This is great timing, Librarian. I'm glad that we're asking questions along the same lines, even if we don't always come to the same 'answers,' which neither of us state as final, I think.
I'm preparing a post on Guyenot's first chapter and was just at the part about the 'people of the land'. In my words, incorporating Guyenot's research with my own:
"Deuteronomy establishes a theocracy ruled by a priesthood. The conquest of Canaan by Joshua (Yeshua) is a mythical projection of the repatriation to Canaan by the Jews of Babylon, making Ezra into the new Moses. The Lord gives them reign over ‘the people of the land’—the indigenous inhabitants who are now declared foreigners. Those who had returned in the preceding century and intermarried are told to repudiate their wives and children.
"According to the book of Ezra, ‘the people of the country’ want to help them build the temple as fellow Hebrews, but are rebuffed as Assyrian colonists practicing idolatry. Yet in the story of Moses, he states they will follow what leads them to water—which turns out to be a herd of wild donkeys or asses. A head of a donkey was said to be worshipped in the first Jerusalem temple, and Jesus is brought to Jerusalem on an ass. These seem like references to Assur the warrior god.
"The Ezraites claim themselves as the rightful people of Judah and scorn the indigenous Judeans. They also usurp the name of Israel, which had been the prestigious northern kingdom. The name Ezraites echoes Israelites. Abraham’s journey seems another retelling of the Babylonian Ezraites infiltrating Canaan and conquering it from within."
And later, "According to the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, there are edicts from three successive Persian rulers—Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes—giving the Babylonian Ezraites the right to rule and build the temple from the royal treasury. These are all fake by common agreement among historians. Moreover, the claims could never have been written at a time they would be known as fake. Therefore, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah were written after the end of Persian rule in the Hellenist period of Alexander the Great circa 333 BCE."
This seems like pure fantasy from the get-go. Why would the Babylonian rulers welcome 50,000 of the elite Judeans who had just waged war against them into their own country with servants so they could become wealthy and prosperous at their expense? The Ezraites who came from Babylon after it was conquered by Persia had never originated in Judea. My guess is that they were traitors and spies for Persia who were driven out of Babylon when the people realized they'd been betrayed--much like in Germany after WWI when the Balfour Declaration came to light.
And the archeology book I'm reading, Facts on the Ground, talks about those 200 Hebrew village names and that the facts dispute them. And if the Torah has told half-truths, by incorporating existing names as a means of claiming the territories, it's not historical that 'they' built them.
In one other comment, Josephus says that Titus gave permission to preserve the Torah scholars and Davidic line of royalty, incorporating both into the Roman Empire. Only the zealots, who rebelled against Rome and the theocracy of the Torah, were murdered, enslaved or expelled. Whether or not this is fiction, it's from their own historian that the priestly and royal class were traitors to the sovereignty movement and loyal to Rome, for whom they were the tax(task)masters.
Thanks for bringing Shlomo's work to me, Librarian!
Thank you so much, Librarian. I just posted my article on Guyenot and mentioned your article on Sand at the end but will be giving it more attention in the future. It's a wealth of new knowledge for me. Here's the new one: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/from-yahweh-to-zion.
"Many Hebrew place names have been preserved, unlike the Greek and Roman names that were meant to replace them. A good number of burial places, sacred to the local inhabitants, are joint Muslim and Jewish cemeteries. The local Arabic dialect is strewn with Hebrew and Aramaic words, distinguishing it from literary Arabic and other Arabic vernaculars. The local populace does not define itself as Arab—they see themselves as Muslims or fellahin (farmers), while they refer to the Bedouins as Arabs. The particular mentality of certain local communities recalls that of their Hebrew ancestors."
There are several things:
First, I would say the key to "re - cognize" and "re - collect" [as Tereza would say] the events that may have taken place in ancient times, is Linguistics. Language preserves certain root meanings in an Etymological manner.
Such as the real name of the Hebrew: Habiru or Hapiru or Apiru. They were ruled by a separate subset of individual rulers. To better express this I will forward a portion of another comment I used in a different stack, [also reflecting a concept from Tereza]:
"Semitism itself is a system of slaves and masters from the most ancient attestations. The Canaanites were bequeathed by Noah to Shem to be his slaves. To be Anti Shemite is to be against that system of slaves and masters. When we apply the term "Semitic" to some group of people; even if the Palestinians are considered more than 80% genetically Semitic, the Palestinians are likely the descendants of the original Canaanites who were enslaved by their masters.
The masters were known as Šagašu, in ancient Sumeria; they were known as Habiru (Hebrew) when they held control in ancient Egypt, their rulers were known as Heka Khasut; they were known as the Archons in Ancient Greece, as Tereza states: "prior to Solon who created the Athenian "Democracy" which was a system of representative tyranny." ---- This is one comment that I place in this post:
I have been stating this all along: Remember that the names of the rulers are some times used to describe the whole people, while the majority of the people are not a part of the ruling group in reality, they instead maintain their own separate bloodline.
For another perspective on the OT and the Exodus here's my post on Hyksos and the first Holocaust:
Hello Nefahotep, and thanks for introducing me to your stimulating research.
I also make long posts, but they are not my research. At most they are my translation and edits. I started this site because I read so many fascinating books of history, but they were not available in English. I thought that they should be provided to the western reader. I would not have published anything, if they were already translated. Nowadays I do post from books in English text. Most of those are foreign authored (like this one). I admit they are just another narrative, but at least it's not the Judo-Christian western narrative, that I have heard so many times before.
I think the foundation of western beliefs is the chauvinism of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim origin, centered from Old Testament Myths. When was the Old Testament actually written? Some say It is most probable that the early events in the book were written in the time of David and Solomon, (if there were a David and a Solomon?) and their literary adaptation was done at the end of the two kingdoms, in about the eighth century." The Old Testament, having been written by many authors and then edited and reedited by others over many years, (centuries) is full of contradictions. For every expression of contempt, rejection or superiority over the gentiles, there is also sermonizing, sometimes subtle and sometimes explicit.
