Friday, July 29, 2011

The Truth About 9/11 - Rev. Dr. Matthew F. Hale

The Truth about 9-11: How Jewish Manipulation Killed Thousands - Book now completely free here - in one downloadable PDF file

This is now available online in PDF format. You can choose from one of two files. Both formats are roughly 5.4 MB:

This version of the book has one page per sheet (8.5 x 11-inch), and is useful for printing or reading in normal view. Click here to see in normal view in PDF format:

And this version is useful for printing out in booklet format, with two pages per sheet. (For printing out in booklet format at somewhere like Kinkos Copies, you'd tape one set of two side-by-side pages to the back of another, then select the print option for both sides.) Click here to see in booklet-view in PDF format:

Read below for more about this book, or to view in HTML, one-page at a time, linked one after another, which can be found at the bottom of this article.


Not too long before Rev. Dr. Matthew F. Hale was arrested on contrived charges, he had published a book that told the inner-details of what occurred on September 11, 2001. Some feel that Rev. Dr. Hale was actually arrested for writing this book. Certainly, the charges against him were entrapment at best. (A government agent, Tony Evola, said that he [Evola] wanted to commit a grand crime, to which Rev. Dr. Hale responded that he wanted nothing to do with it. This was the sole reason for Rev. Dr. Hale's imprisonment.)

Convicted under the Patriot Act, an act designed to punish American patriots for daring to put America's best interests before Israel, Rev. Dr. Hale has been denied proper legal representation and has not been allowed to adequately defend himself in court. This is Big Brother's way of hiding His crimes: arresting people on bogus charges and not allowing them to properly fight the charges.

This book--now here in HTML format--tells the entire truth: The terrorists attacked America because of its support for Israel, and Israel knew of the terrorists' plans but did not inform America so that America might become more entangled in the Mid-East conflict and side with Israel. Further, there is credible evidence to suggest that Israel not only allowed this to occur but might have possibly assisted said terrorists with this entire process simply to ensure that the ensuing hatred against the Arab states would be created by a successful mission.

Big Brother does not want you to read this book. It cannot be refuted, and proves beyond the shadow of a doubt its claims: that Israel knew about 9-11 beforehand, that Israel allowed 9-11 to occur with the hope of getting America involved in its wars (such as Iraq, though the Israelis want Iran next), and that Israel might have been involved in the entire nefarious ordeal.

These claims are not idle chatter but easily verified facts within this highly detailed and footnoted expose'. Doubt if you may; but if you dare to read this book, you will discover it is indeed true without question. The facts are there; the facts are publicly available. And now you can see the facts for yourself in this well-researched and footnoted book. NO BOOK ON THE INTERNET OR ELSEWHERE PROVES THIS ARGUMENT BETTER THAN REV. DR. MATT HALE'S BOOK.

If you like this book, please consider making a donation to Matt's father to assist with Rev. Dr. Hale's ongoing legal fees:

Russell Hale
217 Randolph St.
East Peoria, Illinois 61611

Russell Hale has no part in this website, and did not ask for a donation. But he needs your help. He has already mortgaged his home. Again, he needs your help. And so does his son. Don't let the Patriot Act get away with silencing one more American Patriot: Free Rev. Dr. Matthew Hale!

CLICK HERE - - to begin the journey if you'd like to view the HTML version; use your "Favorite Places" to bookmark where you left off. Of course, if you start reading this, you will find it very difficult to stop, because what you uncover will shock you.

80 pages of the most informative book you will ever read.

Once you start reading this, you'll want to finish it, as it tells the chilling story of what truly occurred on that fateful day.

Thursday, July 21, 2011

The Key To Winning The Battle For Truth - Avoid Mistruths And Distractions

The events taking place cannot occur without the consent of the brainwashed...and this is the situation I hope to illustrate.

Israel has the unflinching support of those who call themselves "Christian Zionists" - these are the people who (besides the fifth columnists in our government) support Israel's actions with funding and blind loyalty.

But...what if the reason for their blind support is a very craftily manufactured LIE?

I have wondered long and hard the day I was confronted by one of these maniacs, who out of the blue, blurted out his support of Israel, because he was a Zionist...a Zionist black man.


So...this is a question that, not having been answered to my satisfaction, has awaited resolution.

Recently, I came across some information regarding the Scofield Bible. It seems that the document is a FORGERY...much the way that the Protocols of The Elders of Zion have been labeled...except that the information offered by the Protocols can be seen in everyday life; whereas the Scofield Bible has been altered to make references to a land that DOESN'T EXIST.

According to the information offered, at the time of the writing of the Bible, the word "Jew" did not exist; "Israel" was a reference to a PERSON...NOT a LAND.

Please go to this link: - there is audio along with the slideshow...take a moment to check it out.

I am coping the information from We Hold These Truth's webpage, just in case it is "Orwellized":

Christian Scripture: The Zionist Deception

Charles E. Carlson Jun 20, 2009

Judeo-Christianity is less than 200 years old. The Jewish Zionism movement has played the key part in assuring its growth. We see the result in the creation of a new “Christianity” which in its extreme form is known as Christian Zionism. It was first fed by Oxford University Press’s Scofield Reference Bible published in New York in 1908. and updated several times. Bible editors, including Oxford, have failed to correct obvious changes in common usage of words, such as "Jew" and "Israel" that provide misleading, Zionist friendly inferences.

