The Promised Land - Part 2
There can be no doubt that the Jews were completely victorious in WW2.
The Crimean War insured that Christians would not get the Holy Lands from the crumbling Muslim Ottoman Empire.
WW1 obtained Palestine for Jewish control.
Then came the Pharaoh Hitler in 1933.
The Pharaoh Hitler looked like he may have been a huge setback to Zionism which had started in earnest in the mid 1800's.
Indeed, Hitler had taken over their Jewish-ran Wiemar Republic simply because the Jews running the Wiemar Republic had
managed so successfully in running Germany into the ground, but now Jews were once again safe -- Hitler was dead.
Stalin
was still in power with his Judeo-Communist suppression of
Christianity in his on-going Jewish-ran Gulag concentration camps.
England was still under the Jewish thumb of Jewish financial control and America was well
on its way to being dragged under their control.
Best yet, the nation of Israel was being birthed -- the goal of Jews for almost 2,000 years.
These were glorious, victorious, historic days for Jews the world over.
So how did the Jewish MSM choose to portray WW2?
Instead of bragging to the world of their triumphant and historic victory, they instead show it as a huge Jewish disaster!!!!
The fantasy developed of long suffering Jews returning to their
Promised Land because all the rest of the world were constantly beating
up on them.
The Holocaust disaster was portrayed as only against Jews; not the
burned out German and English cities filled with Christians, not the
legions of dead Russian Christian soldiers buried in their Leningrad
ghost town, not the Holodomor of 7 million starved
Ukrainian Christians, not the tens of millions of Red Terror or Stalin
terror victims.
Tales of Jewish woe abound though -- tales of devastation, destruction,
persecution, deprivation, cruelty, inhumanity, first from German
Christians in WW2 and then from Palestinian Muslims blocking their
illegal entry to Palestine -- of all the nerve!
Jewish movie producers made hundreds of Holocaust movies about the plight of the poor
Jews, but not one movie about the Holodomor of 7 million Christians in Jewish hands.
How will the Neo-Talmud of the year 2525 record our history?
One thing will be sure -- There will be recorded no word of Christian
suffering in WW2, for that would distract from the Jewish-based story
they want to tell.
The Talmud in the year 2525 will record that the Jews suffered
great burdens placed upon them by Christians, but God came to their aid and finally redeemed
them with a restored Promised Land.
No mention will be made in this Judiazed telling of the truth that this second
deliverance was only made possible with the help of American, English
and Russian Christians.
No mention will be made of American and Russian Christians fighting
German Christians in the defense of Jews; German Christians who were
themselves fighting against Jewish-ran communism enslaving the world.
No mention will be made of the hundreds of billions of dollars in
military and economic aid given by Christians to help establish this religious Judaic
nation.
World War 2 will be boiled down to little more than the Pharaoh
Hitler ruthlessly enslaving Jews and pursuing a Holocaust against their
poor suffering
innocents.
Hitler will be portrayed as Pharaoh while Ben Guiron will be depicted as Israel's second Moses.
This
site has already exposed how the Holocaust of WW2 was richly
embellished by the Jewish Hollywood producer Billy Wilder, in
conspiracy with Hollywood screenwriters along with an American
military
psychological warfare department ran by Jews in WW2 with half-Jew
Dwight Eisenhower running interference for them, when they "documented"
the German labor camps for all time. (But no Stalinist gulag
camps)
The gall Jews have of presenting Dwight Eisenhower, the world's highest
military leader against the Germans in WW2, as an ethnic German. Only a
Jew could be trusted with such an important task!
So given how twisted contemporary history has been manipulated by Jews,
in front of our very eyes, how much more could the Jews have elaborated, distorted -- even
twisted history completely around between Jews and Egyptians, where
Jews are portrayed as always weak suffering innocent victims, instead
of being properly presented as a powerful threatening minority over a
subjugated Egypt?
The story of Moses was that portrayal of innocent suffering Jews at the
hands of an all powerful Egyptian empire. But can it be believed by
someone with an open mind?
Indeed, we find evidence of the real truth of history, unearthed in Egyptian records we can now read for the first time,
literally cut in stone so that we know we are getting original documents, which show the other side of the story -- that
Egypt was the victim in the time of Moses, not the Jews.
