För övrigt så skiter jag fullständigt i Iliaden och Odyséen. Så nu vet ni det. Den där filmen alla har snackat om i typ ett halvår nu har förresten premiär först imorgon fredag. Vilket jag inte hade en aning om. Och jag tänker göra mitt yttersta i att inte bry mig om den heller...
 |
| A dark-skinned Buddha preaching to snake-spirits and tree-spirits! |
A little gem from 2024.
 |
| Egypt: Neither White nor Black? |
The North African Neolithic population belonged to a group that is best understood today as part of a "North African" or "Afro-Mediterranean" genetic continuum, rather than a clearly defined "racial" group in the older typological sense. However, if we examine this using modern genetics and anthropology, we can break it down more clearly:
Main Components:
Maghrebi Ancestry (IAM Component): This is a deeply rooted North African genetic component seen in Early Neolithic populations in Morocco (e.g., the Ifri n’Amr ou Moussa or IAM samples, ~7,000 years ago). It's thought to be descended from local Epipaleolithic hunter-gatherers.
European Neolithic Ancestry: Later North African Neolithic populations (e.g., Kelif el Boroud, ~5,000 years ago) show evidence of admixture from Iberian Early Farmers (carrying Anatolian Neolithic ancestry).
Middle Eastern/Levantine Influence: Some gene flow from the Levant, especially during and after the Neolithic, is also present.
Y-DNA and mtDNA Markers:
Y-DNA: Early Neolithic North Africans carried haplogroups like E-M78, typical of Northeast African and Mediterranean populations.
mtDNA: Mitochondrial DNA often included U6 and M1, which are characteristic of North Africa and likely derived from earlier Upper Paleolithic back-migrations from the Near East.
Archaeological evidence shows cultural exchanges between North Africa, the Iberian Peninsula, and the Near East.
Neolithic sites in North Africa show a mix of indigenous development and incoming farming technologies, likely from Mediterranean Europe and the Levant.
If one were to try to use the now-outdated 19th–20th century racial categories, Neolithic North Africans might have been classified (in that flawed framework) as:
“Mediterranean” or “Caucasoid”, due to their craniofacial traits and later genetic affinities with Near Eastern and Southern European populations.
However, this concept is now scientifically obsolete. Modern population genetics shows that ancient populations don’t fall into clean, static racial boxes—populations were fluid and mixed over time.
Neolithic North Africans were primarily descended from local North African hunter-gatherers with additional input from Levantine and European Neolithic farmers. They form part of a distinct North African population cluster with some genetic links to both Europe and the Near East, but they were not "black" Sub-Saharan Africans nor simply "white" Europeans. They are best seen as Afro-Mediterranean in ancestry.
Let me know if you'd like a map, specific sample data (like from IAM or KEB), or a comparison to modern North African populations.
How is this even possible today? The whole thing feels so 1970 or perhaps 1995. Is this woman a member of a cult of some kind?
I´m away from the web for like four days, and look what happened behind my back. A time of mathematicians finally crack the riddle of existence (no less) or at least time´s arrow. Meanwhile, genetics prove that the Carthaginians weren´t Black (sorry, Afro-centrists) but neither were they Levantine?! Rather, they mostly resemble Sicilians and Greeks.
OK, so maybe I´m gonna stay on the interwebs a bit longer. Time´s arrow and all that...
Almost by accident, I found an English translation of some of the Ethiopian Bible books not considered canonical by other Churches in a used book store.
Or did I?
It turned out that my prize volume, "Books of the Ethiopian Bible: Missing from the Protestant Canon. Ethiopian Church", was even stranger than I expected.
I almost immidiately noticed that the name of God was rendered "Jah". Then, I noticed that at least one of the texts seem to be translated into some kind of Pidgin English. Oookay. So I checked the publisher, Lushena Books in Illinois, United States. Yepp, it´s an Afro-centrist outlet of some kind.
In other words: the book isn´t published by supporters of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, but by Rastafarians!
Not that I mind. The work was pretty cheap and I looked into Rastafarianism before. As opposed to, say, Pastafarianism. So I might consider taking a second look at it, Jah willing.
A weird Afro-centrist-type video from YouTube, trying to solve one of the more original Bible contradictions: if everyone except Noah´s family and the animals on the ark were killed in the Flood, how could the Nephilim have survived? After all, the Bible mentions giants in post-Flood narratives, for instance Goliath or the Anakim. So where did they come from?
The narrator reaches the conclusion that one of Ham´s wives must have been part-Nephilim, and off we go into la-la land. Note also the bizarre theological consequences. If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, how come he didn´t spot the fact that one of the women onboard the ark was carrying the Nephilim genes? According to the narrator, the point of the Flood was precisely to expurge the Nephilim and all humans carrying their genes!