How do some of these complex arguments generate from the backwaters of a tiny agrarian culture? (God told them, right?) It must be clear that these ideas originated in the advanced civilizations of Mesopotamia and Egypt. We are inundated with volumes of Jewish writings of how the world is, but we have only shadows of thinking from other important civilizations. They didn't turn out to be a world religion, and are thus not promulgated.
If you say, the religion of Egypt was thus; well, what does that mean for the daily life of the population? You have researched some of these writings in Ipuwer's Papyrus. Is that the Middle Kingdom, or 2nd intermediate? He tells of troubles. Are those the only newsworthy writings? The Hyksos nomadic groups began settling in Egypt in the 1800s BCE. Then after 100 - plus years the Hyksos ruled over Lower Egypt and the Nile Valley around 1630–1523 BCE.
How did they gain the faith of the Egyptian Pharos in those 100 - plus years? You said devious actions and ingratiation. We are all ingratiating to our superiors, are we not? Then they ruled for 107 years. You are saying they gradually poisoned the food of the whole population, is that a 107-year centralized plan of destruction? I think obviously they didn't have government bakeries where everyone was forced to buy bread.
So instead, it became a habit, a culinary tradition, to use certain ingredients to make baked wheat rise. Like you said; Darnel seeds were sometimes added to beer as a flavoring. So certain herbs were added to bread for taste, and for the baking result. Maybe they make you high, but who knew that it might shorten your life? But was that a Hyksos plot that lasted 100 years?
I was interested in the last part where you said: Heka was linked to the creative aspects of the heart and the tongue. The heart was considered the seat of one's individual personality, thought, and feeling, while the tongue gave expression to these aspects. Sia was a personification of the heart, Hu of the tongue, and Heka the power which infused both. Sia was the power of perception or insight, which allowed the creator to visualize other forms. Hu was the power of authoritative speech, which enabled the creator to bring things into being by naming them.
If Heka, Sia, and Hu enabled the gods, that same philosophy also enabled man. Enabled man with the power of authoritative speech, which enabled him to bring things into being by naming them. We call that create the context, or a realm of possibility. So, was there an intellectual life in ancient Egypt? Please write about that.
_________________
I am trying to follow the connections that you may be inferring. Perhaps the Hyksos came from what we call Palestine as nomads, and their 107-year rule corresponds to what the Bible calls the Exodus? Only the roles are a bit reversed. The Hyksos mistreated the population, and even "poisoned them". So, they were "Bad" people.
Does that mean when they left as a group "they were bad" wherever they went? Is it an unbroken line of infiltrators all the way up to the Rothschilds and now to the GAZA conflict? I don't see the point of categorizing a group with a collective responsibility. So much research on the Hebrews is finding that their stories are fake. We all live with myths. Why were theirs written in a way that emphasized violence and superiority?
ALL OF THE WESTERN ETHNOS IS CHAUVINISTIC by the way.
This is what I truly object to, that something that may have happened 400 years ago or 4,000 years ago is somehow transmitted to our present scenario. What is this secret and powerful mechanism to continue their conspiracy for millennia? It is the Freemasons, right? Or the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, or the Ordo Templi Orientis. Here are some secret good ones:
Calves' Head Club
Committee of 300
Confederacy (British political group)
Gormogons
Grand Order of Water Rats
Hellfire Club
The Horseman's Word
Invisible College
Knights of Seth
National Action (UK)
The Night Climbers of Oxford
Nordic League
Odin Brotherhood
Order of Chaeronea
Order of Free Gardeners
Right Club
The School of Night
Scotch Cattle
Sealed Knot
United Ancient Order of Druids
Of course I am joking now, but I don’t focus my attention on these long range connections. Things happen, and then they happen again at a later date. SO? Things happen out of belief systems. Chauvinism is one of those beliefs. Hundreds of years of devastating colonialism came out of chauvinism. Were Hyksos behind that?
Let’s hear more about the Creative part of Egypt. And Thanks for reading this post.
First, I want to preface my response to you, that in all my research I am making no claims. For my part this is an exploration of comparative cultural constructs that have been formed from stories; usually those stories were written long after the events they describe, as Tereza points out: "are used to justify the claims of Empire and the construction of a Control Prison called "Hierarchy.""
Etymology: from Greek hierarkhia, from hierarkhēs ‘sacred ruler’ Roots: Hieros (“sacred”) and archein (“rule” or “order”)
Etymologically, word roots in language can often reveal patterns with meanings, this offers us clues to past cultural interactions.
There are many aspects to the stories that form a pattern, this is what I pay attention to because it can reveal a bit more about what may have occurred, who the players were and why the events took place, in every instance things that line up become more obvious and story inversions like the Old Testament become self vitiating.
Your questions:
"When was the Old Testament actually written?"
I suspect the OT was written in it's present form sometime around 120 AD. Here's what Tereza says about Josephus:
"These were written at the same time and I would say by the same person, who was a Roman aristocrat named Piso and not a Judean at all. The repetition and hyperbole shows the Bible and Josephus to be all fabrications, for which there are no existing versions in Hebrew." --- She is citing this from Laurent Gayenot. It's what we have both begun to suspect, for different reasons. She continues: "I think Josephus was only a pen name. The OT may very well have been rewritten multiple times, but the goal was always to manufacture consent for mastery of one people over another."
"Religion of Egypt was thus; well, what does that mean for the daily life of the population?"
Ancient Egypt was like many societies of those times; there were initiates of the Spiritual Practices and Mystics among them who were well versed in Spiritual perspectives of life, then there were the non initiates who were the farmers and laborers, some among them many have had knowledge of the "Dua" as they called it. Most people became willing to follow what the priests of the temples told them. In the context of the original culture of Egypt, there was no "Religion" like how we see Religions today to make an analogy. Their culture had indigenous spiritual, mystic knowledge that got hijacked by those seeking control over the people, Religion was a tool to extract Obedience.
I never labeled the Hyksos as "Bad." They likely did not have a "Plan," they may have been in a habit of various types of banditry. My theory is these "Habiru" were the same ones known in Sumeria as Šagašu, meaning trespassers because they were wanderers that were not welcome. They became the "Shepards" the Egyptians had reason to fear, they were opportunistic.
