What
Is Semitic?
A Letter to Ali Sina
And
To Whom It May
Concern.
Frederic-John
Decat.
Dear Ali Sina.
You mention
somewhere, in many places, that Muslims are not the problem, that the
problem lies with Islam. I do agree, yet you don’t get to the very root
of the problem, and until you do, you will not be able to eradicate the
phenomenon. Islam is only the manifestation of a much deeper problem. Now,
please, don’t get to the barricades at first, before I explain why I
consider Semitic values as the basic problem any humanist society has to
face.
First things first.
I must define what I mean by Se-mitism. A lot of misunderstandings
resulted already by our false notion of what semitism is all about,
particularly in its opposition to the ‘’Aryan’’ values. After
years of studies, around these notions, I can say they have been both
dully corrupted.
As an Iranian, you
should be (and have to be) much concern about the real signification of
the word ‘’Aryan’’, since it is the basic word from which emerged
the name
Iran
(just as the name
Ireland
). They both mean ‘’Land of the
Aryans’’. The Ger-man corruption of this notion, through a racial
bias, is responsible for the tragic emergence of Nazism. This racial bias
can’t be the real meaning of a word used by Buddha, when he talked about
the ‘’four noble truths’’. He then uses the word arya on purpose,
since it is related to being noble. SO, WHAT IS REALLY IMPLIED WITH THIS
TERM ? IT IS OF THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE TO HAVE A PRECISE KNOWING OF WHAT IS
MEANT BY THIS NOTION. Once, an English ambassador said that a ‘’Nation
was born out of Sanskrit’’. He was, of course, referring to the
German nation.
Until around 1870,
the german people were toys of the great powers surrounding them :
France
,
Rus-sia
,
Austria
and
England
. Their weakness came from their inner divisions. It was Bismarck who
reunited them, the same
Bismarck
responsible for the introduction of many social insurances that some
countries enjoy now. But we
have to cut this short, in order to get to the basic meaning of the
notions opposing what is semitic to what is Aryan.
Studying of these
archaic notions bring us back to the Indian Rig Veda and to Iranian
Zoroaster’s Gathis and Zend Avestas. Unfortunately, too many so called
scholars; ignore them completely. Those who pretend to know them, see them
through the distortion of an ‘’Aryan
invasion’’. But, here, we don’t really have to go through this
fallacious interpretation, a make-up originating from unproven premises
conveniently accepted as an academic standard. Here, we only search for
the basic meaning of the word Arya. As the scholar L. A. Waddell showed,
this term originated from the Sumerian word for plough: ‘’AR’’.
Arya and Aryan have to be related to agriculture.
The term semitic
was first coined by a german scholar, M. August Ludwig Schlözer in 1870,
soon to be accepted as a term defining a language family characterized by
a writing from right to left and some vocabulary concordances. I can’t
say where exactly it came to be related only to the Jews, on a racial
hating ground, but that’s an obvious distortion. Some historians place
the beginning of Semitism with the Acadians, but more surely it came with
the Assyrians, beginning around ~1800.
So Aryan is
basically related to the agriculture re-volution. We tend not to realize
enough that this revolution is the most important one ever to happen in
the history of mankind. As a matter of fact, it came with a mutation of
our Y chromosome and, since then, we can retrace its development. We
almost take for granted that such an obvious amelioration went by itself
without much conflicts or opposition. The exact contrary happened. To show
how this revolution is not even yet everywhere, only 20% of the west
European population has this mutation in its chromosome Y!
We don’t figure
out enough how much this revolution encountered resistances from the
pastoralist nomadic tribes. They just couldn’t accept for themselves
what they considered a voluntary enslavement. Worst, they perceived that
kind of settlement as feminine, not worthy for manhood. This is still the
case in some places in
Africa
, where women have to do the agricultural tasks, while men are warriors
and hunters-gatherers.
In a nomadic view,
Nature being God’s creation, everything belonged to Him, and so they
felt free to bring their cattle (mainly sheeps) wherever there was a good
pasture to feed them. Nature was to provide and pastoralists never
venerated animals, especially of the domesticated kind. At best, they were
walking food to dispose at their convenience. On the contrary, aryan
domesticated animals came to be venerated as god’s blessings and men’s
best friends. The cow was particularly sacred, as shown in the Egyptian
mythology and it is still top sacred in
India
, where they freely get around.
Now, we can easily
imagine what happened when these tribes brought their cattle to feed on
the agricultural harvests. Of course, the Aryan farmers were not to accept
the result of so much works (including irrigations, canalisations, sewers,
tillage, grazing, planting, seeds, etc.) to be erased by the
pastoralists’ spoliation. They call those unconscious malevolent
‘’barbarians’’. To reply to the nomad’s raids and razzias, they
founded the cities, as their efforts could nourish more and more people.
Cities had a protecting duty in exchange. It is well known that cities
were the core of what came to be called Civilisation. Kings, artisans,
priests, craftsmen and trades on a vast scale came from existing cities,
which were only possible through their agricultural surpluses. It involves
a community sense very different from the tribal ones.
Nomadic
pastoralists reacted by organised raids. But cities showed to be powerful
enough, long as they didn’t fight each other, to repulse the most
ravaging Semitic razzias, though some succeeded at times, in like the
Acadians. The
Middle East
his-tory is made of constant waves of one or the other way, from Gutiens
and Khassites to the
Assyrians.
The domestication
of horses, especially after the introduction of the saddle and then of the
stirrups, gave the nomadic
tribes the advantage of mobility. Cavalry became a dominant factor in
battles as depicted by the Arabs and Mongols phenomenal successes. Sieges
techniques were improved by the Assyrians, mostly with the ram on rail
able to break fortresses’ doors. In the west, the equivalent of the
desert nomads, were to be the Vikings.
1 2
3 > Next |