The Netanyahu Problem

The Netanyahu Problem

Author: Gordon Duff

NEIS565622

A series of scandals have come together, mostly around Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, and threaten the world. While under criminal indictment in Israel, Netanyahu is running for re-election, telling the people of Israel that he has the full backing of American and Russian leaders. More than that, his claims intimate that both Trump and Putin support Israel against Iran and even Syria, claims that are not credible.

Worse still, Netanyahu’s lawyer, famed Israel promoter Alan Dershowitz, now 80, is under investigation in the US for crimes related to child rape. From the Daily Beast:

“Famed attorney Alan Dershowitz was accused of involvement in billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged sex-trafficking ring by an attorney for one of Epstein’s victims, who claimed in federal court on Wednesday that the release of sealed documents will prove it.

Paul Cassell, who represents Virginia Roberts Giuffre, told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that the testimony of other witnesses will show Dershowitz’s involvement in the alleged trafficking of ‘his close friend Jeffrey Epstein.’

‘When all the records come out it will show that Epstein and [Epstein’s alleged madam Ghislaine] Maxwell were trafficking girls to the benefit of his friends, including Mr. Dershowitz,’ Cassell said in oral arguments for a case filed by the Miami Herald to unseal a collection of court documents relating to Giuffre’s now settled lawsuit against Maxwell.”

Then we turn to Politico, where Trump Labor Secretary, Alex Acosta, long considered “highly unqualified” for his position, is tied to the criminal coverup. It was Acosta that ordered the records of 30 child rapes sealed, rapes where not only Epstein is accused but also Alan Dershowitz and Donald Trump. From Politico:

“A federal appeals court panel signaled Wednesday that it is strongly inclined to set in motion a process likely to expose more sordid details in the politically charged scandal surrounding Jeffrey Epstein, the wealthy financier and philanthropist whose relatively cushy plea deal on underage-sex charges a decade ago has become a political liability for Labor Secretary Alex Acosta.

Sparks flew during arguments before the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan as a lawyer for Virginia Roberts Giuffre, an Epstein accuser, repeatedly reiterated his client’s claim leveled several years ago that the Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz not only defended Epstein but also had sex with some of the women Epstein victimized.

About 20 Democratic lawmakers have called for Acosta’s resignation, saying Acosta’s involvement in what they view as a sweetheart deal for Epstein makes Acosta unsuitable for a Cabinet post.

The Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility has also opened an investigation into the matter.”

As the runup to the Israeli elections enters high gear, Netanyahu, under indictment for numerous corruption charges, becomes more and more a threat.

Regionally, one thing is clear, his program of attacks on Palestinian civilians, his manipulation of tensions with Iran and his attacks on Syria are tied to his personal legal problems and, at home, Netanyahu is being buried.

First of all, he has the worst lawyer in the world, as even the Israeli papers are recognizing Alan Dershowitz as a liability even though they have yet to acknowledge how Israel’s greatest supporter is now an alleged child rapist as well, if US mainstream media reports are to be believed. From Haaretz:

“For the four years Netanyahu has been under criminal investigation, Dershowitz – once a great defender of Israel’s values – has been his number one fan, serving up increasingly desperate and sleaze-appeasing apologetics. Why?

If there is anything more pitiful than Benjamin Netanyahu’s desperate attempt to hang on to his office and avoid criminal charges, it is Alan Dershowitz’s desperate attempt to provide cover for the cynical, paranoid, ego-driven prime minister.

For 50 years, Dershowitz has been an articulate and effective advocate for Israel, often American Jewry’s most visible and powerful defender of the Jewish state. Why then, at age 80, has he come to the defense of a Prime Minister who has become almost completely unhinged?

Bibi, after all, is the leader who not only toys with corruption but, among a long list of other offenses, fawns over Polish and Hungarian anti-Semites, viciously demonizes his political opponents, and advances the interests of a Kahane-supporting right-wing party.

Bibi’s has more than a few accomplishments, to be sure. But they all begin to fade when set against his stomach-turning antics of recent years. Has it not occurred to Mr. Dershowitz that his enthusiastic backing of Bibi undermines rather than advances Israel’s cause, undoing what has been his life’s work on behalf of Israel?

One possible explanation is that Dershowitz has been prodded to defend Bibi by Sheldon Adelson, the Prime Minister’s long-time patron. As Dershowitz acknowledges in his Haaretz article, he has been providing legal services for Adelson – the same Adelson who has poured tens of millions of dollars into backing Bibi and supporting a free newspaper, Israel Hayom, that is devoted to a no-questions-asked defense of Bibi’s every move.”

Ah, here we begin to define the problem, Sheldon Adelson. Adelson is the world’s largest gambling and “hospitality” operator, not just in the US but around the world and by “hospitality,” we mean “human trafficking.” He is also the largest contributor to Netanyahu politically but also the largest Trump contributor as well.

We might also add that both Netanyahu and Trump “work for” Adelson, meaning they represent Adelson’s “business interests,” including the unseemly ones, when they travel as heads of state. This is part of Netanyahu’s legal problems and may eventually send Donald Trump to prison as well.

Then there is this other issue in the US. There is increasing pressure to criminalize any criticism of Israel or any defense of the Palestinian people. According to Wikipedia, there have been between 300 and 400 UN resolutions considered “against” Israel, all involving issues of violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention and the rights of the Palestinian people.

Moves in the US, in 23 states, and now in proposed laws, will criminalize any mention of these UN actions or open criticism of Israel, even in the press. Academics can be jailed for reporting on Israel’s long record of human rights abuses, the UN lists them as “number one rights abuser in the world,” as a veil of censorship now descends across the US.

What we seem to have is a world spinning into the abyss, with much of the responsibility lying with Benjamin Netanyahu and his personal “overreach” to the point of delusions of grandeur.

His biggest failure is American public opinion, now increasingly termed as “anti-Semitic,” charges thrown around against Poland, Hungary and other nations as well. The broad hatred of Donald Trump by large sectors of the US population and Trump’s ties to Israel through his son in law, Jared Kushner, perhaps the most resented individual in Washington history, has now crossed party lines.

Where Israel still has broad support from both parties, even where American interests are damaged, that support is increasingly being questioned from both the left and right by those who see Israeli influence as a major factor in America’s defense spending morass and the series of unending wars that have lowered America’s standard of living.

Israel, in some ways, is the easy target to blame, as it “ham handedly” pushes politicians and media around through smears and threats, increasingly easy to recognize and increasingly resented by the public.

Behind this, of course, is the gulf between rich and everyone else in the US, with the middle class slowly disappearing as capital rapidly moves into the hands of the few. Wages and benefits, social protections commonplace in Europe, are disappearing in the US. Attacks on Obama’s health care reforms, which were only stop-gap measures at best, have pushed medical care out of reach for tens of millions.

Scandals such as recent findings that Monsanto’s Round Up may be responsible for the cancer epidemic that has killed millions, exacerbated of course by lessened availability of health care, this and endless political and economic scandals has radicalized sectors of the American people to question political “norms,” among them blind support for Israel and now institutionalized hatred of Islam and Russia as well.

The focus is Israel and the face of Israel is Netanyahu, a clownish figure, a face too often seen, and one now tied to the sacrifices a generation of Americans have made, thousands of deaths, $15 trillion in debt, low wages, a world that hates America and it is his face that is blamed, no longer bin Laden or other fake Hitleresque figures.

Past that is the nature of the narrative, corruption, child sex, endless lying, the filth and depravity of a 3rd rate TV drama.

Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran of the Vietnam War that has worked on veterans and POW issues for decades and consulted with governments challenged by security issues. He’s a senior editor and chairman of the board of  Veterans Today, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
https://journal-neo.org/2019/03/10/the-netanyahu-problem/

 

Advertisements

Jewdas Lies Again

March 11, 2019  /  Gilad Atzmon

jewdas.jpg

By Gilad Atzmon

In August 2017 Jewdas,  a bunch of self- proclaimed ‘alternative’ Diaspora Jews were exposed as merely a brand of dishonest Zionist merchants. They picketed my concert at the Vortex and handed out flyers presenting a pile of fabrications and misquotes attributed to me.

They were filmed and exposed as liars.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKMITv5ZPdw

Watch Jewdas lying through their teeth…

But Jewdas did not learn their lesson. They are attempting to repeat their failure. This time they call to Shut Down Nazi Apologist Jazz with a plan to picket my concert at the Vortex on Friday.

