there a concerted effort
> > on the part of the Jews to transform the Myth of Chanukah into a
> > Historical victory over the Greeks, with many battles of large armies
> > of Greeks against Jews, where Jews emerge victorious!?
>
> They did in that war.
Is bernardZ a victim of the conspiracy?
Is rabbi Nota Schiller and practically all jews before him ignorant of
those matters? Something has changed! I fear that the conspiracy I was
talking about has persuaded you totally!
> Tell me what makes you think that the Greeks there by that stage who had
> integrated into what is today Turkey, Syria and Israel are any more
> white male Europeans then the Jews of the time who had also partly
> integrated into that society.
Nonsense!
1) You do not integrate to the soil. You integrate to a culture!
2) The area you described contained many different cultures that were
very different from each other.
3) Even the Maccabean quarrel itself contradicts you! It is about them
being Hellinized not Greeks being integrated.
4)The Greeks where the IndoEuropeans (White) rulers of the local
(mostly semitic) tribes like the English were the rulers in Zimbambwe.
The English in Zimbambwe remained white even after 200 years. They
never became negroes.
5)The language spoken was Greek. The Culture was gradually becoming
Greek. Not a decent writer wrote anything in other than Greek.
Archaeology proves that Greek temples, Gymnasia, Theaters, Stadia were
built. What is "integrated" about that?.
6) Alexandria was the center of Greek Learning (disciplines that never
bothered any local before the the Greeks ruled) down to 4th-5th
century AD.
7) The only un-Greek thing was the political organization. Large
kingdoms and not the City-Polis
Thank you mr bernardZ for proving my point
Sigge
Doug Weller
wrote:
I get more than a whiff of Greek nationalism and anti-Semitism from this
poster, I suspect he will shortly be in my killfile. (by the way, it was
a Syrian army, not a Greek army, but he must know that).
Doug
--
Doug Weller --
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/
Sigge
wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:40:25 +1100, in soc.history.ancient, bernardZ
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >In article <62841c8b-22ae-48f7-a13d-
> >says...
>
> >> To be more provocative! Is there a conspiracy against the Superiority
> >> of White Male Europeans? All the recent efforts to revise history had
> >> a common denominator. White male Europeans are bad and every other is
> >> Good or at least equally important. Eurocentrism is bad,
> >> Afrocentrism, ANY-centrism is good.
>
> >Partly this is because until recently history was almost completely a
> >White Male European production. Now many others are getting into the
> >act.
>
> >> As a minor example that has fascinated me: Is there a concerted effort
> >> on the part of the Jews to transform the Myth of Chanukah into a
> >> Historical victory over the Greeks, with many battles of large armies
> >> of Greeks against Jews, where Jews emerge victorious!?
>
> >They did in that war.
>
> >Tell me what makes you think that the Greeks there by that stage who had
> >integrated into what is today Turkey, Syria and Israel are any more
> >white male Europeans then the Jews of the time who had also partly
> >integrated into that society.
>
> I get more than a whiff of Greek nationalism and anti-Semitism from this
> poster, I suspect he will shortly be in my killfile. (by the way, it was
> a Syrian army, not a Greek army, but he must know that).
>
> Doug
> --
> Doug Weller --
> Doug's Archaeology Site:http://www.ramtops.co.uk
> Amun - co-owner/co-moderatorhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/
Mr Weller, or shall I call you Meridarpax, I quoted Wikipedia and
Jewish sites. They claim Greek armies and the rest! I do not. The myth
of the Chanoukah and the Jesus Christ is well known. It is also well
known that jews, christians and other fanatics have been occupied
with the "noble" art of falsifying, distorting, burning texts and
their writers.
The amazing thing is that the falsification continues today. The
subject of this thread is if there is a conspiracy against HISTORY
today. No doubt, the well-known cases are emanating from middle east.
Parahaiba, jews in americas before christ, black athena, ossuaries,
graves...
Uncomfortable truths are exorcised by invoking the devil.
Antisemitic?
I have to admit that I use some formulations that bother Jews. I have
found out that nothing bothers the Jews more than remind them how
great the Greeks were and how much evil has come out of the jewish
monotheistic mambo-jumbo.
Greek nationalism? Come on now!
Yes of course! I am a nationalistic Greek who lives in a trailer, and
work in a kebab place.
Google Earth can help you! Ask for Hall of Fame and it is the third
trailer to the North.
It bears my real name Antiochus Adolphus Epiphanes
Leave it at that, pternotroktes.
Sigge
JTEM
> I get more than a whiff of Greek nationalism
There's certainly nothing wrong with Greek nationalism.
The problem is the Greek nationalists around here.
Sigge
JTEM! The thread is conspiracy against HISTORY, not Greek nationalism.
It is a very cheap trick instead of discussing the painful subject to
talk about the weather! I know it hurts. Admit it, you have cheated
all the time! Greeks gave us the vowels! You cheat without vowels. Use
them. You prefer to cheat! You cheat even with vowels!
Well. I will make it clear to you. It seems you are not merely
dishonest but even outright stupid!
This group is named soc.ancient.history.
History means investigation in Greek. It was given to the rest of the
World by the Greeks!
Ancient History means Greece, Greek Civilization, Thucidides etc.
It even means Greek Language! No serious historian of the ancient
times ever wrote in anything else than Greek and later Latin. With
vowels! Check the language this jewish guy josephus writes!
Very cool!
The problem is that you continue the job of falsification, lying,
distortion, etc. And feel uneasy every time Greek civilization is
mentioned.
Go play with the other kids!
Sigge
JTEM
> It is a very cheap trick instead of discussing the
> painful subject to talk about the weather!
It was pretty cold, but some warmer weather came
up with the rain.
Mind you, it wasn't "So cold that I'm complaining"
kind of cold. Yesterday, for example, was a beautiful
sunny day. But, it was just cold enough that you
couldn't make do without a warm coat.
Such a shame...
bernardz
wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:40:25 +1100, in soc.history.ancient,bernardZ
>
>
>
> >In article <62841c8b-22ae-48f7-a13d-
> >5f3b594f0...@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Riace.Warr...@gmail.com
>
> >> To be more provocative! Is there a conspiracy against the Superiority
> >> of White Male Europeans? All the recent efforts to revise history had
> >> a common denominator. White male Europeans are bad and every other is
> >> Good or at least equally important. Eurocentrism is bad,
> >> Afrocentrism, ANY-centrism is good.
>
> >Partly this is because until recently history was almost completely a
> >White Male European production. Now many others are getting into the
> >act.
>
> >> As a minor example that has fascinated me: Is there a concerted effort
> >> on the part of the Jews to transform the Myth of Chanukah into a
> >> Historical victory over the Greeks, with many battles of large armies
> >> of Greeks against Jews, where Jews emerge victorious!?
>
> >They did in that war.
>
> >Tell me what makes you think that the Greeks there by that stage who had
> >integrated into what is today Turkey, Syria and Israel are any more
> >white male Europeans then the Jews of the time who had also partly
> >integrated into that society.
>
> I get more than a whiff of Greek nationalism and anti-Semitism from this
> poster, I suspect he will shortly be in my killfile. (by the way, > it was
> a Syrian army, not a Greek army, but he must know that).
>
I doubt he knows that actually.
It was in what we call Syria today and the troops would have been
Syrian as would most of its officers. What makes it Greek is that the
army would have been culturally Greek in the same way that most of the
British army in India were Indians but the army was British.
> Doug
> --
> Doug Weller --
> A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'athttp://www.hallofmaat.com
cormac
> One of the beautiful Gifts of the Greeks, and the most important for
> this group, is that of HISTORY. As an intellectual discipline it is
> considered the Queen of the Humanities. Even for persons belonging to
> the other Culture (C.P. Snow) i.e. Science and Mathematics, sooner or
> later History becomes important. But there is a great unpleasant
> surprise for such persons when they come in contact with modern
> writings.
>
> The basic assumption that there is a fundamental distinction between
> Myth and Historical Truth seems to have come under attack.
>
>
>
There are also the dogmatists who maintain that Christianity was
invented by Constantine.
Cormac.
Sigge
HISTORY (as defined by the Greeks not as a collection of stories,
myths) is part of the HUMAN LEGACY. Its enemies are enemies of
Humanity.
Try to understand that. What real humans care about is the TRUTH,
however uncomfortable.
The values at stake are enormous. During hundreds of years, the
brightest individuals, instead of advancing Science and Human Rights,
were discussing such ridiculous matters as filioque, tetragammia,
limbo etc.
Newton, after some necromantic sessions, made a contribution to
Chronology by claiming that the Egyptian dynasties cannot be older
than the the "History" as it is described in the Holy Book.
WE cannot allow these forces that act against Humanity to prevail once
more.
It has become a cultural trait of your likes. Intellectual hypocricy
and outright dishonesty.
If you do not wish to make a contribution to the very important matter
of conspiracy against HISTORY, please step aside and keep your mouth
shut. Crying Greek Nationalist and Antisemitic is outside the matter
subject.
JTEM, go practice koprolagneia as your ancestors did!
Sigge
Sigge
Mr Bernard Z!
You can take only a small chunk of a text at a time! I wrote for you a
long list of points to consider and you take up the point to whether
the armies were purely Greek or not!
You seek even alliances!
The whole thing of Chanoukah is a falsification.
It was treated as a celebration without any historical background,
even by rabbis!
What has changed recently? HISTORY is under attack Mr BernardZ! You
are persuaded that what they serve you is true! Investigate instead of
allowing assholes who simply want your money to interpret the
Scriptures for you! We are FREE. Freedom is the word for the West!
What has biblical archaeology unearthed recently?
A DVD, a label construed as the name David, that contains information
about David and Chanoukah?
Wake up Mr bernardZ! Investigate!
Sigge
What is the new evidence?
Matt Giwer
...
> Is HISTORY being replaced by Myth?
ADDENDUM:
Agamemnon, aka Aggie, and I have agreed to disagree on a lot of things however
I consider him the most knowledgeable source in many areas particularly on what
is in the surviving literature no matter how obscure. Notice we rarely disagree
on specific things as our basis for selection of what to say about what we have
learned is different.
Neither of us compete for believers. We only present information as we see it.
Don't bother us what you conclude. I hope it is something completely new. About
time we have some new blood giving a new perspective.
--
Imagine the vast benefits to Israel if it had a multicultural, multiracial
society as Jews want for every other country in the world.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3937
http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a2
Matt Giwer
> One of the beautiful Gifts of the Greeks, and the most important for
> this group, is that of HISTORY. As an intellectual discipline it is
> considered the Queen of the Humanities. Even for persons belonging to
> the other Culture (C.P. Snow) i.e. Science and Mathematics, sooner or
> later History becomes important. But there is a great unpleasant
> surprise for such persons when they come in contact with modern
> writings.
> The basic assumption that there is a fundamental distinction between
> Myth and Historical Truth seems to have come under attack.
> Is there a conspiracy against HISTORY?
Test it yourself. Look into the actual geopolitics of WWII. Ignore opinions
about it. Learn it as it was. Then try talking about what you have learned
without being called a Nazi.
Who damns Cyrus? Alexander? Caesar? Napoleon even? Yet Lenin and Stalin and
communism were ten times worse than Nazism and Hitler by every measure yet the
good guys won WWII.
The politics of history are more important than the facts of history.
In any event you have seen the relative responses to challenging recent
political history and religious myth disguised as history. Religion comes in
second which is an important observation in and of itself.
If you missed it, just watch the response to this preamble to see for yourself.