Ipuwer likely wrote the papyrus in the beginning of the New Kingdom, or just as the power of the Egyptian King (Neshu) was coming back, at the end of (second intermediate period)
You asked some important questions about the bread and ingredients for bread making. I hope this helps:
The original currency in Egypt was based off the grain itself, the bread making was done privately and locally; however, bread makers were not necessarily the farmers, though some farmers probably did make their own.
Tereza suggests that: "In order to get bread, payment was likely done in grain. There was a grain tax imposed by the King (Neshua). What seems to have happened is the Neshua was listening to an ingratiated advisor called Osarseph (later changed his name to Moses) the advice was to raise the grain tax so as to take too much for the farmers to pay, then putting them into debt. This is most likely what was happening in Canaan and the Nile Delta area. With Canaanites enslaved by usury, needing to give up the seed for the next planting season, starvation began, famine was created by economic circumstances."
I'm NOT categorizing a group with a collective responsibility; however, there are rulers who hold a responsibility for the intransigence they commit, that includes their very secretive Parasitic Culture which also includes it's own Psychopathy, as I had stated repeatedly in some of my eariliest stacks; these Parasitic Elites, I often refer to as Sabbatean / Frankist are using the Jewish culture or identity to hide behind so they can continue to make a living off the proceeds of others.
The current observations back up there is a Cultural Contagion that seems to have survived. It's basically a "Cult." One lady posted a very strong worded article in 2016, about why she left the Cult. https://mondoweiss.net/2016/10/why-i-left-the-cult/
Proviso: I don't try to criticize whole groups, even though it can at times be more than tempting, the Jewish community is quite diverse and I tend to lean towards respect of people as Individuals, because I believe [as Tereza does], "that people are essentially morally equal, when "Bad" things happen, systems are to blame and those can be changed."
It seems that there is quite bit of victimization within the ranks of the cult. Those who keep defending it, suffer from Stockholm Syndrome. From the above article,
She says: "The survival of the cult is always the most important principle. Cult members are taught from birth that the world outside is dangerous, that they have to huddle together for safety. Every member of every cult is a recruit." -- This is quite true and can be seen easily. Cults are a big part of the manipulation tool; it's the Shepherd's Crook, a mind prison that members don't know they are in.
Throughout history, it is very possible for this Cult to have persisted, the examples of which you posted I am not as familiar. I do have quite a few post on my research of the Dragon Court and Order of the Garter. From what I can tell, there are quite definitely dynastic bloodlines who cling to power. Their actual origins may lay in the "Cult of Seth."
From your last set of questions, I'll answer in sequence;
"Does that mean when they left as a group "they were bad" wherever they went?" -- Bad is a subjective experience, ask anyone at anytime weather being forced into slavery is Bad; they will say it is....definitely BAD. Governance, Enforced Unions of people into Groups. Tereza has stated this: "Whenever a Union is being 'forced' that means someone is being raped." ---- That's true even today with mandated citizenship to National Identities.
"Is it an unbroken line of infiltrators all the way up to the Rothschilds and now to the GAZA conflict?" --- It's a Cult so, Yes and No, It's not the exact same culture of the original Habiru infiltrators, today they are practicing a form of Sabbateanism and blood sacrifice, which is what is happening in Gaza; what they are doing to the Palestinians is the exact definition of a Holocaust; a Burnt Offering.
"I don't see the point of categorizing a group with a collective responsibility. So much research on the Hebrews is finding that their stories are fake. We all live with myths. Why were theirs written in a way that emphasized violence and superiority?"
---- First, Nobody should ever be categorize as a 'group' with a collective responsibility; that's what happened to the Germans after the war, it was all lies; (Al-lies).
----Second, the reason for the emphasized violence and superiority in the Hebrew stories is as Tereza states: "because the whole story of Shemitism is one about Masters and Slaves." The only way to maintain this fraud in a cultural context to teach every succeeding generation to hate and use force to enforce claims they make against other cultures. Zionism is the present day tool for this. The present day victims are the Palestinians.
I will be writing a post on the Linguistics and Symbolism in the Egyptian Language, soon. [I have made quote citations for Tereza, with my apologies]
I'd like to thank you for your comprehensive reply. I have no preconceived ideas of how I would respond, so it has taken some time contemplate what seems the appropriate questions. It is an interesting statement, "comparative cultural constructs that have been formed from stories;" and how they are used to justify the claims of Empire and the construction of a Control Prison called "Hierarchy," (sacred rule).
The stories form a pattern, which can reveal a bit more about what may have occurred, who the players were, and why the events took place. This must be a satisfaction, to solve ancient riddles, piecing together all the evidence thus far revealed. People manufacture consent for mastery of one people over another, perhaps for ages, and in most cultures.
Connections can be made that are perhaps valid. Other connections can be made that are perhaps conjecture. How to sort out these two? I prefer to let them both go and look at the current situation in itself. If I am from a rich family, I teach my children and grandchildren to manage those riches in a way that increases their power, to gain more riches. Is that a dynastic blood line? I don't need to adhere to a secret society to have that desire, or to play that game. If there are some kind of myths that help me convince others to allow this, all the better. I can use them.
To say that the whole story of Shemitism is one about Masters and Slaves, and the only way to maintain this fraud in a cultural context, is to teach every succeeding generation to hate, and to use force to constrain the claims they make against other cultures, is doubtful for me. Masters and slaves appear all throughout ancient history. If you live in a ghetto and people spit on you, you can teach about hate. But if you live in a prosperous suburb and with a great job and amenities, teachings of hate fall flat.
There are the Biblical records that are full of poison. If you were raised as a Christian, did they warp your sensibilities? (One might sincerely ask, why Christians never eliminated all the rubbish from their Bible?)