I am not a Nazi apologist. I am an opponent of all forms of racism and discrimination. Jewdas does not even attempt to explain why they call  me a ‘Nazi apologist,’ Instead they provide a  link to a Zionist write-up on Rationalwiki that is in itself a set of quotes taken out of context in an intentionally misleading manner. Here is Rationalwiki’s takedown of me:  “Atzmon has been accused of denying the Holocaust; he objects to this. ‘I have never denied the Holocaust or any other historical chapter,’ he says. ‘I also find the notion of ‘holocaust denial’ to be meaningless, and on the verge of idiotic.’

Here is the actual quote of my talk delivered in Freiburg, Germany in 2011. “Needless to say, I have never denied the Holocaust or any other historical chapter. I also find the notion of ‘holocaust denial’ to be meaningless, and on the verge of idiotic. However, I do indeed insist, as I did here today, that history must remain an open discourse, subject to changes and revision, I oppose any attempt to seal the past, whether it is the Nakba, the  Holocaust, the Holodomor or the Armenian genocide. I am convinced that an organic and ‘elastic’ understanding of the past is the true essence of a  humanist discourse, universalism and ethics.”https://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/gilad-atzmon-being-in-time.html)

One may wonder, if there was any truth in their  claim, why those Zionists and their so-called ‘alternative’ twins see the need to attribute to me fabricated quotes and misquotes in an attempt to deceive? One possible answer is that I brought to light a truth which they can’t handle let alone suppress.

In my work I repeatedly argue that history must be open to discussion. Revisiting and rethinking history is at the core of universal ethical thinking and the aspiration for a better future! If the English speaking empire had been brave enough to face its past conduct, it might have saved itself from repeating its crimes in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. If Israel and its Lobby were honourable enough to examine Jewish history, it would probably attempt to prevent its enthusiastic Lobby from causing more harm. If Jewdas were simply able to re-visit its recent past or just watch the above expose of themselves caught in their lies, one would think they would want to avoid re-exposure as an authoritarian intolerant Jewish thought police dedicated to harassing a non-political music venue.

Given Britain’s present economic and political woes, perhaps the Jewdas warriors for their own particular brand of correct ‘alternative’ Jewish thought would be wise to support elementary freedoms and civilized debate. Jewdas might even wish to allow the Brits a night off from the toxic political environment to just enjoy music. The music might even soothe the self-righteous arrogance of those whose satisfaction is gained by calling me and others names.

 Defy the oppressive, duplicitous and dictatorial forces. Join us at the Vortex this weekend

To Book on line:

Fri March 15 click here

Sat March 16 Click here

Denote

Dual Loyalty as Racism

ilhan3.jpg

March 08, 2019  /  Gilad Atzmon

GA: How reassuring is it that the only American who upholds the core values of liberty, patriotism and freedom is a black muslim and an immigrant…

By Eve Mykytyn

The US House of Representatives just passed a resolution that declared, “whether from the political right, center, or left, bigotry, discrimination, oppression, racism, and imputations of dual loyalty threaten American democracy and have no place in American political discourse.”  The key words in this resolution are “dual loyalty” which make clear that this otherwise banal condemnation of racism was made in direct response to Representative Ilhan Omar’s controversial statement:

“I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says that it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country.”

Apparently, the House resolution was a disappointment to some. The New York Times reports that this ‘all-inclusive’ approach was criticized for not “solely condemn[ing]  anti-Semitism.” Representative Ted Deutch asked  “Why are we unable to singularly condemn anti-Semitism? Why can’t we call it anti-Semitism and show we’ve learned the lessons of history?”

It is bizarre that Mr. Deutch seemingly objects to condemning racism per se. Would Mr. Deutch prefer that the House pass separate resolutions condemning prejudice against each of the ever growing list of identity groups?  The House would be so busy debating these resolutions that they would  accomplish nothing else, although admittedly, that might be a positive outcome.

Omar has not retracted her statements. In response to criticism from representative Nita Lowy, Omar tweeted,

“I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee.”

Omar’s point has been substantiated by the reaction it has provoked. Omar claimed that accusations of anti-Semitism tend to be used to silence critics of Israel. In response, she was called a “Jew hater.”

Representative Juan Vargas tweeted, “It is disturbing that Rep. Omar continues to perpetuate hurtful anti-Semitic stereotypes that misrepresent our Jewish community. Additionally, questioning support for the U.S.-Israel relationship is unacceptable.”

Omar is condemned for criticizing dual loyalty by those who insist upon loyalty to Israel. As journalist Jordan Weisman noted,

“If Israel’s most devoted U.S. backers are really so concerned over dual loyalty smears, maybe they should think more carefully about how they’re encouraging them. “

 

Do You Care That israel (apartheid state) Controls US Politicians? #BDS

Do You Care That Israel Controls US Politicians?

Seriously, do you? Because if you do care about the independence of the US government from foreign control, you need to do your part to help bring the issue to light.

Israel and its powerful lobby control many US politicians. And this lobby uses very dirty tricks to shut down the opposition.

Learn more about AIPAC and the Israeli lobby and why YOU should support the #BDS movement!

MARTYRDOM ANNIVERSARY 54 FOR MALCOLM X (R.A.), OUR TEACHER: OPPOSE JEWISH SUPREMACISM AS HE DID OR DON’T SPEAK HIS NAME

by Jonathan Azaziah

There aren’t enough salutes in the WORLD… No… Hell no… The whole of the UNIVERSE… Which can adequately pay homage to our teacher, our preacher, our leader, our hero, our inspiration, our rock and our Anti-Parasitic guiding starlight, Malcolm X aka El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (R.A.) Even if such salutes were executed by Earth’s Most Righteous straight in the hideous, scaled faces of Earth’s Most Evil, it simply wouldn’t be sufficient. True indeed, nothing would be. That’s how monumental Malcolm X (R.A.) was and is; that’s how gigantic he was and is; that’s how vital he was and is, not to mention how much he was hated by the Anglo-Zionist Imperium. He was special, simple and plain, in the classic sense of the word. The Michiganian-turned-New-Yorker, son of a Georgian Garveyite father and a Grenadian Garveyite mother, was a personality so unique that there hasn’t been anyone like him since, nor will there be ever again–although a handful, like the remarkable Nashid Abdul Khaaliq (R.A), do come close. Today marks 54 years since he was martyred in a multi-dimensional conspiracy involving the heaviest hitters of Empire Zionica. And his life, his blistering oratory, his sagacious and perspicacious autobiography, his revolutionary actions, his Anti-Imperialist linkage with the Global South and of course, his Husseini sacrifice, have all never been more relevant.

From his early days as a top-ranking Minister and rising star within the Nation of Islam (NOI), Malcolm X (R.A.) was spied on by the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith (ADL), an organization with a rabid and murderous anti-Black history, and went as far to make note of it to NOI founder Elijah Muhammad and describe the surveillance as “malicious spying operations”. And the ADL was right in the heart of his murder, partnering up with the FBI, which has in fact gloated and taken credit for laying the groundwork for his death, and the NYPD’s Bureau of Special Services aka the Red Squad, to eliminate the greatest grassroots threat to Zio-Imperialism. For the record, ADL spying on Black Muslims goes as far back as at least 1942, so this shouldn’t be anywhere near surprising.

Furthermore, it was John Ali, a Fed-Rat, who triggered the rift between Hajj Malik (R.A.) and the NOI to begin with, and, even more ominously, the FBI appears to be linked to the violent and gruesome death of Black historian Louis Lomax, who was working on a film about FBI involvement in Malcolm X’s assassination when his brakes mysteriously gave out before being ejected from his station wagon after a crash and three turnovers. The CIA’s fingerprints, typically, can also be found on Hajj Malik’s killing, as it was immensely apprehensive of the man formerly known as Malcolm Little attending the Bandung Conference on March 3rd, 1965 and forging ties with the Global South Leadership. Ahmed Ben Bella (R.A.), Nkrumah (rip), Che Guevara (rip), Sukarno (R.A.) and many other freedom fighters were going to be present.

Do consider as well that ‘Israel’ attempted to take out the leader of the Algerian Revolution, successfully overthrew the Heart of Ghana, colluded with the CIA in murdering Cuba’s beloved guerrilla genius and operated as arguably the biggest link in the chain that strangled the Father of Indonesia. Now factor in the ADL’s status as an out-and-out fifth column of the usurping Zionist entity’s Mossad and its penetration of the FBI, along with Malcolm’s (R.A.) militant Anti-Zionism, and 1+1=Jew. ‘Israel’ UNDOUBTEDLY was in on his death like it was a mover and shaker in asset-turned-resistor MLK Jr’s murder too.