> To be more provocative! Is there a conspiracy against the Superiority
> of White Male Europeans? All the recent efforts to revise history had
> a common denominator. White male Europeans are bad and every other is
> Good or at least equally important.
I have noticed that goes hand in hand with Jews claiming they are not "white"
which is the dumbest racism of all. Caucasian is Caucasian from Ireland to Gandhi.
Back in the early 90s Jews were trying to make a case that Christopher Columbus
was jewish. They dropped that as soon as the anti-Columbus native American
rallies started using it.
> Eurocentrism is bad, Afrocentrism, ANY-centrism is good.
Do unto others before they do unto you. They are people too.
> As a minor example that has fascinated me: Is there a concerted effort
> on the part of the Jews to transform the Myth of Chanukah into a
> Historical victory over the Greeks, with many battles of large armies
> of Greeks against Jews, where Jews emerge victorious!?
1) Ever notice Jewish holidays are mostly about the death of other people?
Start with Passover and work your way down.
2) The ONLY mention of it is found in the books of Maccabe. It didn't impress
the Greeks much at all if it was anything like in those books.
3) It was a war between the educated Judeans and the Ayatollah Judeans. the
Ayatollahs won. It was a great setback of the civilization of Judea. Read the
first chapter of the second book. The educated ones got support from the Greeks
but they did not fight the Greeks who would have exterminated them. Maybe some
great bit of good fortune might have let the win the first major battle but the
Greeks would have regrouped and not made the same mistake twice.
4) It has nothing to do with the 9 candle holder. The one in the temple held
only 7. See the Arch of Titus for an image of it. They are two separate
traditions and are unrelated.
> A small sample of what can be read today in the internet:
> 1) The Wikipedia article about Chanoukah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> Hanukkah) claims that the Jews defeated the Greeks in several battles!
> Several battles are mentioned and details are given. But all the
> references are jewish. The writer gives even links to Hanoukkah
> songs and Kosher Hanukkah recipes. No contemporary sources are
> mentioned.
> 2) I quote from another site (http://www.isolomon.com/channel.aspx?
> channel_id=197)
> "Despite the odds - 47,000 well-trained, well-armed warriors vs. 4,000
> ill-equipped Jews - the Jews persevered. "
> Is that a joke?
> Alexander's 30,000 well-trained Greeks defeated repeatedly immense
> Persian armies and 47,000 lose to 4,000 ill-equipped Jews? Can that
> be true?
Speaking of miracles, that one wasn't big enough to make Maccabe canonical.
That isn't a bible-class miracle.
> But it was not like that before!
> Several years ago, scholars (even Jewish ones) denied flatly that
> such a victory had ever taken place. They claimed that at its best it
> was a quarrel between the "orthodox" Jews and the Hellenised Jews and
> that the orthodox won but they applied the program of the Hellenised
> Jews.
Because the argument part is what it says in the surviving books. That it was
not sufficient for the Greeks to write it down certainly takes it out of the
serious fighting category.
> I quote Rabbi Nota Schiller (http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/1327)
> from the article Greeks vs. Torah:
> "Historically, at Chanukah, the Jews warred with the Greeks, yet there
> is no megillah, no written work chronicling that battle. Why? Because
> it is a story that must be transmitted orally, for at the center of
> this battle was the Greeks' attempt to destroy the Oral Torah. Instead
> of being conquered, we persevered and created a new holiday that could
> only have been orchestrated through the mechanism of the Oral Torah."
> What an admission! "there is no megillah, no written work chronicling
> that battle."!
> And the final argument, that cannot be refuted! "a story that must be
> transmitted orally". How can anyone argue against such a claim?!
No one knows when the Maccabe books were written. The only evidence for the
story at is is a single coin with the image of a person with the inscription
that he is the grandson of Judah Maccabe. I have yet to find an image of that
coin to see of that is exactly what it says or if it is wishful thinking.
Assuming the coin is legit it only confirms there was a Judean king by that name
who had a son and grandson. I did read one quick statement that the Herods
claimed descent but no supporting material or references.
> Something has changed! Outright lies and Myths are presented as
> historical truths!
It is a clear case of Jesus envy. In the last few decades Jews have been making
a serious effort to be considered a major religion instead of a collection of
related cults which even taken together do not rise to major. BTW: It is barely
passes the test of a religion, rather it is a primitive ritual/taboo lifestyle
with ritual genital mutilation thrown in for luck.
> Perhaps I am wrong! I am simply out of time! Let me guess. New
> documents supported by archaeological finds have surfaced and shed
> new light on the period. And I missed it totally.
Not a single thing new has surfaced, period. There is still only that single
coin supporting a trivial part of the entire story. Given all the digging of all
kinds in Israel, the most dug place in the world including housing and roads
construction, they have very few artifacts of the Greek period relative to the
Roman period. And before the Greeks -- how many fingers do you have?
By that I mean finds which can be unambiguously associated with an indigenous
culture different from other cultures in the region. The trivial amount of
written material is Phoenician. Nothing in any writing indicates any unique
culture. All artifacts are nondescript like farmers and peasants make for
themselves or have a known decorative style related to known civilizations.
In fact there is nothing that is even ambiguous without changing the rules
which are applied to all other artifacts in all other places. Arguing to a
conclusion is not permitted so one cannot assume there were bible people for the
purpose of discussion. Whatever is found has to independently establish the
existence of these bible people on its own. Evidence of human habitation is not
sufficient. Who else can they have been is begging the question another logical
fallacy.
> Can any of the scholars participating in this group write anything
> authoritative?
> Martin, can you help with more than one line?
> Is HISTORY being replaced by Myth?
Bible history is ALL myth and it has been an uphill fight for over a century to
get some history in it. Still today there are very few who are actually willing
to take it full on and delete everything that is not in evidence. I know of no
professionals who have done it and I am almost alone as an amateur who does it.
I have had discussions going on in other forums for years. Currently one of
them has gotten some long term interest. One of the participants is working on
adjusting to just how great the change in perspective when you realize there is
nothing. He has been scouring the web for people who are trying to say the same
thing. It is amazing how wide the diversity of "correcting" different bits and
pieces while leaving the bulk of it intact.
Outside the bible there are no Canaanites there are only Palestinians. There
are no Philistines outside the bible. Of all the "ites" there might be Moabites
but until I can find a drawing of the 'Moabite' stone to see what the word
really is that is still open for me but it is the only possibly correct name of
any people.
The only significant exception believers can point to is Egypt for getting a
name right. The name Egypt is used in the Septuagint and so far as I can
determine in the "hebrew" bible. Problem is Egypt is the Greek name not the
native name for the country. Moses spoke Greek? People 600BC chose the Greek name?
Be that as it may, the bible gets NOTHING right about Egypt.
I have a lot more but not organized and not complete. You might try my website
and look at the top right column on the main page. www.giwersworld.org Some day
I might put it all down in article and link them all together.
--
Anyone proposing a carbon tax is just trying to increase taxes unless he
says which taxes he will reduce to keep the tax revenue neutral.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3928
http://www.giwersworld.org a1
Matt Giwer
> On Feb 17, 10:40 am, bernardZ <Berna...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> In article <62841c8b-22ae-48f7-a13d-
>> 5f3b594f0...@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Riace.Warr...@gmail.com
>> says...
>>> To be more provocative! Is there a conspiracy against the Superiority
>>> of White Male Europeans? All the recent efforts to revise history had
>>> a common denominator. White male Europeans are bad and every other is
>>> Good or at least equally important. Eurocentrism is bad,
>>> Afrocentrism, ANY-centrism is good.
>> Partly this is because until recently history was almost completely a
>> White Male European production. Now many others are getting into the
>> act.
> And so was Mathematics! And practically all other beautiful things in
> Life!
> You do not change Mathematics because it is the product of a specific
> group.
> But it seems that in Humanities the truth does not matter any longer.
The humanities are undisciplined fads. Maybe some day it will be different but
at the moment it is still in its alchemy stage.
> What should be Revision because of new evidence is just new
> interpretation.
> Not Science, but Religion!
> That is why I mentioned the C.P. Snow and Science and Mathematics
> along with Humanities.
> I was shocked with a 50-minute production of some enemies of
> humanity,
> where the Scientific interpretations of vulcanologists were compared
> to Maori's goddess Pelle interpetation of the Hawaiian eruptions!
Give you give a vulcanologist a fifth of vodka he will tell you anything you
want to hear, just like Pele.
--
The problem with bringing the Gitmo prisoners to trial is they cannot be
given anything Americans can recognize as a fair trial.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3943
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/nizgas3.html a4
Matt Giwer
> In article <62841c8b-22ae-48f7-a13d-
> 5f3b59...@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Riace....@gmail.com
> says...
>> To be more provocative! Is there a conspiracy against the Superiority
>> of White Male Europeans? All the recent efforts to revise history had
>> a common denominator. White male Europeans are bad and every other is
>> Good or at least equally important. Eurocentrism is bad,
>> Afrocentrism, ANY-centrism is good.
> Partly this is because until recently history was almost completely a
> White Male European production. Now many others are getting into the
> act.
Care to name a few?
In my experience that is not the case at all. All the "critics" are also white
European males. Other than a few Black had Wings types I can't think of a single
one who is not. Please do not tell me you do not mean white, european, christian
males as that is a very lame copout.
--
When nations go to war the only question regarding the number of their own
citizens dead is if the number is acceptable and will result in a win. It
has nothing to do with the total number of dead nor who dies.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3934
http://www.giwersworld.org a1
Matt Giwer
...
> I get more than a whiff of Greek nationalism and anti-Semitism from this
> poster, I suspect he will shortly be in my killfile. (by the way, it was
> a Syrian army, not a Greek army, but he must know that).
Pardon my French but the Greek rulers used Damascus as their administrative
center. It was appropriate because Damascus had been the natural ruler of the
inland territories not ruled by the Phoenicians. Read Herodotus and learn of the
Palestinian Syrians.
--
Politicians sell a war fantasy. That attacking a country will turn the
citizens against their government. It has been tried dozens of times. It has
never happened. Therefore politicians attack countries for local politics.
The Iron Webmaster, 3930
http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a5
Martin Edwards
Facing a dying nation, of moving paper fantasies.
--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From “Rollerball”
Matt Giwer
...
> What has changed recently? HISTORY is under attack Mr BernardZ! You
> are persuaded that what they serve you is true! Investigate instead of
> allowing assholes who simply want your money to interpret the
> Scriptures for you! We are FREE. Freedom is the word for the West!
Here is a test of changing history barely a decade old. You may remember the
attack on Serbia for the "genocide" in Kosovo.
A couple years back I pointed out there was no evidence of any genocide as I
still had the UN report of only 2000 bodies having been found and they were
Serbs, Kosovars, Gypsies and a few others in the mix.
I was instantly accused of denying genocide.
> What has biblical archaeology unearthed recently?
> A DVD, a label construed as the name David, that contains information
> about David and Chanoukah?
> Wake up Mr bernardZ! Investigate!
> What is the new evidence?
What is also interesting is the only "conclusive" evidence in the literature is
also about a century old. In other words it comes from a time when everything
found was interpreted with the bible as a guide and has never been re-examined.
--
Bush always makes the right decision after exhausting all other
possibilities. Unfortunately he is no where near exhausting them.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3932
http://www.giwersworld.org a1
Doug Weller
wrote:
Agreed. But I wasn't under the impression he knew that.
Doug
--
Doug Weller --
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Sigge
>
> Facing a dying nation, of moving paper fantasies.
>
Martin! You talk with riddles and I am a mathematician! Where shall I
get some help?
The Delphi oracle?
Sigge
Sigge
Thanks Mr Matt Giwer!
