The Book Of THoTH

Very brief history of testing military authority, and controlled opposition.

Egypt VS Jews (Yahweh created miracles in order for the Jews to supposedly defeat the Pharaoh. Not only slaves, there were many Jews who were key creators of the pyramids and monuments, chief among high-priests).

Jews VS Canaanites (A genuine test of forces, but they eventually merged, after hundreds of years of civil war and turmoil, into a "Phoenician" society. Their union gave us our modern day English language).

Aryans VS India (The "Aryans" were primarily from modern day Iran and invaded India in 1400 BC. They basically merged their own religious system overlapping the native beliefs of the Indian people. Over time, their merger of peoples became mutual and accustomed).

Ireland VS Rome (Ireland, debate-ably an offshoot of the Israelies and Canaanites, fighting many great battles with the Romans, who were themselves Greek and Aryan influenced. The Greeks were heavily influenced by ancient Sumer and Egypt).

Christianity VS Rome (A re-imagining of the vegetative "dying and rising god", millions died so that this merger of cultures might take place).

Vatican VS Secret Societies (Controlled opposition shell game most notable by the fact that Illuminati founder Adam Weishaupt was a Jesuit. The "Fall" of the Knights Templar was just a visible disbandment, in order to restate the Vatican's authority and give strength to the Mason lodges, which were still socially acceptable).

Templars VS Islamic Assassins (There are many researchers who believe that the Templars and Assassins were actually working together in order to ensure more bounty and reward for guarding the holy sites of pilgrimage).

Nazis VS Europe (Zionism is extremely strong behind the scenes in the rise of Nazi power, as is the Vatican).

US VS Russia (How many Jewish or Catholic Russians are there, 50 million? Ensuring that the nuclear bogey man is ever looming. Submit!).

America VS Iraq (Saddam was propped up by the CIA, yet he strayed too far from the script, he didn't want to lose power, knew that he would be defeated. US/ISRAEL/INTERNATIONAL FORCES need the territory for the globalist NWO. It's prime land, and the oil!).

Israel VS Iran (Going back thousands of years, the Iranian Aryans and Israelites have been working together behind the scenes. Best exemplified by the propping of up the Shah).

Every single account involves "mystical" Jewish subterfuge, primarily written and recorded by Jewish scholars. With the strong-hold being based in Europe, and the United States being the military branch of globalist expansion.

I'd like to get to the ROOT as to why this is the case.

Stick with me Anunnaki researchers.

White man was "God" and the Jewish were his first "genetic experiment" The seed of knowledge in the Garden of Eden was actually a prohibition against over-breeding. White man is the Father, Jews are the Son, other races are the "tribes" of Israel.

Based around a foundation of solar/lunar worship, fertility rituals, phallic worship, and veneration of the sacred cow and bull for all the resources that they provide.

Surely this topic could go a million different ways right now.

Keep in mind, I'm in no way racially motivated in my posting.

It just seems apparent that the EXACT SAME shell game has been going on for 8000 years. Always involving Whites and Jews.

Two controlled opposition dynamos that keep human sociology going around and around.

Sounds a bit anti-semitic to me fella, how do you reconcile the huge timeline differences in your suggestion, I mean between the jews and the sumerians?

Hey THoTH, it's in no way antisemitic, any more so than exposing Zionism is antisemitic. I'm not racist but an equal opportunity bigot regardless of ethnicity.

As for the time delay, the Bible itself tells us that Abraham was from the land of Sumer, visiting Egypt. All art work from the early Sumerian era clearly shows depictions of Semitic (Jewish) looking peoples. Israel was established roughly 1500 BC, while Sumer had already become known as Babylon under Akkadian rule at some 2300 BC. .

The Jews, according to the Bible, had been around for at least 1000 years prior to the establishment of Israel, responsible for Egyptian pyramid building, so really there is no gap in the timeline. The Jews were around long before Israel, and are stated as initially coming out of Sumer, according to the Bible itself.

Joseph (coat of many colors) was declared "father to Pharaohs" and the Bible makes no denial of the fact that he was a highly powerful and high ranking Jewish Priest in Egypt, eventually making way for the Exodus under Moses, generations later.

In fact, I'm inclined to believe that the powerful priest Joseph of Egypt, given a royal Egyptian burial according to Biblical texts, was the forebearer for Joseph, the father of Jesus Christ.

The influence of Sumerian art and architecture on Egyptian society is well noted, though often denied and covered-up.

Initially Sumer consisted of Aryans and Jews, with an intermingling of a few other races which were usually under the class system of "indentured servants".

OK, say that Jews are "God" and White man are the "Son", does that sound less antisemitic then? Seems more antisemitic to equate the Jews to "Reptilians" as researchers like Icke have done throughout his career.

You know what is racist though? The Talmud and other Hebrew texts which states that all non-Jews are goyim and cattle to be abused, that they are sub-human, and that only Jews should intermingle with Jews. That sounds racist to me.

I'm not against the Jewish people, but I am against the notion of Zionism, which is a far older concept than just the 20th Century. The rise and fall of every major civilization has always had a hierarchy of powerful Jewish Elites at the helm, behind the scenes.

That's not racist mate, that's just fact.

And no, I'm not a fan of Mel Gibson, I think he's just a tool.