Verily, Malcolm’s aforementioned opposition to the ADL isn’t as widely known as his despisal of the usurping Zionist entity. It was in the September 17th, 1964 edition of the Egyptian Gazette in which he succinctly summed up the illegality of the fake Jewish “state” and the need for it to be dismantled. “Did the Zionists have the legal or moral right to invade Arab Palestine, uproot its Arab citizens from their homes and seize all Arab property for themselves just based on the ‘religious’ claim that their [alleged] forefathers lived there thousands of years ago? Only a thousand years ago the Moors lived in Spain. Would this give the Moors of today the legal and moral right to invade the Iberian Peninsula, drive out its Spanish citizens, and then set up a new Moroccan nation … where Spain used to be, as the European Zionists have done to our Arab brothers and sisters in Palestine? In short, the Zionist argument to justify ‘Israel’s’ present occupation of Arab Palestine has no intelligent or legal basis in history … not even in their own religion.”

Brilliant, beautiful and the exact stance all principled humans should take. All throughout his rebuke of Zionism, he tore Jewish supremacism limb from limb, castigating the Zionist land-thieves for absurdly and viciously believing that they “must fulfill [their] ‘divine’ mission to rule all other nations with a rod of iron.” With certitude, that open, eloquent, gratuitous and unrelenting criticism of Jewish supremacism, particularism and especially, exploitation of the Black community is what sets Hajj Malik (R.A.) apart from all other revolutionary figures. In 1963, he was asked whether the Nation of Islam, and Black Muslims generally, were “anti-Semitic”. Malcolm responded with razor-sharp wit, “Many Jews have guilt feelings when people talk about ‘exploitation.’ This is because they know that they control 90% of the businesses in Black communities, from the Atlantic to the Pacific. And they benefit more from Black buying power than Blacks do from other parts of the White community. So they feel guilty about it.” He also obliterated the idea that Jews can be on the board of groups like the NAACP, but, “the[ese] same Jews won’t let you become president of B’nai B’rith, or any of their other organizations.”

As revealed on page 162 of his autobiography, thanks to the eye-opening positions of a brother and ex-hustling partner of his who had just joined the NOI, Malcolm (R.A.) came to realize that the Ashkenazi Jew bootlegger that he once held in such high regards for being the only “White” to have given him a job, Hymie, was in fact a parasitic exploiter who was using him to line his pockets en masse. From then on, he was able to see through the Jews, their lies, their stratagems, their artificial support for Black civil rights and their overall agenda like one standing in a glass-bottom boat who could pick up on all the wonders of the ocean. On page 289, he discusses the hyper-sensitivity and ultra-subjectivity of the Jew, declaring, “I mean, you can’t even say ‘Jew’ without him accusing you of ‘anti-Semitism’.” Truer and more cutting words were never spoken on the matter. He noted in greater depth that it was Jewishness and Jewishness alone, in a blunt case of radical ethnic chauvinism, that drove the Jew in all he/she did, “I don’t care what a Jew is professionally, doctor, merchant, housewife, student, or whatever–first he, or she, thinks Jew.”

On the same page, Malcolm lambastes the Jews for profiting off anti-Black bigotry, “All of the bigotry and hatred focused upon the Black man keeps off the Jew a lot of heat that would be on him otherwise.” And then he drops the bomb that lays waste to the very foundation of so-called “anti-Semitism”, especially when anti-Jewish sentiments come from Blacks and other people of color living in projects, slums and ghettos across America, “For an example of what I am talking about–in every Black ghetto, Jews own the major businesses. Every night the owners of those businesses go home with that Black community’s money, which helps the ghetto to stay poor. But I doubt that I have ever uttered this absolute truth before an audience without being hotly challenged, and accused by a Jew of ‘anti-Semitism’. Why? I will bet that I have told five hundred such challengers that Jews as a group would never watch some other minority systematically siphoning out their community’s resources without doing something about it. I have told them that if I tell the simple truth, it doesn’t mean that I am ‘anti-Semitic’; it means merely that I am anti-exploitation.” Anti-exploitation. And Anti-Parasitic. Not… And NEVER… “anti-Semitic”–a completely fallacious ideological construct to begin with ANYWAY. Ameen.

There is a severely fascinating exchange as the historic, epic and irreplaceable autobiography, a work that, I can say personally, saved my life, comes to a close. It starts on page 378 where he discusses how he was under constant surveillance following his 18-week trip to the Arab world and Africa. He reveals an exchange with one operative specifically from an unknown agency, who he mockingly called “super-sleuth”. On page 379, Malcolm (R.A.) describes how he confronted the agent directly and told him curtly that if he had any questions, he didn’t need to lurk around. He only had to ask. Almost immediately, the intelligence emissary took a defensive, hyper-sensitive posture and started hammering Hajj Malik (R.A.) about his Black nationalism and Islamic beliefs. The revolutionary giant knew what he was dealing with instantly and instinctively. “From the consistent subjectivity in just about everything he asked and said, I had deduced something, and I told him, ‘You know, I think you’re a Jew with an Anglicized name.’ His involuntary expression told me I’d hit the button. He asked me how I knew. I told him I’d had so much experience with how Jews would attack me that I usually could identify them.”

From page 379, it rages on magnificently right into page 380, “I told him all I held against the Jew was that so many Jews actually were hypocrites in their claim to be friends of the American Black man, and it burned me up to be so often called ‘anti- Semitic’ when I spoke things I knew to be the absolute truth about Jews. I told him that, yes, I gave the Jew credit for being among all other Whites the most active, and the most vocal, financier, ‘leader’ and ‘liberal’ in the Negro civil rights movement. But I said at the same time I knew that the Jew played these roles for a very careful strategic reason: the more prejudice in America could be focused upon the Negro, then the more the White Gentiles’ prejudice would keep diverted off the Jew. I said that to me, one proof that all the civil rights posturing of so many Jews wasn’t sincere was that so often in the North the quickest segregationists were Jews themselves. Look at practically everything the Black man is trying to ‘integrate’ into for instance; if Jews are not the actual owners, or are not in controlling positions, then they have major stockholdings or they are otherwise in powerful leverage positions-and do they really sincerely exert these influences? No!”

Malcolm (R.A.) concludes his destruction of the “super-sleuth” by stating, “And an even clearer proof for me of how Jews truly regard Negroes, I said, was what invariably happened wherever a Negro moved into any white residential neighborhood that was thickly Jewish. Who would always lead the Whites’ exodus? The Jews! Generally in these situations, some Whites stay put–you just notice who they are: they’re Irish Catholics, they’re Italians; they’re rarely ever any Jews. And, ironically, the Jews themselves often still have trouble being ‘accepted.’ Saying this, I know I’ll hear ‘anti-Semitic’ from every direction again. Oh, yes! But truth is truth.” Again, we say, loudly and proudly as ever, AMEEN.

In a Paris Q&A session printed under the title “The Black Struggle In The United States” in Presence Africaine, No. 2, 1965, and as usual, he spoke with power and passion about Jewish manipulations, machinations and hypocrisy, “Now in regards to what is my opinion of the Jews. I don’t think that a man can be intelligent when he’s in the frying pan and he becomes wrapped up or involved in trying to solve someone else’s problems or cry for someone else. The American Negroes especially have been maneuvered into doing more crying for the Jews than they cry for themselves. In America the Jews used to be segregated. They never were ‘Freedom Riders’. They didn’t use this tactic to solve their problem–begging in, walking in, wading in. Whenever they were barred from a neighborhood they pooled their economic power and purchased that neighborhood. If they were barred from hotels, they bought the hotel. But when they join us, they don’t show us how to solve our problem that way. They show us how to wade in and crawl in and beg in. So I’m for the Jew when he shows me how to solve my problem like he has solved his problem.”

These are but a few excerpts. Read “The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews”, Volumes 1-3. Read and watch Dr. Tony Martin (rip). Listen to Fire-Breathing Mega-Man Dr. Khaled Abdul Muhammad (R.A.) Pay heavy attention to Minister Farrakhan. Read and listen to the previously invoked Nashid Abdul Khaaliq (R.A.) Check the work of the ever-vigilant and exceptional research extraordinaire Steve Cokely (rip). Dig into the Jewish character of Christopher Columbus (L.A.) and the Puritans, the Jewish exploitation of boxing great (and friend of Malcolm X) Muhammad Ali (R.A.), the Jewish-Zionist takedown of Marcus Garvey (rip), the Jewish origins of disgusting, racist “blackface” and the Jewish money behind the ungodly Tuskegee experiment. Delve into the terrible, continent-wide scheme World Zionism has imposed on Africa. Malcolm X (R.A.) was right. The Jew exploits, manipulates and oppresses the Black Man whilst pretending to be the Black Man’s best friend. This knowledge should be applied to the Muslim/Arab struggle of today in which we are seeing Jews infiltrate our ranks and dictate how our discourse should run all so their interests are protected. We should adopt a Malcolmite stance and declare that this unacceptable.