I read carefully all your input into this thread! A mine of
information and some decisive arguments. I have to cross check a few
things at the Royal Library of Stockholm and the University Library.
Stockholm has even a special Jewish Library open to the public.
As a mathematician I could produce the missing arguments in a paper
myself. Well, not always, but most of the times. But your lecture on
the changes of Historical reporting/writing in general and the middle
east history in particular contained a lot of material that I have to
digest.
Thank you for taking the time to write such an exhaustive answer.
Sigge
Ps. I visited your site. Why do you use scientific notation for the 13
years?
In the rapidly evolving internet 13 years is a very long period.
As a fraction of a millenium it seems little.
Why?
Idem
Doug Weller
wrote:
>
>Thanks Mr Matt Giwer!
They should get along nicely,
Doug
--
Doug Weller --
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
JTEM
> JTEM wrote:
> > Mind you, it wasn't "So cold that I'm complaining"
> > kind of cold. Yesterday, for example, was a beautiful
> > sunny day. But, it was just cold enough that you
> > couldn't make do without a warm coat.
>
> > Such a shame...
>
> Facing a dying nation, of moving paper fantasies.
Listening for the new told lies, in supreme visions of
lonely tunes....
Sigge
wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:18:29 -0800 (PST), in soc.history.ancient, Sigge
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Thanks Mr Matt Giwer!
>
> They should get along nicely,
> Doug
> --
> Doug Weller --
> Doug's Archaeology Site:http://www.ramtops.co.uk
> Amun - co-owner/co-moderatorhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/
Mr Weller! do you know the definition of "ad hominem"?
It is the refuge of the intellectual midgets like you when confronted
with superior intellects! You do nothing but insulting or alluding
or.... There is something called Argument.
Read your elementary Aristotle. Do vowels bother you?
Ad hominem is a no-no for usenet.
If you have nothing to contribute you can exchange proctolingean
services with JTEM.
Koprophagous, start a new thread for the contents of Hall Ma'ath!
Sigge
Christopher Ingham
> Is there a concerted effort on the part of the Jews to
> transform the Myth of Chanukah into a Historical victory
> over the Greeks, with many battles of large armies of Greeks
> article about Chanoukah claims that the Jews defeated the
> Greeks in several battles! Several battles are mentioned and > details are given. But all the references are jewish....
> Several years ago, scholars (even Jewish ones) denied flatly > that such a victory had ever taken place. They claimed that
> at its best it was a quarrel between the "orthodox" Jews and
> Schiller from the article Greeks vs. Torah: "Historically, at > Chanukah, the Jews warred with the Greeks, yet there is no
> megillah, no written work chronicling that battle. Why?
> Because it is a story that must be transmitted orally, for at > the center of this battle was the Greeks' attempt to destroy
> the Oral Torah. Instead of being conquered, we persevered and > created a new holiday that could only have been orchestrated
> through the mechanism of the Oral Torah." What an admission! > "there is no megillah, no written work chronicling that
> battle."! And the final argument, that cannot be refuted! "a > story that must be transmitted orally". How can anyone argue
> and Myths are presented as historical truths! Perhaps I am
> wrong! I am simply out of time! Let me guess. New documents
> supported by archaeological finds have surfaced and shed new
> being replaced by Myth?
[I am responding on the assumption that you are a freethinker
and not an anti-Semite.]
The details surrounding the events in Jerusalem and its environs
during the early second century BCE are controversial, as it is
not always clear what is fact and what is polemic in the sources.
Most evidence (a good amount of which is questionable) derives
from I and II Maccabees and Josephus (_AJ_,_BJ_), with
incidental details in the book of Daniel, Tacitus (_Hist._5.8.4),
Diodorus Siculus (34/5.5.1), and many others. Modern
historians generally accept the following scenario:
A strong hellenizing trend was occurring in Jerusalem in the
early second century (Ptolemy IV had introduced the cult of
Dionysos there before being ousted by the Seleukids in 200
BCE), although it is not clear whether this was a result of
royal imposition or internal socio-political developments.
An uprising of traditionalist factions while Antiochos IV
Epiphanes was militarily preoccupied in Egypt in the 170s
resulted in the garrisoning of the city and the outlawing of
Jewish religious and social practices. The Temple was
polluted (by the sacrifice of pigs?), with statues of Zeus,
Athens, and possibly Antiochos being set up there;
probably it was also rededicated to Zeus.
The critical events in the the resulting insurgency in the
160s led by the Makkabaios clan were three successful
battles, respectively against the forces of the governor of
Samaria and Judaea; the combined forces of the governor
of Phoenicia and Coele-Syria and the_epistates_of Jerusalem;
and the viceroy Lysias (Antiochos was warring in Parthia).
The sizes of the forces involved cannot be ascertained, but
Jerusalem achieved independence. Rome, anxious to see
the dismemberment of the Seleukid empire, quickly formed
an alliance with the Jewish state.
Christopher Ingham
Christopher Ingham
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
I neglected to list my sources:
Green, P., _Alexander to Actium_(1990), 497-524.
Gruen, E.S., "Hellenism and Persecution: Antiochus IV and the
Jews," in P. Green, ed.,_Hellenistic History and Culture_ (1993),
238-64.
Millar, F., "The Background to the Maccabean Revolution," in
Rome, the Greek World, and the East, vol. 3: The Greek World,
the Jews, and the East_(2006), 67-90.
Shipley, G., _The Greek World after Alexander, 323-30 BC_(2000),
307-11.
Christopher Ingham
Sigge
Thanks Mr Ingham! Very concise, a plausible description and references
to check/consult!
I have some homework to do.
Sigge
Doug Weller
wrote:
>On Feb 18, 9:12 pm, Doug Weller <dwel...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk>
>wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:18:29 -0800 (PST), in soc.history.ancient, Sigge
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >Thanks Mr Matt Giwer!
>>
>> They should get along nicely,
>> Doug
>> --
>> Doug Weller --
>> A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'athttp://www.hallofmaat.com
>> Doug's Archaeology Site:http://www.ramtops.co.uk
>> Amun - co-owner/co-moderatorhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/
>
>Mr Weller! do you know the definition of "ad hominem"?
>It is the refuge of the intellectual midgets like you when confronted
>with superior intellects! You do nothing but insulting or alluding
>or.... There is something called Argument.
>Read your elementary Aristotle. Do vowels bother you?
>
>Ad hominem is a no-no for usenet.
>
Ok, fine. Let's see you reject Giwer's anti-Semitism and Holocaust
denying, then I will very, very happily apologise.
But for someone who is upset about my comment, you seem to throw ad
hominem around very happily yourself.
Doug
--
Doug Weller --
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Matt Giwer
If you find anything I missed, let me know. Remember, physicist. I work out
hypothesis to explain the facts but they have to be physical evidence facts. New
facts have to fit the hypothesis or the hypothesis modified or replaced.
> As a mathematician I could produce the missing arguments in a paper
> myself. Well, not always, but most of the times. But your lecture on
> the changes of Historical reporting/writing in general and the middle
> east history in particular contained a lot of material that I have to
> digest.
> Thank you for taking the time to write such an exhaustive answer.
>
> Sigge
>
> Ps. I visited your site. Why do you use scientific notation for the 13
> years?
> In the rapidly evolving internet 13 years is a very long period.
> As a fraction of a millenium it seems little.
> Why?
Inside joke on ego. Looks more impressive than saying 13 years.
I guess it isn't such an obvious joke without my original website. Try
http://www.giwersworld.org/mgiwer/whatsay.html
None of my opinions are humble.
--
When nations go to war the only question regarding the number of their own
citizens dead is if the number is acceptable and will result in a win. It
has nothing to do with the total number of dead nor who dies.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3934
Matt Giwer
Do the facts change based upon who says it or why it is said?
If it does it means you are willing to politicize the facts to support an agenda.
> The details surrounding the events in Jerusalem and its environs
> during the early second century BCE are controversial, as it is
> not always clear what is fact and what is polemic in the sources.
> Most evidence (a good amount of which is questionable) derives
> from I and II Maccabees and Josephus (_AJ_,_BJ_), with
> incidental details in the book of Daniel, Tacitus (_Hist._5.8.4),
> Diodorus Siculus (34/5.5.1), and many others. Modern
> historians generally accept the following scenario:
Fact is Maccabes is the only record of it. Josephus is essentially a worthless
source for many reasons. Aggie has suggested most of what is attributed to him
are forgeries. The book of Daniel has miracles and no provenance and is
therefore unacceptable. Further the year of its creation can be dated by the
last correct prophecy and it is much too late.
> A strong hellenizing trend was occurring in Jerusalem in the
> early second century (Ptolemy IV had introduced the cult of
> Dionysos there before being ousted by the Seleukids in 200
> BCE), although it is not clear whether this was a result of
> royal imposition or internal socio-political developments.
> An uprising of traditionalist factions while Antiochos IV
> Epiphanes was militarily preoccupied in Egypt in the 170s
> resulted in the garrisoning of the city and the outlawing of
> Jewish religious and social practices. The Temple was
> polluted (by the sacrifice of pigs?), with statues of Zeus,
> Athens, and possibly Antiochos being set up there;
> probably it was also rededicated to Zeus.
Consider the Greeks offered civilization, art, learning while the people in the
region never contributed anything to civilization. In addition the Greeks
abhorred the primitive, savage practice of mutilating the genitals of infants.
As civilized people of course they condemned it, maybe even prohibited it. So
did the Romans and it figured in the 2nd and 3rd revolts against Rome.
Also consider the Greeks had largely abandoned the idea of animal sacrifice as
primitive as had the rest of the civilized world. Of course they would frown on
such a primitive practice and attempt to civilize the barbarians.
Without taking a religion-based sympathetic position in favor of those
unwashed, uneducated primitives an entirely different picture emerges which has
to be much closer to how the majority of the civilized world would have viewed
it. The issue here is solely how it would be seen in cultural context and not
from the minority viewpoint of the primitives.
> The critical events in the the resulting insurgency in the
> 160s led by the Makkabaios clan were three successful
> battles, respectively against the forces of the governor of
> Samaria and Judaea; the combined forces of the governor
> of Phoenicia and Coele-Syria and the_epistates_of Jerusalem;
> and the viceroy Lysias (Antiochos was warring in Parthia).
> The sizes of the forces involved cannot be ascertained, but
> Jerusalem achieved independence. Rome, anxious to see
> the dismemberment of the Seleukid empire, quickly formed
> an alliance with the Jewish state.
It can be established that any fighting was so trivial the Greeks made no
mention of it. Further the modern assumption that they gained independence and
remained independent is literally incredible. The Greeks would have rallied and
annihilated them if the winning side did not have a Greek sponsor.
The Roman expansion into the region does not occur until a century after these
supposed events and then it occurs almost as an afterthought. It started with a
three year commission to get rid of some pirates which took all of four months.
Rather than return home the army was used to expand Roman interests in the
region, mainly by putting a price on choosing sides in on-going conflicts.
Damascus was the prize of the region which gave control of all trade from the
east to both the northern and southern shores of the Med. The hillbillies in
bibleland had never been able to take over the trade route to Egypt and the
immense wealth that would have brought. The reason is quite obvious. The land
could never have supported a population large enough to put together an army of
any interesting size. Further it had no natural resources so anything needed to
prepare an army had to be bought from others and the fact it has next to nothing
to trade precluded that route to establishing an army even comparable to its
population.
Even with the farming methods available in the late 19th c. AD the population
of Palestine was on the order of 800,000. One of D'Israeli's speeches against
Zionism uses that number specifically to point out the land cannot support
foreign Jews moving to the region.