So God the Nephilim-slayer had to start all over again, this time commanding the Israelites to genocide the Canaanites, which in this scenario were carriers of the contaminated DNA. And as we all know, that didn´t work either...a lot of Canaanites in later chapters...
And yeah, it´s a bit peculiar that almost everyone is depicted as Black, including the fallen angels! Also, the headlines on this particular channel are *extreme* click-bait. Unless we´re dealing with an actual heresy. OK, maybe I will watch a few more of these clips!
 |
| A Munda woman Credit: Ramesh Lalwani |
“Cultural Remnants of the Indigenous Peoples in the Buddhist Scriptures”
is an interesting scholarly article available free on-line. It´s written by Bryan
Geoffrey Levman and was originally published in Buddhist Studies Review in 2013.
The author tackles a question I assume is somewhat contentious: the Buddha´s
exact ethnic origins. Siddharta Gautama is said to have been a member of the
Sakya or Shakya tribe. But who exactly were the Shakyas? I assume most see them
as Indo-Aryans. Indeed, their name is similar to that of the Sakas, a Scythian
group. However, there were obvious cultural differences between the Shakyas and
the Indo-Aryans to their west. Simply put, the Shakyas were less “Brahmanized”
and existed at the periphery of Vedic civilization. One possibility is that they
represent a different wave of Indo-Aryan migrations, perhaps an earlier one.
Another, explored by Levman, is that the Shakyas were of mixed ethnic origins,
deriving a substantial portion of their ancestry from pre-Aryan indigenous
peoples, specifically the Munda-speaking tribes. The Munda languages form a
subset of the Austroasiatic language family (which also comprise Vietnamese,
Khmer and Mon). Judging by all-knowing Wiki, at least currently the Munda are
very dark-skinned.
The author points out that the Indo-Aryan, Dravidian and Munda languages
form a “Sprachbund” or linguistic area, since they mutually influence each
other (despite being unrelated) in ways that make them distinct from languages
outside the Indian subcontinent. If there is linguistic borrowing, there should
logically also be cultural diffusion. So already on methodological grounds, we
should expect Buddhism to be at the very least influenced by indigenous
cultures. However, the later Buddhist sources make a sustained attempt at “Brahmanizing”
him. The Shakya polity is described as a kingdom (according to Vedic norms),
Buddha´s father (the king) is a kshatriya and has a retinue of prominent Brahmin
priests, the Buddha himself is said to hail from a long line of Brahmins and
other Vedic ancestors, he bears the marks of a Great Man known from Vedic
mantras and is initiated with Vedic rituals. Apparently, even “Gotama”
(Gautama) is a Brahminical clan name. But a closer study of Buddhist and Vedic
sources paints a very different picture...
The Shakyas were not organized as a kingdom, but rather as a tribal republic.
Buddha´s father Shuddhodana wasn´t a “king” but an elected leader. Nor did Siddharta
ever refer to himself as a “prince”. Indeed, the Buddha never calls himself a “kshatriya”
either, although he does say that the kshatriyas are higher than the Brahmins,
thus inverting the Vedic position. Buddha praises the democratic system of the
Shakyas and neighboring tribes, proscribing a similar procedure to govern the
sangha (the monastic order). He resents the tributary status of the Shakyas vis-à-vis
a more powerful neighboring tribe and seem to dislike wars of conquest in
general. This is interesting, since it means that Buddha´s “egalitarian” and “democratic”
traits weren´t somehow more “modern” than the Vedic ideals, but rather more traditional,
harking back to a tribal past.
The Shakyas mythological ancestor, Ikshvaku, seem to have a name of
Munda origins. The sage Asita, who predicted Siddharta´s future Buddhahood, is
said to have been “black”, perhaps a reference to his actual skin color. Buddha
himself supposedly had curly hair, something many Munda males still have today.
The marriage customs of the Shakyas were non-Vedic, and even included incestuous
marriages between brother and sister, or between parents and children. The burial
customs were also non-Vedic, with round burial mounds rather than square burial
places. Note that Buddhist stupas have round bases! In the Brahminical tradition,
relics were considered impure and buried outside the village, while the relics
of the Buddha were treated as sacred and placed inside prominent stupas.