To go further with the grain tax imposed by the King (Neshua). What seems to have happened is the Neshua was listening to an ingratiated advisor called Osarseph (later changed his name to Moses) the advice was to raise the grain tax so as to take too much for the farmers to pay, then putting them into debt. - Isn't this interpretation just an innuendo from the Christian (and Muslim), objection to usury, projected to the past? Did Egyptians practice usury? Was that the key to their riches? Kings and ruler all over the world raised land taxed beyond the ability to pay. Was this always a mechanism of debt, that had to be paid to the Jewish forebears? I can't buy that.
Guyenot says that his book is a critique of toxic ideas, and that lies come first. It’s only by exposing the lies that the violence will end. (That's a beautiful assumption.) These lies result in hate as a binding force for that culture, (if they are still true).
I am going to propose that HATE is a commodity that can be sold. There are many examples, from the Mujahideen, JIhadists, ISIS, Ukraine, Poland, the Baltic States, Israel and others. Each of them has a seed of hate, either dormant or more or less active, and which can be energized. Guyenot is focusing on the sellers of Hate, and their inherent toxicity. (I don't deny it.)
But the full formula is the sellers of Hate, and the buyers of Hate. The buyers of hate are you and me, if we enjoy the prosperity of the west based on colonialism, and if we pay taxes to purchase armaments for Ukraine and Israel. This we want to cover up, so we welcome Guyenot's diversion and focus on those evil sellers. (All the way back for 4,000 years.)
I wonder; would there be any hate without the buyers of hate? For sure it would be orders-of-magnitude less, and also impotent. Why does anyone engage in conflict? BECAUSE THEY THINK THEY WILL WIN. Or if that is impossible, because they have an Uncle that will back them up, and pay them for being the front man. This is certainly the history within our lifetime. Proxy warfare is the cruelest in imagination. But at least we have Plausible Deniability!
In this anti-Semitism thread I will seek to cast doubt on the conspiracies from the past and the unfortunate hateful beliefs that seem to connect them. Although I don't plan to focus on the buyers-of-hate, which is all over the web, and better than I could ever expose them. Still, I will mention it.
"HATE is a commodity that can be sold." --- Sure it is, you are right. "Hating someone or something is like taking Poison and expecting the other person to die." ---- Sadhguru original quote, I have often used.
Fear, Anger, and Hatred are three force within Human Nature that hold mankind back from seeing what's actually true.
What I do is simple exploration of various aspects of ancient history and view them from different perspectives. By doing this, I hold no prejudgements.
Try to imagine instead of going hunting for Sentiment Justification, that you place every facet of every story on the table as though they are the various "Dots;" if you do your best to observe those Dots without an agenda, they will naturally form a pattern. The pattern will begin to look more and more unfamiliar as you progress through and keep exploring the different stories. After having studied the factors within Ancient Egyptian Language, Sanskrit and Symbolic meanings, I still can't make exact claims.
As I proceed further, I have already discovered that I made mistakes while writing the post I linked for you on "First Holocaust." I was trying to work with both the existing conceptions of Semitism and carefully separating the different proposed factions that are players in the story. In the past, I have defended Semitism, not really realizing just what it is about from a Mythos and story point of view. I don't come from a Christian background at all. I have a Vedic and Hindu background; on issues of "Abrahamia," I have no dog in the race. Since I am motivated to seek truth as much as possible, my approach is often inconvenient to those that hold the Abrahamic Beliefs.
Regardless, Seeking Truth and exploring things is NOT a Hateful Act.
Your inquiries:
"Neshua was listening to an ingratiated advisor called Osarseph (later changed his name to Moses) the advice was to raise the grain tax so as to take too much for the farmers to pay, then putting them into debt. - Isn't this interpretation just an innuendo from the Christian (and Muslim), objection to usury, projected to the past?"
---- No culture has ever welcomed or accepted Usury as a method of natural exchange between two parties, since the development of coinage. As Tereza states in her book: "The system of currency is set up and created for a tiny few to be a third party existing as a phantom between actual traders that gains an ever increasing monetary value, simply by being the owner / creator / issuer of said currency."
Nobody likes an intermeddling third party getting between them while they trade."
In Tereza's book: "Originally, with barter there was always a slight advantage from one side or other, this imbalance was only there to keep the relationship of exchange going. One person would get a "Barter - Gain" (Bargain) the other would try to get the upper hand next time; however, there was no third party or Ususrer."
---- With the Grain Tax, this was the first time it was applied within a system that grew organically out of an indigenous culture, due to the apparent events, in Egypt at that time, the people got a real painful education as to what the effects can be from Usury, artificial famine, malnutrition, etc...
"Did Egyptians practice usury?" ---- Early archaic culture mostly did not, except for the "Barter Gain," Tereza coined above, but it was likely introduced to them by the Wanderers known as Habiru; this is what I can see for far.....
"Was that the key to their riches?" ---- People of Tau Wei (Egypt) were a very Spiritually based Innocent culture, their "truest riches" were really themselves.
"Kings and rulers all over the world raised land taxed beyond the ability to pay. Was this always a mechanism of debt, that had to be paid to the Jewish forebears? I can't buy that."
---- There were NO Jewish forebears; I'll give you a quote from my friend Tereza because I think she says it best:
"In the end, the phrase 'the origin of the Jews' is misleading because there is no one coherent people who stayed intact throughout millennia and can be traced back to those mentioned in the fictional revenge story of the Torah. It's a people who've been reinvented again and again, with the Ashkenazi as the current 'Yews'. His article really changed my thinking, however, that the ancient Judeans had been expelled en masse after the zealot revolt against the Romans. That seems to be another fiction--why expel an agricultural people when you can colonize them? You want their labor, not their land. So the only genetic Judeans, I believe, are the Palestinians."
Genetics are beginning to look like a very small factor in studying the historic movements of populations; it does not provide any insight into specifics of their Cultural and Spiritual outlooks on things. Culture has it's own way it gets spread, usually by voluntary adoption or compulsory obligation to a group.
[I have made quote citations for Tereza, with my apologies]
This is great timing, Librarian. I'm glad that we're asking questions along the same lines, even if we don't always come to the same 'answers,' which neither of us state as final, I think.