Today, the “Woketivists” who claim Malcolm X (R.A.) don’t and won’t touch his staunch, erudite and ruthless critique of Jewish supremacism, not even with a 6-million-foot pole. This is evidence of their disingenuousness as well as who is signing their checks. It’s also, quite ironically and rather hilariously, the proof of EVERYTHING that Hajj Malik (R.A.) EVER uttered in EVERY circumstance vis-a-vis the interactions between African-Americans and the Yahoud on the political, historical, social and financial levels. It is always a scenario of slave and master, controlled and controller, oppressed and oppressor, dictated-to and dictator. Never an actual partnership.

And if the “Woketivists” don’t have the guts to call a spade a spade and a Jew a Jew, they don’t belong talking about Malcolm X (R.A.) in any capacity. Such people are hypocrites and we know how much that el-Shabazz (R.A.) hated hypocrites. It doesn’t require any courage to call out White supremacy when it’s a commonly discussed topic on the likes of Zionist-owned CNN and MSNBC; when its perfidy is taught in universities and it is a frequent PHD target across academia. It requires a gargantuan amount of dauntlessness however to tackle the Jew and his current status as the world’s wealthiest, most influential and most “untouchable” globe-holder. Hence why whoever does it, whether criticizing Zionism or Judaism, comes under the most maleficent assault–especially when they’re Black, like Marzieh Hashemi, Marc Lamont Hill, Angela Davis and Alice Walker.

Now five and a half decades since his brutal murder, we see that a war on Malcolm X (R.A.) has continued. His second daughter, Qubilah Bahiyah Shabazz, was framed for a plot to kill Farakhan by a JDL terrorist who later became a Fed-Rat, Michael Fitzpatrick. His grandson, Malcolm Latif Shabazz (R.A.), who, like him, endured many struggles early on in his life, found a way back to the Nour of the Deen, adopted the Shi’a Islamic school of thought, and launched his own revolutionary struggle before being murdered under shady circumstances by Zionist-American assassins.

And anyone who espouses what he espoused, opposes what he opposed, embodies what he embodied, and fights for what he fought for, disregarding all Jewish supremacist onslaughts that may come their way, this writer included, gets a Blue-and-White label on their dome-piece and then marked for destruction, figuratively and literally. Yet… Despite all the plots by Organized Jewish Interests, they have failed miserably to stomp him out. They have failed miserably, to use a Judaic idiom, to “blot out” his “Amalekite” legacy. El-Hajj Malik el-Shabazz (R.A.) lives on not in infamy… But in INFINITY, beating and screaming in the hearts of Anti-Parasitic youth and elders, men and women, Muslims and Christians, Blacks and Browns, Whites and Reds and Yellows and ALLAH (SWT) knows who else worldwide.

And for the record, he lives on not as a secular liberal. Not a peacenik. Not a Marxist-Leninist. Not a communist, a socialist or a leftist of any persuasion. Not some godless militant being militant for militancy’s sake. Not an LGBTQIA+ sympathizer nor an advocate or “stan” of any sort of degeneracy. But an Islamic Liberationist guided by the Qur’an, the Sunnah, Ahlul Bayt (A.S.) and the righteous Sahaba (R.A.) He was an Anti-Parasitic Mouqawamist who had Striking Star Solidarity with the Moustazafeen the world over. Hence his saying, “Time is on the side of the oppressed today, it’s against the oppressor. Truth is on the side of the oppressed today, it’s against the oppressor. You don’t need anything else.”

He was a Pan-Africanist and a Garvey-influenced Black nationalist that believed in Black independence from Whites and ESPECIALLY Jews. If he was alive today in the physical form, the “Woketivists” would cast him out as an “anti-Semite”, a “homophobe”, a “transphobe”, a “misogynist” for opposing abortion and promoting strong family values particularly when it concerned the Black family unit, a “fascist”, a “reactionary”, a “capitalist” for championing Black businesses and autonomous Black economies–his outspoken anti-capitalism aside–and probably even a “Nazi” too. Why do you think that when they utter his name to show off their “wokeness”, they pretend his Anti-Parasitism, as it is documented in quite a large quantity in this essay, is a figment of our imaginations?

Moreover, to conclude, when we recall Hajj Malik’s (R.A.) brotherhood with Iraqi-American Shi’a Muslim revolutionary Dr. Mohammad Taki Mehdi (R.A.), the figure who brought him to traditional Islam and helped him make Hajj, we know that Imam Hussein (A.S.) had a profound and sublime impact on his life. The sacrifice of Aba Abdallah (A.S.) is what led Malcolm (R.A.) to fearlessly… Even LOVINGLY… Run towards martyrdom. If he was alive long enough to witness the Islamic Revolution, perhaps he, like his grandson, not to mention another African titan, Sheikh Zakzaky, would have adopted the Jaafari Shi’a tradition. Maybe it would have been the Zaydi Shi’a path that appealed to him after witnessing the glory of Sayyed Hussein al-Houthi (R.A.) and his own unfiltered dismantlement of Judaic malevolence. Or perhaps, like martyred Sunni Palestinian revolutionary Dr. Fathi Shaqaqi (R.A.), he would have just modeled a movement in Imam Khomeini’s (R.A.) likeness. What isn’t necessary to ponder on is whether or not he’d be a champion of Islam. No doubt that he would be. One of its most prolific.

Capitalism, Communism, Wahhabism, Shiraziism, Zionism, both its Jewish and its Untemeyer-birthed “Christian” forms, Imperialism, Hindutva and all the other tentacles of the Judaic-Dajjalic system would feel his furious and pious wrath. International Jewry wouldn’t be able to breathe. That’s why International Jewry and its devilish collaborators snuffed him out. But no Shahid, let alone a Shahid of the treasure-like quality of Malcolm X (R.A.), truly dies. The Monsters on the other hand die a little bit inside on each individual occasion that we provide insight into the legend’s actual/factual stances. In his sanctified name, his revered memory and unprofane, resistant example, we’ll be doing a whole lot more of THAT until we too achieve martyrdom. Case in point… And meanwhile, as we await our reunion with our teacher, our preacher, our leader, our hero, our inspiration, our rock and our Anti-Parasitic guiding starlight El-Hajj Malik el-Shabazz (R.A.) in Jannah insha’ALLAH… If you don’t oppose Jewish supremacism, bigotry, deceitfulness and planet-spanning exploitation the way that he did, then keep his blessed name the hell out your mouths.

Israel lobby proves Ilhan Omar’s point

Was Ancient “israel” really some place else, or, more likely, “Never Was…”

Was Ancient “Israel” really some place else, or, more likely, “Never…

By Gordon Duff with Dr. Asraf Ezzat and Jonas Alexis

We just saw a fun video that says Moses crossed the Middle of the Red Sea and that biblical Mt. Sinai was hundreds of miles away from Palestine, meaning Judea and Samaria.

I will put this as short as possible, including the Sputnik article that went with the silly video and a longer piece from two VT regulars with actual qualifications, one an actual Egyptian archaeologist (and MD/pediatrician).

History can’t find a “State of Israel” or “Kingdom of Israel,” they can’t really find any evidence whatsoever that “Israelites” were ever in Egypt as well.

The area Israel claims today at no time was ever home to a Jewish kingdom of any kind, it was all made up.  It was either Egyptian or Babylonian or Assyrian.

Moreover, it has long been accepted that Moses is a myth as well, something that will hit a number of religions and that the Pentateuch, meaning the five books of Moses are utterly fake as well.

Carrying this further, do note that Matthew, Mark and John were never apostles, that the fake apostle Paul never met Jesus and that Christianity has a history that comes from the East, not from Judea, but Iran.

The real history of Christianity and other religions we won’t mention, is quite different than given, so much different that the centuries of wars driven by a fake Moses or a quite disturbed and equally fake Noah and Abraham….

All of it was made up.

What is worse, when we look at real archeology, which can take the roots of just the Western civilizations alone back well over 10,000 years, we find scholarship skewed to fit into biblical crap.

For a century, the universities under the hammer of the Vatican and Rothschilds, have choked off any real scholarship.  If you want 10,000 year old artifacts from Europe, the Vinca’s in Serbia or want to see “Bronze” or “Iron Age” fakery, all of of it thousands of years older than purported, you can just go on Ebay.
Tel Halaf, Syrian-Turkish border, 6000BC – Jim Dean

We can have Jim Dean put some photos up some of his 4500BC Tel Halaf idols (Syria/Turkey border), or some of his new Vinca stuff from Bulgaria and Serbia, 6-7000 years old. And if you have time maybe he can dig out his stone tools, one of them an Oldowan, going back a million years.