Oxford sold a new 20th Century theology to evangelical seminaries. The Scofield usage has become a standard in most study or reference Bibles used by a wide range of evangelicals, and even penetrating into mainline church bible studies and broadcast media. These books are the subject of many articles by this author and others.1

Apostle Paul’s Book of Romans provides an inspiring account of the struggle to convert spiritually empty Israelites and agnostic Greeks to Jesus’ Way in the First Century. Christian Zionism teaches that Paul was talking about, not his own generation, but the State of Israel created 1900 years after his death. They argue that Political Israel is uniquely blessed by God, and that Christians must also revere, honor, and love it else they will suffer God’s punishment.

Several words are still found in our Bibles that did not exist at the time of Jesus and his followers, and could not have been words they used, but words that were placed there in the Sixteenth Century versions. Examples are:

Jesus: there was no "J" in the Aramaic, Greek, or Hebrew languages. I know Arabs named Issa, after Jesus. However Jesus’ name is not an issue because it has only one meaning.

"Jew": there was no such word in the First Century. Not only was there no “J” but it is used in improper historical contexts in the New Testament; The continued misuse of "Jew" in the bibles since 1947 implies that Jews today might be expected to have some of the same gene pool and beliefs as an Israelite of 3000 years ago. Most do not.

"Judean": a place that began with the Greek letter Iota (I) and is used in scripture as both a place and a people. This may be the actual word from which the mistranslation of the word Jew is derived. In many instances the popular translations still use “Jew” where the original Greek text clearly read Ioudaia, or in our vernacular, one who lived in Judea.

"Israel": does appear in the original Greek New Testament texts, but only as a people, never as a place. Paul used Israel in several contexts: first as an ancient tribe named after the man, Israel; as the specific belief system or religion of that tribe, as an example, Paul used “Israelite” to describe himself and a few faithful followers of the Abrahamic code; finally, “Israel” means all those of all races who follow the Messiah, Jesus in the New Covenant under God. Paul does not use Israel as a place or country.2

A typical, doctored, Judeo-Christian presentation is found in a little Bible bookmark distributed by a local Judeo-Christian church. In every case it uses "Jew", Judean, and Israel for the end purpose of connecting the New Testament to the modern political place or state of Israel. These are the main points on the bookmark:
“Christians should pray especially for ISRAEL because of…"

“The close relationship between Israel, God’s purpose for Israel, and the true church.”

“God’s command with special promise of blessings (for Israel).”

“The church can not be complete without the select remnant of Israel.”

“It is God’s will that all Israel will be saved”

“The scriptural directive, “to the Jews first”

“The great multitude to be saved in the future through their (Jews’) ministry.”

This bookmark tract works to synthesize Christianity with Judaism. My response is to parody a familiar marriage ceremony verse, what God separated let no man try to put back together.

The Christians must pray for Israel tract contains a list of 39 bible references, 14 from the book of Romans. Its unnamed author claims that all these passages support the assumption that the new political state of Israel is a fulfillment of God’s plan. They do not. Unfortunately the reader must read each passage in its own context to find the error. The Judeo-Christian amalgamation depends upon the reader not reading. In the interest of brevity I will answer those from Romans.4

I ask a simple question. Who or what did Judeo-Christians think “Israel” was pre-1947, before there was a political state of Israel? If “Israel” of the bible today means the present day State of Israel, what did it mean a hundred years before there was such a State? It should be obvious that Israel meant then, and still means, one of the three contexts in which Paul used it, none of which was a place or a state.

The Christian New Testament answers this vital question many times, stating again and again that those who follow Christ are the New Covenant sons of Abraham. It is uncontested by Christians, Muslims, and Torah Jews that the man “Israel” was the grandson of Abraham. All but Jews believe from his linage the Messiah was to come. In Galatians 3:28-29, Apostle Paul stated: There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Whoops, the Christian Zionist track lists this passage, but it conveniently leaves off the last sentence about those who belong to Jesus being the sons of Abraham and heirs to the promise, the new Israel of God. Why is this part left off by Judeo-Christians? Because it refutes the notion that modern, political Israel is God's chosen people.

Paul amplified on this answer in the book of Romans when he referred to himself as an “Israelite” among the living remnant of the ancient faith. He taught that the remnant who had not abandoned the faith of Abraham were also the new Israel if they followed Jesus.

The word “Jew” did not exist when Jesus, Paul, and the Disciples lived and when later their words were scribed in Greek. We cannot be sure what they called their faith, if not The Way or followers of Jesus. "The lost sheep of the House of Israel,” were their first converts and the first Disciples.

Many centuries later, translators, such as the committee who did the King James Edition, replaced the words recorded in the Greek texts with the convenient little modern word “Jew.” In most cases, Paul seems to have used Judeans (or Ioudeans ) for those secularized descendants of once faithful Israelites. The translators simplified the multiple language problem and renamed those whom Paul was trying to convert as either “Jews” or “Gentiles?” Some translators might have enjoyed pinning the Jew name on those who killed Jesus.

Israeli “Jews” could not have killed Jesus

Israeli Jews are almost all Ashkenazi, or “Eastern European Jewish persons of a different stock,” to quote Wikipedia. They lack the Arab gene pool, only a very few have ancestors who were ever in the holy land. Their recorded in many volumes, some found in synagogue libraries. A good source is Andrew Hurley‘s, Holocaust II: Saving Israel from Suicide.3

Jews first claimed to have Arab lineage by inference after Israel was declared a State in 1947. The Jews came there from Europe claiming the Right of aliyah, or Law of Return (1950). Suddenly the word “Jew” was reinterpreted in the New Testament to mean “the chosen people” who were “returning” from Europe! Christians started to send them money. It was beneficial to find their religion named all over the Christian bible…how could Christians oppose their “return” even though most had no roots in the Middle East? This paved the way for political Christian Zionism to flourish.