=========

I find it a shame that there's such a stigma on this topic, that any time the term "Jew" is used in any kind of negative light, it's considered somehow racist.

I see where you're coming from though THoTH, as this is a sensitive topic and easily misconstrued as being racist against Jews, Caucasians, or both. Which is why so many researchers avoid it all costs and will instead do circles and circles around it, almost guarding the gates, of the eye of the storm.

I'm personally interested in covering subjects, discussion, that isn't normally expressed within the "conspiracy community". There's a lot of "Jew Bashing" out there, probably a lot of it is infiltration by Zionism itself, but there isn't much attempt to actually get to the core of the matter and how (and why) it's influenced the whole of human history.

Just following the money trail, or Jew-El-Re trail, as it were..

"And the Lord said unto me, a conspiracy is found among the men of Judah and among the inhabitants of Jerusalem."
-Jeremiah 11:9

Why are Jews being treated as a race here? It's oddly confusing and I can't really figure out what's intended.




This is alot like saying Christians were a genetic experiment. Producing "Jews" was a genetic experiment between White men and...what?




The classification of "Semitic" is primarily one of language and secondarily one of geographical origin. The Sumerians were in no way Jewish.




Jews couldn't have been around this early and neither Abraham or Joseph are identified as Jews. What are you intending "Jews" to mean here? Semitic people? Mesopotamians? Anyone of Abraham's bloodline?




I've never known Icke to equate Jews with reptilians and it's surprising that you'd say that since Icke's stance seems to be similar to yours. That people erroneously equate NWO elite Zionists with Jews is part of his point.





"Zionism is not the Jewish people, it is a political movement. Many Jews do not support it, many non-Jews do. To say that Zionism is the Jewish people is like saying the Democratic Party is the American people. Yet to challenge the extremes of Zionism is to be called anti-Semitic or anti-Jewish.

What utter balls."--David Icke

rex


Hey man. Do not the "Jews" consider themselves a race, in the line of David, heralding from Israel and out of Egyptian bondage? If I were Jewish, and not a white guy with Native American background saying this same thing, there would be no opposition to my statements.

Yes, I'm aware of the theory that the term "Jew" didn't really originate until the Rothschild occupation of "New Israel" after WWII, but for my intents here (and the widespread usage of this term) I'm equating "Jews" as the people of the Bible, from the lineage of Abraham , who established Israel in the area of Canaan at roughly 1500 BC.

I'm not even going to get into the idea that the majority of modern day Israelis aren't even of the original bloodline of the Jews, but instead are Khazars from the nearby mountains who were basically paid to come down and say they were the inheritors of Israel.



OK, then let's say "Jews" originated with Israel at 1500 BC, but had hundreds of generations going back millennium before into Egypt and Sumer.



Again, take it from the "Anunnaki" account. It was a process of experimentation which brought forth various races, the "Jews" among them.

Or, likewise, the "Jews" were the first to come down from the mountains, while their ancestors stayed in their caves, and became more "Caucasian" over time, eventually used for political and religious purposes. This took place over 10,000 years, prior to Sumer.

Either way you look at it, there is a "Father and Son" element, whichever people you see being the father or son. To me, the "Jewish persecution" throughout history, is a perfect example of this controlled opposition taking place between ELITE Whites and Jews, using their own people to further propel social change and movements. All for the purpose of "world purification".



"The Jews came from the area in the world where civilisation commenced and writing was invented, (Sumer in southern Iraq), were the people who gave the world the concept of one God rather than the pagan idea of a God for each occasion. On the other hand no race has been persecuted more, has been so unpopular but in spite of this has achieved a position of such dominant wealth as the Jews."
http://www.historyofengland.net/content/view/47/1/

There's much more where that came from, in particular THE BIBLE which clearly states Abraham, the prime patriarch of the "Jewish race", was of Sumerian descent.

We can use the term "Semitic" if that seems more appropriate, but there is no doubt in my mind that "Jews" originated from Sumer, at least as far as WRITTEN HISTORY tells us.

Otherwise, where did they originate? The alien mothership that beamed them down? They had to come from somewhere didn't they? We can accept "Anunnaki genetic manipulation" but then play coy and confused when Jewish people are involved in this process?

And the Pharaoh Akhenaton was actually the one to bring monotheism under the ATEN sun disk, a couple hundred years before the "Exodus" from Egypt and worship of Yahweh.



Icke is so bogus on so many points, taking things literally, diverting, fleecing, that I just can't support or endorse the man as I think he confuses and clouds the issue in order to play both sides of the game. I'm not saying he's antisemitic, but it would be easy to make this association with his "Reptile" theories.

Seems obvious to me that points like these are the ones that guys like Icke, Jones, Maxwell, Tsarion, and a dozen others want to avoid at all costs and instead talk about "shapeshifting space alien gods from other planets and dimensions who created us as an experiment".

That makes much more sense than the actual history that we can follow?!?

And again, to restate the fact as it has been lost far too often, there were societies, towns, and nomadic peoples thousands of years before either Sumer or Egypt had ever been established.

It seems to me that we're purposefully confusing ourselves or willingly going along with our own cultural amnesia.

I'm not racist, but am not going to lie, I feel hatred for those who purposefully deceive in order that they might maintain power or manipulate others.