I'm preparing a post on Guyenot's first chapter and was just at the part about the 'people of the land'. In my words, incorporating Guyenot's research with my own:
"Deuteronomy establishes a theocracy ruled by a priesthood. The conquest of Canaan by Joshua (Yeshua) is a mythical projection of the repatriation to Canaan by the Jews of Babylon, making Ezra into the new Moses. The Lord gives them reign over ‘the people of the land’—the indigenous inhabitants who are now declared foreigners. Those who had returned in the preceding century and intermarried are told to repudiate their wives and children.
"According to the book of Ezra, ‘the people of the country’ want to help them build the temple as fellow Hebrews, but are rebuffed as Assyrian colonists practicing idolatry. Yet in the story of Moses, he states they will follow what leads them to water—which turns out to be a herd of wild donkeys or asses. A head of a donkey was said to be worshipped in the first Jerusalem temple, and Jesus is brought to Jerusalem on an ass. These seem like references to Assur the warrior god.
"The Ezraites claim themselves as the rightful people of Judah and scorn the indigenous Judeans. They also usurp the name of Israel, which had been the prestigious northern kingdom. The name Ezraites echoes Israelites. Abraham’s journey seems another retelling of the Babylonian Ezraites infiltrating Canaan and conquering it from within."
And later, "According to the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, there are edicts from three successive Persian rulers—Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes—giving the Babylonian Ezraites the right to rule and build the temple from the royal treasury. These are all fake by common agreement among historians. Moreover, the claims could never have been written at a time they would be known as fake. Therefore, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah were written after the end of Persian rule in the Hellenist period of Alexander the Great circa 333 BCE."
This seems like pure fantasy from the get-go. Why would the Babylonian rulers welcome 50,000 of the elite Judeans who had just waged war against them into their own country with servants so they could become wealthy and prosperous at their expense? The Ezraites who came from Babylon after it was conquered by Persia had never originated in Judea. My guess is that they were traitors and spies for Persia who were driven out of Babylon when the people realized they'd been betrayed--much like in Germany after WWI when the Balfour Declaration came to light.
And the archeology book I'm reading, Facts on the Ground, talks about those 200 Hebrew village names and that the facts dispute them. And if the Torah has told half-truths, by incorporating existing names as a means of claiming the territories, it's not historical that 'they' built them.
In one other comment, Josephus says that Titus gave permission to preserve the Torah scholars and Davidic line of royalty, incorporating both into the Roman Empire. Only the zealots, who rebelled against Rome and the theocracy of the Torah, were murdered, enslaved or expelled. Whether or not this is fiction, it's from their own historian that the priestly and royal class were traitors to the sovereignty movement and loyal to Rome, for whom they were the tax(task)masters.
Thanks for bringing Shlomo's work to me, Librarian!
Here's this book. I will post more on it, and I will link to both of his books.
https://brax.me/f/Shlomo-Sand-The-Invention-of-the-Jewish-People-2009.pdf/T4AZ6660205b337709.01566531
.
Thank you so much, Librarian. I just posted my article on Guyenot and mentioned your article on Sand at the end but will be giving it more attention in the future. It's a wealth of new knowledge for me. Here's the new one: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/from-yahweh-to-zion.
Your quote:
"Many Hebrew place names have been preserved, unlike the Greek and Roman names that were meant to replace them. A good number of burial places, sacred to the local inhabitants, are joint Muslim and Jewish cemeteries. The local Arabic dialect is strewn with Hebrew and Aramaic words, distinguishing it from literary Arabic and other Arabic vernaculars. The local populace does not define itself as Arab—they see themselves as Muslims or fellahin (farmers), while they refer to the Bedouins as Arabs. The particular mentality of certain local communities recalls that of their Hebrew ancestors."
There are several things:
First, I would say the key to "re - cognize" and "re - collect" [as Tereza would say] the events that may have taken place in ancient times, is Linguistics. Language preserves certain root meanings in an Etymological manner.
Such as the real name of the Hebrew: Habiru or Hapiru or Apiru. They were ruled by a separate subset of individual rulers. To better express this I will forward a portion of another comment I used in a different stack, [also reflecting a concept from Tereza]:
"Semitism itself is a system of slaves and masters from the most ancient attestations. The Canaanites were bequeathed by Noah to Shem to be his slaves. To be Anti Shemite is to be against that system of slaves and masters. When we apply the term "Semitic" to some group of people; even if the Palestinians are considered more than 80% genetically Semitic, the Palestinians are likely the descendants of the original Canaanites who were enslaved by their masters.
The masters were known as Šagašu, in ancient Sumeria; they were known as Habiru (Hebrew) when they held control in ancient Egypt, their rulers were known as Heka Khasut; they were known as the Archons in Ancient Greece, as Tereza states: "prior to Solon who created the Athenian "Democracy" which was a system of representative tyranny." ---- This is one comment that I place in this post:
https://ivanmpaton.substack.com/p/know-your-enemies -- I think this is a good reference point to the Global conflict that has been forming.
I have been stating this all along: Remember that the names of the rulers are some times used to describe the whole people, while the majority of the people are not a part of the ruling group in reality, they instead maintain their own separate bloodline.
For another perspective on the OT and the Exodus here's my post on Hyksos and the first Holocaust:
https://nefahotep.substack.com/p/first-holocaust-in-ancient-history
Please let me know what you think about this.
[I have made quote citations for Tereza, with my apologies]
Hello Nefahotep, and thanks for introducing me to your stimulating research.
I also make long posts, but they are not my research. At most they are my translation and edits. I started this site because I read so many fascinating books of history, but they were not available in English. I thought that they should be provided to the western reader. I would not have published anything, if they were already translated. Nowadays I do post from books in English text. Most of those are foreign authored (like this one). I admit they are just another narrative, but at least it's not the Judo-Christian western narrative, that I have heard so many times before.
I think the foundation of western beliefs is the chauvinism of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim origin, centered from Old Testament Myths. When was the Old Testament actually written? Some say It is most probable that the early events in the book were written in the time of David and Solomon, (if there were a David and a Solomon?) and their literary adaptation was done at the end of the two kingdoms, in about the eighth century." The Old Testament, having been written by many authors and then edited and reedited by others over many years, (centuries) is full of contradictions. For every expression of contempt, rejection or superiority over the gentiles, there is also sermonizing, sometimes subtle and sometimes explicit.