The Apostle Paul said in the book of Romans that God had blinded the eyes of the corrupted Israelites on account of their long unrepentant sins. Jesus, John the Baptist, and Apostle Paul all addressed the Pharisees variously as Generation of vipers and sons of Satan. The borrowed biblical name “Israel” is a convenient one for Zionists, it is the basis of their claim to the Palestinians’ land.

It is not unusual that people to not name their own faith because they see it as the only faith. Christian was not part of Jesus’ or Paul’s vocabulary. As best we know, they called their new faith something very simple, perhaps “The Way.” And as we stated they might have referred to themselves as followers of Christ or Jesus. Paul called himself an “Israelite” not a Jew. Jesus was called a Galilean, not a Jew. The Roman governor Pilate, placed a sign on his cross, Iesous Rex Ioudaia, wrongly translated Jesus King of Jews.

Traditional Christians, from Catholics to Baptists, have always believed that the “Israel” of Paul’s letters are those who followed Jesus. Only Judeo-Christians of the present millennium deny it.

In contrast to the ancient Way, modern Judeo-Christianity began no earlier than 1850 in the U.S. with persons converted by Scotsman John Nelson Darby. Evangelical Dispensationalism had a limited following until after 1948, when Israel became a State and Oxford University Press wrote political Israel into the bible as a fulfillment of prophesy. This helped to explode it into the world’s newest major religion.

Paul taught that only followers of Christ (no matter what race, religion, sex, or age they live in) are the New Covenant sons of Abraham and spiritual heirs to Jesus’ kingdom…a heavenly kingdom, not an earthly one. Judeo Christians, in contrast, believe “All Israel will be saved,” meaning literally all Jews, and that Jesus’ Kingdom is yet to come, will be on earth first, then for some, including themselves, in heaven. Paul was certainly not a Christian Zionist.

To understand the level of Zionist deceit and the propensity of Judeo Christians to self-deceit we only look at the acts and statements of the venerated Jewish state. In a story in Jewish World titled Why Not Intermarry, by Rabbi Shraga Simmons, we read these amazing words from a self-professed Zionist:

"Jewish survival is not merely an ethnic issue, but also a moral issue, because the Jews are not only an ethnic group, they are a moral force. The values that the civilized world takes for granted -- monotheism, love your neighbor, peace on earth, justice for all, universal education, all men are created equal, dignity of the individual, the preciousness of life -- were all revolutionary ideas taught by the Jewish people. The Jews as a moral force continues to this day… this is not to say that only Jews are capable of conscience or of goodness. It is to say that of all the nations throughout world history, only the Jews have defined their national mission as bringing moral clarity to the world.”

Has this Rabbi ever heard of Gaza or Lebanon? He has indeed, for he lives in Israel, and he holds up the aborting, warring, atheistic state of Israel to be “the moral force for the world.”

Rabbi Simmons: “The experience of visiting Israel is the quintessential act of Jewish self-discovery. Being in an "all-Jewish" environment steeped in millennia of history, Israel provides a new perspective on the role of the Jewish people in the world, and of each Jew's personal connection.”

Zionists are, and must be, propagandists. They must be willing to call black white even if you are looking them in the eye. I wish there was no reader left on the planet who did not know what Israeli Jews have done to the Palestinians and the Lebanese.

Judeo Christians say they believe in confessing the sins in their own lives, but they refuse to see the sins and brutality of Zionists. They have allowed themselves to make Israel an evil object of worship. Only when Christian Zionists’ support for Israel collapses in shame will political Israel be compelled to start practicing morality and justice toward its neighbors.

1 Roots of Christian Zionism, Scofield’s Bible Distortions. Power point show:

2 Concordant Greek Text, Concordant Literal New Testament and Keyword Concordance, Concordant Publishing Concern, Canyon Country CA

3 Hurley, Andrew J, Holocaust II: Saving Israel From Suicide See also"Shlomo Sand: "When & How Was the Jewish People Invented?" - and

4 Book of Romans: examining the book of Romans from the prospective of those who say we must pray for the State of Israel. (NIV) Answers by author.

Romans 1:16 - I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.
Answer by CEC: Whoops, remember there was no “Jew” in the time of Paul. First to the Israelites of Paul‘s time, not the Zionists Jews of today.

Romans 1: 16 – I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.
Answer by CEC Yes indeed, Jesus is good for mankind, even including Israelis, but nowhere do they get a free ride!

Romans 2:9-10 - 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile;10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.
Answer by CEC: Whoops again, remember, no “Jew” in the time of Paul, Just Ioudeans, and where does Paul say he is talking about someone two thousand years in the future? He does not. And, where is Zionist Israel in this, 2000 years later?

Romans 9: 1-5 - 1 I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit— 2 I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4 the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

Answer by CEC: Paul is a missionary, lamenting for “the sake of my brothers, those of my own race.” Paul sees the fallen Israelites (probable including his own family) as going to hell if they do not follow Jesus’ Way. How natural that is, but this has nothing to do with Zionists from Europe who chanced along two thousand years later...if it does, show me!

Romans 11:5 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace.
Answer by CEC: Does this not speak of a “remnant” in Paul’s time, an even the patriarchs like Abraham before his time? Where does Paul or Jesus mention future state of political Israel?

Romans 11: 11– Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12

Answer by CEC: No, no, again...Paul repeats so you will get it, Get it?

Romans 11:12 - But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!
Answer by CEC: Paul is an optimist where his relative are concerned. But never claimed to be a prophet into the 21st Century.

Romans 11: 23-27 23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!
All Israel Will Be Saved. 25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. 27 And this is[f] my covenant with them when I take away their sins.”

Answer by CEC: Paul has good news for his relatives, stop disbelieving, its not too late! Yes, it's fine to pray for the people of political Israel, that each one may find Christ; but don't waste your effort praying for an evil, criminal murderous state.