The bigger picture is so much larger than presented here, but I have little doubt that this is the right track. It is what's hidden so that we might instead follow on wild goose chases leading nowhere.

But, better not stand against Israel lest my tongue fall out of my mouth and I die where I stand, with my future generations being cursed and poisoned, huh?

Why, Jesus never even came in the first place, he's going to arrive as a wealthy and powerful Israeli King during the "Revelation".

Sorry, I oppose that with every fiber of my being.

We can continue perpetuating the lie, or we can finally stand up and throw off the shackles of our own mental and spiritual bondage. It is the decision of each and every individual.

If a Jewish person said Jews were a genetic experiment I'd find it just as confusing and try to figure out what they meant by "Jew" as well. It's not a matter of race or religious background but one of clarification.





The Bible says Abraham was from Shinar but it doesn't say he founded a new race. A Jew, roughly, is a follower of Judaism or the child of a follower. In the Bible the first Israelites were racially indistinguishable from the Africans and could not be identified apart from them visually. There are also people in the Bible who originally aren't Jews who later become Jews.

Esther 8:17(King James) - And in every province, and in every city, whithersoever the king's commandment and his decree came, the Jews had joy and gladness, a feast and a good day. And many of the people of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews fell upon them.

We can safely assume these people who became Jews didn't physically change into another race, so according to the Bible Jewish can't be a racial identification. It also isn't a geographical one as these people are not from Sumer nor were the Sumerians Jews.





The Anunnaki account is that humans were created by the Anunnaki mixing their genes with animals and/or other subhuman materials. Are you saying that White people did this and created the non-White races?

Well, firstly, I wouldn't really debate the Bible as being a completely factual account of history as Abram was stated as being several hundred years old when he was first circumcised and had his name changed (by Yahweh) to Abraham. However, the Bible can give us bits and pieces that we might add together from other ancient texts in order to paint a more complete picture.



I would disagree with the notion that those people who founded Israel (in Canaan) were indistinguishable from black Africans. There is a difference between the appearance of "Semitic" races and those of dark skinned Africans, in both ancient artwork and in visual representation.

Egyptian artwork shows us black Africans, Semitic tribes, as well as those who look more Caucasian than the other peoples (and who are usually in the role of the Pharaoh by the way, while the darker skinned races are depicted as the "slave class").



Yet Jews do, under the intents of "Hebrews", use the term "Jew" as a racial identifier, and have for many thousands of years. And you're correct, not all Hebrews are Jews, but in fact convert to the Judaic religion. There are conversions taking place every day, from every ethnicity and nationality, into the Judaic lifestyle and belief system.

There is also the implementation of "breeding out" a race, in order that, over time, generations of a family in fact do become "Jewish", wherever their original roots might have originated..

"A Jew (Hebrew: יְהוּדִי, Yehudi (sl.); יְהוּדִים, Yehudim (pl.); Ladino: ג׳ודיו, Djudio (sl.); ג׳ודיוס, Djudios (pl.); Yiddish: ייִד, Yid (sl.); ייִדן, Yidn (pl.))[8] is a member of the Jewish people, an ethnoreligious group originating from the Israelites or Hebrews of the ancient Middle East. The ethnicity and the religion of Judaism, the traditional faith of the Jewish nation, are strongly interrelated, and converts to Judaism are both included and have been absorbed within the Jewish people throughout the millennia."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew



In the fact that the "Jews" or "Hebrews" are stated from the direct bloodline of Abraham, yes they indeed are from ancient Mesopotamia (Sumer), migrating into Egypt, and later "sold into slavery" in Egypt, such as the tale of Joseph (who became a highly prominent elite priest, named "father to pharaohs", who was given a royal Egyptian burial).

"Abram who later was renamed by his “Godâ€

NOTE: The Asiatic and Hindu peoples also play a central role in this whole tale, but not, I believe, as prominently as the Caucasian and Hebrew peoples.

To me this has nothing to do with the negativity of racism, but just uncovering the truth.

Hello Mad, Rex, There can be a couple of ways the different races of humans spread across the Earth. Biblical descendents and Anunnaki descendents.

In the Biblical version the first born son carries the line of the family and in the case of the Hebrews that line came all the way to Adam to make sure that the human race was not mixed with the race of the fallen angels, the other branches of the family tree.

Adams son Seth to every first born son to Lamech to Noah.
Noahs son Shem to every first born son to Abraham
Abraham to Isaac to Jacob ( Later Named Israel )
Israel has - Joseph with his first wife and 11 more sons with her sister and both of the wives servant girls (12 sons from the four woman).
Those 12 sons father the 12 tribes of Israel
The Nation of Israel represents the first family branch Hierarchy
Other family branches became other races and customs language writings separation from The Tower Of Babel story.

The Anunnaki version is similar that The first royal Anunnaki families (Enki + Enlil) did not mix with other Anunnaki families. The same with the humans they mated with was kept in their families.

Adapa was the Anunnaki Enki's son and Titi his daughter.
Adapas son Sati to every first born son to Lamech to Ziusudra(Noah)
Ziusudra's son Shem to IbruUm (Abram, Abraham)
IbruUm is chosen to survive the calamity of Sumer.
IbruUm human line decsended from Enki's family.
Ziusudra's other 2 sons Ham and Iafet, branched out.
Other human race lines descended from other Anunnaki families(igigi, fallen Angels) and spead out with customs language writing from Mardukes Tower to Heaven story.

