|
The MoA Week In Review – (Not Ukraine) OT 2022-228
Last week's posts on Moon of Alabama:
—
Other issues:
Ukraine-Europe:
Street Art in Madrid
bigger
China-Middle East:
On Gender nonsense:
Corrypto:
Nature:
Use as open (not Ukraine) thread …
@Piotr Berman
The Achaemenid Empire or Achaemenian Empire also called the First Persian Empire, was an ancient Iranian empire founded by Cyrus the Great in 550 BC. Based in Western Asia, it was contemporarily the largest empire in history, spanning a total of 5.5 million square kilometres (2.1 million square miles) from the Balkans and Egypt in the west to Central Asia and the Indus Valley in the east. [précis from Achaemenid Empire at Wikipedia with footnotes suppressed].
The Baal Cycle is an Ugaritic text and is referenced in the Canaanite Kuntillet Ajrud petrographs dating to the late 9th/early 8th centuries BCE where references and DNA connect the Hebrews genetically and culturally to the Canaanites and their Ugaritic forefathers (see also the role of Abraham in their origin myth).
All of the cultures of the region maintained extensive records of the regions they controlled, and the people they knew about. In all those records the Hebrews are alleged to be mentioned just four times, though not conclusively, and twice as migrant people. Once as a wandering band of homeless people called “I.si.ri.ar”, whose “land is laid waste and seed [their grain-store] utterly destroyed” on the Victory Stele of Merneptah c. 1209 BCE. The others are the Mesha Stele 840 BCE referring to “the House of OMRI” describing how Moab defeated Israel, the Tel Dan Stele c. 870–750 BCE, describes how an unnamed king (possibly Hazael) boasts of his victories over the king of Israel and his apparent ally, the king of the “byt[d]wd” (There is no separation between “byt” which might be “house”, the “d” is interpolated as the character cannot be read and “wd”, claimed to be “David”) and the Shalmaneser III Kurkh Monolith 852 BCE which mentions “A-ha-ab-bu Sir-ila-a-a” which some claimed to be a reference to “Ahab of Israel” though it would be the only known reference to “Israel” in the Assyrian and Babylonian records. More recent scholars have said that the latter refers to an unknown but powerful northwest Syrian ruler, tying back to the Ugaritic. If any of these attributions are accurate, “Israel” spent an awful lot of time being defeated and utterly destroyed, and likely had no fixed place of residence. The alternative is that there is no record of the progenitors of the people who would become the Hebrews.
We do know that the Egyptians referred to some of the occupants of the Levant as ‘peleshet’ linguistically cognate to Palestine, seen in Herodotus by the 5th Century BCE), “migratory people”. If the Victory Stele of Merneptah is taken to refer to Israel (which is unlikely but not impossible), the homeless wanderers may have been the forefathers to the Israelites. What is certain is that Egypt largely controlled the Levant directly or through the Hittites until the late bronze age collapse c. 1200-1150 BCE. After a brief interregnum, where smaller local powers thrived, by 935 BCE Assyria began to reorganise, and once more expand outwards, leading to Neo-Assyrian Empire control of the Levant 911-605 BCE, with their conquest of the entire Levant c. 856-732 BCE, followed by the Neo-Babylonian Empire from c605-548 BCE, succeeded by the Achaemenid Empire (539-332 BCE), followed by the Seleucid Empire (312-150 BCE), succeeded by the Romans until long after the Jewish revolts and the expulsion of many Jews from the region.
We also know that Bereshit (Genesis) is entirely derivative of earlier Mesopotamian works See e.g. my monograph Once Upon A Time in Genesis. From that, “As Rolf Rendtorff reflects in “The Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch”, Parashah “B’reshit”, the creation myth of the so called “Genesis” of the “old testament”, is the remains of a collection of syncretic independent fragmentary stories and poems, gathered over time and partially homogenized when used by the Akkadian priests in a sophisticated exercise of creating a mythos for the Hebrews, which would make it exceedingly difficult for the Egyptians, who had previously ruled the Levant, to obtain further assistance from the Hebrews. The accretion, including Genesis, was then rewritten with significant editing in the post-exilic period, and again, in Alexandria. As the Hebrews transmogrified from pantheistic firstborn-sacrificing wanderers under the Egyptians, to henotheistic child-sacrificing pastoralists under the Akkadian influence, to monotheistic child-protecting urbanites under the Greeks, this required extensive, though by no means complete, reworking. Genesis is no exception to this history.”
Which is why I said what I did, and why, rather than being “preposterous” this is the current evidence understanding of the origin of the so-called Abrahamic scriptures, based upon broad strands of extra-biblical evidence (sometimes referred to as Biblical minimalism), which has done a better job of unscrambling the deliberately jumbled history of the Middle East since it’s development in the early 1970s than thousands of religiot scholars writing over hundreds of years. See e.g. my monograph On”>http://bit.ly/OnTheBible”>On the Bible.
Posted by: Hermit | Dec 21 2022 7:59 utc | 155
Hey barflys!
Below is a quote about the Twitter unveiling followed by an occasionally repeated by me listing of the 14 points of Fascism……. you might note number 6 after reading the Taibbi quote
In response to the recent revelations, the FBI told Taibbi that “the FBI regularly engages with private sector entities to provide information specific to identified foreign malign influence actors’ subversive, undeclared, covert, or criminal activities. Private sector entities independently make decisions about what, if any, action they take on their platforms and for their customers after the FBI has notified them.”
14 POINTS OF FASCISM
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism
From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights
The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause
The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism
Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.
5. Rampant sexism
Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.
6. A controlled mass media
Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.
7. Obsession with national security
Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together
Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.
9. Power of corporations protected
Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated
Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts
Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment
Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption
Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.
14. Fraudulent elections
Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.
NOTE: The above 14 Points were written in 2004 by Dr. Laurence Britt, a political scientist. Dr. Britt studied the fascist regimes of: Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile).
Posted by: psychohistorian | Dec 22 2022 1:58 utc | 177
|