Romans 11: 28-32 - 28 As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29 for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable. 30 Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God's mercy to you. 32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

Answer by CEC. Is this not Paul lecturing to his contemporaries about God’s mercy and justice for all mankind. It has nothing to do with any state in the future. God deals with men one on one, according to Paul, not with politics. Paul says all those who believe in Jesus are the New Israel of God.

Romans 11: 11-15
– 11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring! 13I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry 14in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?
Romans 11: 25 – I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.
Romans 11:32 - For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

Answer by CEC Was this not “Israel,” the one Paul knew about? Paul did not mention a future secular state that assumes a three thousand year-old name.
Answer by CEC: Is this getting tedious for you ? It is for me...the Christian Zionist technique is always based on deception because the truth will not work. All literature, including the New Testament, is written to be read in context, not in fragments, as they would have us read it. Any story must be viewed as the author wrote it, one continuous story, not a scrabble game of scripture scraps and pieces, not a jigsaw puzzle to be solved, as Christian Zionists always present it. If one reads the entire book of Romans it is clear that God is using the Messiah Jesus to reach all men one by one, and not all will respond. In God's eyes there is no Greek, Israelite, atheist or Jew 2000 years later. Each person may choose to come to God or die without God. There is no doubt why Paul, the converted Israelite, aimed this 11th chapter of Romans at his living breathing relatives.
(End of Bible verses cited on the tract, all those from the book of Romans.)

5 "Why Not Intermarry" - Rabbi Shagra Simmons:

If this information is correct...then those who refer to themselves as "Christian Zionists" are aiding and abetting murder, occupation of land, terror, assassination and any and all crime perpetrated against the indigenous populations, all for a FANTASY.

There will be NO RAPTURE.

There will be NO BALL OF FIRE.


Not for you deluded sheep.

Saturday, July 2, 2011

Was King Tut "Jesus"? An Excerpt From Michael Bradley's Attack On America

The biblical Hebrews were absolutely unique among Caucasus invaders in their refusal to adopt goddesses from the older Mediterranean-to- India civilization. Most of the Caucasus invaders did so to a greater or lesser degree. The characteristic symptom that these Mesopotamian, Persian and Greco-Roman empires were still at least somewhat psychosexually balanced and transitional is that, except for the Hebrews, they still preserved a place for vital and powerful goddesses in their religions. It is true, however, that in some of these cultures many of the goddesses had been demoted to be mere "wives" of the major thunder-and-lightning sky gods.

In Europe, the Greco-Roman or "Hellenistic" polytheistic and pagan civilization was the last muted whisper of a much older "Ice Age" Western culture that had existed, in at least some basic respects, since the so-called "Upper Paleolithic" about 20,000 BC.

Only in Egypt did the Great Goddess, called Isis in this area, manage to retain her position as the major deity until 31 BC just before the start of the orthodox so-called "Christian Era". The son and husband of Isis, under many names, was the messiah originally worshipped in a very recognizable Christian form since about 6000 BC in the predynastic Nile delta.

Messiah was originally an Egyptian word, not a Hebrew word or concept, and actual recognizable Christianity had been worshipped since 1400 BC along the Nile. It became the official state religion of Egypt under the Greek Ptolomies about 320 BC. Many people may eventually come to practice "true Christianity" again. Egyptian Messiah elsewhere on this site may interest some readers.

As for the biblical Hebrews themselves, those stubbornly male-dominant descendants of very ancient Caucasus invaders of Palestine, they embarked upon one of the greatest self-delusions in intellectual history.

And, determined to believe firmly in it, they were able to pull off deceptions that fooled at least two foreign powers: possibly Ancient Egypt in circa 1375 BC and certainly Persia (circa 530 BC) and the
United States (AD 1947) and one strong foreign religious influence -- Christianity. These manipulations still cause wars and headlines.

This history is much too complicated and convoluted to cover fully in a "brief" essay-overview like this. Details are provided in Majestic 5 and Egyptian Messiah elsewhere on this Site. But a sketchy outline, at least, is absolutely necessary and it is offered here.

Modern archaeology in the "Holy Land" between 1910 and the present has not turned up any definitely identifiable Hebrew artifacts that are older than about 850 BC. But be warned that just the right artifacts, of just the right pre-850 BC age, are very likely to be conveniently "discovered" as the present Israeli-Palestinian conflict intensifies.

It is evident that the Hebrews in Palestine had always remained a minor part of the "Middle Eastern" population that found a niche only around Jerusalem among the dominant Philistines. Our modern word "Palestine" derives from Philistine. And the Philistines gradually became known as the Phoenicians who dominated the region up until the very well-known historical time of the Persian conquests and the subsequent victory of Alexander the Great.

One of the characteristics of the Neanderthal mindset is a hunger for "identity in the dimension of time" and this comes from the "war of physical and glacial adaptations" referred to earlier. This Neanderthal hunger for identity in the dimension of time is the basic argument of The Iceman Inheritance.

Biblical Hebrews saw a chance to enhance and exaggerate their importance and their identity when Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon attacked Jerusalem in 597 BC and again in 587 BC. He carried much of Jerusalem's population off to captivity in Babylon.

Possibly in order to encourage and reinforce the threatened cultural cohesion and identity of their captive people, Hebrew scribes, priests and tribal historians ("rabbis") concocted a glorious past history for them. As the Old Testament would have it...

Briefly, after the Exodus from Egypt under Moses (circa 1350 BC), the Children of Israel spent "forty years" in the wilderness of the Sinai Peninsula. They subsisted on the oily food called "manna from heaven" supplied by the Lord. This miracle of manna was absolutely necessary to the mythic Old Testament "history". Everyone in Palestine knew that there was not enough food or water in the moonscape of the Sinai Peninsula for a horde of the traditional size to have survived for even one year, never mind the biblical forty.