--
Hodie undecimo Kalendas Martias MMVIII est
-- The Ferric Webcaesar
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/holo-survivors.phtml a3
Matt Giwer
For those who insist not believing in OT myths is antisemitic I offer this well
known neo-nazi screed.
=====
King David was a nebbish
And Exodus never happened and the walls of Jericho did not come a-tumbling
down. How archaeologists are shaking Israel to its biblical foundations.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Laura Miller
Feb. 7, 2001 | Arguing among themselves about the meanings of objects like
pottery shards, animal bones and the foundations of long-ruined buildings is
something archaeologists usually do in the privacy of their own profession.
But when the argument is about who wrote the Bible, why it was written
and what, if any, of the historical events described in the Old Testament
are true -- and when the archaeologist's excavations are conducted on some
of the most contested land in the world, the Middle East -- the tempest
is almost guaranteed to boil over the rim of the teapot. No one knows this
better than Israel Finkelstein, chairman of the Archaeology Department at
Tel Aviv University, who, with archaeology historian and journalist Neil
Asher Silberman, has just published a book called "The Bible Unearthed:
Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred
Text."
"The Bible Unearthed" is the latest salvo fired in a pitched battle between
those who consider the Old Testament to contain plenty of reliable
historical facts, and those who, at the opposite extreme, say it's pure
mythology. The debate reached the general population of Israel, sending what
one journalist called a "shiver" down the nation's "collective spine," in
late 1999, when another archaeologist from Tel Aviv University, Ze'ev
Herzog, wrote a cover story for the weekend magazine of the national daily
newspaper, Ha'aretz. In the essay, Herzog laid out many of the theories
Finkelstein and Silberman present in their book: "the Israelites were never
in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land [of Canaan]
in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the twelve tribes of
Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united kingdom
of David and Solomon, described in the Bible as a regional power, was at
most a small tribal kingdom." The new theories envision this modest chiefdom
as based in a Jerusalem that was essentially a cow town, not the glorious
capital of an empire.
Although, as Herzog notes, some of these findings have been accepted by the
majority of biblical scholars and archaeologists for years and even decades,
they are just now making a dent in the awareness of the Israeli public -- a
very painful dent. They challenge many of the Old Testament stories central
to Israeli beliefs about their own national character and destiny, stories
that have influenced much of Western culture as well. The tales of the
patriarchs -- Abraham, Isaac and Joseph among others -- were the first to go
when biblical scholars found those passages rife with anachronisms and other
inconsistencies. The story of Exodus, one of the most powerful epics of
enslavement, courage and liberation in human history, also slipped from
history to legend when archaeologists could no longer ignore the lack of
corroborating contemporary Egyptian accounts and the absence of evidence of
large encampments in the Sinai Peninsula ("the wilderness" where Moses
brought the Israelites after leading them through the parted Red Sea).
Herzog's article led to a nationwide bout of soul-searching. After it
appeared, universities organized conferences where distressed citizens could
quiz experts on the details and meanings of this new and not-so-new
research; Israeli newspaper journalists wrote stories casting the theories
as blows against the cultural identity and even the political legitimacy of
Israel; and scholars who quarrel with the ideas of archaeologists like
Finkelstein wrote fiery letters and editorials denouncing them as "biblical
minimalists."
Them's fightin' words. In this field, it seems, there are few worse epithets
to throw at a colleague than "minimalist." The moniker is usually applied to
a controversial group of European biblical scholars, sometimes called the
Copenhagen School, who have insisted that since there is, to their minds, so
little corroborative evidence supporting the stories in the Old Testament,
the scriptures should be regarded as a collection of legends, and figures
like David and Solomon considered "no more historical than King Arthur." The
inflammatory implication behind the name "minimalist" (which Finkelstein and
Silberman dismiss as a canard invented by the group's "detractors") is that
an emotional, religious or political agenda, rather than a judicious
weighing of the facts, drives their research. Their most vehement critics
accuse the minimalists of being anti-Bible and anti-Israeli, for to some any
attack on the historical legitimacy of the Bible, with its grand national
myth of a people chosen by God to rule in the Promised Land, is a blow
struck at the legitimacy of the current state of Israel.
Into this incendiary territory steps Finkelstein, a prominent and
well-respected Israeli archaeologist. Although his staunchest critics,
including [9]William Dever, professor of Near East archaeology and
anthropology at the University of Arizona, and Hershel Shanks, editor of the
[10]Biblical Archaeology Review, have called him a "minimalist," his
defenders scoff at the label. "The Bible Unearthed" does observe that "from
a purely literary and archaeological standpoint, the minimalists have some
points in their favor," but it concludes that "archaeology has shown that
there were simply too many material correspondences between the finds in
Israel and the world described in the Bible to suggest that the Bible was
fanciful priestly literature, written with no historical basis at all."
Nevertheless, Finkelstein is an iconoclast. He established his reputation in
part by developing a theory about the settlement patterns of the nomadic
shepherd tribes who would eventually become the Israelites, bolstering the
growing consensus that they were originally indistinguishable from the rest
of their neighbors, the Canaanites. This overturns a key element in the
Bible: The Old Testament depicts the Israelites as superior outsiders --
descended from Abraham, a Mesopotamian immigrant -- entitled by divine order
to invade Canaan and exterminate its unworthy, idolatrous inhabitants. The
famous battle of Jericho, with which the Israelites supposedly launched this
campaign of conquest after wandering for decades in the desert, has been
likewise debunked: The city of Jericho didn't exist at that time and had no
walls to come tumbling down. These assertions are all pretty much accepted
by mainstream archaeologists.
Finkelstein's latest and most controversial claim, however, concerns the
dating of certain ruins, including those at a site where he co-heads an
ongoing excavation: Megiddo. Megiddo is thought to be the location of the
final, future battle of Armageddon, but it is also named in the Bible as one
of the major provincial capitals in the united kingdom of Israel under the
reigns of David and Solomon. When archaeologists discovered the remains of
monumental structures at Megiddo in the 1920s and 1930s, they promptly
attributed them to Solomon's time. In "The Bible Unearthed," Finkelstein and
Silberman present Finkelstein's argument for redating these structures,
including the massive "Solomon's Gates" found in several similar cities, to
a period about 100 years later, and they give credit for building them to
King Ahab, husband of the notorious heathen Jezebel and a ruler much reviled
for his apostasy in the Old Testament.
Some of his colleagues find this theory unacceptable. Dever declares that
Finkelstein is "the only archaeologist in the world" who advocates the
redating. Lawrence Stager, a professor of the archaeology of Israel at
Harvard and director of the Harvard Semitic Museum, says "Ninety-five
percent of the specialists in the field would disagree with him" and
dismisses Phyllis Tribble, a professor of biblical studies who
enthusiastically reviewed "The Bible Unearthed" in the New York Times Book
Review, as someone who "doesn't know much about the Old Testament and
archaeology."
And while Baruch Halpern, a historian who was a co-director of the Megiddo
excavation with Finkelstein, describes the book as "excellent" and
"challenging," he remains unconvinced by Finkelstein's redating of the
Solomonic ruins because the theory relies overmuch on pottery seriation, a
technique for dating sites using ceramic remains, which he distrusts.
Nevertheless, Halpern expresses surprise at the extent of the ire
Finkelstein's theory has evoked. "This touched an incredibly vital nerve ...
They can't abide the thought that the consensus might be mistaken. If one of
the only absolute anchors between archaeology and the text is removed, they
are thoroughly at sea."
Ordinarily, the precise dating of buildings erected 3,000 years ago in a
kingdom that long ago passed away into ancient history would preoccupy only
a small group of specialists. Once the Bible's involved, though, all bets
are off; its influence on contemporary Israeli identity is still tremendous.
"It's used as a deed, as an outline of what people are going to do, as a way
of proving your genealogy," says Amy Dockser Marcus, former Middle East
correspondent for the Wall Street Journal and author of "The View From Nebo:
How Archaeology Is Rewriting the Bible and Reshaping the Middle East."
And it's not just Israel where the scriptures have provided a blueprint for
political and cultural as well as religious projects. Take the story of the
conquest of Canaan, for example: a legend about a "righteous" nation seizing
a great country from a people who did not deserve it. It has implications
for the establishment of the current state of Israel, but the Europeans who
colonized America deliberately invoked that conquest myth, as well, in their
campaigns against Native Americans. The Bible's story of David, who with his
great army captured Jerusalem and united a vast empire in Palestine, and his
son Solomon, who built the First Temple in Jerusalem and many magnificent
gates, palaces and stables throughout the land, depicts the united kingdom
as ancient Israel's Golden Age. The founders of the modern state of Israel
invoked that kingdom and heralded its "restoration." And even Jews who
consider themselves secular can experience the revelation of David and
Solomon's relative insignificance as deflating.
Others see the downgrading of David and Solomon's reigns as positively
ominous. In a response to Herzog's article in Ha'aretz, Hershel Shanks of
the Biblical Archaeology Review lumped both Herzog and Finkelstein with the
biblical minimalists and accused them of having "a political agenda." "[A]t
the extreme," Shanks wrote, "they can even be viewed as anti-Semitic."
According to Marcus, "People say that Finkelstein means well but what he's
doing is giving amunition to people who are anti-Israel, and you do see some
of this stuff turning up on pro-Palestinian web sites, for example."
Finkelstein himself has no patience for such charges, maintaining that he
has no political agenda and is just a scholar doing his job. "Nonsense," he
replied by e-mail when the "ammunition" issue was raised. "Research is
research, and strong societies can easily endure discoveries like this."
By comparison with today's skeptical turmoil, the early years of the modern
Israeli state were a honeymoon period for archaeology and the Bible, in
which the science seemed to validate the historical passages of the Old
Testament left and right. As Finkelstein and Silberman relate, midcentury
archaeologists usually "took the historical narratives of the Bible at face
value"; Israel's first archaeologists were often said to approach a dig with
a spade in one hand and the Bible in the other. The Old Testament frequently
served as the standard against which all other data were measured: If
someone found majestic ruins, they dated them to Solomon's time; signs of a
battle were quickly attributed to the conquest of Canaan.
That confidence was not entirely misplaced; in particular, the Old Testament
contains very detailed genealogies and gets high marks in geography.
Eventually, though, as archaeological methods improved and biblical scholars
analyzed the text itself for inconsistencies and anachronisms, the amount of
the Bible regarded as historically verifiable eroded. The honeymoon was
over.
According to Jack M. Sasson, professor of Judaic and biblical studies at
Vanderbilt University, "There is a kind of curtain drawn across the Bible.
After it you can find history, before it not. Most responsible scholars in
the '20s began with Abraham. As time progressed, the curtain moved further
down, and people were debating whether Exodus really happened, then the
conquest. Now the big debate has slipped even further [into the present]. It
has gotten down to being about the monarchy."
Marcus says that Finkelstein is "difficult to dismiss because he's so much
an insider in terms of his credentials and background. He's an
archaeologist, not a theologian, and he is an Israeli. It's hard to say that
someone who was born in Israel and intends to live the rest of his life
there is anti-Israeli." In her mind, Finkelstein's work parallels a broader
change in Israeli society led by those who, like Finkelstein, were born
after the task of state building had been accomplished. "They're not as
wedded to the mythology of Israel," she says "Their identities are not as
caught up in toeing to the traditional narratives. This group of historians
has gone into the archives and done a lot of research and come up with new
interpretations of Israel's recent past. Israel Finkelstein is part of that,
but he's looking at Israel's ancient past." Marcus calls this group of
scholars "new historians"; others have dubbed the trend "post-Zionism."