I studied archaeology and spent some years , on the ground, in Africa, the Middle East/South Asia and Europe, noting how history had been fictionalized.

The “Celtic” civilizations that can be traced along Europe’s Western exterior, from the Irish shore to Brittany, Spain, Portugal, Malta, and down into Africa, is many thousands of years older than given, making Robert E. Howard, of Conan the Barbarian fame, a better historian than one might have guessed.

A simple run across the now Kurdish held regions of Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Iran yield evidence of hundreds of settlements thousands of years before “pre-history” while digs in Turkey, rapidly being purposefully misconstrued carbon date to up to 15,000 BC.

Western Sahara, stone tool blades just lying on the ground, 10K to 120K BC, far as the eye can see – Jim Dean

The sad and insane part of it is the attempt to fake a Middle Eastern “homeland” for the millions of Eastern Europeans that are hereditary members of the Jewish faith.

The entire history of the region, when Christianity entered Russia and the Baltic, how those groups interacted with Mongol and other “invaders,” and how Europe as we know it, particularly the languages of Hungary and Finland as evidence, is fake.

So, what we have done is, in order to fit into the mold of the Vatican and the “no-Semitic blood whatsoever” European Jews, who of course look just like the rest of us because that is exactly what they are, we have erased history, quashed scholarship, destroyed any chance of properly investigating our own civilizations and heritage, all to fit into a post-war scenario that requires some questioning as well.

Controlling the media, mass censorship of now two centuries of research, an endless series of fake wars and then religion…

*

100vw, 320px” />
“My first Vinca fertility idol, 16cm, 4500 BC” – Jim Dean

Sputnik/Moscow: The biblical Mount Sinai is traditionally placed in Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, but some researchers say it could be located over a hundred miles eastwards on the Arabian Peninsula across the Gulf of Aqaba.

Ryan Mauro, the national security analyst at the non-profit anti-extremist Clarion Project, and the Doubting Thomas Research Foundation have released the results of a two-year joint search for the holy site in a documentary titled “Finding the Mountain of Moses: The Real Mount Sinai in Saudi Arabia”.

According to the new investigation, the actual place where Moses received the Ten Commandments is in Saudi Arabia, and the Kingdom is well aware of this fact.

The documentary claims, based on several Christian, Jewish, and Islamic sources, that the biblical Mount Sinai is actually located in northwest Saudi Arabia. Ryan Mauro alleges that the Saudi government has been trying to conceal its location from the rest of the world using “fences, police, and a threat of force”.

He has interviewed locals and reached out to a person connected with jihadists to back up his claims.

“When I was in the jihad world, we all knew the Mount Sinai was in Saudi Arabia,” said an unidentified man, who hid his face and used a voice-changing filter. “The people on the outside, even most Muslims, had no idea that it was there. Because we, fighters, didn’t want anyone to know about it.”

“We all knew that the Saudi government hid it and protected it with security, and we all agreed with it. We believe that if a site — even a holy site — is visited by people and used for idolatry, it should be destroyed. But our hiding it, according to the Islamic law, is what saved it so you can see it today and appreciate it.”

Mauro claims key evidence is in jeopardy due to a $500 billion futuristic mega-city project, which is to be built in the coming years. “The Saudis are construction a super city that is planned to be 33 times the size of New York. If all of us don’t take action, Saudi construction in the area may destroy key evidence and prevent excavation for the foreseeable future.”

He has launched a website to try and convince Saudi Arabia to preserve the site.

In this Wednesday, Jan. 7, 1998 file photo, the shadow of Mount Sinai stretches across the valley at the foot of the Greek Orthodox Monastery of St. Catherine in the Sinai peninsula some 240 miles southeast of Cairo, EgyptIn this Wednesday, Jan. 7, 1998 file photo, the shadow of Mount Sinai stretches across the valley at the foot of the Greek Orthodox Monastery of St. Catherine in the Sinai peninsula some 240 miles southeast of Cairo, Egypt” src=”https://cdn5.img.sputniknews.com/images/107075/69/1070756926.jpg” alt=”In this Wednesday, Jan. 7, 1998 file photo, the shadow of Mount Sinai stretches across the valley at the foot of the Greek Orthodox Monastery of St. Catherine in the Sinai peninsula some 240 miles southeast of Cairo, Egypt”
© AP Photo / Enric Marti

 

The analyst believes that Jabal Maqla, one of the tallest mountains in the Arabian Peninsula and a peak on the mountain range of Jabal al-Lawz, is the actual place where Moses received the Ten Commandments.

He invokes Moses’ account from the book of Exodus and cites the blackened top of the mountain, which could have been burnt by the Lord descended on Mount Sinai in fire, as per the Book of Exodus. However, he admits, these could simply be natural volcanic rocks.

He also alleges to have found Elam, the oasis where Moses and the Israelites found water after crossing the Red Sea en route to Mount Sinai, and what could have been several other pieces of evidence, like a rock split by Moses or the remains of an ancient altar where the Israelites worshipped a golden calf while Moses was on top of the mountain.

“Think of how many things line up with the biblical story right here at this mountain,” Mauro concludes, defying a popular theory that the biblical Mount Sinai is located in the Sinai Peninsula.

Egypt Knew No Pharaohs Nor Israelites?

“Bad history makes sweeping generalizations for which there is not adequate evidence and ignores awkward facts that do not fit.”[1]

christopher;Historian Christopher Behan McCullagh argues in his seminal study Justifying Historical Descriptions that there are at least seven tests historians use to determine the best explanation through which to view historical facts and inferences. Here are his arguments:

“The theory is that one is rationally justified in believing a statement to be true if the following conditions obtain:

“1) The statement, together with other statements already held to be true, must imply yet other statements describing present, observable data. (We will henceforth call the first statement ‘the hypothesis,’ and statements describing observable data, observation statements.’)

“2)The hypothesis must be of greater explanatory scope than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, it must imply a greater variety of observation statements.

“3)The hypothesis must be of greater explanatory power than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, it must make the observation statements it implies more probable than any other.

“4) They hypothesis must be more plausible than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, it must be implied to some degree by a greater variety of accepted truths than any other, and be implied more strongly than any other; and its probable negation must be implied by fewer beliefs, and implied less strongly than any other.

“5) The hypothesis must be less ad hoc than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, it must include fewer new suppositions about the past which are not already implied to some extent by existing beliefs.

“6) It must be disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, when conjoined with accepted truths it must imply fewer observation statements and other statements which are believed to be false.

“7) It must exceed other incompatible hypotheses about the same subject by so much, in characteristics 2 to 6, that there is little chance of an incompatible hypothesis, after further investigation, soon exceeding it in these respects.”[2]

Peter Lipton of Cambridge constructs similar arguments in his work Inference to the Best Explanation. He argues that

“We infer what would, if true, be the best explanation of our evidence. On this view, explanatory considerations are our guide to inference.”[3]

Over the past ten years or so, I have tried to stay away from unscholarly books—most specifically books that do not abide by historical principles, rigorous testing, explanatory scope, intellectual honesty, and inference to the best explanation.

In fact, people continue to send me books to review, and on a number of occasions I have declined for the very fact that many of those books or essays do not following logical principles and do not take the search for truth seriously.

When I first started reading Ashraf Ezzat’s Egypt Knew No Pharaohs Nor Israelites, I was very interested in seeing the evidence, footnotes, citations, historical documentations, logical and rigorous inferences, and bibliography precisely because the title of the book itself is a claim of knowledge and requires extraordinary evidence. Moreover, the title itself places a huge burden of proof on Ezzat.

I was really eager to examine the full force of Ezzat’s argument and logic. Frankly, I was really disappointed. Let us just cut to the chase and start with some examples.


Ezzat has a chapter entitled “Ancient Egypt Knew No Slavery.” Hopefully the name of that particular chapter will be edited in the second edition of the book, for the statement itself is historically indefensible.[4] We have a plethora of historical evidence indicating that ancient Egypt, like all ancient civilizations, did know slavery.[5] One historian in particular writes,

“A papyrus dating to the late Middle Kingdom…indicates that individuals permanently assigned to government work as punishment could be transferred to private hands through unknown means, and, in the status essentially of ‘slave,’ be inherited and sold like any property as indicated by texts such as ‘I have acquired three slaves…in addition to those that my father granted me.’

“Slaves could be drawn from debtors (including those who sold themselves into slavery to satisfy debts), but most commonly from criminals and, in the New Kingdoms, prisoners of war. Children of slaves were born into servitude, but they could be freed.