Could this be the real story of Moses?
The Promised Land, Part 1
Even the Jewish accounts in the Bible tell of Moses being an Egyptian royal.
What this says is that Moses was in line to be Pharaoh! In and of
itself, hardly the story of a suffering people at the hands of an evil
dictator!
How this happened is truly intriguing.
The Jewish story is that Moses was not a blood relative to the Pharaoh,
but rather adopted from birth after his Jewish mother put the
baby Moses into a basket along the Nile where it floated past the
Pharaoh's home.
In truth, Moses was either the actual blood son of a Jewish Pharaoh or
a Jewish boy adopted by a Jewish Pharaoh, or at worst, a Jewish boy
adopted by an Egyptian Pharaoh - who was but a mere puppet of Jewish
manipulators.
Far from the one-sided account of Jews being an absolute enslaved
outcast class as portrayed in the story of Moses, even the Bible tells
of Jews who had great influence over Egyptian power, as in the story of
Joseph becoming the chief adviser to the Pharaoh.
A Pharaoh who by the way, allowed these poor suffering Israelites, who
were suffering from a drought in their own country, to immigrate into
his verdant Nile delta basin paradise.
Abraham, Jacob and the sons of Jacob were all welcome as refugees in Egypt. Again, hardly the story of a cruel evil Pharaoh.
If Jewish Joseph was a slave, it was only because his Jewish brothers
sold him into slavery, not because the Pharaoh rounded up Jews
Kristallnatch-style.
Remarkably, the story of
Israeli-immigrant Joseph becoming the chief adviser to the Pharaoh of
Egypt is not unlike the story of Israeli-immigrant Rahm Emanuel
becoming the White House Chief of Staff as the chief adviser to the
Pharaoh of America, Barrack Obama.
At best, the Bible tells us that the Pharaoh was an Egyptian puppet
moved by Jewish hands, ever as much the puppet as Barrack Obama guided
by Jewish hands.
If this is true, then Jews would not have been suffering nearly as
badly as they wrote in the Bible, but instead would had been in a
position to make the Egyptians suffer.
Indeed, to cause the Egyptian people to suffer so much that they finally agreed to "Let my people go!"
OR, to DEMAND that the JEWS GO AWAY!
Indeed! Did the drought-escaping Israelis bite the hand which fed
them and sought to take over power and control from the Egyptian people
so greatly that protests from the suffering Egyptian people in their
own lands become so great that the Egyptian Pharaoh had no recourse but
to strip them of all power to the point they became slaves under him
for their own protection? No doubt!
The story of Moses then would have been written as a Holocaust event -
that is, entirely written as a fairy tale, twisted entirely from
reality to reflect the exact opposite of what happened.
Jesus-rejecting Jews often say that a single poor Jewish man named
Christ, among millions of poor Jews, never existed because if he had
existed, they would have deemed it important enough to have written
something about him in their Talmud. (They did, but it is not a nice
thing they wrote about Christ).
Yet, when 2 million Jews leave a population of around 4.5 million
Egyptians, and not a single account is written about it in Egyptian
hieroglyphics, are we to assume that a instantaneous 30% reduction in
population had no significant affect on the life and economy of Egypt
which Egyptians cared to write about.
Modern studies of Egyptian hieroglyphics have revealed these secrets
and the story we are now getting from the Egyptian side of the story can for the
first time be compared to the Jewish side of history, which the Jews have recorded in their part of the Bible.
|
THE EXODUS LIE
As a student of human nature, I've
found that the best lies always have a grain of truth in them. I've
also observed that one particularly effective type of lie is the one
where the liar reverses things. If you are a liar, for instance, you
accuse someone else of lying. One of the best examples you'll ever find
of that is when the Bush administration accused Saddam Hussein of lying
about WMDs.
Anyway, I'm quite a ways off on a
tangent here since the subject is the Exodus, but I thought I would lay
a foundation for the subject and for my question. Did the author of the
Exodus pull a classic switcheroo by reversing the facts? Or, more
specifically, were the Hebrews forcibly ejected from Egypt as
undesirables rather than escaping by parting the Red Sea, etc? Here's
what one writer says about the Exodus:
"The fact is that with all that
is known of Egyptian history from this time (since scholars can now
read the records the ancient Egyptians with the ease of a modern
newspaper), and the fact that the history of Egypt in this period is
well documented, there is no evidence from the records of Egypt itself
that the events of Exodus ever occurred, either archaeologically or documentarily in
the manner in which the Bible describes the events.