American Indian have thier Hierarchy from Ka-in(Cain)
America was the land of wandering.

As far as races in this story the gene pool skin was Dark, indian,white.

This may be why its said Abraham is from Sumer. - Anuatlantian

The Egyptians enslaved the Hebrew's when they saw how many they were to control them and so they wont join with other groups that might wage war on the Egyptian's. Later that area of Iraq and middle east is always fought over the land ownership. Prime realestate mother land I guess.

I think there is some truth to what you are stating Anuatlantian, the comparison's of the Anunnaki with that of the Hebrews and 12 tribes.

Anuatlantian


Abraham bore a child with the handmaiden Hagar, not believing that his wife Sarah, after many attempts, could bore child. However, after Sarah did bore a child to Abraham shortly thereafter (Isaac), Hagar's son Ishmael was basically caste out and not accepted as legitimate.

Ishmael is considered by many adherents to Muslim faith to be the true progenitor of the Arabic peoples, while Isaac continued the lineage of the Hebrews. This is PART of the thousand(s) year old disagreement between who is the rightful inheritor to the "holy land" in the Middle East.

The Israelites saw Ishmael, and his people, to be of "lesser quality and class" than Isaac, who was born from Sarah and Abraham.



And again, to further mark the unbeivablity of these accounts as entirely factual, Ishmael and Issac both are stated as having lived some 150 years each. Abraham was stated as being 100 years old when these children were born... Must be that "pure blood", eh?

And they still fight over this silliness 3000 years later? How utterly moronic.

And all of this "baby making" on the direct instructions of "God", of course. Who would have known that this break in the lineage would create the Arab world and eventual creation of the Muslim faith.

Like any other people Africans come in different shades but I was speaking of the Bible and not necessarily of actual events. In the Bible, the first Israelites(sons of Israel/Jacob) were visually indistinguishable from the Africans and could not be told apart from them. So as far as the Bible is concerned, they were not a racially distinct people from them.






Some do, yes. But we know from the Bible itself this isn't true so this misbelief isn't really applicable to the topic at hand(Jews being a genetic experiment) since it deals with genetics rather than religious misconceptions.




And vice versa where interbreeding removes the original Abrahamic blood. Therein lies one of the reasons this theory seems a little fuzzy to me. Neither the Jews or the Semites were or are a genetically or geographically homogenous people. This theory seems to require one to connect varied groups of people in ways that they aren't really connected.




Yes but to crossbreed plants you mix different types of plants. Here's what I'm trying to understand. The Anunnaki creating humans tale works because the Anunnaki weren't human. Therefore biologically they can mix with something else and the result be a human being. Your theory removes the key element of the Anunnaki not being human. This leaves a question mark in it because both Whites and non-Whites are human. They are the same animal. They have the same parts. A human plus a human only produces another like human. To create a separate species or race, you have to mix with something different from yourself. Hence why I asked what the White people mixed with in your theory. Let me put it in equation form to show what I mean:

1)Anunnaki + animal=human

2)human + human=human

3)White person + = non-White person

That's what I'm trying to figure out. What did these White people breed with in your theory to produce non-Whites?

Rex


I have no doubt that there were Black-Hebrew-Israelites, however it was a mixture with Semitic peoples, and the mixed Semitic peoples which had already been living in Canaan for 1000 years before any "Hebrew" had ever arrived on the scene. Arguably, Canaan is at least half a millennium older than Egypt, and was a thriving Metropolis in its day. The trade capital and maritime military might of the ancient world.

Likewise the majority of proponents to the "Black-Hebrew-Israeli" movement didn't sprout up until the mid 1800's AD, roughly around the same time that the Black Muslim movement began to emerge in larger numbers. The notion that the first Israelites were Black Africans is largely shunned by the "typical Jewish" community.

It's basically a debate of "Was Jesus White, a Jew, or a Black man?" My biggest question should be whether he even existed at all.



I don't see how they aren't connected when considering the fact they all lived in the same basic geographic area together for many thousands of years. They were all connected, and every religious book and historical account in history ties these people together.

Clearly, even if we're just going by the Bible and not the "Anunnaki" accounts, Adam and Eve were CREATED by the Elohim, a group of "shining gods" not so unlike the Anunnaki. The Bible basically tells us on the first page of Genesis that Adam and Eve were a "experiment" created in the likeness of the gods.

The Sumerian texts give us a similar account with Adapa or Adamu son of Ea, who rejects the gift of immortality (as Adam rejected it in Eden by eating the fruit). Thus we could surmise that the "Jewish" people were created by a group of "gods", just as the Anunnaki were stated to have also created new races. Abraham, the lineage of the "Jews" (and probably an Elite priest) came out of Ur in Sumer, further tying the Hebrew peoples to their Sumerian heritage.

The similarity of accounts is distinct and specific, giving credence to the notion of "Aryan Gods", and "Jewish sons of god", in other words "the chosen people". What was Hitler obsessed with in his twisted theosophical influenced beliefs of the Aryan super race, the root race of all creation, the ascended masters.

