[Sorensen731]

* I don't think there's much doubt that the Khazar conversion took place. Any other 'Jews' - or whatever they called themselves - may not have recognized them as Jews. But in a de facto sense they were Jews. It's perfectly possible they were savages compared with genuine Jews, and possibly the general brutality of these modern 'Jews' was not shared with authentic 'Jews'.

Yes here, there may seem to be a difference with "old" Jews, anti-Zionist and "modern" Jews.

I do accept that the ground for modern Jews could be the East, where they split or some refuse to change into modern Jews and go to dominate the World (Europe).

But I still add that the Rotschild could not have rise up so easily, neither the Jews just with money-lending, I believe their rabies and kabbalah gave them the upper hand, call it psychology, manipulation, or just ancient knowledge. The druids moved to the Church very easily and continue in power, change one robe for another, the prophets in the desert with their sticks, sacrifices, and power to speak with the Gods... is the same, in Mesopotamia and in Celtic Druids.

It's truth it's a hard question, where did they came from, it they came, because they seem to be everywhere already, mostly, specially after the country's adoption of Christianity, which was very fast in Celtic-countries and late in Germanic-Nordic-Slavic ones.

Templars where in cahoots with the Jews, a banking empire, with laws of their own, the Jesuits too where above the law, their ships going unchecked by the Spanish Crown.

I get almost angry with the "blame it on the Russians or the Khazars"... No, I blame it on the British, until they get their shiny temple, London is and has been their headquarters for the last centuries.

Yes, the book is a bit complicated, it was the one I had most handy about the subject, search others about the same idea if you prefer. The best I have on this are in Spanish...

[FirstClassSkeptic]

Let's put the facts straight. Ruins are discovered in 1881... Why? Why where they lost?

The most probable reason is a massive terrible cataclysm, you don't loose a city, you don't waste a perfectly planned city, which can be used to save time and rebuild houses easily and cheap. You don't do that, the neighbors would use it, occupy it, or travelers, it won't go unnoticed for too long.

http://www.detroityes.com/home.htm

Detroit: Built by Whites; destroyed by niggers.

http://www.slate.com/id/2213696/

Ever notice of late, whenever archaeologists dig into some ruins, they always announce, "This was a very multicultural city. We are looking for clues as to why it came to an end."? Idiots. They just discovered the clue as to why the particular society disappeared, and political correctness doesn't allow them to see it.

[rerevisionist]

I've seen somewhat similar slideshow essays of Johannesburg, FCS.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

Yes, Johannesburg also. Very depressing looking.

I was just thinking about what is called 'racism' or 'bigotry' is really just some sort of ancestral memory. It's memory passed through the genes. An instinct. Because our ancestors saw this happen. Our instincts tell us to avoid, separate, keep away, the non-whites.

Remember that big deal a year or two ago, when they were going to open up some newly discovered chambers under some pyramid down in Mexico? Was it Chichen Izen, or such? Anyway, they opened them up, and then it was complete silence. What did they find? I always figured that they found a bunch of skeletons of White people, and they didn't want to talk about it. But I'm just guessing.

You know that the director of antiquities in Egypt won't let the public know the results of the DNA testing of the pharaohs. But the story is that on Discovery Channel, they let the camera get too close to the DNA test results, and it showed west European genetics, somehow.

[rerevisionist]

I've just been browsing what might be described as a drivel club (the late Raymond Williams had something to do with this) and here we have a short extract from a debate or discussion---

....

3. Karen Armstrong in her book Islam - A short history (Phoenix, 2001) says this:
“Muhammed’s message was simple. He taught the Arabs no new doctrines about God… Allah had created the world and would judge humanity in the Last Days, as Jews and Christians believed. Muhammed did not think that he was founding a new religion but that he was merely bringing the old faith in the One God to the Arabs… It was wrong he insisted to build a private fortune, but good to share wealth and create a society where the weak and vulnerable were treated with respect.”

4. Islam = ’surrender’. Muslims = men and women who make submission to Allah > prostrations of ritual prayer. “The Qur’ran insists strongly ’there shall be no coercion in matters of faith’ and commands Muslims to respect the beliefs of Jews and Christians whom the Qur’an calls ahl al-kitch (’people of an earlier revelation’).”

5. “The emancipation of women was dear to the Prophet’s heart. The Qur’an gave women rights of inheritance and divorce centuries before Western women were accorded such status… There’s nothing in the Qur’an that requires the veiling of all women… These customs were adopted generations later…”

6. A recent finely researched TV documentary on Channel 4 on Islam emphasised the point which Karen Armstrong makes in her book that when Muhammed built the first mosque he included a court yard where ‘all concerns… social, political and military as well as religious’ were discussed. Hence, ‘in the Qur’anic vision there is no dichotomy between the sacred and the profane, the religious and the political…’

...

She seems to specialise in telling lies. She does the same thing with Judaism. Really extraordinary.

[rerevisionist]

This thread has developed a new strand as a result of issues over the antiquity of loss of a Roman city. I've merged the 'chronology' material onto

Fundamental Revisionisms in History - & New Chronologies
11-revisionism-and-hyper-revisionism.html

where it belongs better - hope that's OK.

[rerevisionist]

This link is to Africa Addio, an Italian film released in 1966 (apparently filmed in 1964). The voiceover is Italian and this version has English subtitles, though they don't download and can't be found on the claimed file. The title means something like Farewell Africa but may (for all I know) have the undertone that (the supposedly) decolonised Africa will decline irreversibly.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4540134202583442015

It's supposed to include footage of the Congo under Moise Tshombe. And general scenes of horror. There was an American version called 'Blood and Guts' which was, apparently, and appropriately, a butchered version of the original. Over two hours long. It may have the message that blacks are dangerously violent, or modern machinery is inhuman, or whites are manipulative and violent, or extracts need context to understand them, or, since this was nearly 50 years ago, that civilisation is uncertain. I haven't watched it yet.

[rerevisionist]

Another topic which is more-or-less censored is the 'Hindu Kush' issue. This is a large area (something like the area of India, or of Tibet) with the Himalayas to the north east, and the Khyber Pass to the northwest. That pass is (they say) one of the few routes into/out of India. Kashmir and Punjab are regions there (subsumed into the manufactured name 'Pakistan'). As far as I know Will Durant (William James Durant, 1885-1981) in his H G Wells-style History of Civilization 'popularised' the topic in the USA - Muslim invasions, he said, being the bloodiest in human history. It seems to be somewhat censored - the Indian government education policy appears to be to avoid any mention, for example, and Arthur Kemp, a British nationalist, in his book Jihad, doesn't mention it at all, but concentrates on Islam invading Europe. I'm pretty sure the BBC, which now and then does pro-Islam broadcasts, never has mentioned it.

Some Indians, unsurprisingly, have views on it - a noted historian K.S. Lal in his book ‘Growth of Muslim population in Medieval India’ concluded that about 60 to 80 million Hindus died between 1000 and 1525 CE as a result of the Islamic invasion of India. In view of the difficulties with the terrain, I'd guess Lal was referring mostly to plains dwellers in India. Indeed one of the claims of the 'Hindu Kush' region is that Hindus died in transit, in the process of being taken north as slaves, or for other purposes.