Because of his past sins, Moses himself, although the greatest leader of the Chosen People, was not permitted to enter the Promised Land and "no man" knows where his tomb is. The popular Hebrew folk tradition and accepted fact that Moses had never led the Israelites into the "Promised Land" of Palestine had to be dealt with...somehow. A punishment by the Lord for his past sins seemed the best "explanation".

The successor of Moses, called Joshua ben Nun, conquered the "Promised Land" of Palestine, then occupied by the Canaanites, Philistines and other tribes. There is a very deep psychological story behind this "Joshua ben Nun" (i.e. Jesus, son of the Fish), but we cannot go into everything in a "brief" psychobiological over-view of Western history as this essay purports to be. The land taken by this "Joshua" was apportioned between the 12 tribes of Israel (circa 1300 BC). But there was continual opposition from the former inhabitants, especially from the Philistines.

This initial conquest was followed by about four hundred years of leadership by judges and popular tribal leaders, during which time the Mosaic Laws were gradually adopted by at least most of the Israelites. At the end of this period, the Israelites asked their most prominent prophet or leader, Samuel, to establish a kingship. The first Israelite king, Saul, displeased the Lord by not committing genocide thoroughly enough against some Amalekites and was deposed.

The second king of the Hebrews, a great king named David, consolidated Joshua's conquest against mainly the Philistines and established a great "empire" from the Nile to the Euphrates (David was traditionally crowned in 1063 BC). David's son, Solomon, ruled this empire during a long lifetime (circa 950 BC) before, on his death, the single empire broke up into two strong kingdoms.

The northern kingdom called "Israel" had its capital in Samaria. The southern kingdom of "Judah" had its capital in Jerusalem.

According to this "history", Assyria attacked the northern kingdom of Israel in 722-721 BC, utterly defeated it and carried all of its people off to some unknown fate. These are the ten "Lost Tribes" of Israel.

Then, a little more than a century later, Nebudchadnezzar of Babylonia attacked the southern kingdom of Judah and carried off the population of Jerusalem into the "Babylonian Captivity". But Babylon, in its turn, was conquered about seventy years afterwards by Cyrus the Great of Persia. He freed the Israelites and allowed them to return to their beloved Jerusalem and the Promised Land.

Now, it cannot be said too strongly that there is absolutely no archaeological evidence for any of this concocted history in Palestine.

Most of this so-called "history" takes place before 850 BC and the time of the very first carbon-dated Hebrew artifacts in Palestine. And also and just as important as archaeology, this Hebrew "history" does not agree with any of the other chronicles and histories of any of the neighbouring peoples around Palestine. But these other cultural records do agree with archaeology in the general region of Palestine.

There was no conquest of Palestine by Joshua. No empire of David and Solomon in Palestine. No two strong kingdoms of Israel and Judah in Palestine.

Although Assyria did attack Palestine in 722-721 BC and it was certainly a traumatic event in Palestine, there is no prior archaeological evidence of these "Lost Tribes" and no archaeological evidence of Hebrew occupation of Samaria and the area around it.

The disappearance of what must have been the majority of the supposed "Hebrew" population in Palestine did handily and conveniently explain, however, what had happened to the necessarily large population of David and Solomon's empire. This empire had supposedly existed just two centuries before Assyria's assault on Palestine. But as every Hebrew knew very well, there was no large remnant population of Hebrews or Israelites in Palestine circa 520 BC when Cyrus the Great "restored" them to rule of the "Holy Land".

These "Ten Lost Tribes" were an absolutely necessary corollary myth to support the primary myth of an ancient Israelite empire in Palestine.

It was a time when few people were literate, and the Israelite captives in Babylon had been torn from their roots and tribal continuity anyway, and so they believed this "history" when their priests recited it.

But more to the point, someone else believed it.

Cyrus the Great of Persia attacked and defeated Babylon in 538 BC. The biblical hero Daniel had been the cupbearer to one of the defeated Babylonian co-kings, Belshazzar...and he became cupbearer to the conqueror Cyrus too. He became more than a cupbearer, he became something of a friend and advisor to Cyrus because Cyrus knew little or nothing about the various peoples that Babylon had subjugated during its long career of conquest. This local knowledge was important for the ongoing rule of Persia's new lands.

In brief, Daniel convinced Cyrus the Great that this concocted Hebrew history was true. And he convinced Cyrus to "restore" the Hebrews to the control of Palestine. This Cyrus did between 538 BC and 518 BC, and he sent elements of the Persian army to back-up and support the Hebrew occupation and rule of Palestine.

As the Bible tells us, the native Palestinians did not like the situation any more then than they did some 2,450-odd years later in AD 1947 when the Jews pulled off the same ploy for the second time with the creation of the modern state of Israel.

The truly significant difference was that in 1947-1948 modern Israel was to be populated by Ashkenazi "Jews" and not even by biblical Jews. The only military and tactical difference was the minor point that in 1947-1948 the Americans substituted for Persians. But the Americans acted with the same gung-ho military activity as the Persians had done and with the same lack of basic research and verification.

It is very obvious, though, that the so-called "Holocaust" of the Nazi era and World War II played an important part in creating American and even world sympathy for those Central European "Jews" who survived. This sympathy permitted North American "Jews", using Hollywood movies publicly and much money privately, to lobby for and promote the creation of modern Israel as a place where the "always-victimized 'Jews' " could be safe.