Racial superiority is not a new thing, it has been around forever, and the "Jews" thusly were told by "God" to kill the Canaanites because they were dogs worthy of death, and to bash their skulls, and the skulls of their children against rocks, so that they might not prosper and continue to breed. Inevitably, the Hebrews and Canaanites merged into a "Phoenician" grouping, giving birth to the Celts and the Goths, among many other tribes who originated from this mighty sea faring state.

One thing to keep in mind though, that can't be stressed enough, is that we can't take the Bible or Mesopotamian tablets as a completely literal interpretation of factual history. There are many pieces that a person must fit together on their own without being blinded by "faith" or New Age dogma.



But what is an "animal"? One hundred and fifty years ago, in America, black people were considered "animals", why is it difficult to believe that the Elites 4000 years ago didn't consider them the same thing? Of course, there were Elite Blacks in Egypt as well, even became high priests and Pharaohs, but the underlining "racial cleansing" has been at work since our very first civilizations. This "racial cleansing" is also largely what the accounts of the Anunnaki pertain to as well. Sub-races and Super-races in a caste system of slavery.

Simply, all we must really see is that the "alien" accounts, at least literally from other planets and dimensions, is bogus, and things make much more sense if we'll just allow ourselves to witness the whole Sumerian perspective of things from an Elite White and "Jewish" equation instead of being blinded by the smokescreen.

What has been in power for AT LEAST the past 500 years running everything right out in the open? Elite Caucasians and Jews. Go back to the fall of Rome, it was Elite Whites and Jews. Sorry if this isn't politically correct, but I refuse to say "it was aliens". And again, this isn't racially motivated, other than in the fact it deals with race.

Say you have 3 or 4 "natural" races, consisting of blacks, whites, a Semitic people, and an Asiatic type. Mixing and mingling just between those 4 "races" of human beings, can create dozens of new "races" over time. You can even categorize certain traits that you want to be dominant and prevalent in a people (height, broad shoulders, eye color, hair color), just as you can with any biological life form on earth, and by breeding and intermingling (fallen angels), you will get the desired results, or create "failures" that are shunned and disregarded.

I'm inclined to believe that new races were created, in order to try and "perfect" and "cleanse" the world into that which was seen as "purity". Namely, Whites, and or Semitic Hebrews, by their own logic as being "the chosen ones".

And this goes back some 25,000 years into our cave dwelling ancestors, possibly even responsible for the extinction and racial cleansing of Neanderthal man. These "Anunnaki" and "fallen angels", they've had a lot of practice at this, even before recorded history.

Unconnected in the sense that many of these people you're identifying as Jews aren't Jews, and that the people of this region weren't one big mass but a collection of different racial types and ethnicities. This theory lumps large groups of different people together as though they are the same. And reduces it all to an improperly oversimplistic(IMO) match-up of two parties that aren't even mutually exclusive from one another.

Based on the data I also don't think race played the role you're speaking of until much later in human history, but that's kind of another topic.




But the Bible doesn't make these gods humans, which would change everything. That's why I don't think your theory fits as well with history as you're suggesting.




Well this gets to what I was asking. Originally it sounded like you were saying there was first the White race alone, then it mixed with something you didn't identify and produced the non-White races. But I may have misunderstood you. So you're saying there were already non-White races at the time of this experiment then?





One of the more obvious snags in this plan being that no matter how elite they are, White people mating with other humans don't produce inhumanly gigantic offspring with immense strength and extra digits as both Jewish and Sumerian literature attest happened when the gods mated with humans.

You don't want the Anunnaki/sons of God to be extraterrestrials and that's fine. But making them into White people doesn't work too well at all with the material you're citing in my opinion.

What a great debate this is...

Many thanks MAD and IR....

I’m enjoying this “debateâ€

Shinar was an alternate name for this Mesopotamian region in the ancient times. Hence, "Shining" (and "land between two rivers") which still equates to the definition of "Sumerian" above.

If this debate is too wide, I'd be more than happy and interested in simply stating the ways in which Sumer is older than Egypt, and directly influenced the development of Egyptian culture, architecture, and belief systems.

Perhaps then, taking it pieces at a time instead of a broad discussion, it might be easier to uncover the truths and open up new possibilities.

This has all been a great subject with different directions of view. Thanks mad for reminding me about Abraham's son Ishmael. Another branch of the tree of a nation.

Guy's what if, not to cause too much controversy to say Adam and Eve started as a Black and White(or Tan light brown hair) interacial couple?, And somewhere an Albino, or Partial Albino- Blue eye blonde was born and went the way of the Hebrew and other white nationalities? So you have all shades alike and nation's. Albino ive said before can be born from any life, Human, Animal, Insect, Plant.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/observatoryleak/1005307/
The human race can learn from this picture. To not make extinct someone elses whole town or city for the realestate.
just a peaceful picture that we are all brother's - Anuatlantian

Glad you're enjoying it Momma!



