Adonis Diaries

“Sophie’s World” on Indo-European and Semitic civilizations; (Dec. 15, 2009)

Since the 19^th century, European “nations” have been trying to set up a “coherent” racist ideology, disguised as “civilization difference”, to supporting their colonial expansions.

Thus, many European “elites” of philosophers and “thinkers” fabricated the Indo-European civilization in order to have any kind of fictitious basis to distinguish themselves from the “non-European” people. Ironically, the author Jostein Gaarder seems absolutely convinced with this fictitious story.

First and obviously, as an axiom or evident proposition, the Europeans had the best civilization. Thus, the antithesis was that the Semitic and other “Chinese sort” of civilizations were lumped at the other extreme end.

Second and obviously, Semitic civilization had to be fabricated in order to satisfy Hegel theory of dialectical processes of history for human knowledge development.

Third, the European nations had no purpose to reaching any synthesis among civilizations: They were on a war path to dominate, win, and prove the superiority of their “Indo-European civilization”.

Actually, the civil wars in Europe and the USA always ended with a victor regardless of cost, trauma, and casualties such as the civil wars in the USA, Spain, England, and France. In non-European cultures, civil wars end with no clear-cut winner in the short-term.

In China, the communists and “nationalists” signed a truce to confront the occupying Japanese. India civil war between Hindus and Moslems ended after its independence with the third of the population remaining Moslems, even though Pakistan was created for repatriating Moslems to that new State.

In Lebanon, 17 years of civil war ended with all factions losing, and their leaders appointed deputies and members in the successive governments. (that is the worst ending for any nation).

The story goes that four thousand years ago, primitive people concentrated in the Caucasus region around the Black Sea (the actual States of Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Chechnya…). They immigrated westward to central and north Europe and also eastward to Iran and India.

In the Arabic Peninsula, there were tribal people who immigrated to Syria, Iraq, Egypt, and North Africa and are called Semitic. (Now, why people would settle in arid desert land or in high mountain chains in order to survive? It looks like this rational question was beside the point. We know that people settle in mild weather regions rich in water resources, and they immigrate to God forsaken regions to flee persecutions. This logical question seems also beside the point to the Indo-European ideology).  Let us move on.

On religion: Indo-European civilization believed in a variety of Gods (this was true with the Semitic category, but facts had to be altered to suit the dichotomy method).

In the original Indian language of Sanskrit the celestial God Dyaus was transferred into Zeus, Jupiter (Jov-pater), and Tyr (for the Nordic people). (Can you show me any resemblance in phonetics?).  The Viking God Aser was transformed from Sanskrit Asura and Persian Ahura; (What about Ashur that was adopted in Babylon and the Near East or Ashtarut?)

Another example, in Latin we have Deus and in Old Norse Tivurr which were transformed from the Sanskrit Deva and the Persian Daevra; (should I continue with this masquerade of God’s names?)

(Consequently, Semitic civilization must believe in one God. Trinity is thus the creation of the Greco-Roman culture for altering Christianity initial dogma.  Allah or El was the supreme God, even though He didn’t generated money from the worshipers who dedicated their money to their more practical and pragmatic local business Gods.)

On myths: There are stories on immortal potions, struggle of the Gods against monsters of chaos, the subject playing a drama in which forces of Good and Evil confront one another in a relentless struggle, predicting the Good to win. For example, the Indo-European civilization, specifically the Greek, have tendencies to speculate on how to view the world (philosophy); they have “insight” into the history of the world and the concept of “cosmic vision”.

Thus, vision (the seeing sense) was the most important among the senses and images of Gods in pictures, and sculptures were predominantly used to honor the Gods. (Gaarder must have forgotten that “cosmic vision” is the realm of nomads in deserts, where stars appear close to hand reach.)  Indo-European civilization view history as cyclical, just like seasons; (what kinds of seasons they have up north? I thought there are long winters and a very short stuffy summers.)

Consequently, Semitic civilization had to rely on hearing or the auditory sense.  For example: “Hear, O Israel (Land of El)” or “Thus spake Jehovah”, or “In the beginning was the word”.  Why?

Because tribes relayed their culture verbally by repetitive story telling.  As if the Nordic people didn’t rely on the verbal (could they write a thousand years ago and had they documented their culture?). No matter, since the Greek learned to write then the ideology stands viable.

Anyway, since the Semitic must be in the auditory realm of the senses, then images of God in pictures and sculptures had to be prohibited for the western racist ideologies to take roots.

On after death: Transmission of the soul in Indo-Europe culture is cyclical, the soul is transferred to new-born and the ultimate purpose of life is for the soul to be released from this infernal cycle. .Thus, for the Semitic civilization, history must be linear and that is why they were preoccupied recording history!

God created the world and it will end with the Judgment Day. Thus, there is a distance between God and his creation so that Semitic believers were to be redeemed from their sins by prayers, and the study of the scriptures rather than by self-communion and meditation as Indo-European behave!

Can we propose that Hegel’s theory of dialectical processes of history for human knowledge development had set the stage for western superiority ideology, the re-writing of history to suit the feable minded philosophers and politicians?