How do some of these complex arguments generate from the backwaters of a tiny agrarian culture? (God told them, right?) It must be clear that these ideas originated in the advanced civilizations of Mesopotamia and Egypt. We are inundated with volumes of Jewish writings of how the world is, but we have only shadows of thinking from other important civilizations. They didn't turn out to be a world religion, and are thus not promulgated.
If you say, the religion of Egypt was thus; well, what does that mean for the daily life of the population? You have researched some of these writings in Ipuwer's Papyrus. Is that the Middle Kingdom, or 2nd intermediate? He tells of troubles. Are those the only newsworthy writings? The Hyksos nomadic groups began settling in Egypt in the 1800s BCE. Then after 100 - plus years the Hyksos ruled over Lower Egypt and the Nile Valley around 1630–1523 BCE.
How did they gain the faith of the Egyptian Pharos in those 100 - plus years? You said devious actions and ingratiation. We are all ingratiating to our superiors, are we not? Then they ruled for 107 years. You are saying they gradually poisoned the food of the whole population, is that a 107-year centralized plan of destruction? I think obviously they didn't have government bakeries where everyone was forced to buy bread.
So instead, it became a habit, a culinary tradition, to use certain ingredients to make baked wheat rise. Like you said; Darnel seeds were sometimes added to beer as a flavoring. So certain herbs were added to bread for taste, and for the baking result. Maybe they make you high, but who knew that it might shorten your life? But was that a Hyksos plot that lasted 100 years?
I was interested in the last part where you said: Heka was linked to the creative aspects of the heart and the tongue. The heart was considered the seat of one's individual personality, thought, and feeling, while the tongue gave expression to these aspects. Sia was a personification of the heart, Hu of the tongue, and Heka the power which infused both. Sia was the power of perception or insight, which allowed the creator to visualize other forms. Hu was the power of authoritative speech, which enabled the creator to bring things into being by naming them.
If Heka, Sia, and Hu enabled the gods, that same philosophy also enabled man. Enabled man with the power of authoritative speech, which enabled him to bring things into being by naming them. We call that create the context, or a realm of possibility. So, was there an intellectual life in ancient Egypt? Please write about that.
_________________
I am trying to follow the connections that you may be inferring. Perhaps the Hyksos came from what we call Palestine as nomads, and their 107-year rule corresponds to what the Bible calls the Exodus? Only the roles are a bit reversed. The Hyksos mistreated the population, and even "poisoned them". So, they were "Bad" people.
Does that mean when they left as a group "they were bad" wherever they went? Is it an unbroken line of infiltrators all the way up to the Rothschilds and now to the GAZA conflict? I don't see the point of categorizing a group with a collective responsibility. So much research on the Hebrews is finding that their stories are fake. We all live with myths. Why were theirs written in a way that emphasized violence and superiority?
ALL OF THE WESTERN ETHNOS IS CHAUVINISTIC by the way.
This is what I truly object to, that something that may have happened 400 years ago or 4,000 years ago is somehow transmitted to our present scenario. What is this secret and powerful mechanism to continue their conspiracy for millennia? It is the Freemasons, right? Or the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, or the Ordo Templi Orientis. Here are some secret good ones:
Calves' Head Club
Committee of 300
Confederacy (British political group)
Gormogons
Grand Order of Water Rats
Hellfire Club
The Horseman's Word
Invisible College
Knights of Seth
National Action (UK)
The Night Climbers of Oxford
Nordic League
Odin Brotherhood
Order of Chaeronea
Order of Free Gardeners
Right Club
The School of Night
Scotch Cattle
Sealed Knot
United Ancient Order of Druids
Of course I am joking now, but I don’t focus my attention on these long range connections. Things happen, and then they happen again at a later date. SO? Things happen out of belief systems. Chauvinism is one of those beliefs. Hundreds of years of devastating colonialism came out of chauvinism. Were Hyksos behind that?
Let’s hear more about the Creative part of Egypt. And Thanks for reading this post.
.
First, I want to preface my response to you, that in all my research I am making no claims. For my part this is an exploration of comparative cultural constructs that have been formed from stories; usually those stories were written long after the events they describe, as Tereza points out: "are used to justify the claims of Empire and the construction of a Control Prison called "Hierarchy.""
Etymology: from Greek hierarkhia, from hierarkhēs ‘sacred ruler’ Roots: Hieros (“sacred”) and archein (“rule” or “order”)
Etymologically, word roots in language can often reveal patterns with meanings, this offers us clues to past cultural interactions.
There are many aspects to the stories that form a pattern, this is what I pay attention to because it can reveal a bit more about what may have occurred, who the players were and why the events took place, in every instance things that line up become more obvious and story inversions like the Old Testament become self vitiating.
Your questions:
"When was the Old Testament actually written?"
I suspect the OT was written in it's present form sometime around 120 AD. Here's what Tereza says about Josephus:
"These were written at the same time and I would say by the same person, who was a Roman aristocrat named Piso and not a Judean at all. The repetition and hyperbole shows the Bible and Josephus to be all fabrications, for which there are no existing versions in Hebrew." --- She is citing this from Laurent Gayenot. It's what we have both begun to suspect, for different reasons. She continues: "I think Josephus was only a pen name. The OT may very well have been rewritten multiple times, but the goal was always to manufacture consent for mastery of one people over another."
"Religion of Egypt was thus; well, what does that mean for the daily life of the population?"
Ancient Egypt was like many societies of those times; there were initiates of the Spiritual Practices and Mystics among them who were well versed in Spiritual perspectives of life, then there were the non initiates who were the farmers and laborers, some among them many have had knowledge of the "Dua" as they called it. Most people became willing to follow what the priests of the temples told them. In the context of the original culture of Egypt, there was no "Religion" like how we see Religions today to make an analogy. Their culture had indigenous spiritual, mystic knowledge that got hijacked by those seeking control over the people, Religion was a tool to extract Obedience.