I'm referring to the two parties of "Jews" and Whites. Many of the elite "Jews" you're talking about who start wars are White themselves. Which makes the proposition of "White vs. Jew" a shaky one from the outset because the two aren't mutually exclusive. And some of the people being classified as Jews in this theory aren't Jews. You said earlier:"The Sumerian texts give us a similar account with Adapa or Adamu son of Ea, who rejects the gift of immortality (as Adam rejected it in Eden by eating the fruit). Thus we could surmise that the "Jewish" people were created by a group of 'gods'..." But Adam wasn't Jewish and this story doesn't have anything to do with races. Adam can't be identified racially given his origin and a number of Jewish traditions describe him as unlike any known present race. Most Semitic people aren't Jewish and a variety of different people fall under the category of Semitic. Also, the Sumerians not only weren't Jewish but are generally believed to have been a non-Semitic civilization that was conquered by Semitic peoples. Abraham personally coming from Shinar doesn't determine the make-up of Jews as a whole as they were a wandering, intermixing people. Hypothetically taking Abraham as having existed, the typical modern Jew today would be as unrelated genetically to him as you are. The Jews also intermingled with the religious beliefs of other peoples as they wandered so even in this regard they cannot be said to be a single people.

While there may be a history of controlled opposition stemming to ancient times, placing it all in boxes of "Whites vs. Jews" seems rather awkward if not borderline random. Aside from Whites and Jews being one in the same in many cases, it places too many non-Jewish people in the box of "Jewish" and treats being Jewish as a race or a somehow genetically or geographically homogenous people. Which they are not. Then of course you have the matter of all the wars not involving Whites vs. Jews.



[quote]
Throughout history, the Jews and Caucasians have lumped themselves into a single category, declaring themselves the “pure raceâ€

Well according to biblical tradition the different races come from the 3 sons of Noah rather than Adam & Eve, who were likely of no extant race. The Flood wiped out the "sons of Adam" for the most part which more or less made Noah the progenitor of present mankind. By most accounts I think the origin of the races is believed to go roughly like this from the "Table of Nations":

Ham:dark Black races

Shem:brown Semitic races

Japheth:White races


Off the top of my head I don't recall if the Bible accounts for the Oriental races.

I would like to say something in defense of using the term "Jews". You read the works of Manly P. Hall, Aleister Crowley, Helena Blavatsky, Edgar Cayce, and a variety of other 20th Century mystics, all considered authorities, and they regularly use the term "Jew" to describe the Israelites of the Bible, as well as their "bondage" in Egypt, and bloodline continuing into the modern era (from Abraham, Noah, Moses, and David).

Rex


Agreed. And thus, "A Brief History of Controlled Opposition".



I would agree to an extent, but this argument would have to be made to EVERYONE who has ever used the term "Jew" to describe this race and the Hebrew religion, including Jewish scholars, which isn't exclusively my argument, but the argument of hundreds of other researchers.



Though many historical wars that are not openly about "Whites and Jews" still have Whites and Jews behind the scenes. Case in point, the Irish peoples, who are an offshoot of the "Jewish" and Canaanite peoples (later integrated with the Aryan Nordics), and who were at "war" with Rome for many centuries. The Goths and Visigoths as well, likely stem from a Phoenician heritage, which is Semitic/Jew.



Please provide some evidence for this claim that the Sumerians weren't of a Semitic background, and likewise, if this is indeed the case, clearly the Sumer-Aryans would have been of a Caucasian heritage, intermingled with Semitic "Jews", which again raises the Anunnaki accounts of genetic manipulation, and the Biblical accounts of the creation of Adam and Eve.



So you can accept "non-humans" but can't admit to a flowing Aryan/Jewish base of power for thousands of years? Really makes me wonder the purpose for why you're debating this subject in the first place? Somehow it's easier to accept non-human intervention than to admit that there has been an underlining theme of Caucasian and Jewish power throughout history?

There is truth, and then there is smokescreen, and of course everyone is free to believe which version they so choose. Believing in the "non-human" accounts, we might as well believe that the Pope is the divine representative of Jesus Christ on earth.



Actually, it fits perfectly. It's what would have happened had Hitler won the war. It would have been "Aryan Supermen" who were clearly human, but history recorded them as being otherwise, and we believe it because we're told they "weren't human" for thousand of years after the fact.

As they say, "History is written by the winners", which by many accounts, has been Jewish scholars and scribes which tell these tales many hundreds of years after they actually took place.



I'll still stand by the possibility that the "Jews" are a biologically bred creation of Aryans, hence "Whites are God" while the "Jews are the Son of God", and the "chosen people" to a human group which they claimed as being super human (Anunnaki/Elohim).



Not particularly no. At least that can be verified beyond 7 or 8 feet. We've got 7 or 8 foot tall basket ball players today, but clearly they're not "gods", even if they're paid like them.

Even "Giants" could have been a selective breeding process, used to perpetuate the existence of "Gods on Earth".

"The Sumerians were a non-Semitic, non-Indo-European people who lived in southern Babylonia from 4000-3000 B.C.E." - http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/sum/index.htm

"The Sumerians were a non-Semitic people and were at one time believed to have been invaders, as a number of linguists believed they could detect a substrate language beneath Sumerian." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerians#Population

"However, Mesopotamia was also the home of a group of people speaking Semitic languages and with a culture different from that of the Sumerians (see Semite ). From the earliest times the Semites were in contact with Sumerian culture, and the increasing Semitic strength, which was already present in the north, culminated in the establishment (c.2340) of the Akkadian dynasty by Sargon , who for the first time imposed a wide imperial organization over the whole of Mesopotamia. This conquest gave impetus to the blending, already long in progress, of Sumerian and Semitic cultures." - http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-Sumer.html