The reality is that
if
- a series of plagues had been visited upon Egypt,
- thousands of slaves
escaped in a mass runaway,
- and the army of the Pharaoh were swallowed
up by the Red Sea,
such events would doubtless have made it into the
Egyptian documentary record.
Instead, what we do have from
Egyptian sources is a remarkably different story of the Exodus.
From
about the beginning of the second millenium B.C.E., through about 1200
B.C.E., Egypt ruled the region known today as Palestine.
How do we know
this?
We know it not only from Egyptian records themselves, which talk
about tribute taken from the various towns and cities in
Canaan, but from archaeological evidence within the region itself,
which shows a number of settlements which were clearly Egyptian
military outposts.
During this time, the region
which was to become the land of Israel, occupying the northern
highlands between the coastal plain and the valley of the Jordan River,
was sparsely populated and densely forested with stands of oak and
terebinth trees.
This land was populated by one of two groups (we're
not sure which), either the Apiru or Shoshu peoples.
The former were known to have
originated as itinerant nomads, largely on the fringes of lowland
society, who may have taken refuge in the highlands, or the Shosu, a
more cohesive, well-defined group.
The linguistic association of Apiru
(sometimes Habiru) with the word, "Hebrew" had long, in the minds of
scholars, been considered good evidence that this was the group
that gave rise to the Hebrews, but we now know that the association
wasn't quite that simple. The name may have been from that source, but
the people probably weren't.
In any event, the highlands of
northern Palestine which was home to the Kingdom of Israel has a highly
variable climate. Agricultural productivity, and the ability of people
to sustain trade with the lowlands, was subject to varying climatic
conditions, meaning that famine was a frequent occurrence. When
crops failed and trade could not be sustained, it was not uncommon for
people to flee the region and head for refuge where crops were
dependable. The nearest such place was the Nile delta in Egypt.
So many of the "Hebrews"
(culturally indistinct from the Canaanites at this time), who were
citizens of Egypt, fled to the Nile delta.
Time and again.
Every time
there was a famine in Judah, Israel or Canaan, refugees headed for
Egypt.
The event
was so common, and the refugees so numerous, that they
eventually became a substantial minority group, influential in Egypt,
where they were known as the Hyksos, as is now very clear from the
archaeological record.
The story of the expulsion of
the Hyksos is easily the closest parallel we have from either the
Egyptian record or the archaeological record to the story of the Exodus
as recorded in the Bible.
There are problems, though.
Besides the
Exodus story line, the biggest problem is the dates: the Bible places the
Exodus at about 1200 B.C.E., yet the story of the Hyksos culminates in
1570 B.C.E.
It is quite likely that the story of the Hyksos is the
story that eventually, through generations of revisionistic retelling,
became the myth of the Exodus
-- another example of history being rewritten to flatter the storytellers rather than to record the unvarnished truth.
Anyway, the Hyksos grew in
influence until they eventually took control of Egypt, which they
ruled, with considerable cruelty and tyranny during the Fifteenth
Dynasty, beginning in 1670 B.C.E.
The Egyptians had finally had enough,
though, and rebelled against the rule of the Hyksos and drove them out
a century later in 1570 B.C.E.
They weren't just driven out, either;
the Egyptians pushed them back into Canaan with considerable force,
driving them all the way to the Syrian frontier, sacking and burning
Canaanite cities along the way.
Sometime later, the Hyksos capital in
Egypt, Avaris, in the eastern Nile delta, was razed to the ground by
the Pharoah Ahmose, who chased the last remnants of the Hyksos back
into Canaan and even laid siege to Sharuhen, the main Canaanite
citadel, destroying it and ending Canaanite influence there.
At least
one historian claims (a millennium after the fact) that the Hyksos
refugees settled in Jerusalem and built a temple there, but the
archaeological record does not support the claim of either a temple or
large numbers of refugees in Jerusalem from this period.
The story of the Exodus is clearly mythmaking designed to portray a
possible forced expulsion of oppressors as an escape of victims. . .
|
