In our three part essay, we looked at evidence that suggests that gatewalking might not be an authentic Sumerian ritual taken from Wayne Horowitz’s Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography. What has Warlock said in response?
That is a good book.
Hey, that was easy.
Warlock goes on to quote some passages indicating that Horowitz is open to the possibility of a Sumerian cosmos with seven heavens. I think it’s important to view this in the entire structure of the book, where he covers alternate readings of those passages and a number of more documented cosmological schemes that look nothing like Simon’s schema. My point still stands: Horowitz’s book does not support the historical basis of the cosmos as outlined in the Simon book.
That’s not all, though.
We should also keep in mind that Dan Harms using “one” resource does not substantiate any hard evidence that GateWalking is not authentic. Especially when that resource is Dr. Wayne Horowitz is a Lecturer in the Rothberg School for Overseas Students and the Department of Assyriology at the Hebrew University. I guess it is safe to say that his religious views will in no way over shadow his report and uncertainty in his approach, which is clearly evident in his book. This is a good source of information: Hebrew University is the same Institute that had made the following headlines… This is the same University that Wayne Horowitz gets his degree from? I am happy that you believe that your research has improved.
The part omitted included links to stories stating that one Hebrew University professor has been accused of serious crimes, that another said something demeaning about Arabs, and that the student union won’t allow outside Arabs to have memberships.
Of course, this has absolutely nothing to do with the content of Professor Horowitz’s book. It’s a smear, the same as the one he tried to use against Lovecraft, only this one is completely speculative regarding Dr. Horowitz”s beliefs and political sympathies. I don’t know the man myself, but this is ridiculous.
At this point, Warlock has been confronted with a recent book by a scholar who can read cuneiform and is well-read on the topic. What is his response? He does not engage with the book’s arguments, or seek out other works on the topic.
Instead, if he can simply conclude that the person is associated with those who have undesirable views, or is anti-Semitic, or lived in an area where witchcraft trials occurred, he can completely dismiss them as unreliable. Having ensured that he can safely ignore this information, he can get back to more reliable sources such as 19th century books and community college student websites. (I have nothing against that site owner, but really now!)
I, however, will not condemn Warlock or his fellow gatewalkers for this. I am curious, however, as to why they continue to endorse a book that makes use of an author who thought Sumer was built by Aryans as its chief linguistic source. After all, by their own logic, might that not indicate that the work is unreliable?