According to orthoprax Vedic-Brahminical sources, the territory of the
Shakyas was outside Aryavarta, the homeland of the Aryans. Shakyas and other
groups living to the east of Aryavarta were considered “mixed caste” and
therefore non-Aryan. These were the areas in which Buddha´s ministry took
place. Even visiting the unclean eastern borderlands made it incumbent upon the
Aryan to carry out purification rituals. The eastern peoples were referred to
as demons (asuras), slaves, lower than shudras, and literally cursed. Several
names of eastern tribes in the Vedic corpus seem derived from the Munda
languages. One of the distinct poetic metres used by the Buddhists is non-Vedic
and known as the ghost or goblin metre, probably a reflection of the supposed demonic
nature of the eastern borderland tribes!
The author further believes that there are traces of tree and serpent
worship in Buddhism. Serpent worship is distinctly non-Vedic and may have been
introduced to India by an early Mongolian or Tibeto-Burmese migration. The
snake-spirits or nagas are depicted as the protectors of the Buddha or as
Buddhists themselves. They are to be worshipped. The Buddha is even referred to
as a “naga” as a token of respect. The Buddha´s association with trees is
obvious. The Sal tree was the sacred totem of the Shakyas. Buddha was both born
and died close to such trees. Still today, the Mundas worship Sal trees. The
Buddha refers to himself as a yakkha and preaches to literal yakkhas, a class
of nature-spirits often associated with trees. In the Jataka tales (stories of
the Buddha´s previous lives), he is often a tree-spirit. The sacred fig tree under
which Buddha attained enlightenment is also important, the Buddha often being
depicted as a tree in early Buddhist art. Sometimes, snakes and trees are
evidently combined, as when the Buddha experienced bliss under a mucalinda tree
(the name “mucalinda” being non-Aryan) and was protected against a sudden storm
by a naga-king named Mucalinda…
We all have our agendas, and I suppose one purpose of de-Aryanizing the
Buddha is to make him more “Woke” or “anti-imperialist”. The Buddha lived in a non-Aryan
culture that was being Aryanized, trying to find a strategy of resistance
against such colonialism. And it surely isn´t a co-incidence that the author
emphasizes the “Black” aspects of the Mundas, coming across as a
crypto-Afro-centrist. I suppose the tree worship could be tied to modern
environmentalist sensibilities, and so on. That being said, it´s nevertheless an
interesting contribution. And it could be spun in a completely different way:
if the Buddha was just a tribal preacher in a one-horse-town in northern India 2,500
years ago, why should he be of any concern to us? I´m neither a Munda nor an
Indo-Aryan, and I probably never met snake-kings either…
With that, shall we say, heteroprax reflection I end this review.
This is the YouTube channel which got its Osho videos taken down, apparently due to a copyright claim from Osho International Inc. The channel content-creator seems to be something as strange as an Afro-centrist Ibo Shaiva.
The video above is paranoid, but still raises some relevant questions. A German church apparently created an AI preacher (!) with sermons written by ChatGPT (!!).
Yes, really. Something´s wrong when a cultist YouTube bro (apparently a devotee of Paramahamsa Nithyananda) sounds more rational than a mainline Protestant church, LOL.
Har ingen välgrundad åsikt om Alexander den store var homosexuell eller inte, men Kleopatra och Hannibal var givetvis inte svarta afrikaner. Men det mest ironiska är ju att afro-centrismen här används som en ny form av *västerländsk* kulturimperialism.
Vad synd att Kleopatra och Hannibal inte var muslimer, för *då* hade de varit fredade från Wärdegrunden (TM). Och detsamma gäller väl Alexander.
Notera också ironin att två muslimskt dominerade länder i Nordafrika är mer historiskt korrekta när de diskuterar den hedniska tiden än sekulära Netflix...
Grekisk vrede när Netflix gör Alexander den store homosexuell
Richard Carrier covers a lot of ground in this article, attempting to summarize and perhaps expand upon a recent debate he had with a particularly ignorant Afro-centrist, one Brother Jabari.
Among the topics covered: Jewish borrowing from Zoroastrianism, the character of Zoroastrianism itself, the origins of mystery religions in general and the Dionysus cult in particular, the (unknown?) origins of the dying-and-rising god meme, the difference between original Egyptian religion and Hellenistic ditto, the nature of Christianity as a Judeo-Hellenic syncretism, and how to demonstrate cultural diffusion. More in passing, he also disses a certain Herodotus.
Not sure how Afro-centrism can survive this flexing of intellectual muscle, but there you go! OK, Afro-centrism is actually a much broader concept than just the idea that Christianity "stole" its ideas from ancient Egypt, so there´s that...
Still, an interesting tour de force in its own right.
A Palestinian woman (somewhat strangely referred to as "pro"-Palestinian here - I assume she is, of course, but she seems to be *ethnically* Palestinian, as well) has been arrested in the US state of Indiana for crashing her car into a school she believed was Jewish/Israeli.
Plot twist: it´s actually the school of a bizarre Black supremacist and anti-Semitic sect! However, they claim to be "Hebrews" and therefore use the Star of David as their symbol.
Something a simpleton like our pro-Palestinian woman obviously cannot comprehend. Welcome to the US of A, the land of religious freedom (and really quirky cults).
Or maybe she was on to something, after all? In Chicago, Black Hebrew Israelites and pro-Hamas protesters have actually clashed, for reasons not explained in the second link...
Some insane cultists yelling at a Christian pastor, who yells back. The invisible lady screaming in the background has a certain "Life of Brian" quality over her.
I assume the crazies are Black Israelites or something to that effect. And yes, this is *their* channel! I wonder how they explain the fact that the original NT is written in Greek, so the Name obviously wasn´t "Yahusha" (which is wrong even in Hebrew, as far as I understand!).
A lot of kookish stuff on YouTube even in 2023...
Thomas Sheridan (hardly an Afro-centrist) wonders aloud whether the Brownies of Anglo-Irish folklore might be an ancient hidden race of Black African Pygmies that reached the British Isles through Atlantis.
I´ve heard similar speculations before. The extreme Afro-centrist Ivan van Sertima asserts that Pygmies lived in Scandinavia in ancient times. The proof? Legends about trolls! There´s also Robert Grant Haliburton, whose papers on the Dwarf Question I have commented before.
Probably a fringe theory, and as far as I know there is no archeological or genetic evidence for it, but it´s probably not *entirely* impossible either, since Pygmy races were once more widespread than today (in Africa and parts of Asia). Note also "Flores Man", a dimunitive human species nicknamed "The Hobbit".
The original Europeans were probably a unique Black race with blue eyes, but of normal stature, that turned pale-skinned through natural selection in the colder climate, but that´s another story.
Beethoven was White, though.
This week in crazy...
Even if Beethoven was Black (he wasn´t), his music was White European, not sub-Saharan African. Last time I looked, classical music wasn´t invented by Mansu Musa in Mali. Not that good ol´ Musa didn´t have some interesting features all his own - of course he did (all that gold, and all those slaves) - but as a God-fearing Muslim, I doubt symphony orchestras was one of them!
So the BLM activists (who are really hilarious here) gets it all wrong. But sure, if the only way to avoid a cancellation of Beethoven (a political radical, I believe) is to prove that he was a Moorish Octoroon, I suppose that´s a good thing somehow.
Maybe we can give his skeleton a jab of that COVID vaccine, too?
Black pop star wants Beethoven´s body exhumed for racial DNA test
.jpg)
Here´s a quote I just found:
"The first Caucasians were probably a mixture of 1/2 Africans (possibly Maasai and Tutsi types from Central Africa) mixed with ancient proto-Asians from China (who may have resembled the Ainu). From this strange mixture arose the original Caucasians, probably in the Caucasus and southern Russia, but maybe also in Iran. There is good evidence that the first Caucasians, including the Cro-Magnons, looked a lot like Black Africans, in particular the Caucasoid-appearing Africans such as the Maasai and the Tutsi. Cro-Magnon skeletons look like the Masai more than any other modern skeleton. Cro-Magnon skulls are more likely to be confused with Negroid skulls than any other."
From a very based blog I sometimes unfollow...
So the Hamitic theory is true...except that they had it completely backwards! The famed Cro-Magnon, who made the cave paintings, were dark-skinned Caucasoids, probably resembling Paul Kagame (the Tutsi president of Rwanda) in terms of looks, but without the suite, obviously. (Kagame is the man on the photo above.)
Many feathers will be ruffled by this discovery. First, the Alt Right will be angry that the SJWs on Swedish TV were right when they said that the first Swedes were Black and blue-eyed, but had unusual (non-Negroid) features. Next, the Afrocentrists will presumably get mad, since it´s the Caucasoid rather than Negroid Blacks that settled Europe during the Stone Age (or maybe not - Afrocentrism is pretty elastic). The few remaining proponents of the Hamitic theory (presumably a small and rapidly aging band of Rhodesian expats somewhere in Australia) will be saddened to hear that the Hamites weren´t mixed race honorary Whites, but rather the ancestors of all Whites (including Rhodesians). Even the Tutsi will be disgruntled, since at the moment Kagame forces them to pretend that Tutsi and Hutu are the same people!
But where on earth did Whites come from, then? Presumably we are the result of a slight genetic mutation that proved adaptive in the climatic conditions of Paleolithic northern and central Europe. Or maybe some of our Hamitoid-Ainuoid ancestors had a good night out with a wild Neanderthal girl or something...
Stay tuned for further discoveries. Ashtar, over and out!