I never labeled the Hyksos as "Bad." They likely did not have a "Plan," they may have been in a habit of various types of banditry. My theory is these "Habiru" were the same ones known in Sumeria as Šagašu, meaning trespassers because they were wanderers that were not welcome. They became the "Shepards" the Egyptians had reason to fear, they were opportunistic.
Ipuwer likely wrote the papyrus in the beginning of the New Kingdom, or just as the power of the Egyptian King (Neshu) was coming back, at the end of (second intermediate period)
You asked some important questions about the bread and ingredients for bread making. I hope this helps:
The original currency in Egypt was based off the grain itself, the bread making was done privately and locally; however, bread makers were not necessarily the farmers, though some farmers probably did make their own.
Tereza suggests that: "In order to get bread, payment was likely done in grain. There was a grain tax imposed by the King (Neshua). What seems to have happened is the Neshua was listening to an ingratiated advisor called Osarseph (later changed his name to Moses) the advice was to raise the grain tax so as to take too much for the farmers to pay, then putting them into debt. This is most likely what was happening in Canaan and the Nile Delta area. With Canaanites enslaved by usury, needing to give up the seed for the next planting season, starvation began, famine was created by economic circumstances."
I'm NOT categorizing a group with a collective responsibility; however, there are rulers who hold a responsibility for the intransigence they commit, that includes their very secretive Parasitic Culture which also includes it's own Psychopathy, as I had stated repeatedly in some of my eariliest stacks; these Parasitic Elites, I often refer to as Sabbatean / Frankist are using the Jewish culture or identity to hide behind so they can continue to make a living off the proceeds of others.
The current observations back up there is a Cultural Contagion that seems to have survived. It's basically a "Cult." One lady posted a very strong worded article in 2016, about why she left the Cult. https://mondoweiss.net/2016/10/why-i-left-the-cult/
Proviso: I don't try to criticize whole groups, even though it can at times be more than tempting, the Jewish community is quite diverse and I tend to lean towards respect of people as Individuals, because I believe [as Tereza does], "that people are essentially morally equal, when "Bad" things happen, systems are to blame and those can be changed."
It seems that there is quite bit of victimization within the ranks of the cult. Those who keep defending it, suffer from Stockholm Syndrome. From the above article,
She says: "The survival of the cult is always the most important principle. Cult members are taught from birth that the world outside is dangerous, that they have to huddle together for safety. Every member of every cult is a recruit." -- This is quite true and can be seen easily. Cults are a big part of the manipulation tool; it's the Shepherd's Crook, a mind prison that members don't know they are in.
Throughout history, it is very possible for this Cult to have persisted, the examples of which you posted I am not as familiar. I do have quite a few post on my research of the Dragon Court and Order of the Garter. From what I can tell, there are quite definitely dynastic bloodlines who cling to power. Their actual origins may lay in the "Cult of Seth."
From your last set of questions, I'll answer in sequence;
"Does that mean when they left as a group "they were bad" wherever they went?" -- Bad is a subjective experience, ask anyone at anytime weather being forced into slavery is Bad; they will say it is....definitely BAD. Governance, Enforced Unions of people into Groups. Tereza has stated this: "Whenever a Union is being 'forced' that means someone is being raped." ---- That's true even today with mandated citizenship to National Identities.
"Is it an unbroken line of infiltrators all the way up to the Rothschilds and now to the GAZA conflict?" --- It's a Cult so, Yes and No, It's not the exact same culture of the original Habiru infiltrators, today they are practicing a form of Sabbateanism and blood sacrifice, which is what is happening in Gaza; what they are doing to the Palestinians is the exact definition of a Holocaust; a Burnt Offering.
"I don't see the point of categorizing a group with a collective responsibility. So much research on the Hebrews is finding that their stories are fake. We all live with myths. Why were theirs written in a way that emphasized violence and superiority?"
---- First, Nobody should ever be categorize as a 'group' with a collective responsibility; that's what happened to the Germans after the war, it was all lies; (Al-lies).
----Second, the reason for the emphasized violence and superiority in the Hebrew stories is as Tereza states: "because the whole story of Shemitism is one about Masters and Slaves." The only way to maintain this fraud in a cultural context to teach every succeeding generation to hate and use force to enforce claims they make against other cultures. Zionism is the present day tool for this. The present day victims are the Palestinians.
I will be writing a post on the Linguistics and Symbolism in the Egyptian Language, soon. [I have made quote citations for Tereza, with my apologies]
I'd like to thank you for your comprehensive reply. I have no preconceived ideas of how I would respond, so it has taken some time contemplate what seems the appropriate questions. It is an interesting statement, "comparative cultural constructs that have been formed from stories;" and how they are used to justify the claims of Empire and the construction of a Control Prison called "Hierarchy," (sacred rule).
The stories form a pattern, which can reveal a bit more about what may have occurred, who the players were, and why the events took place. This must be a satisfaction, to solve ancient riddles, piecing together all the evidence thus far revealed. People manufacture consent for mastery of one people over another, perhaps for ages, and in most cultures.
Connections can be made that are perhaps valid. Other connections can be made that are perhaps conjecture. How to sort out these two? I prefer to let them both go and look at the current situation in itself. If I am from a rich family, I teach my children and grandchildren to manage those riches in a way that increases their power, to gain more riches. Is that a dynastic blood line? I don't need to adhere to a secret society to have that desire, or to play that game. If there are some kind of myths that help me convince others to allow this, all the better. I can use them.
To say that the whole story of Shemitism is one about Masters and Slaves, and the only way to maintain this fraud in a cultural context, is to teach every succeeding generation to hate, and to use force to constrain the claims they make against other cultures, is doubtful for me. Masters and slaves appear all throughout ancient history. If you live in a ghetto and people spit on you, you can teach about hate. But if you live in a prosperous suburb and with a great job and amenities, teachings of hate fall flat.
There are the Biblical records that are full of poison. If you were raised as a Christian, did they warp your sensibilities? (One might sincerely ask, why Christians never eliminated all the rubbish from their Bible?)