Precisely because this so-called "Holocaust" played so crucial a role in the establishment of modern Israel, the following history may prove to be extremely enlightening for some readers. Perhaps we should take another long and very objective look at claims for this so-called "Holocaust" ...and, while we are doing so, it would be nice to define it.

Because so much of Western geopolitics is still based on the "history" of the Old Testament incorporating as its basic theme a traditional Jewish homeland in the "Promised Land" of Palestine, it might be worth at least a very brief look at the story told by archaeology, linguistics and other traditions. What actually happened?

The first thing to admit is that there is not enough publicly-released data to construct an alternative history that can be supported by objective scientific evidence. For example, one of Israel's most prominent archaeologists, Dr. Ze'ev Herzog of Tell Aviv University, does not even think that the Israelites ever resided in Egypt and left in the so-called "Exodus". There is no known Egyptian or other account recording the specifically Israelite residence in Egypt, their bondage there and their supposed Exodus. There are no known and identifiable "Hebrew" artifacts of the proper "bondage-and-Exodus" historical period in Egypt.

Herzog thinks that the nomadic Hebrews just trickled into Palestine from the general direction of Sumeria and kept a low profile as minor herdsmen among the resident Canaanites and later Philistines. There was no period of residence and "bondage" in Egypt, no "Exodus" from Egypt, no Israelite conquest of Canaan, no Israelite empire of David and Solomon and no successor kingdoms of Israel and Judah. For Jewish-Israeli archaeologist Ze'ev Herzog, it is all pure myth.

Nonetheless, their Egyptian residence, bondage and Exodus is such a strong motif and focus to Hebrew history that many researchers have believed that there must be at least a kernel of truth to it. Scraps of evidence from various sciences have now begun to suggest, not prove, an outline of real Israelite history that can accommodate the "Exodus".

It was, yet again, Howard Carter's discovery of Tutankhamun's tomb in 1922 and study of the artifacts all during the late 1920s and mid-1930s that gave the first clue to the actual nature of the Exodus story.

By the late 1930s, enough was known about Tutankhamun and his close relatives to make a shrewd guess as to who "Moses" had really been and what the "Exodus" had truly represented. None other than Sigmund Freud first suggested the following general reconstruction in Moses and Monotheism (1939). This is possibly because Sigmund Freud knew Howard Carter personally and may have been told certain things that were not made public in Carter's famous book, The Tomb of Tutankhamun (3 vols: 1933).

Carter's discoveries in the tomb of Tutankhamun became something of an "international incident" during the 1920s and 1930s when the famous "curse of the mummy" gained public notoriety. This curse was shown to have been real, all right, in September 2002 with the publication in Great Britain of The Exodus Conspiracy based on dramatic revelations in Howard Carter's private letters.

Carter had found papyrus records in Tutankhamun's tomb that disclosed the real story of Moses and the Exodus. This was a secret that Howard Carter kept during his lifetime at the request of British Government officials.

Although the exact contents or present location of these papyrus records are still not known, archaeological and linguistic discoveries since 1922 have made it increasingly clear what the Exodus was all about. It seems that the deaths caused by this supposed "curse of the mummy" had a purely earthly and mundane origin in Zionist assassins trying to preserve a Jewish and Zionist claim to part of "Palestine". The 1920s and 1930s were a critical time in the development of modern Israel.

Just five years before the discovery of Tutankhamun's tomb, the British Government had committed itself, in a 1917 letter to Lord Rothschild, to the so-called "Balfour Declaration" establishing the principle of British support for a "traditonal Jewish homeland in Palestine".

All during the time that Tutankhamun's treasures were being studied and the "curse of the mummy" was claiming its 1920s and 1930s victims from among those who knew Carter personally, Zionists were busy settling in Palestine. Nothing could be allowed to prevent or disrupt this initial Jewish settlement of what later became modern Israel. Because of the immense public interest in "King Tut" and the "curse of the mummy", Howard Carter's papyrus records from the tomb of Tutankhamun could possibly have done just that.

For those who are a bit puzzled as to why modern Britain has so staunchly supported President George Bush in his Middle East policies, the answer is not only Britain's desperate need for Iraqi oil.
The fact is that Britain first made modern Israel possible. The U.S. did not "invent" Israel, as Britain's Balfour Declaration did, but only supported Zionists with UN endorsement of modern Israel and with more resources than Britain could supply after World War II. The "curse of the mummy" still haunts Britain's policy in the Middle East.

It is, perhaps, no accident that the wife of Howard Carter's sponsor, Lord Carnarvon, was the illegitimate daughter of the same Lord Rothschild to whom the Balfour Declaration was addressed. Lord Carnarvon, the very first victim of the so-called "mummy's curse", had already written to the British Museum about these papyrus records found in the tomb of Tutankhamun when he was suddenly taken ill because of an "insect bite". When he seemed to be recovering, his loving wife came out from England to "nurse" him back to health. He died less than a week after she arrived in Cairo.

Here is a very brief version of the apparently real story of the Exodus.

It is thought that Tutankhamun's supposed father and (much more certainly) predecessor was the heretical Pharaoh Akenaten who believed in just the One God, "Aten". Most books on Egyptian history written by conventional Egyptologists have presented Akenaten as being a purely Egyptian product. But from the late 1930s, and much more especially since Ahmed Osman's work in the 1980s and 1990s, there has been increasing reason to doubt this view. It seems that the One God "Aten" was known and worshipped in biblical Goshen even before Akenaten was born.

The biblical "Land of Goshen" boasted a number of fairly large lakes. These were marshes left in the lowlands of northeastern Egypt by the "Ice Age" rainy periods, or "pluvials", that substituted for snow in warmer Egypt. The Nile may also have fed these marshes after the end of the "Ice Age" by saturating the lowlands of the Nile Delta, especially the more pronounced depressions. The present Suez Canal makes use of these same depression and marshes.