"While the Sumerians disappear from the human story around 2000 BC, the invaders that overthrew them adopted their culture and became, more or less, Sumerian. They adopted the government, economy, city-living, writing, law, religion, and stories of the original peoples. Why? What would inspire a people to deliberately adopt foreign ways? For whatever reason, the culture the later Semites inherited from the Sumerians consisted of the following:" - http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/SUMER.HTM

"Then, the Amurru, the Amorrites, come out of the Syro-Arabic desert into the confines of Mesopotamia, Syria and Canaan. Highly sophisticated social, intellectual and political structures in the cities - states of Mari and Ebla are due to the intermingling of Assyrians, Babylonians and Amorrites with non-Semitic Sumerians and Hurrians." - http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/25014




I'm not sure why you feel the "black-headed ones"(as the Sumerians were called) were Caucasian but if you're going to keep using "Jew" in this manner then we're going to be on two very different wavelengths. So I'll just leave off on it here rather than beat the horse's corpse.




I've seen reports of considerably taller than 8 feet. It's worth pointing out though that these basketball players are moreso genetic freak occurences. A 7-foot tall basketball player won't normally produce a 7-foot tall child. You'd have a difficult time using humans to breed decent-sized small forwards through intercourse, much less giants. In contrast the gods produced inhumanly large giants as the normal genetic trait.

Thank you for providing that info. It was my initial statement that the Sumerians were primarily Aryan, intermingling with a pre-existing Semitic race in order to establish "the Jews", out of Egypt, into Israel.



Well, clearly they weren't black Africans, as depicted by hundreds of images in early Mesopotamian artwork and sculptures, which very rarely even show a black person among them. Bringing forth, again, the notion of Sumer-Aryans, with the "Hebrews" being a genetic offshoot of this Sumerian culture.






But none of these reports are necessarily that legitimate or accepted by the scientific community at large. I can believe in ancient "Giants" of 7 to 8 feet, which let's face it, is extremely f*cking big in of itself! It wouldn't be hard to embellish stories of an 8 foot tall man, to make him 10 foot tall upon memorial.

Likewise, statues were made for "the gods" which were indeed 20+ foot tall, as we see throughout ancient Egypt. This is a probable origin for the tales of "Giants" who were "fallen angels".

"Young women were often advertised for sale as "good breeding stock". To encourage child-bearing some population owners promised women slaves their freedom after they had produced fifteen children. One slave trader from Virginia boasted that his successful breeding policies enabled him to sell 6,000 slave children a year."

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USASbreeding.htm

============
============

"You might want to read some of Thomas Jefferson's works on the breeding of slaves. His was not the only treatise on the subject but he is probably the author you will best recognize. Notes from any of the breeding plantations might help edify your curiosity if you truly have any interest in the subject.

"Selective breeding of dogs and horses was well developed by the 18th century. The same principals applied to the 'sub-human' African chattel of the day. Clydesdale's weren't bred for speed and bull dogs were bred to suffocate bulls in the pits. Genetics may not have been understood scientifically, but desired traits in animals had been bred into them long before Mendel came along."

FULL LINK

============
============

"Take the stud horse, break him for limited containment. Completely break the female horse until she becomes very gentle whereas you or anybody can ride her in comfort. Breed the mare and the stud until you have the desired offspring. Then you can turn the stud to freedom until you need him again. Train the female horse whereby she will eat out of your hand, and she will train the infant horse to eat out of your hand also.

"When it comes to breaking the uncivilized n*gger, use the same process, but vary the degree and step up the pressure so as to do a complete reversal of the mind. Take the meanest and most restless n*gger, strip him of his clothes in front of the remaining male n*ggers, the female, and the n*gger infant, tar and feather him, tie each leg to a different horse faced in opposite directions, set him afire and beat both horses to pull him apart in front of the remaining n*ggers. The next step is to take a bullwhip and beat both the remaining n*gger male to the point of death in front of the female and the infant. Don't kill him. But put the fear of God in him, for he can be useful for future breeding."

FULL LINK

============
============

Note: Sorry for the language, but this last speech was delivered by a white slave owner, William Lynch, on the bank of the James River in 1712.

9 out of 10 times, big + big = bigger children. It's been virtually mastered in plants and animals, why can we not consider that it was implemented in humanity, during the "Anunnaki" period?

-AMERICAN MADE EUGENICS-

One more thing slightly off topic, but still on topic I think.

Utu (who sheds a wide light) is the Sumerian for "Sun". In Sumerian mythology, Utu is the son of the moon god Nanna and the goddess Ningal. His brother and sister are Ishkur and Inanna. (Notice linguistic similarity to Egyptian Sun god Atum?)

Shamash was the common Akkadian name of the sun-god and god of justice in Babylonia and Assyria, corresponding to Sumerian Utu.

Shemesh , also Shapesh or Shapshu, was the Canaanite goddess of the sun, daughter of El and Asherah. She is known as "torch of the gods" and is considered an important deity in Canaanite pantheon. Shemesh's was said to be housed in Beit Shemesh, named after the deity. The Akkadian sun god, Shemesh, was the Mesopotamian male equivalent of the female Canaanite Shemesh.