“A text regarding inheritance from Deir el Medina indicates that a male slave was considered to be worth twice the value of a female. Slaves were generally associated with the land that they worked. Yet, there is evidence that the unfree could be compensated for their labor.”[6]

Other historians write,

“Slavery was recognized by law in the Late Period and is well illustrated by surviving contracts of sale. Legally the slave owned nothing at all. He was a living chattel who could be bought and sold at will.

“Many slaves would have been foreigners who owned their position to such factors as war, foreign trade, or both, but it was undoubtedly possible for Egyptians themselves to sink to this level—indeed, at Elephantine during the Persian period we find Egyptians even functioning as slaves of Jewish mercenaries.”[7]

As previously suggested, no civilization in the ancient world lacked slavery,[8] and that includes ancient Greece and Rome.[9] Yet Ezzat, without an iota of serious scholarly sources, irresponsibly declares,

“And if we make a quick research about slavery in the ancient Near East we will discover that slavery, where bound humans were regarded as economic property/merchandise liable to transaction, ownership and inheritance, was a common culture in Assyria, Babylon and Syria but most notably all-pervasive in the Arab peninsula.

“As for ancient Egypt, this will surely come as an amazing surprise; slavery was not at all a common tradition. Throughout most of its time span as a united kingdom, slavery was not practiced in ancient Egypt as a legitimate trade. I mean this culture of trading bound humans as profitable goods on public markets was definitely not an Egyptian accepted culture.

“I’m not going to refer to prisoners of war and their slave-like status in captivity in ancient Egypt for our Joseph was certainly not one. Neither will I be talking much about those misinterpreted religious text found carved on Egyptian temple walls in which the priests define themselves as slaves of the supreme god.”

Ezzat provides one link for all these assertions—hardly a serious scholarly source for extraordinary claims such as this.  I will not attempt to respond to this particular link at all. But it was at that point in the book that I realize that Egypt Knew No Pharaohs Nor Israelites was not going to be scholarly and rigorous book as I hope it would be.

What is even more astonishing is that Ezzat asserts that it was slavery, brought on by foreigners, which largely destroyed Egyptian civilization! “Interestingly,” he says, “in a strange way this new culture of slavery heralded the fall of the Egyptian empire.”

The evidence? It was nowhere to be found. You’ve got to take Ezzat’s words.

These are not isolated cases. The book, which purports to be historical, is littered with statements like that. I was quite uncomfortable reading the book largely because of this particular issue.

A book which purports to be historical and which seeks to deconstruct previously known accounts must at least provide enough historical evidence or rigorous methods which can be verified and studied by any serious researcher and expert.

In fact, numerous historians and scholars of various stripes have already addressed many of the issues raised in Egypt Knew No Pharaohs Nor Israelites. The works of those scholars are simply an embarrassment of riches.[10]


There are also too many bold assertions in the book with little evidence or no historical backup. For example, we read that “neither Abraham nor Joseph ever set foot in Egypt or even dreamed about it.” The statement itself is a claim of knowledge, and the historical evidence for this assertion was again weighed and found wanting.

To build his case, Ezzat brings in Herodotus. He rightly admits that Herodotus’ account “is tinged with a brush of exaggerations and misconceptions,” but since Herodotus never discusses Israel in Egypt, therefore his account “is extremely helpful and gives us a documented and rare insight into the land of the Pyramids at the remote point in time.”

In other words, anything that seems to support Ezzat’s thesis will be brought to the fore, though some of those things are without serious analysis.

The fact is that scholars of various stripes have examined Herodotus’ accounts and have come to the conclusion that he was in some instances ignorant of the history of Egypt and had to rely on hearsay.[11] Ezzat admits, “according to the purpose of our research this hearsay documentation is what we really want.”

Sure. Ezzat wants hearsay—and he got it.


We are also told that “Egypt never witnessed any of the stories of the Jewish patriarchs and that the land of the Nile valley knew neither Pharaohs nor any Israelites. Egypt was never the land of the Israelites Exodus nor is Palestine their Promised Land.” According to Ezzat, “if Egypt knew no Pharaohs then it goes without saying that Egypt never knew Moses either.” That again is a claim of knowledge, for which no serious historical evidence was presented.

Moreover, this argument suffers very badly. As French Egyptologist Nicolas Grimal argued, if the Hebrews were actually in Egypt, the lack of evidence for this event should not be “surprising, given that the Egyptians had no reason to attach any importance to the Hebrews.”[12]


What particularly shocks me as I sift through many of the bold assertions in the book is that Ezzat on several occasions dismisses the work of archeologists and experts with one or two sentences with little or no historical research. Sometimes he does not even address the so-called flaws in the work that those people produce. It was really stunning to observe how he quickly dismisses the work of archeologist William F. Albright. Here is how Ezzat dismisses him,

“The Biblical school of archeology headed by the American William F. Albright began misinterpreting many of the places in Palestine and thereby confusing them with Biblical ones. The result was a series of concocted discoveries that instead of verifying the historicity of the Bible added all the more ambiguity.

“By the mid of the 20th century the Albright school of Biblical archeology was condemned as biased and unreliable by a modern trend of scientific and objective Archeology.”

That is all. No interaction with Albright’s work, which is quite massive,[13] no serious argument, and no serious documentation. Ezzat’s conclusion is already built into his presupposition and therefore there is no way that Albright’s massive study is plausible.

In philosophy, this is called question-begging or circular argument. In fact, if you click Albright’s name in Ezzat’s book, you are confronted with one of the most scholarly sources on the face of the planet: Wikipedia! Ezzat makes the same cardinal mistake in his recent article.

This is certainly embarrassing for a book that purports to be historical—and it is even more hysterical when people who obviously know very little of ancient history begin to quote Egypt Knew No Pharaohs Nor Israelites as truth. Those people seem to have been looking for something—anything—that will support their preconceived notion, and the book seems to have been a sigh of relief for them.

Let us be clear here: we are not denying that Wikipedia can be used as a source of information, but from a scholarly perspective, it was Ezzat’s job to interact with the actual work that Albright has produced before he dismisses him. He decided to take the easy route because this quick move presumably will help his case. That certainly should give one the impression that the book should not be taken seriously.

What is quite obvious throughout the book is that scholars who do not support Ezzat’s thesis will be dismissed or ignored without sober thought. But scholars who support his enterprise will be mentioned over and over. But the interesting point is that Ezzat quotes Egyptologist Donald B. Redford approvingly throughout his book, but he could never tell his readers that Redford also believes that ancient Egypt had slaves,[14] a point which Ezzat denies.


This is not the first time that Ezzat has tried to dismiss other people’s work with a few sentences and without historical or rational rigor. In a private correspondence, one individual particularly asked Ezzat what he thought about Colin Humphreys’ The Miracles of Exodus: A Scientist’s Discovery of the Extraordinary Natural Causes of the Biblical Stories. Ezzat responded:

“I’ve read the book The Miracles of Exodus by Colin Humphreys. The man is trying his best to scientifically corroborate the Ten Plagues and the Exodus. Humphreys set out his scientific expedition from Mount Sinai and the Red Sea.

“In his 300-page book he makes good use of all his scholarly skills and tricks, only he overlooked the fact that the Hebrew Bible never mentioned the Red sea or Mount Sinai in the first place (hilarious).

“Our poor Humphreys has been duped (like millions around the world) by the distorted Greek translation of the Hebrew book. Humphreys, like James Cameron in his funny documentary ‘The Exodus Decoded’, is building his mesmerizing thesis on a false premise. Falsification is what Humphreys, Cameron, and hordes of Biblically deluded figures are actually embracing and chivalrously defending.”

Is this how the scholarly world works? Can anyone disprove any scholarly study by saying that a scholar has been “duped” without seriously pointing out the central flaws of the author?

Furthermore, isn’t there an implicit circular argument here as well? I mean, is it not possible to disprove Ezzat’s book by saying that he has been misled without providing serious argument? How could he not see that his argument here is intellectually vacuous?


There are also emotional assertions in the book which seem to suggest that the author is grasping at straws. Consider this:

“There is something mysterious about Ancient Egypt. Something doesn’t seem right; how could the land that witnessed the first dawn of human conscience and righteousness be hit with God’s wrath as said in the Bible? This simply defies common sense to begin with.”

Let us grant that argument for a moment. Isn’t it possible that this principle could also be applied to the Hebrews as well? Didn’t thousands upon thousands of them get “hit with God’s wrath” when they stayed away from the moral law and invented their own codes in the desert and elsewhere? Didn’t the book of Numbers (Numbers 25) say that more than twenty-thousand Hebrews died in just a few days because they got involved with sexual debauchery? Didn’t they go to Babylon numerous times because of their perpetual rebellion?