To go further with the grain tax imposed by the King (Neshua). What seems to have happened is the Neshua was listening to an ingratiated advisor called Osarseph (later changed his name to Moses) the advice was to raise the grain tax so as to take too much for the farmers to pay, then putting them into debt. - Isn't this interpretation just an innuendo from the Christian (and Muslim), objection to usury, projected to the past? Did Egyptians practice usury? Was that the key to their riches? Kings and ruler all over the world raised land taxed beyond the ability to pay. Was this always a mechanism of debt, that had to be paid to the Jewish forebears? I can't buy that.
Guyenot says that his book is a critique of toxic ideas, and that lies come first. It’s only by exposing the lies that the violence will end. (That's a beautiful assumption.) These lies result in hate as a binding force for that culture, (if they are still true).
I am going to propose that HATE is a commodity that can be sold. There are many examples, from the Mujahideen, JIhadists, ISIS, Ukraine, Poland, the Baltic States, Israel and others. Each of them has a seed of hate, either dormant or more or less active, and which can be energized. Guyenot is focusing on the sellers of Hate, and their inherent toxicity. (I don't deny it.)
But the full formula is the sellers of Hate, and the buyers of Hate. The buyers of hate are you and me, if we enjoy the prosperity of the west based on colonialism, and if we pay taxes to purchase armaments for Ukraine and Israel. This we want to cover up, so we welcome Guyenot's diversion and focus on those evil sellers. (All the way back for 4,000 years.)
I wonder; would there be any hate without the buyers of hate? For sure it would be orders-of-magnitude less, and also impotent. Why does anyone engage in conflict? BECAUSE THEY THINK THEY WILL WIN. Or if that is impossible, because they have an Uncle that will back them up, and pay them for being the front man. This is certainly the history within our lifetime. Proxy warfare is the cruelest in imagination. But at least we have Plausible Deniability!
In this anti-Semitism thread I will seek to cast doubt on the conspiracies from the past and the unfortunate hateful beliefs that seem to connect them. Although I don't plan to focus on the buyers-of-hate, which is all over the web, and better than I could ever expose them. Still, I will mention it.
.
"HATE is a commodity that can be sold." --- Sure it is, you are right. "Hating someone or something is like taking Poison and expecting the other person to die." ---- Sadhguru original quote, I have often used.
Fear, Anger, and Hatred are three force within Human Nature that hold mankind back from seeing what's actually true.
What I do is simple exploration of various aspects of ancient history and view them from different perspectives. By doing this, I hold no prejudgements.
Try to imagine instead of going hunting for Sentiment Justification, that you place every facet of every story on the table as though they are the various "Dots;" if you do your best to observe those Dots without an agenda, they will naturally form a pattern. The pattern will begin to look more and more unfamiliar as you progress through and keep exploring the different stories. After having studied the factors within Ancient Egyptian Language, Sanskrit and Symbolic meanings, I still can't make exact claims.
As I proceed further, I have already discovered that I made mistakes while writing the post I linked for you on "First Holocaust." I was trying to work with both the existing conceptions of Semitism and carefully separating the different proposed factions that are players in the story. In the past, I have defended Semitism, not really realizing just what it is about from a Mythos and story point of view. I don't come from a Christian background at all. I have a Vedic and Hindu background; on issues of "Abrahamia," I have no dog in the race. Since I am motivated to seek truth as much as possible, my approach is often inconvenient to those that hold the Abrahamic Beliefs.
Regardless, Seeking Truth and exploring things is NOT a Hateful Act.
Your inquiries:
"Neshua was listening to an ingratiated advisor called Osarseph (later changed his name to Moses) the advice was to raise the grain tax so as to take too much for the farmers to pay, then putting them into debt. - Isn't this interpretation just an innuendo from the Christian (and Muslim), objection to usury, projected to the past?"
---- No culture has ever welcomed or accepted Usury as a method of natural exchange between two parties, since the development of coinage. As Tereza states in her book: "The system of currency is set up and created for a tiny few to be a third party existing as a phantom between actual traders that gains an ever increasing monetary value, simply by being the owner / creator / issuer of said currency."
Nobody likes an intermeddling third party getting between them while they trade."
In Tereza's book: "Originally, with barter there was always a slight advantage from one side or other, this imbalance was only there to keep the relationship of exchange going. One person would get a "Barter - Gain" (Bargain) the other would try to get the upper hand next time; however, there was no third party or Ususrer."
---- With the Grain Tax, this was the first time it was applied within a system that grew organically out of an indigenous culture, due to the apparent events, in Egypt at that time, the people got a real painful education as to what the effects can be from Usury, artificial famine, malnutrition, etc...
"Did Egyptians practice usury?" ---- Early archaic culture mostly did not, except for the "Barter Gain," Tereza coined above, but it was likely introduced to them by the Wanderers known as Habiru; this is what I can see for far.....
"Was that the key to their riches?" ---- People of Tau Wei (Egypt) were a very Spiritually based Innocent culture, their "truest riches" were really themselves.
"Kings and rulers all over the world raised land taxed beyond the ability to pay. Was this always a mechanism of debt, that had to be paid to the Jewish forebears? I can't buy that."
---- There were NO Jewish forebears; I'll give you a quote from my friend Tereza because I think she says it best:
"In the end, the phrase 'the origin of the Jews' is misleading because there is no one coherent people who stayed intact throughout millennia and can be traced back to those mentioned in the fictional revenge story of the Torah. It's a people who've been reinvented again and again, with the Ashkenazi as the current 'Yews'. His article really changed my thinking, however, that the ancient Judeans had been expelled en masse after the zealot revolt against the Romans. That seems to be another fiction--why expel an agricultural people when you can colonize them? You want their labor, not their land. So the only genetic Judeans, I believe, are the Palestinians."
Genetics are beginning to look like a very small factor in studying the historic movements of populations; it does not provide any insight into specifics of their Cultural and Spiritual outlooks on things. Culture has it's own way it gets spread, usually by voluntary adoption or compulsory obligation to a group.
[I have made quote citations for Tereza, with my apologies]