Here, also, there are striking similarities between contemporary politics
and the way ancient history gets studied. Many of the new dating methods
used by Finkelstein and others to undermine the historicity of certain Bible
stories involve seeing the first Israelites as part of the fabric of Middle
Eastern life rather than as a remarkable exception. "The Bible Unearthed"
notes that in the 1970s, archaeologists began to use long-term
anthropological models, which were built by scholars who compared many
cultures to see how civilizations tend to develop along predictable lines.
Certain artifacts -- monumental buildings, administrative correspondence,
royal chronicles and national scripture like the Bible -- are almost always
"a sign of state formation, in which power is centralized in national
institutions like an official cult or monarchy."
That kind of state didn't exist in Jerusalem during David and Solomon's
time, so Finkelstein and Silberman argue that the Old Testament must have
been written (though perhaps "compiled" is a more accurate term) later. They
peg a king descended from David, Josiah, who ruled over a much more
developed Jerusalem more than 300 years after David, as the one who ordered
its transcription. Josiah, according to "Unearthing the Bible," needed a
national scripture to cement a strictly monotheistic religious orthodoxy and
to promote the idea that only a king of Davidic lineage could reunite the
lost empire. It should come as no surprise, then, that the Old Testament is
still used to forge a national identity for today's Israel, since according
to Finkelstein and Silberman, it was created to do just that in the ancient
world.
The Old Testament is also a story about how special Israel is, singled out
from its neighbors by God's orders. Archaeology used to mimic that
separatism. "For a long time the archaeology of Israel was studied in
isolation," says Marcus. "Israel Finkelstein sees modern and ancient Israel
as part of the broader Middle East I consider him part of an emerging common
ground. He's an archaeologist starting to look at the past in a different
way." Finkelstein, when asked about the comparison to the new historians,
replied, "The general atmosphere in this country, and in my generation, is
very different now from that of, say, 20 or 50 years ago. There is a strong
cultural activity going on here, and part of it is a fresh thinking about
the past -- distant and more recent." Techniques like the long-term
anthropological models Finkelstein prizes pull ancient Israel and,
metaphorically, modern Israel, back into the texture of Middle Eastern life,
so it's no wonder they're associated with a new, more pro-peace process
current in Israeli culture.
How those views will weather the current faltering of the process and the
probable election of hard-liner [11]Ariel Sharon is uncertain. The election
of Sharon, who many believe ignited the current intifada when he
provocatively visited the Temple Mount, a site sacred to both Jews and
Muslims (and who is quoted in the pages of the Jan. 29 issue of the New
Yorker saying "the Koran doesn't mention Jerusalem once In the Bible it is
mentioned 676 times"), may reflect a more general retrenchment on the
subject of Israel's symbolic underpinnings. Finkelstein remains unfazed by
his critics: "I am sure that no educated Israeli or American Jew for that
matter, would want me to silence the results of my research. We are an open,
democratic society, and we need to face these things -- both on the distant
past and on the more recent one. In fact, this makes us a stronger society!
And I really don't think -- let me know if I am wrong -- that there is a
committee sitting somewhere in, say, Switzerland, and deciding the fate of
nations according to historical or biblical research."
- - - - - - - - - - - -
About the writer
Laura Miller is an editor of Salon.
Sigge
Mr Doug Weller! Yes I did. But I never initiated an obnoxious verbal
exchange!
No one (no Jew, no Greek as the two cultural types, no Swede, no
German, no Russian, no White, no Negro, no Japanese, no one
whatsoever) has ever scared me to silence! I answer back.
In this group I mostly use Greek words (I find the characters of Greek
plays, epics, parodies and the ability of the Greek language to form
adjectives and adverbs as remarkable and part of the Human Legacy). I
am delighted and laugh at the many phobias, syndromes, I make up words
myself (e.g. proctolingean is a hybrid that does not exist, but I am
sure people in the group are able to understand its meaning).
Sometimes I use phrases that I wouldn't in real life, but this is the
benefit of the cyber world. I try to restrain myself but I have to
admit, it is really relieving to call an idiot like JTEM an asshole!
So much for ad hominem. Leave it at that and try to concentrate on the
thread!
There is a second disturbing element in your input.
Whether I am an antisemite and/or deny Holocaust. Even Mr Christofer
Ingham in his very fine input about the Maccabean revolt put an
assumption of me being a freethinker and not antisemite.
Are you afraid of talking to antisemites?
I was brought up as an atheist and I was professionally trained as a
mathematician. Very dry and always answering "prove it". So I am not
antisemitic, anti-negro, anti-yellow, anti-anything.
The holocaust took place! There might not be six million Jews but
certainly several million.
And not the first genocide! German efficiency!
But now let us come to ideas! I do not consider the ideas of Nazis
structurally different than those of Christians, Mohammedans, Jewish,
Communists and even Freudians when they consolidate Power. The
structure is the same.
1)Great Prophet (Christ, Moses, Mohammed, Hitler, Marx, Lenin, Stalin,
Freud,..)
2)Holy Book (Talmud, Bible, Koran, Mein kampf, Communist Manifesto,
Interpretation of Dreams,..
3)smaller prophets
4)Ruling party Rabbis, Cardinals, Nazi party, Communist Party, cadres
of Psycho...
5)splittings
6)Crimes against Humanity (Heretics, Jews, Gypsies, Slavs,
Palestinians, ideological opponents, simple human beings with
troubles...
I see all this devastating fanaticism stemming out of Jewish
monotheism and its anti-Greek isolationism/exclusivity.
Most of the evil things are product of Jewish thought! Jewish thought
at its worst is nazistic, genocidal as it is often exhorted in the Old
Testament. At its best it produces an industry of consolation in front
of the unavoidable death.
In contrast the good things are all products of the Greek
Civilization.
Democracy, Science, Reason, and finally Art. The Man at the center.
Anthropocentric.
Jason's beautiful journey and life to 40 years of meaningless
wandering in the desert.
Especially for a mathematician who has tasted the beauty of proof all
good things are Greek.
So in the realm of IDEAS and in the West "We all are
Greeks" (Shelley?)
Sigge
Archer
> Doug Weller <dwel...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> wrote:
----snip----
> > But for someone who is upset about my comment, you seem to throw ad
> > hominem around very happily yourself.
----snip----
> Mr Doug Weller! Yes I did. But I never initiated an obnoxious verbal
> exchange!
False. See your thoroughly obnoxious smessage
<aba7ea62-7ce1-402b...@m34g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
with its arrogance and ad hominem drivel.
----snip----
Martin Edwards
the 1960s musical "Hair". I inserted a line from the same song. I
thought it might make an amusing reference to America's current
probelms. Anglophone culture is riddled with allusions. Do point it out
when I do this kind of thing and I'll gladly clear it up.
Martin Edwards
> Sigge wrote:
> ...
>> What has changed recently? HISTORY is under attack Mr BernardZ! You
>> are persuaded that what they serve you is true! Investigate instead of
>> allowing assholes who simply want your money to interpret the
>> Scriptures for you! We are FREE. Freedom is the word for the West!
>
> Here is a test of changing history barely a decade old. You may
> remember the attack on Serbia for the "genocide" in Kosovo.
>
involved: what was going on was religious cleansing. Then there was the
"Soviet invasion" of Afganistan. The Soviet troops were there at the
request of the legitimate government, not a perfectly democratic one,
but well supported in Kabul and the surrounding area. In any case,
democracy has never been a prerequisite for American support, witness
any number of squalid dictatorships, from Batista to the Saudi royal family.
Martin Edwards
The anglicized form is "coprophage", but I feel it is a /bit/ strong.
Sigge
Martin, I did not know it existed in English. I think I have seen the
word in Batrachomyomachia as the name of a member/father of a member
of the mice warriors!
Swearing in a dead language is funny and not at all loaded for me.
Shit-eater or Faecevorous (if it exists) would be much more loaded
(at least for me) than Koprophagous.
By the way, "coprophage" sounds like vocative (in Greek) to me, as it
should be in my text!
If it is strong as you indicate, I withdraw the insult and I
apologise!
In Swedish I have seen in some old book the word "koprolagni" (we
transliterate greek kappa mostly with k not with c as it is mostly the
case in English). But I do not think that coprolagni or coprolagneia
exists in English.
Thanks any way
Sigge
Sigge
> Sigge <Riace.Warr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Doug Weller <dwel...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> wrote:
>
> ----snip----
>
> > > But for someone who is upset about my comment, you seem to throw ad
> > > hominem around very happily yourself.
>
> ----snip----
>
> > Mr Doug Weller! Yes I did. But I never initiated an obnoxious verbal
> > exchange!
>
> False. See your thoroughly obnoxious smessage
> with its arrogance and ad hominem drivel.
>
> ----snip----
Sigge
JTEM
> One might add "ethnic cleansing" in Bosnia. There was
> only one "ethnos" involved:
Well, not quite. Okay, so you're completely wrong...
Seriously, what did you think an "ethnic group" was in the
first place?
Ethnic idenitties are fluid -- not rigid -- morphing over
time. New groups spring up, old one die off. No, not
physically. The culture -- more importantly, the identity --
dies off and is replaced,
The best example of a (relatively) recently formed
"ethnic group" outside of Europe are the Zulus.
Xtes-00k
Sigge
"Sigge" <Riace....@gmail.com> wrote in message news:b2fee633-4315-47d6...@62g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 18, 1:07 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sigge <Riace.Warr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It is a very cheap trick instead of discussing the
> > painful subject to talk about the weather!
>
> It was pretty cold, but some warmer weather came
> up with the rain.
>
> Mind you, it wasn't "So cold that I'm complaining"
> kind of cold. Yesterday, for example, was a beautiful
> sunny day. But, it was just cold enough that you
> couldn't make do without a warm coat.
>
> Such a shame...
JTEM, Wrong thread!
HISTORY (as defined by the Greeks not as a collection of stories,
myths) is part of the HUMAN LEGACY. Its enemies are enemies of
Humanity.
Try to understand that. What real humans care about is the TRUTH,
however uncomfortable.
The values at stake are enormous. During hundreds of years, the
brightest individuals, instead of advancing Science and Human Rights,
were discussing such ridiculous matters as filioque, tetragammia,
limbo etc.
Newton, after some necromantic sessions, made a contribution to
Chronology by claiming that the Egyptian dynasties cannot be older
than the the "History" as it is described in the Holy Book.
WE cannot allow these forces that act against Humanity to prevail once
more.
It has become a cultural trait of your likes. Intellectual hypocricy
and outright dishonesty.
If you do not wish to make a contribution to the very important matter
of conspiracy against HISTORY, please step aside and keep your mouth
shut. Crying Greek Nationalist and Antisemitic is outside the matter
subject.
JTEM, go practice koprolagneia as your ancestors did!
Sigge
JTEM
> I think
Well, let's not get carried away here. Instead, we should
say that you "Feel" or even "Believe."
Now try again, you worthless psycho.
Xtes-00k
"Sigge" <Riace....@gmail.com> wrote in message news:75a3b021-a046-405d...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
--Batrachomyomachia---Batrachos= Frog--Myo-- = closed, very near---machia= battle
---Batracho-myo-machia = A closed Frog to Frog battle ?
Swearing in a dead language is funny and not at all loaded for me.
Shit-eater or Faecevorous (if it exists) would be much more loaded
(at least for me) than Koprophagous.
----Koprophagos= Dung Eater
By the way, "coprophage" sounds like vocative (in Greek) to me, as it
should be in my text!
If it is strong as you indicate, I withdraw the insult and I
apologise!
In Swedish I have seen in some old book the word "koprolagni" (we
transliterate greek kappa mostly with k not with c as it is mostly the
case in English). But I do not think that coprolagni or coprolagneia
exists in English.
---- "KOPROLAGNEIA" ---From Greek-----Kopros = Dung, manure, filth-----lagneia = noun from the verb laghanw=to optain, gather-----Kopro-lagneia= The Art of gathering DUNG !
Thanks any way
Sigge
Doug Weller
wrote:
Oh, I can understand that.
>
>So much for ad hominem. Leave it at that and try to concentrate on the
>thread!
>
>There is a second disturbing element in your input.
>Whether I am an antisemite and/or deny Holocaust. Even Mr Christofer
>Ingham in his very fine input about the Maccabean revolt put an
>assumption of me being a freethinker and not antisemite.
>
>Are you afraid of talking to antisemites?
No, it just isn't worth my time to talk to people who have such a warped
view of the world.
But that is true of Christianity as well, so why single out its
predecessor?
>
>In contrast the good things are all products of the Greek
>Civilization.
>Democracy, Science, Reason, and finally Art. The Man at the center.
>Anthropocentric.
Fiction.
>Jason's beautiful journey and life to 40 years of meaningless
>wandering in the desert.
Fictional though.
>
>Especially for a mathematician who has tasted the beauty of proof all
>good things are Greek.
In your opinion.
>
>So in the realm of IDEAS and in the West "We all are
>Greeks" (Shelley?)
>
Whoever, they were wrong. You are wearing blinkers.
Doug
--
Doug Weller --
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Matt Giwer
>> JTEM, go practice koprolagneia as your ancestors did!
> Sigge
>
> I think is fair and proper to define "KOPROLAGNEIA"
> Kopros = Dung, manure, filth
> lagneia = noun from the verb laghanw=to optain, gather
>
> Kopro-lagneia= The Art of gathering DUNG !
AKA TIVO user.
--
Bush always makes the right decision after exhausting all other
possibilities. Unfortunately he is no where near exhausting them.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3932
Matt Giwer
...
> Ok, fine. Let's see you reject Giwer's anti-Semitism and Holocaust
> denying, then I will very, very happily apologise.
Knowing the OT is total bullshit has nothing to do with the chief purveyors of it.
As for your holocaustic superstition, I have posted Israel's claim which
rejects extermination as part of it. Do you have an impairment of both short and
long term memory or are you incapable of comprehending numbers?
> But for someone who is upset about my comment, you seem to throw ad
> hominem around very happily yourself.
As do you when you have no rational response which is almost all the time.
--
The world did not rise up to help Jews in Nazi Germany for the same reason
the world does not rise today to rescue the Palestinians.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3936
http://www.giwersworld.org a1
Matt Giwer
> There is a second disturbing element in your input.
> Whether I am an antisemite and/or deny Holocaust. Even Mr Christofer
> Ingham in his very fine input about the Maccabean revolt put an
> assumption of me being a freethinker and not antisemite.
> Are you afraid of talking to antisemites?
It would make him unclean and and he isn't due for his annual bath until April.
It would throw off his schedule for the rest of the year.
> I was brought up as an atheist and I was professionally trained as a
> mathematician. Very dry and always answering "prove it". So I am not
> antisemitic, anti-negro, anti-yellow, anti-anything.
> The holocaust took place! There might not be six million Jews but
> certainly several million.
According to Israel it could not have been millions. I once did invite you to
find fault with this. I presumed you had. As to the attitude of "prove it" that
only applies in math and logic. In the rest of the world we are interested in
the evidence as in the sciences and the law. I offer Israel's official, legal
position into evidence.
=====
There were slightly fewer than 9 million Jews in Europe at the start of the
war.
However one million is a conveniently round number. Perhaps it was an early
estimate and in error. In 2004 Israel issued a more refined number still
alive in that year, 1,092,000, for the purpose of actually filing lawsuits.
So 59 years after the event 16/75s were still alive. That leaves us with
5,118,750 alive in 1945 if none were killed for inability to work and the
birthrate were the same as it was in peacetime. If we go with those under 13
being killed we have 27,300,000 holocaust survivors alive in 1945. This is
nearly twice as many Jews as were in all the world in 1938.
The entire article at http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/holo-survivors.phtml
=====
> And not the first genocide! German efficiency!
Although it is nothing but myth, the Old Testament contained the only allusion
to genocide until the 20th c. and it still reports the only successful ones,
plural intended.
> But now let us come to ideas! I do not consider the ideas of Nazis
> structurally different than those of Christians, Mohammedans, Jewish,
> Communists and even Freudians when they consolidate Power. The
> structure is the same.
> 1)Great Prophet (Christ, Moses, Mohammed, Hitler, Marx, Lenin, Stalin,
> Freud,..)
> 2)Holy Book (Talmud, Bible, Koran, Mein kampf, Communist Manifesto,
> Interpretation of Dreams,..
> 3)smaller prophets
> 4)Ruling party Rabbis, Cardinals, Nazi party, Communist Party, cadres
> of Psycho...
> 5)splittings
> 6)Crimes against Humanity (Heretics, Jews, Gypsies, Slavs,
> Palestinians, ideological opponents, simple human beings with
> troubles...
> I see all this devastating fanaticism stemming out of Jewish
> monotheism and its anti-Greek isolationism/exclusivity.
> Most of the evil things are product of Jewish thought! Jewish thought
> at its worst is nazistic, genocidal as it is often exhorted in the Old
> Testament. At its best it produces an industry of consolation in front
> of the unavoidable death.
One need only read haaretz.com and jpost.com to see how easily the Jews justify
behaving as Nazis and their gleeful reporting of same. The Palestinians have
only been exercising their right to resist occupation as established in
international law and Israel lurches from one mass reprisal to another just as
did the Nazis in the East. Today resistance to occupation is legal. It was NOT
legal during WWII. Don't complain to me. I never wrote convention of war in my
life.
> In contrast the good things are all products of the Greek
> Civilization.
> Democracy, Science, Reason, and finally Art. The Man at the center.
> Anthropocentric.
> Jason's beautiful journey and life to 40 years of meaningless
> wandering in the desert.
> Especially for a mathematician who has tasted the beauty of proof all
> good things are Greek.
> So in the realm of IDEAS and in the West "We all are
> Greeks" (Shelley?)
You forgot 9 star Metaxa.
--
The problem with bringing the Gitmo prisoners to trial is they cannot be
given anything Americans can recognize as a fair trial.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3943
http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a2
Matt Giwer
...
> By the way, "coprophage" sounds like vocative (in Greek) to me, as it
> should be in my text!
Not my field but biologists in English have all kinds of phages as nouns.
--
Politicians sell a war fantasy. That attacking a country will turn the
citizens against their government. It has been tried dozens of times. It has
never happened. Therefore politicians attack countries for local politics.
The Iron Webmaster, 3930
http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a5
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>> Sigge wrote:
>> ...
>>> What has changed recently? HISTORY is under attack Mr BernardZ! You
>>> are persuaded that what they serve you is true! Investigate instead of
>>> allowing assholes who simply want your money to interpret the
>>> Scriptures for you! We are FREE. Freedom is the word for the West!
>> Here is a test of changing history barely a decade old. You may
>> remember the attack on Serbia for the "genocide" in Kosovo.
> One might add "ethnic cleansing" in Bosnia.
One might ask after physical evidence of it. While it was widely reported it
was never established as a fact. It is called propaganda. I did make a point of
watching the ABC news when Peter Jennings traveled there to document the
expulsion of Kosovars.
It was interesting that the first night he reported being unable to find any
refugees at all. The next night he reported they had gotten a report after he
went off the air of a mass expulsion and he and dozens of other news teams raced
to the location to cover it. He was reporting from that location and there was
no one there. He made a point of panning the camera while commenting there was
no sign anyone had ever been there.
After a week he returned with no evidence of any mass expulsions.
Therefore put it in the same category as the genocide of no one.
It is never a matter of stories. It is a matter of physical evidence prior to
describing what it is evidence of. That is always the case whether the late
1990s or the early 1940s.
> There was only one "ethnos"
> involved: what was going on was religious cleansing.
Save it never rose above the yellow journalism headlines. Read up on the start
of the Spanish-American war for details.
> Then there was the
> "Soviet invasion" of Afganistan.
> The Soviet troops were there at the
> request of the legitimate government, not a perfectly democratic one,
> but well supported in Kabul and the surrounding area. In any case,
> democracy has never been a prerequisite for American support, witness
> any number of squalid dictatorships, from Batista to the Saudi royal
> family.
I am well aware of that. I am also well aware that Americans really don't give
a shit and are willing to swallow any line of crap fed by a warmongering
president. WWI was clearly to make the world safe for democracy and to
perpetuate the enslavement of a billion people by the British and the French.
When it came to WWII it was for democracy and to preserve not only those two
slave empires but to preserve communism.
And yet Americans still think the good guys won in both of those wars. It is
part of the national ethos to believe the mythology that those were good wars.
45 years of the Cold War and the edge of nuclear annihilation and still they are
living in their shells.
And here we are in Afghanistan and Iraq and Americans still think they were
good wars. And when the wars with Iran and Syria start they will include those
as good wars.
I have had the formal version of the lament up for years.
http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/understanding.phtml
Understanding Americans
by Matt Giwer, © 2005 [Jan]
The world tries to understand America and fails. They meet Americans and do not
understand America. It is all because of a misunderstanding.
America is a land of simple people who have no idea of what is going on in the
world around them.
As with all simple people they are easily lead by people who lie to them about
the world around them. It takes little sophistication to lead them. As with all
simple peoples Americans trust easily and are loathe to abandon loyalties. As a
simple people they wish mostly to be left alone. They are easily stirred when
told outsiders threaten their simple lives.
Americans eschew sophistication. Americans eschew knowing the meaning of eschew.
They go to an event, they do not attend an event.
America has a self-proclaimed elite which claims to speak for America. They are
barely more educated than most Americans. They pretend to be America and to lead
America but Americans laugh at the idea.
Americans want simple solutions. Americans want to be left alone. Americans are
stirred to war when told their simple lives are threatened. Americans want to
believe simple things. Americans do not want to live complicated lives.
In other words Americans are like everyone else in this world. European
governments are the elite of Europe and the people just want to be left alone.
The same with Mideast governments and far east governments and just about every
other person on the planet.
But we know the human species is not wired to leave well enough alone. Americans
do not care if the rest of the world enjoys the benefits of democratic election
scandals. Americans would prefer not to have them. Americans really do not wish
Iraq to have election scandals.
Americans are fighting in Iraq. They are following orders. If they give a reason
it is read off of a list of answers they were given to read. Does anyone any
place in the world expect a 20 year old from their country to know why their
country is involved in war? People study years to find the real reasons for past
wars. Often there is no agreement.
Americans have lives to live. A simple people do not care about anything unless
it bothers their lives. Americans are a simple people.
--
Bush always makes the right decision after exhausting all other
possibilities. Unfortunately he is no where near exhausting them.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3932
Matt Giwer
You've been reading Der Sud Afrikaans Sturmer. The real fact is they were
around for centuries but by chance happened to be migrating south as the Dutch
and British were migrating north. There is very little left of the tribes that
were caught in the middle.
--
Bush always makes the right decision after exhausting all other
possibilities. Unfortunately he is no where near exhausting them.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3932
Matt Giwer
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 02:52:00 -0800 (PST), in soc.history.ancient, Sigge
> wrote:
>> Are you afraid of talking to antisemites?
>
> No, it just isn't worth my time to talk to people who have such a warped
> view of the world.
Are you afraid to talk to people who hate Arabs? You know, people like Zionists.
Because it is NOT its predecessor? That is a good enough reason for me.
Christianity isn't even based upon the gospels. Look up the minimum requirements
to get a lawful baptism and discover there is nothing attributed to Jesus among
them.
Back before Iraq was a significant news item I was asked in a very accusing
manner why I was always talking about Israel. I pointed out that in the US news
Israel is mentioned more than any other foreign country and in fact more than
any of the fifty states. I noted political developments were covered on the
network evening news more frequently than those of important countries. As
expected, he chose to repeat the attack because I did not consider Israel an
important country.
A few years ago a French diplomat was reported to have referred to Israel as a
shitty, little country. Israel was very upset. But I read Israeli newspapers on
the web. They were not pissed at the shitty. It was the little that bothered them.
>> In contrast the good things are all products of the Greek
>> Civilization.
>> Democracy, Science, Reason, and finally Art. The Man at the center.
>> Anthropocentric.
>
> Fiction.
>
>> Jason's beautiful journey and life to 40 years of meaningless
>> wandering in the desert.
>
> Fictional though.
>> Especially for a mathematician who has tasted the beauty of proof all
>> good things are Greek.
>
> In your opinion.
In the opinion of all of western civilization. It is not as though the
bibleland people ever contributed a single thing to civilization.
>> So in the realm of IDEAS and in the West "We all are
>> Greeks" (Shelley?)
> Whoever, they were wrong. You are wearing blinkers.
--
How reasonable is it to be unable to establish a single murder beyond a
reasonable doubt yet claim millions were murdered based upon hearsay?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3931
http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/occupied-2.phtml a6
Sigge
wrote:
>
Sigge wrote:
QUOTE
But now let us come to ideas! I do not consider the ideas of Nazis
structurally different than those of Christians, Mohammedans, Jewish,
Communists and even Freudians when they consolidate Power. The
structure is the same.
1)Great Prophet (Christ, Moses, Mohammed, Hitler, Marx, Lenin, Stalin,
Freud,..)
2)Holy Book (Talmud, Bible, Koran, Mein kampf, Communist Manifesto,
Interpretation of Dreams,..
3)smaller prophets
4)Ruling party Rabbis, Cardinals, Nazi party, Communist Party, cadres
of Psycho...
5)splittings
6)Crimes against Humanity (Heretics, Jews, Gypsies, Slavs,
Palestinians, ideological opponents, simple human beings with
troubles...
I see all this devastating fanaticism stemming out of Jewish
monotheism and its anti-Greek isolationism/exclusivity.
Most of the evil things are product of Jewish thought! Jewish thought
at its worst is nazistic, genocidal as it is often exhorted in the Old
Testament. At its best it produces an industry of consolation in front
of the unavoidable death.
ENDQUOTE Sigge
Doug answers:
QUOTE
" But that is true of Christianity as well, so why single out its
predecessor?"
ENDQUOTE
Sigge replies:
Very strange!
I did not! On the contrary! I put in the same basket Judaism,
Christianity, Islam, Freudianism, Communism, Nazism. Read again and
then a third time to understand!
Sigge wrote about the Greek Civilization: Anthropocentric.
Doug answers: " Fiction."
Sigge remark: It goes without saying as we say in mathematics! Jews
created GOD, Greeks created ANTHROPOS. Shall we argue about that?
Sigge wrote : "Jason's beautiful journey and life to 40 years of
meaningless
wandering in the desert.
Doug answers : Fictional though.
Sigge remarks :Yes, of course! But culturally the two stories are the
synopsis of Greek vs Jewish life.
The roaming in the desert has been the cultural milk of your people!
It creates attitudes and makes jewish and christian and muslim people
miserable! Suffer in this life and wait until we reach Chanaan,
Paradise, whatever! Jason is enjoying the adventure, the good things,
women, slaying dragons, the new landscapes, and LOVE. He becomes king
and falls to misery. But he LIVES, he is not roaming aimlessly in
the desert! The end is tragic of course for Jason. Life is like that,
both beautiful and tragic moments.
Sigge wrote: So in the realm of IDEAS and in the West "We all are
Greeks" (Shelley?)
Doug wrote: Whoever, they were wrong. You are wearing blinkers.
Sigge remarks: Ha, ha ! Shelley was a Greek Nationalist Antisemite!
Mr Weller! Are you joking? Are you American? If yes check the basis of
American Democracy, the symbols used, the columns supporting the
public buildings, and the rest of the ideas,...
Sigge
VtSkier
are largely Masonic, usually of the Scottish rite
to which Washington and others of our founders
belonged. Yes the Masons highjacked a lot of their
symbology from the Middle East as they believed it
existed.
Martin Edwards
anglicized ending.
> If it is strong as you indicate, I withdraw the insult and I
> apologise!
>
> In Swedish I have seen in some old book the word "koprolagni" (we
> transliterate greek kappa mostly with k not with c as it is mostly the
> case in English). But I do not think that coprolagni or coprolagneia
> exists in English.
I certainly have not seen them.
>
> Thanks any way
>
> Sigge
>
>
--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From “Rollerball”
Martin Edwards
> Sigge wrote:
> ...
>> By the way, "coprophage" sounds like vocative (in Greek) to me, as it
>> should be in my text!
>
> Not my field but biologists in English have all kinds of phages as
> nouns.
>
terrorist called Nikita Nikitopoulos was nicknamed Tourkophagos. If
many English people had heard of him the word would have been
"Turkophage". To those who had heard of him Greeks were /ipso facto/
romantic, so he was probably called "Turk Slayer".
--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From “Rollerball”
Martin Edwards
> Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> One might add "ethnic cleansing" in Bosnia. There was
>> only one "ethnos" involved:
>
> Well, not quite. Okay, so you're completely wrong...
>
but they were geographical. You can easily look this up in your school
library.
VtSkier
> JTEM wrote:
>> Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> One might add "ethnic cleansing" in Bosnia. There was
>>> only one "ethnos" involved:
>>
>> Well, not quite. Okay, so you're completely wrong...
>>
> The inhabitants of Jugoslavia spoke Serbo-Croat. There were dialects,
> but they were geographical. You can easily look this up in your school
> library.
Oh? What do ethnic Albanians in Kosovo speak?
An "official" language is not necessarily what
people on the street speak. Witness Spanish in
the US, although I might add English is not an
"official" language notwithstanding efforts to
make it so.
JTEM
> > The best example of a (relatively) recently formed
> > "ethnic group" outside of Europe are the Zulus.
>
> You've been reading Der Sud Afrikaans Sturmer.
> The real fact is they were around for centuries but by
> chance happened to be migrating south as the Dutch
> and British were migrating north.
No. the real fact is that they were the Bantu, then the
Nguni and finally they became the Zulus.
And this is funny -- you'll laugh -- but I've met plenty of
English or even Irish in my life, but not any Celts. And
I've met Germans as well, but not any Goths or Vandals.
Yup, ethnicity is fluid, as all of human history demonstrates.
JTEM
> The inhabitants of Jugoslavia spoke Serbo-Croat.
Yeah? And?
> You can easily look this up in your school library.
And why do you think any of this is relevant?
Sigge
Thanks Martin! My English was good enough for Mathematics. Our phrases
are standard and with very minor exceptions (Soviet mathematicians had
some slightly different terms) the whole vocabulary well defined and
absolutely rigid. But as I am getting old and become interested in the
History of Ideas I have to make some linguistic journeys in other
areas and other languages. I am not skillful enough to handle language
in other areas.
Some clarifications:
Batrachomyomachia (I think that in English it is Batrachomyomachie, it
fits your English ending)
is a parody of Homer's Iliad (some claim that it was written by Homer
himself).
It means the Battle between Frogs and Mice. Both the Frogs and the
Mice have very funny names. When they are translated into English they
are not that funny! So I prefer the original Greek names. But I must
transliterate them and I am not good at it.
Batrachomyomachia is only 300 verses.
Greeks did not have any Holy books. Homer's Iliad can be considered as
the nearest to a Book.
But the Greeks were very cool and looked at themselves with irony.
Can you imagine any muslim writing a parody of Koran? A few cartoons
in a Danish newspaper of the prophet and we got almost a war! The old
guy who made the cartoon of Mohammed with the turban as a bomb is
hiding! The Danish security service discovered a plot to kill him.
Thanks for the lesson
Sigge
Matt Giwer
...
> Sigge remark: It goes without saying as we say in mathematics! Jews
> created GOD, Greeks created ANTHROPOS. Shall we argue about that?
While one cannot find a single explicit assertion of monotheism in the entire
OT one can find many explicit statements of polytheism. The first of the Big Ten
for example. They invented nothing. How could dirt farmers and goatherds invent
anything?
--
How reasonable is it to be unable to establish a single murder beyond a
reasonable doubt yet claim millions were murdered based upon hearsay?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3931
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
>>> The best example of a (relatively) recently formed
>>> "ethnic group" outside of Europe are the Zulus.
>> You've been reading Der Sud Afrikaans Sturmer.
>> The real fact is they were around for centuries but by
>> chance happened to be migrating south as the Dutch
>> and British were migrating north.
> No. the real fact is that they were the Bantu, then the
> Nguni and finally they became the Zulus.
The Bantu became Zulu after their average adult height increased by nearly a
foot. I suggest you stop reading the SA Stürmer.
That is the same sort of slop the zionists claim about the sudden appearance of
Palestinians even though they have been in the region for at least 2500 years as
they are mentioned by name several times by Herodotus. No one expects zionists
to be educated.
> And this is funny -- you'll laugh -- but I've met plenty of
> English or even Irish in my life, but not any Celts. And
> I've met Germans as well, but not any Goths or Vandals.
> Yup, ethnicity is fluid, as all of human history demonstrates.
You confuse name changes with real differences. If you had been in Boston 150
years ago you would have known people who still called themselves Celts. You
might even look into what the Irish call themselves in the Irish language
instead of English. Hindustan did adopt the English name India for their Muslim
population and for the lingua franca being English.
--
Hodie decimo Kalendas Martias MMVIII est
-- The Ferric Webcaesar
http://www.giwersworld.org a1
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>> Sigge wrote:
>> ...
>>> By the way, "coprophage" sounds like vocative (in Greek) to me, as it
>>> should be in my text!
>> Not my field but biologists in English have all kinds of phages as
>> nouns.
> Just so: in these cases it is simply an English ending. For instance a
> terrorist called Nikita Nikitopoulos was nicknamed Tourkophagos. If
> many English people had heard of him the word would have been
> "Turkophage". To those who had heard of him Greeks were /ipso facto/
> romantic, so he was probably called "Turk Slayer".
As I said not my field so I don't have ready examples nor have I found a need
to learn the usage. But I have read it used as though cherrytree and appletree
were single words and phage would be analogous to tree.
--
Funny thing about those condemned for questioning the official 9/11 theory.
There is no official 9/11 theory.
An official theory exists only in the minds of those who attack the
questioners.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3838
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/nizgas3.html a4
Matt Giwer
>> Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
>> has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
>> decisions. -From "Rollerball"
> Thanks Martin! My English was good enough for Mathematics. Our phrases
> are standard and with very minor exceptions (Soviet mathematicians had
> some slightly different terms)
And Russian physicists have frozen stars instead of black holes because black
hole was in use in Russian before they were named.
> the whole vocabulary well defined and
> absolutely rigid. But as I am getting old and become interested in the
> History of Ideas I have to make some linguistic journeys in other
> areas and other languages. I am not skillful enough to handle language
> in other areas.