Through the “Biblical narrative,” Ezzat tells us, “we see nothing in Egypt except absolute tyranny and enslavement of god’s chosen people.” He continues to say that “According to the Bible, ancient Egypt is the land of idolatry, tyranny and slavery.” Is that all we see in the “Biblical narrative”?

If that were the case, why did the writers of this “Biblical narrative” even reveal that Joseph and his brothers went to Egypt in order to have a better livelihood? Why did they account that Joseph and his brothers had a friendly relationship with the Egyptians for years? Why did Joseph have to marry an Egyptian?

Why did the genealogy of Christ include foreigners such as Canaanite and Moabite and Hittite women? In other words, why did the Old Testament have to praise people like Rahab, Ruth, Tamar, Bathsheba, among others? Why did King Solomon have to marry Pharaoh’s daughter? Why was Job, who was not even a Hebrew, part of the canon?

Furthermore, no one was exempt from God’s punishment or chastisement. If Ezzat’s argument is to be taken seriously here, why didn’t he tell his readers that there was tyranny among the Hebrews as well? In fact, the Israelites went to captivity for their constant rebellion and tyranny against their fellow men and for worshiping idols. Listen to this:

“Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the Lord, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward” (Isaiah 1:4).

Hosea also declares,

“Rejoice not, O Israel, for joy, as other people: for thou hast gone a whoring from thy God…Ye have plowed wickedness, ye have reaped iniquity; ye have eaten the fruit of lies…O Israel, return unto the Lord thy God; for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity” (Hosea 9:1, 10:13, 14:1).

The book of Micah declares that “the house of Jacob, and the princes of the house of Israel” not only “abhor judgment, and pervert all equity,” but “build up Zion with blood, and Jerusalem with iniquity” (Micah 3:9-10). For their wickedness, they were all punished again and again.

“And the Lord God of their fathers sent to them by his messengers, rising up betimes, and sending; because he had compassion on his people, and on his dwelling place: But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose against his people, till there was no remedy.

“Therefore he brought upon them the king of the Chaldees, who slew their young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary, and had no compassion upon young man or maiden, old man, or him that stooped for age: he gave them all into his hand.

“And all the vessels of the house of God, great and small, and the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king, and of his princes; all [these] he brought to Babylon.

“And they burnt the house of God, and brake down the wall of Jerusalem, and burnt all the palaces thereof with fire, and destroyed all the goodly vessels thereof.

“And them that had escaped from the sword carried he away to Babylon; where they were servants to him and his sons until the reign of the kingdom of Persia” (2 Chronicles 36:15-20).

Ezzat does not even attempt to address or raise these issues because he probably didn’t think about them before he wrote the book. They obviously weaken his arguments.


“In the Biblical story of Egypt,” Ezzat tells us, “we are faced with a narrative that is not only remote from Egyptologists but absolutely contrary to the moral Egypt and its Maat’s code of conduct the scholars of history and archeology have long discovered.”

Would all Egyptologists make that claim, or is Ezzat making a proposition which he hopes will support his thesis?

Second, having a moral code does not necessitate the idea that kings and nations are going to live according to the moral code. The United States for example has The Constitution and other legal documents, but the government hardly follows what is written in those documents.


Ezzat builds a false dichotomy in the book which certainly deserves some attention:

“Either the Egyptologists’ narrative is mistaken or the Biblical one is falsified. There is not a third option. At least if we want to be logical about it. Some argued that a third option actually exists.

“The way they see it, ancient Egypt was a great civilization throughout most of its time span, except for the period during which this infamous Pharaoh rose to power. But if that argument holds any water, how come everybody, including Egyptologists, is referring to all the kings of Egypt as Pharaohs?

“If that argument is valid, the whole of ancient Egypt would have converted to Judaism instantly after the God of the Israelites had revealed his might by destroying the land and its king (so-called Pharaoh).”

Once again, by “Egyptologists,” Ezzat means people who agree with his thesis. He knows for example a large body of scholars who do not support his premises. In fact, “Prior to the nineteenth century only a few scholars questioned the historicity of the patriarchal narratives of Genesis and stories of the sojourn-exodus and Joshua’s conquest of the land of Canaan.”[15]

Will Durant noted,

“The story of the ‘bondage’ in Egypt, of the use of the Jews as slaves in great construction enterprises, their rebellion and escape—or emigration—to Asia, has many internal signs of essential truth, mingled, of course, with supernatural interpolations customary in all the historical writing of the ancient East.”[16]

More importantly, is the statement that Egypt would have converted to Judaism if the Exodus story was true a sound argument? Is Ezzat familiar with the New Testament, where it is stated throughout that the Jewish people saw Christ’s evidence as the Messiah but rejected him anyway? Is he familiar with the widespread persecutions of Christians throughout the first century by the Pharisees, who ended up exerting a powerful influence on Rome?

If Ezzat’s argument is genuine, then the Jewish people should have accepted Christ as the Messiah by now. But that is not the case. In fact, they as a subversive group began to persecute Christians from the first century and all the way to our modern time, though things got complicated over the centuries. In A.D. 70, the Jewish Temple was destroyed and Josephus himself described the event as the judgment of God upon the Jews. Did they convert as a group?

No. Instead, they began to cook up evidence, forge lies and fabrications, accused Christians on trumped-up charges, assassinate Christians and perceived enemies, put curses and maledictions on Christians,[17] and allied with emperors in order to terrorize Christian communities.[18] Even Josephus agreed that Nero was trying to please the Jewish community and “showed favour to his [Jewish] wife Poppaea” when he started to liquidate Christians.

Historian Herbert B. Workman added:

“The Jews, working probably through Poppaea, the famous mistress and wife of Nero, whose superstitious nature led her to dally with Judaism, or through Alitururs, a favourite Jewish mime, took the opportunity of the great fire and the need for a scapegoat to save themselves and at the same time to wreak vengeance on the Christians.”[19]

“Poppaea’s influence was at the full when on June 9, 62, she obtained an order for the slaughter of Octavia, Nero’s [first] wife.”[20]

Nero’s persecution, says Workman, “stamped itself for ever upon the memory of the Church by reason of its fiendish cruelties as well as its distinguished victims.”[21]

Because they caused so much trouble throughout the empire, the Romans began to despise the Jews.

“Suetonius shows that the Jews were expelled from Rome under Claudius around A.D. 50 for causing riots in confrontations with Christians. The Jews were disliked by the Romans and frequently stirred up trouble in Rome causing them to be expelled from Rome on other occasions.”[22]

So, Ezzat is wrong again when he argues that “Egypt would have converted to Judaism instantly after the God of the Israelites had revealed his might by destroying the land and its king (so-called Pharaoh).” He is operating under the assumption that people will change their views once they see the evidence, but this hypothesis is not entirely true.

On the contrary, we have good evidence which suggests that evidence alone does not necessarily lead people to change their minds. Sometimes ideology is more powerful than evidence.

If anyone would like to challenge that claim, perhaps he should be familiar with the work of people like Aldous Huxley, Richard Lewontin, Victor J. Stenger, and even Paul Davies. Lewontin, a Harvard geneticist, put the issue quite bluntly when he stated in the New York Times Book Reviews more than a decade ago:

“We take the side of science [Darwinian evolution] in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

“It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”[23]

In a similar tone, Huxley declared,

“For myself, as for no doubt most of my contemporaries, the essence of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation…We objected to morality because it interferes with our sexual freedom.”[24]

What kind of evidence will convince people like these? Is there enough information in this world that will help them change their ideological weltanschauung?

The answer is no.


What we are seeing here is that both Ezzat and the genetic theorists seem to misrepresent the stories of the Old Testament. They do not seem to understand that that Zionism and other subversive movements which the Dreadful Few had forged over the centuries cannot be exegetically drawn from the Old Testament but from the Talmud.

On the contrary, the Old Testament is filled with “unpleasant” things to say about rebellious Israel. The children of Israel, we are told over and over, have “a rebellious heart” (Jeremiah 5:23) and are “wise to do evil” (4:22). The children of Israel “committed adultery, and assembled themselves by troops in the harlots’ houses. They were as fed horses in the morning: every one neighed after his neighbour’s wife” (5:7-8). And then this:

“Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that this place shall no more be called Tophet, nor The valley of the son of Hinnom, but The valley of slaughter. And I will make void the counsel of Judah and Jerusalem in this place; and I will cause them to fall by the sword before their enemies, and by the hands of them that seek their lives: and their carcasses will I give to be meat for the fowls of the heaven, and for the beasts of the earth. And I will make this city desolate, and an hissing; every one that passeth thereby shall be astonished and hiss because of all the plagues thereof.