Bet Shemesh is a city in Israel's Jerusalem District, home, as of 2006 to 68,400 people.[1] The modern day city was founded in 1950, although settlement has been on the site since pre-Biblical periods. The ancient city of Beit Shemesh ("house of the sun" or "temple of the sun" in Hebrew) was named after the Canaanite sun-goddess Shemesh , which was worshipped there in antiquity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beit_Shemesh

===============

Su = Bright, pure, good, well, along with the Egyptian god Shu ("he who rises"). First born of the sun god Atum.

Aryan = of the White Race.

Shinar = Shining, land between two rivers.

Sumer-Aryan.

Again, I'd like to discuss the influence of Sumerian culture upon that of the Egyptians, as this is often covered up.

EDIT: Sorry, just one more quick thing which also relates to this discussion.

http://www.book-of-thoth.com/ftopict-17495.html

Here is a recent comment I made at Slate, on the topic DO WHITE PEOPLE REALLY COME FROM THE CAUCASUS? My response is after the quote.



Interesting article. Or perhaps it's directly due to the fact that our white ancestors were cave dwelling peoples for many tens of thousands of years, and much longer, which makes more sense in the lack of melanin found in the Caucasian race, as opposed to darker skinned African peoples who did not spend this time living high in the mountainous cave regions of Europe, the Middle East, and yes, the Caucasus Mountains, some 50,000 years ago.

The article presented here appears to be of the "politically correct" re-writing of history which refuses to remember that modern day Iran actually stems from the term Aryan, and that there was an Aryan invasion of India roughly some 1400 BC which brought forth the Veda texts. While this has never necessarily been a mainstream truth or fact, it's always been a popular and easily researched theory with much available information to back it up, though with the recent escalations in Iran these Iran/Aryan/India theories are now being stated as mere "Internet hoaxes".

This is the same sly and subtle rewrite of history that tells us, despite the fact it was in agreement for 5000 years, that all of a sudden "Hey, there were no slaves in Egypt! The pyramids were built by happy people who all sang joyfully as they created temples for their man-gods".

The Caucasus mountains and cave regions therein are indeed one of the places in which the Caucasian race was born over a process of 100 thousand years, and to deny otherwise is to either be simply confused, or to be an Elitist trying to play the PC game of re-editing history and continuing to cloud the issue of our human origins and the birth of civilization.

Moving throughout Asia and Europe some 50,000 years ago and further away from the equator might play a part in the process of lack of melanin, giving rise to "Semitic" and Asian peoples, but there is a more obvious answer which has been staring us in the face since the dawn of recorded history. Directly related to the rise of every major religion and culture.

It's a good theory, but if it's a matter of distance from the equator, why are Indian Hindus, after 10,000 years, still of a much darker complexion than that of white people?

You see, here is a problem. As far as I am aware there is no other record of these people other than what is in the bible. Please correct me if I am wrong.

The Jewish people are a ficticious creation from the bible. No such historic people ever existed. This is in no way disrespectful to modern day jews, as there is no doubt as to them existing. They follow the doctrine layed down in their chosen book. Whatever that book turns out to be is irelevant as this is the doctrine that these people have chosen.

If you follow the time line it is plainly obvious that the people depicted as the jews in the bible are the 18 Dynasty userpers that were thrown out of Egypt.

Cheers

person1


Well, of course the Talmud and Kabbalah, as well as the Koran and various Roman records. But you're right that the Christian and Judaic texts are those which most prominently represent the rise of the Hebrew nation. I have little doubt however that history has seen them as a unified people for at least the past 3000 years, even if "Jew" is (or isn't) a newer term.



In partial agreement, though it's not necessarily what we believe or don't believe, but rather what THEY believe, and what the wealthy and elite believe. The Bible is both irrelevant, and also the most relevant thing in the world today, in conjunction with Hindu Vedas, Mayan prophecy, and the "revelation" period of many religious texts.

I agree in the sense that these things only have as much power as you give them, and thus it's important to try and decipher a more accurate historical record so that we better understand these subjects. Especially in terms of the spread of religiosity and mythology, which is what most interests me about this topic.



I think this falls in line with the "Controlled Opposition" tactic which this thread is based upon. These people were seen as "Usurpers" in Egypt, but perhaps that guise was necessary in order to begin an invasion of the lands of Canaan, which was growing too powerful (and "wicked"). The "Exodus" used as a method by which covert Egyptian agents could better infiltrate the region of Canaan and bring forth a new nation state of Monotheism (just like Ankhenaton temporarily established the century before in Egypt).

It might even have been a matter of the average people in Canaan becoming too independent and free minded, so a "police force" was needed in order to bring things under a new uniformity and political rule. But, a psychological campaign was first necessary before the people could be more easily subjugated to new beliefs and political dogma.

http://www.crystalinks.com/dynasty18.html

And the Hebrew/Canaanite merger of cultures eventually became known as "Phoenicia", branching out into the formation of the sea faring Gaels, Goths, Celts, Scottish, Spaniards, and various other notable societies. Possibly even the Nordics who later invaded and intermingled with Ireland. The powerful Rome was based more upon a Grecian and Persian heritage of gene stock and beliefs, with a foundation of native peoples who had already lived on the territory for thousands of years before becoming an official nation.

It's a complicated infrastructure of events to say the least, yet still there are running themes of elitism, manipulation, and controlled opposition.