We will remember that this "Land of Goshen" was the very place where the Old Testament says that the Israelites settled when they relocated into Egypt to escape famine. The major town of Goshen was called Avaris. It is also known that the Hyksos or "Shepherd Kings", when they invaded Egypt, made their capital at Avaris. This town and fortress was on the shores of one of the lakes. Ancient Egyptian records show that a barge on one of the lakes of Goshen near Avaris was named Aten Gleams during the reign of Amenhotep III, Akenaten's father, about twenty years before Akenaten was born.

The "Lord Aten", the One God, may therefore have been a genuine Hebrew conception that came into Goshen in the vicinity of Avaris with the Hyksos-led invasion of Caucasus people. The reason why an Egyptian pharaoh, the famous or infamous Akenaten, came to worship Aten leads us to yet another complication.

It seems that Amenhotep III first married his sister, a little girl called Sitamun, and a supposed Isis-descendant, in the approved Ancient Egyptian manner in order to ascend to the throne. Sitamun may have been only three years old at the time. But he then fell heavily in love with Tiye, a girl from Goshen who was either Hebrew or half-Hebrew. Amenhotep III married Tiye and, against all previous Egyptian custom, made her his "Great Royal Wife" -- meaning that she would be the mother of his heir.

Indeed, it was none other than Amenhotep III who presented Tiye with a pleasure barge named Aten Gleams mentioned above. This means that Amenhotep III must have known that Tiye and her Hebrew relatives in Goshen were generally considered to be worshippers of "Aten". Amenhotep III enlarged the existing lake in order to give Aten Gleams more scope for short cruises and, from the timing of things, Ahmed Osman thinks that Akenaten was very probably conceived on the barge in Year 6 of Amenhotep III's reign. Tiye is thought to have been about 14-16 years old at the time. Queen Tiye is now thought to have been the mother of the heretic pharaoh Akenaten who introduced the worship of Aten to all of Egypt.

But Amenhotep III wasn't blind to the potential implications of what he had done. Any son born of his union with Tiye could not be, by definition, a son of an Isis-descendant as Ancient Egyptian custom had demanded from "time immemorial" (i.e. about 6000 BC). He therefore apparently ordered that any son of himself and Tiye was to be killed at birth. This was to preserve the Egyptian customs of royal succession. And here we have the outlines of the biblical Old Testament account of the birth of Moses.

I think that we can also see here the outlines of a Hebrew "honey trap", as modern intelligence agencies would call it. That is to say, a sexual machination to insinuate the Goshen Hebrews into the Egyptian power structure by using Tiye as bait. It is interesting that most other biblical heroines did precisely the same thing. They sacrificed themselves sexually in order to ensure a Hebrew victory or to enhance Hebrew geopolitical power (the same thing, really). And that is about the only Neanderthal political use for women.

Akenaten survived and when he "duly" took the throne through Tiye's machinations, he attempted to impose belief in his Aten upon all Egyptians and forbade any worship of Egypt's many other ancient gods and goddesses. This was a most unpopular move, and particularly with the typically conservative and traditional army upon which Akenaten depended. Within a few years, no one really knows how many, Akenaten was forced to abdicate and it seems more than possible that he was also forced into exile.

This was pieced together by Egyptologists between 1910 and 1930 from scraps of records. Akenaten had been erased from all official Egyptian historical sources and monuments. It was punishable by death, during decades after his abdication, even to mention his name.

The London-based Islamic Egyptologist, Ahmed Osman, cites evidence in several books that Akenaten was forced from the biblical "Goshen", where his followers were concentrated, into the nearby northwestern part of the Sinai Peninsula. This was not then considered to be a part of Egypt proper and was thus a place of technical exile.

Even Akenaten naturally had some followers, and these people went into exile with him so that they could continue to worship Aten. This seems to have been the "Exodus" and "Moses" seems to have been either Akenaten himself (Ahmed Osman) or a high priest of Aten (Sigmund Freud).

Akenaten's putative "son" and (much more certainly) successor was a young man of 19 or 20 years old when he assumed the Egyptian throne. We observed earlier that Tutankhamun exhibited some marked Negro physical characteristics. These Black traits could hardly have come from Akenaten.

Although Akenaten's lips show a marked eversion, this feature wasn't very likely to have been a heritage from Negro genes but from a Caucasian pathology. Akenaten possessed a very strange physique, the subject of much conjecture. The Scottish Egyptologist, Cyril Aldred, wrote that Akenaten suffered from Frolich's Syndrome while others have thought that he may also have suffered from Marfan's Syndrome.

Tutankhmun's somewhat Black African appearance cannot be attributed to Akenaten's known wife, either. She was Nefertiti, and her purely Caucasoid type of exquisite beauty is displayed for all to see in the famous bust of her that is possibly the treasure of the Berlin Museum.

Although originally named "Tutankhaten", both his advisors and the army considered it much more politic for him to adopt the name Tutankhamun in honour of Egypt's traditional and national major god of the times. Tutankhamun's brief reign was one of tolerance and reconciliation. He allowed worship of the old gods and goddesses, he restored their temples and he financially re-enfranchised their priests and priestesses...although he himself apparently worshipped Aten until the end of his very brief life.

This gives us even more reason to suspect that Tutankhamun was probably not the biological offspring of Akenaten and Nefertiti. After the blasphemous heresy of Akenaten (from the Egyptian point of view), the entire thrust of the realm's powerful counsellors and advisors must have been a "a return to decent traditional Egyptian values", as a modern politician might have put it.