And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend in the siege and straitness, wherewith their enemies, and they that seek their lives, shall straiten them. And shalt say unto them, Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Even so will I break this people and this city, as one breaketh a potter’s vessel, that cannot be made whole again: and they shall bury them in Tophet, till there be no place to bury. Thus will I do unto this place, saith the LORD, and to the inhabitants thereof…” (19:6-9, 11-12).


Like Ezzat—who asserts in several parts of his book that if one happens to take the Exodus story as genuine then he or she is part of the “historically uneducated masses” or the “hordes of gullible and uneducated masses”—the Pharisees and later the rabbis deliberately failed to see that the stories in the Old Testament were universal in scope; that is, the stories discuss unimaginable death, human suffering, injustice, anger, immorality, and ultimately spiritual redemption, which to us got their fulfillment at the foot of the cross.

The Pharisees thought that the Old Testament was about them and their “greatness,” and when they came to Jesus, they hubristically declared that “We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to anyone…”

The Pharisees and rabbis, through the Talmud, ended up distorting the Old Testament and ended up keeping the Jewish people morally and spiritually captive. It is no surprise that they falsely claim that the Old Testament justifies their immoral activity in the Middle East. They are spiritually and intellectually blind, so they used the Old Testament to support their Talmudic carnage and perversion.

This is one reason why the book of Revelation in the first century denounces them as the synagogue of Satan—people who say they are Jews but in reality are liars. And since they also trapped evangelical Christians into the same Talmudic culture, evangelical Christians, since 1948, have defended the genocidal activity of the Israeli regime.

Take for example Looney Tunes such as John Hagee. In order to make the Zionist case, Hagee had to deny that Christ never came to be the Messiah:

 

Shame on these people.


I have recently listen to the moving testimony of a rabbi’s son who actually became a Christian. He said,

“I had a big hatred for Arabs. I used my position in the army when I was stationed in Lebanon to exorcise that hatred.”

But after he became a Christian, everything changed. “I learned how to love all people and my brothers, the Arabs,” he said.

He had huge perks but lost them all shortly after his radical shift. His grandfather and all his family instantly deserted him. Before his grandfather passed away, he offered him about a million dollars if he decided to come back.

“Soon after, my grandfather’s lawyer contacted me and invited me to his office. Because I was the oldest son of my immediate family, my grandfather left me the part of the inheritance that would have gone to my father who had died some years before. 

“I walked into the office, which was also in our Orthodox town of Bnei-Brak, and he said, ‘Your grandfather left you four million shekels (which was then about one million dollars) and he left you land and a part of the house on condition that you sign right here that you don’t believe in Yeshua.

“I said, ‘I won’t do it.’ The lawyer looked at me and said, ‘Nobody’s here, just sign the paper, take the four million and do what you want.’

“I turned to the lawyer and said, ‘God is here.’

“He said, ‘If you don’t sign this paper, that money will be transferred to your family.’ I answered, ‘If that’s God’s will, so be it, but tell them Yeshua gave them the money!’ And I left.

“But the money that I gave up was not half as painful as having lost my grandfather. My own father had passed away when I was 16. I am praying for the salvation of Israel, and very specifically for the rest of my family.”

What would people like Hagee say to a person like that? Here is a son of a rabbi praying for the salvation of Israel, and here is John Hagee praying for the destruction of the Goyim, namely, Iran!

More importantly, what would the people who say that Jewish behavior is genetic say to such a man? One part of me would love to ask him, “So, tell me my brother. I’ve read that you folks have bad genes which make you all behave in a certain way. How did you get rid of them? I would very much like to know.” But the other part of me is saying that I should never insult a human being with such a dumb and morally repugnant statement.


Ezzat and the people he cites approvingly in his book do not seem to understand that the fundamental issue is theological (or Talmudic). The reason the Zionist regime is slaughtering the Palestinians is because they have learned this method from the Talmud, which is a perversion of the Old Testament.

Ezzat is right on target when he criticizes Zionism. But the major premises in his book cannot be taken seriously because they are full of holes.

 


[1] Margaret MacMillan, Dangerous Games: The Uses and Abuses of History (New York: Modern Library, 2010), 36.

[2] Christopher Behan McCullagh, Justifying Historical Descriptions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 18-24.

[3] Peter Lipton, Inference to the Best Explanation (New York: Routledge, 1991), 19-20. For similar studies, see for example Martha Howell and Walter Prevenier, From Reliable Sources: An Introduction to Historical Methods (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2001).

[4] From 2001-2009, I spent countless hours researching this very subject. This led me to study the Jewish involvement in nineteenth-century slavery. I have discussed this issue in much detail in Christianity & Rabbinic Judaism, Vol. I (Bloomington: WestBow Press, 2010).

[5] See for example Daniel C. Snell, “Slavery in the Ancient Near East,” Keith Bradley and Paul Cartledge, ed., The Cambridge World History of Slavery, Vol. I (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), chapter 1; Orlando Patterson, Slavery and Social Death: A Comparative Study (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1982); David Brion Davis, The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture (New York: Oxford University Press, 1966); for similar topics, see for example Paul E. Lovejoy, Transformations in Slavery: A History of Slavery in Africa (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000); Eugen Strouhal and Werner Forman, Life of the Ancient Egyptian (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1992), 101.

[6] Douglas J. Brewer and Emily Teeter, Egypt and the Egyptians (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 96; for similar accounts on some of these issues, see for example Orlando Patterson, Slavery and Social Death: A Comparative Study (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1982), 167, 175; David Brion Davis, The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture (New York: Oxford University Press, 1966), 32, 36, 47, 54.

[7] B. G. Trigger, B. J. Kemp, David O’Connor, and Alan B. Lloyd, Ancient Egypt: A Social History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 315.

[8] See Milton Meltzer, Slavery: A World History (New York: De Capo Press, 1993).

[9] For historical studies on these issues, see for example N. R. E. Fisher, Slavery in Classical Greece (London: Bristol Classical Press, 1993); Joseph Vogt, Ancient Slavery and the Ideal of Man (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975); Thomas Wiedemann, Greek and Roman Slavery (New York: Routledge, 1989); Keith Bradley, Slavery and Society at Rome (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994); Sandra R. Joshel, Slavery in the Roman World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010); K. R. Bradley, Slaves and Masters in the Roman Empire: A Study in Social Control (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987); Peter Garnsey, Ideas of Slavery from Aristotle to Augustine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999). I do not generally agree with the conclusions of some of those writers, but the consensus is that slavery was present in ancient Greece and Rome.

[10] For those who are interested in studying these issues, see for example Ian Shaw, ed., History of Ancient Egypt (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000); J. B. Bury, The Cambridge Ancient History: Egypt and Babylonia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011); George Rawlinson, History of Ancient Egypt (London and New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1886);  John Romer, A History of Ancient Egypt: From the First Farmers to the Great Pyramid (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2012); Will Durant, Our Oriental Heritage (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1954); L. W. King, History of Egypt, Chaldea, Syria, Babylonia, and Assyria in the Light of Recent Discovery (London: British Museum, 1906); Toby Wilkinson, The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt (New York: Random House, 2010).

[11] For an examination of Herodotus’ account, see for example James K. Hoffmeir, Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996).

[12] Ibid., ix.

[13] See for example William F. Albright, From Stone Age to Christianity (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1946); Archaeology: Historical Analogy and Early Biblical Tradition (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1966); New Horizons in Biblical Research (New York: Oxford University Press, 1966).

[14] Donald B. Redford, ed., The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, vol. II (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 212, 294, 304, 522.

[15] Hoffmeir, Israel in Egypt, viii.

[16] Will Durant, Our Oriental Heritage (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1950), kindle edition.

[17] See for example Ruth Langer, Cursing the Christians?:  A History of the Birkat Haminim (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011); Israel Jacob Yuval, Two Nations in Your Womb: Perceptions of Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages (Berkley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2006). For similar historical studies, see for example Elliott Horowitz, Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006); Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders History (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996).

[18] For historical studies on this, see for example W. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church (New York: Oxford University Press, 1965); Douglas R. A. Hare, The Theme of Jewish Persecution of Christians in the Gospel According to St. Matthew (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).

[19] Herbert B. Workman, Persecution in the Early Church: A Chapter in the History of Renunciation (London: William Clowes & Sons, 1923), 37.

[20] Ibid., 34.

[21] Ibid., 202-203.

[22] I have discussed these issues in great detail in Christianity & Rabbinic Judaism, Vol. II (Bloomington: WestBow Press, 2013).

[23] Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” NY Times Book Reviews, January 9, 1997.

[24] Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means: An Inquiry into the Nature of Ideals and into the Methods Employed for their Realization. (London: Chatoo & Windus, 1946), 273.

%d bloggers like this: