Illusions

Do you know where the word Assassin comes from?

It originates from the word Hashashin. The Assassins were notorious hashish smokers. Prior to an assassination, they took hashish along with some other drugs in order to work themselves into a violent mania. Their master would tempt them with paradise and induce this drug addled craze in order to command their obedience.

So, it is generally believed that is where the word Assassin comes from.

And its a lie.

Look up the word Assassin. See the definition? Its everywhere, even in high-standing dictionaries like Oxford.

Its still a lie.

This idea comes from Silvestre de Sacy, a 19^th century orientalist who lectured in the Instituit de France. He was quite the genius regarding language, being proficient in Greek, Latin, Arabic, Hebrew; to name a few.

This knack for language allowed him to study “oriental” texts from the middle east. In one such text he noticed the use of the word “hashishiya” to describe the Ismaili. It reminded him of the words used for the Ismaili by the crusaders: assassin, aschischin, haschischin. It was a “eureka” moment as De Sacy realised that the word Assassin must have derived from the Arabic hashishiya or hashish taker. What’s more, hashish was a drug and Marco Polo describes the Assassins taking a potion in order to reach their master’s false paradise. Therefore, that potion must have been hashish along with some other foul oriental drugs that caused mania. Once more, hashish must have caused the fall of Hellenistic civilisation and is the reason the Orient isn’t as civilised as Europe.

De Sacy went on to give a lecture at the Instutuit de France outlining these ideas. But there were a few problems.

1. De Sacy had only one source in which the Assassins were called hashishiya and it was by a Sunni jurist. Furthermore, hashishiya was a common term for low life or scum at the time.

2. De Sacy had taken from Marco Polo’s account of a fictional legend regarding the Assassins that originated with their Sunni enemies.

3. De Sacy explained how hashish could cause violent mania, but did not back this up with any evidence.

4. Likewise, De Sacy offered no evidence regarding the Orient’s apparent “uncivilised” state stemming from hashish and related drugs.

But nevertheless, his lecture was cited in everything related to the history of the Assassins. But what was more, was that it was also cited in medical journals as undeniable proof that Hashish causes violent mania. Dictionaries clamped onto this idea of the Assassins as “Hashashins” and so it became accepted that Assassin derives from the Arabic for Hashish taker.

Even in the 20^th century as historians such as Ivanow, Marshal Hodgeson and Bernard Lewis pointed out evidence to the contrary (and in the case of Lewis, outright disputed De Sacy’s claim), people still held on to the idea of Assassins as “Hashashins.”

But it’s a lie.

How can this be? How can a lie masquerade as fact for so long? Even when the evidence is so clearly presented and accessible.

Because the truth is not something that is necessarily true.

To paraphrase a quote often attributed to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels: “the truth is a lie repeated often enough.”

I suspect this idea has a great deal of merit, based upon what I have read on past events. Modern research suggests that repetition alone can have a great deal of effect on what people think are true (https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/xge-0000098.pdf).
But repetition is only one tool in the vast tool box that is propaganda. Humanity has long waged a war of ideas against one and other.
Pay men to obey you and you’ll have as many as you have money. Force men to obey you and you’ll have as many as you have strength. But spread an idea that men should obey you and you’ll have as many as have minds to hold this idea.
And so, man made ideas so that they could distract, influence, control.
De Sacy’s speech won him renown and fame as the man who solved the riddle of the Assassins. It spread among academic circles who eagerly used it as a justification for imperial colonisation of the East. It was about De Sacy’s time that French occupied Egypt was illegalising hashish.
The French government cite the relationship between Hashish and the Assassins as their justification for the 1970 Droit de la Drogue (Public Health Article L. 627), which shapes European drug law to this day.
Ideas are used to control.
Consider the modern United States and its issue regarding racial tensions between so called “blacks” and so called “whites.”
Consider the fact that blacks and whites as they are called, under the microscope, show no genetic difference. When a “black” man’s genes are placed alongside a “white” man’s genes. It is impossible to tell the difference.
Now consider the fact that people who descend from various ethnicities across various continents are grouped into these two camps.
Now consider that due to this “blackness” or “whiteness” these people’s modern day culture: their customs, traditions, way of living are for some reason equated to those people of the past who are considered equivocally “black” or “white.” Even though; the cultures of those past peoples are almost certainly foreign to modern day cultures due alone to the mere passage of time.
Nevertheless, these people now have a “black culture” or “white culture” that is shared with these past peoples. Ignoring the fact that a culture may be influenced by any individual who happens to incorporate any sort of “foreign” custom, food, tradition, etc. into their lifestyle.
The only way to explain this is that it is merely true because we believe it to be.
It is an idea. There is no “black” or “white.” It was made up.
Why?
Sometimes these things can be simply misconceptions or imagined differences stemming from convenience.
I suspect, based on the following, that the racism within the United States was specifically manufactured.
In the 17^th century, there was an issue with landowners regarding indentured servants in the American colonies. An indentured servant was someone who worked for a land owner for a set period of time, in exchange for having their passage over the Atlantic paid by said land owner. The issue arose when the indentured servants began desiring better rights. These servants were both from Africa and Europe. They stood together in their protest against the land owners and their recognition of their shared situation.
The landowners faced a dilemma: they wanted to continue forcing the servants to work under poor conditions. It was more profitable. Furthermore, they wanted a cheap method of farming large portions of land. So, in other words, they wanted slaves.
Their solution was to grant some rights to the European indentured servants, the people they shared the most heritage with, and hope that this would create a rift between the Africans and the Europeans.
And it worked. It worked so well, that they could go ahead and enslave the Africans without any complaints from the Europeans. Soon, slavery replaced indentured servitude. And this idea of black against white was used as a justification.
That was it. A small group of people hoped to manipulate the masses for gain and so they promoted this concept so they could.
Today, the media encourages people to argue over flags being up or down, words being said or unsaid, people protesting and other “race” related issues. The government as well, loves to talk about racial prejudice and its own stances on the matter.
All the while, the government enacts policies that take even more away from the people and gives it to a small minority of the population they have ties to. And in that case, it doesn’t matter whether you are “black” or “white.” You lose out equally.
People are encouraged to see this false divide among eachother and to fight about it because it distracts them from the real consequences of real policies that affect them.
This has been the case throughout history. Ideas are used by the minority to control the majority. But in the end, these ideas are false.

This should be the first thing one realises on the journey to understanding the first half of the phrase: nothing is true, everything is permitted.