This "Egyptian way of life" was last represented by Amenhotep III's proper marriage to his little sister, Sitamun. Amenhotep III ruled for forty-two years and, during this time, Sitamun naturally grew up as "a wife" of the Pharaoh, if not the Great Royal Wife. There's nothing improbable about the notion that Tutankhamun was actually the son of Amenhotep III and Sitamun. But there is nothing to prove it, either. We know nothing of Sitamun's racial characteristics, but she is likely to have been a typical representative of the "Mediterranean Race" with rather more Negro admixture.

However, there may have been plenty of female Isis-descendants among royal daughters and Amenhotep III had his choice of them as wives or concubines. But it seems that Tutankhamun must have been to son of Sitamun or one of these other royal princesses. It is very doubtful that Akenaten could have been his biological father and even more unlikely that Nefertiti was his mother. It is almost unthinkable that he could have ascended the throne as a known true son of Akenaten.

There is some slight evidence that Tutankhamun went into the Sinai in order to try to effect a reconciliation with Akenaten. But Akenaten considered him to be an apostate and a traitor. There is at least some evidence in both Hebrew and Egyptian sources that Tutankhamun was killed "on a tree" by the Jewish Chief Priest of "the Lord Aten" at the time, one "Pinhas" ("Panhesy" in Egyptian, a high official under the deposed Akenaten). The method of "Ancient Hebrew" execution was to hang the victim on a tree and break his bones with the blows of metal or hardwood rods.

This torture-death may have been of early Hebrew or Hyksos invention, but it was later replaced by stoning offenders to death. This resulted in some long bone fractures, but the victim usually died from fatal head injuries.

Tutankhamun's mummy shows that many of his arm and leg bones were broken and that he was virtually dismembered at the elbows and knees. He'd been killed by the "ancient" method.

At least, this name "Pinhas" is preserved in Hebrew sources (Talmud) as a hero who executed "Jesus", described as a false prophet who was leading Israel astray. This same Pinhas or Panhesy , on the other hand, seems also to be the "Wicked Priest" who killed the "Teacher of Righteousness" according to the Essene Dead Sea Scrolls.

The real life of Tutankhamun seems to have become the traditional template for the most famous messiah, Jesus -- or so Ahmed Osman has argued in seveeral books, citing unnerving evidence for some Judeo-Christian scholars. The basic story was much later distorted by St. Paul for religious and political reasons (see below). Significantly, prophesies about the Messiah's "second coming" sometimes emphasized that this next time "not a bone of him shall be broken". This would seem to substantiate the fact that Jesus was indeed executed by the "Ancient Hebrew" method and not by later stoning. Unfortunately, no one knows exactly when the older method of execution was replaced by stoning and we can therefore not double check the time of Jesus's death by this knowledge.

The Egyptian chariot commander recovered the mutilated body of Tutankhamun and, in retribution for the "Israelite" torture and murder of him, attacked the Hebrew horde. He drove a military wedge between them and Palestine and also forced them deeper into the Sinai Peninsula. This is described biblically as a "plague" that took 35,000 Israelite lives shortly after the "Exodus".

The surviving "Israelites" of the refugee horde were forced to flee even deeper into the northeastern part of the Sinai Peninsula, away from Palestine, but they couldn't stay there because there is no adequate source of food and water for a large number of people with livestock. There is linguistic evidence that the Israelites crossed the modern Gulf of Aqaba near its head and continued down the eastern, or Arabian, coast of the Red Sea to the region of modern day Yemen.

They may have been harried for some of the distance, but probably not much further than the Gulf of Aqaba, by Egyptian chariotry. This is the famous biblical crossing of the "Red Sea". They may still have been led by "Moses" (Akenaten or Pinhas/Panhesy), but Moses may also have been among the 35,000 Israelite casualties inflicted by the Egyptian chariot commander. In any event, later Hebrew tradition lost track of him.

It is about this time in the Old Testament narrative that "Joshua ben Nun" is introduced as the chosen successor of Moses. When he actually took over from Moses is impossible to say, especially since this "Joshua" could not have actually existed as portrayed in the Old Testament. The names Joshua and Jesus (Ye'shua) are precisely the same in Hebrew. Indeed, in the present Greek version of the Old Testament, there is no "Joshua" -- straightforward "Jesus" conquered the Holy Land for the Children of Israel.

Sigmund Freud was the first to realize the momentous historical implications of these names, while Ahmed Osman has diligently researched the actual evidence that supports an amazing revelation. If Moses was Akenaten, then who was Akenaten's known successor?

He was none other than Tutankhamun, the pharaoh who was interred with the Christian vestments, trappings and artistic motifs on his tomb walls that so amazed Howard Carter. Freud the psychiatrist realized that, as a sort of psychological guilt compensation, the Hebrews turned their real murder victim into their mythic champion, "Joshua", the conqueror of the Promised Land.

But that also must mean that the Messianic name of "Jesus" was applied to Tutankhamun around 1350 BC! Otherwise, Joshua would not have been named Joshua. And this is more than just possible because the words Ye'shua, Iesus, Essa (the Aramaic name for Jesus, used in the Koran) and Issa (the modern Arabic name for Jesus) all mean roughly the "issue (or son) of Isis". The modern English word issue actually does come, via Latin, from this more ancient etymology. Now we know why Joshua ben Nun was named "son of the Fish" and why the earliest Christian symbol was a fish.

The full document can be found at


Check out 9/11 Unveiled by The Wisdom Fund.

"The facts presented in 9/11 Unveiled (read excerpts) should cause thinking people to question the official explanation of 9/11, and ask why our "free press" has, uncritically, accepted the official explanation."

Get the PDF here.

Arabic translation also available.