>
> Some clarifications:
>
> Batrachomyomachia (I think that in English it is Batrachomyomachie, it
> fits your English ending)
Very few scientific terms common into common English usage. They are invented
from Latin OR Greek roots depending on the custom of the discipline.
> is a parody of Homer's Iliad (some claim that it was written by Homer
> himself).
> It means the Battle between Frogs and Mice. Both the Frogs and the
> Mice have very funny names. When they are translated into English they
> are not that funny! So I prefer the original Greek names. But I must
> transliterate them and I am not good at it.
> Batrachomyomachia is only 300 verses.
> Greeks did not have any Holy books. Homer's Iliad can be considered as
> the nearest to a Book.
Actually the idea of an official canon did not arise until maybe the 3nd or 3rd
c. AD and among the less than educated Christians who worshiped books as sacred.
The idea of a single, codified version of a religion did not appear until after
the Koran appeared. It was a transition from unacceptable ideas to only these
ideas are acceptable.
> But the Greeks were very cool and looked at themselves with irony.
> Can you imagine any muslim writing a parody of Koran? A few cartoons
> in a Danish newspaper of the prophet and we got almost a war! The old
> guy who made the cartoon of Mohammed with the turban as a bomb is
> hiding! The Danish security service discovered a plot to kill him.
Whereas in the US only Jews get away with attacking the icons of Christianity.
The original version of the movie Wholly Moses did NOT have the "real" Moses
scenes to explain away Hershel. The studio insisted they be added so that Jews
were not offended.
One wonders what a parody of Anne Frank might bring about in Times Square.
It is all a matter of who is sacred to whom.
--
Bush always makes the right decision after exhausting all other
possibilities. Unfortunately he is no where near exhausting them.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3932
JTEM
> The Bantu became Zulu
No. Some of the Bantu became Nguni, and some Nguni
split off, eventually forming their own seperate ethnic
identity (Zulu).
Martin Edwards
> Martin Edwards wrote:
>> Matt Giwer wrote:
>>> Sigge wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> By the way, "coprophage" sounds like vocative (in Greek) to me, as it
>>>> should be in my text!
>>> Not my field but biologists in English have all kinds of phages
>>> as nouns.
>
>> Just so: in these cases it is simply an English ending. For instance
>> a terrorist called Nikita Nikitopoulos was nicknamed Tourkophagos. If
>> many English people had heard of him the word would have been
>> "Turkophage". To those who had heard of him Greeks were /ipso facto/
>> romantic, so he was probably called "Turk Slayer".
>
> As I said not my field so I don't have ready examples nor have I
> found a need to learn the usage. But I have read it used as though
> cherrytree and appletree were single words and phage would be analogous
> to tree.
>
Martin Edwards
The water is further muddied by the fact that, if a word is generally
only used by specialists, it will be left in the original Greek, but in
English pronunciation or, often, in English via Latin pronunciation.
This probably applies to Batrachomyomachia.
--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From “Rollerball”
Martin Edwards
> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>> The best example of a (relatively) recently formed
>>> "ethnic group" outside of Europe are the Zulus.
>> You've been reading Der Sud Afrikaans Sturmer.
>> The real fact is they were around for centuries but by
>> chance happened to be migrating south as the Dutch
>> and British were migrating north.
>
> No. the real fact is that they were the Bantu, then the
> Nguni and finally they became the Zulus.
>
> And this is funny -- you'll laugh -- but I've met plenty of
> English or even Irish in my life, but not any Celts.
In fact many Irish, welsh and Scots refer to themselves as Celts. If
you've met a blond, blue eyed Arab in Morocco or Tunisia, you've met a
Vandal.
And
> I've met Germans as well, but not any Goths or Vandals.
>
> Yup, ethnicity is fluid, as all of human history demonstrates.
>
--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From “Rollerball”
Martin Edwards
Albanian. The point I was making was that all "Serbs", "Croats" and
most "Muslims", who unaccountably became an "ethnos" for the purposes of
Western propaganda, spoke Serbo-Croat. A Serb in Croatia spoke the
local dialect, not "Serbian". A resident of Sarajevo spoke the local
dialect, not "Serbian", "Croatian" or "Muslim". In fact the whole
farrago was got up by the Western media for the usual purpose of
reporting any such troubles from the Roman Catholic side. This is why
reporting from Bosnia was confused: as the main adversaries were Muslim
and Orthodox they did not know which side to take.
Martin Edwards
JTEM
> In fact many Irish, welsh and Scots refer to
> themselves as Celts.
Wait. Let's see if you catch it this time:
So many *What* refer to themselves as Celts?
JTEM
> Go to your room, Irving.
No, seriously, why do you think any of what you said
is relevant?
It would be interesting if you tried to articulate a position,
instead of spewing random statements.
Honest.
VtSkier
> VtSkier wrote:
>> Martin Edwards wrote:
>>> JTEM wrote:
>>>> Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> One might add "ethnic cleansing" in Bosnia. There was
>>>>> only one "ethnos" involved:
>>>>
>>>> Well, not quite. Okay, so you're completely wrong...
>>>>
>>> The inhabitants of Jugoslavia spoke Serbo-Croat. There were
>>> dialects, but they were geographical. You can easily look this up in
>>> your school library.
>>
>> Oh? What do ethnic Albanians in Kosovo speak?
>>
>> An "official" language is not necessarily what
>> people on the street speak. Witness Spanish in
>> the US, although I might add English is not an
>> "official" language notwithstanding efforts to
>> make it so.
>
> Albanian. The point I was making was that all "Serbs", "Croats" and
> most "Muslims", who unaccountably became an "ethnos" for the purposes of
> Western propaganda, spoke Serbo-Croat.
Well, you didn't say so. You made a broad statement
that was incorrect while telling someone else thay
were "completely wrong". I read it and took exception.
> A Serb in Croatia spoke the
> local dialect, not "Serbian". A resident of Sarajevo spoke the local
> dialect, not "Serbian", "Croatian" or "Muslim". In fact the whole
> farrago was got up by the Western media for the usual purpose of
> reporting any such troubles from the Roman Catholic side. This is why
> reporting from Bosnia was confused: as the main adversaries were Muslim
> and Orthodox they did not know which side to take.
The labels for people here got mixed up. A Serb or a
Croat (who, incidentally divided mainly by religion)
are members of what could perhaps be called a culture.
A Muslim is a member of a religious group and may well
have the same culture as the Serb or Croat.
These are apples and oranges and, yes, I do know the
press is often the ones who do the mixing and it always
annoys me.
Martin Edwards
> Martin Edwards wrote:
>> VtSkier wrote:
>>> Martin Edwards wrote:
>>>> JTEM wrote:
>>>>> Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> One might add "ethnic cleansing" in Bosnia. There was
>>>>>> only one "ethnos" involved:
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, not quite. Okay, so you're completely wrong...
>>>>>
>>>> The inhabitants of Jugoslavia spoke Serbo-Croat. There were
>>>> dialects, but they were geographical. You can easily look this up
>>>> in your school library.
>>>
>>> Oh? What do ethnic Albanians in Kosovo speak?
>>>
>>> An "official" language is not necessarily what
>>> people on the street speak. Witness Spanish in
>>> the US, although I might add English is not an
>>> "official" language notwithstanding efforts to
>>> make it so.
>>
>> Albanian. The point I was making was that all "Serbs", "Croats" and
>> most "Muslims", who unaccountably became an "ethnos" for the purposes
>> of Western propaganda, spoke Serbo-Croat.
>
> Well, you didn't say so. You made a broad statement
> that was incorrect while telling someone else thay
> were "completely wrong". I read it and took exception.
Actually it was the previous poster who called me completely wrong, but
it is easy to be caught out like that.
>
>> A Serb in Croatia spoke the local dialect, not "Serbian". A resident
>> of Sarajevo spoke the local dialect, not "Serbian", "Croatian" or
>> "Muslim". In fact the whole farrago was got up by the Western media
>> for the usual purpose of reporting any such troubles from the Roman
>> Catholic side. This is why reporting from Bosnia was confused: as the
>> main adversaries were Muslim and Orthodox they did not know which side
>> to take.
>
> The labels for people here got mixed up. A Serb or a
> Croat (who, incidentally divided mainly by religion)
> are members of what could perhaps be called a culture.
>
> A Muslim is a member of a religious group and may well
> have the same culture as the Serb or Croat.
>
> These are apples and oranges and, yes, I do know the
> press is often the ones who do the mixing and it always
> annoys me.
Martin Edwards
They divided wholly by religion, which was precisely the point i was making.
> are members of what could perhaps be called a culture.
>
> A Muslim is a member of a religious group and may well
> have the same culture as the Serb or Croat.
>
> These are apples and oranges and, yes, I do know the
> press is often the ones who do the mixing and it always
> annoys me.
Martin Edwards
Martin Edwards
VtSkier
Yes it is and sometimes usenet can be a bit scrambled
and context is missed.
JTEM
> JTEM wrote:
> > Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> In fact many Irish, welsh and Scots refer to
> >> themselves as Celts.
>
> > Wait. Let's see if you catch it this time:
>
> > So many *What* refer to themselves as Celts?
>
> Irving go to your room now or you get no cookies.
Are you sure you're not a nym-shifting "Giwer"? You
have an annoying habit of pussying out, fleeing from
your own words...
JTEM
> Irving, go to your room.
I'm not kidding. Pretend you've got some balls and
articulate a postion.
Go on, give it a whirl.
Xtes-00k
"JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:0bc3e6ad-a1f6-4acc...@m23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com..."Xtes-00k" <christes...@optonline.net> wrote:
> I think
Well, let's not get carried away here. Instead, we should
say that you "Feel" or even "Believe."
Now try again, you worthless psycho.
JTEM
> You're...talking to ME?
At you, psycho breath, at you...
Matt Giwer
So what you are trying to say is that Khazars can change their ethnicity to
Jewish?
--
The assassinations will continue until the retaliation stops.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3942
http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a2
Matt Giwer
If you would drop your jewish cultural ideas and stop trying to pass them off
as reality the neighbors would let you play with other children.
--
Human experimentation only works with double blind tests. Double blind tests
outside of drug tests are impossible. All human test of anything but drugs is
false. Therefore all child rearings theories are false.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3944
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/nizgas3.html a4
Matt Giwer
Lay off Der SA Stürmer.
--
Assassination is death by natural causes for politicians.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3929
http://www.giwersworld.org a1
JTEM
> JTEM wrote:
> > Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
> >> The Bantu became Zulu
> > No. Some of the Bantu became Nguni, and some Nguni
> > split off, eventually forming their own seperate ethnic
> > identity (Zulu).
>
> Lay off Der SA Stürmer.
I just did the Google thing, you stupid shit, and nothing I
said is the least bit difficult to verify... for normal people.
JTEM
> If you would drop your jewish cultural ideas
This would mean so much more if I was Jewish.
As things stand though, it's yet another example of
your typical (lack of) accuracy...
JTEM
> So what you are trying to say is that Khazars can
> change their ethnicity to Jewish?
You're insane, aren't you? I can tell.
I guess that's what you're resorting to your usual false
test...
Martin Edwards
Martin Edwards
JTEM
> > Are you sure you're not a nym-shifting "Giwer"? You
> > have an annoying habit of pussying out, fleeing from
> > your own words...
>
> http://telegoons.org/Images/Bluebottle_and_Eccles_C72_thumb.jpg
Well, gosh, I bet nobody even notices that you have -- yet
again -- failed to back up your empty claims with anything
of substances.