Propaganda is making the Truth Movement Totally Irrelevant

[Ralph Furely]

i read some of the threads on his phorum during the summer where mike and andre were arguing back and forth and mike was using this drug thing as ammo.  it was a pretty bad, nasty exchange on both
sides.  where all this drug talk came from i do not know.  there was obviously some shit going on between those guys before all of what i read, so i was just reading the aftermath of wherever all this
came from.  i thought it was silly anyway.  i occasionally do some drugs.  so what.  i suppose im not banging needles into my arm like mike was accusing andre of doing  lol  but in any event i thought it was
useless to be saying any of that stuff during their little quarrel.

anyhoo, ive read a bit before about this Koestler thing, possibly it was from you Latin i cant remember.  it is interesting for sure and i dont really know what to make of it.  will really change some
things as this was what i was using a lot a cpl yrs ago in arguments on the 'jews' taking Palestine from the ppl who'd been living there for the past 2000 yrs.  so ill definitely have to do a little digging
into that whole situation before i say anymore on that topic.

[Anonymous]

quite the interesting discussion going on here, this reminds me I still need a headset to do some more interviews, firstly with crypto-guadalajara nierika of course.

I didn't see a link to the discussion Andre and I had so here it is if you haven't already got it:

Khanverse/Andre discussion

and here are my thoughts on his new article which I liked enough to link to:

http://khanverse.com/news/2008/11/truth ... ganda.html

The map isn't the territory.

So if you're gonna diss the variety of maps in existence and circulation, by means of which, people traverse the grand conspiracy of the evil psychopathic "them", you might consider offering a viable alternative "map", or some other stand alone system which is represents a more accurate understanding of what we're up against.

It's the same problem when linguists whine about the limits of language as a tool to accurately represent reality but don't offer anything of a solution to this problem.

Further, as I've endlessly tried to convince you, history is NOT a tale of homogenous slavery. Besides, there isn't enough information about any "non-civilized" tribal society of the distant past whose diametric opposition to the least oppressive form of "civilization" can be reliably quantified.

There are just as many gray areas and blind spots in your map as anyone else's brother.

Andre & I debated those issues about "jews" and "them" endlessly:

Part I
Part II

[LatinAmericanview]

Wow that really stinks! I am referring to the petty squabbles. However, I really want you guys to ask the question- Ask anyone ever questioned Koestler as a credible source for Anti Jewish Information? Why has Smith Never brought up th fact that Koestler was MI6?  Koestler wrote propaganda during the Wars. So when did he stop being a tool?  Azixx has not really adress this point. I am only questioning DBS INFORMATION.

[LatinAmericanview]

quite the interesting discussion going on here, this reminds me I still need a headset to do some more interviews, firstly with crypto-guadalajara nierika of course.

I didn't see a link to the discussion Andre and I had so here it is if you haven't already got it:

Khanverse/Andre discussion

and here are my thoughts on his new article which I liked enough to link to:

http://khanverse.com/news/2008/11/truth ... ganda.html

The map isn't the territory.

So if you're gonna diss the variety of maps in existence and circulation, by means of which, people traverse the grand conspiracy of the evil psychopathic "them", you might consider offering a viable alternative "map", or some other stand alone system which is represents a more accurate understanding of what we're up against.

It's the same problem when linguists whine about the limits of language as a tool to accurately represent reality but don't offer anything of a solution to this problem.

Further, as I've endlessly tried to convince you, history is NOT a tale of homogenous slavery. Besides, there isn't enough information about any "non-civilized" tribal society of the distant past whose diametric opposition to the least oppressive form of "civilization" can be reliably quantified.

There are just as many gray areas and blind spots in your map as anyone else's brother.

Andre & I debated those issues about "jews" and "them" endlessly:

Part I
Part II

I enjoyed the interview yourself and Andre.  I have recommended it to several people.  I don't think many of us have firm grip on how deep this "history" rabbits hole goes down.
There are literally centuries that are lost to average man. However, the Issue of Slavery can be simple put in relation to private property rights. I mentioned this in a previous post.  Please take a look at a book called THE LAW.  I would also suggest maybe a few lectures from Dr. S. Crane.

cheers


Lastly take a look at Azixx's Excellent posts regarding history!  A must read! No Exceptions

I'm not really certain (might need to find time to look into it), but I'm not at all sure that Koestler was anywhere near first to purvey the Khazaria information? Surely plenty other 'historians' on the subject preceeded him. In fact, while writing this I seem to recall reading (online) the entry for 'Khazaria' in the 1907 or 1917 [or ?] Encyclopedia Britannica and it conveyed similar info... will have to attempt to find that now...

1911 Britannica, it appears...

YEAH i HAVE SEEN SOMETHING LKE THAT BUT IT ALL COMES FROM ONE SOURCE. a LETTER BETWEEN SOME SPANISH JEW AND KING BULAN.  I think you can find the letter @ ford.edu?  However Koestler was an agent and a propagandist and this should be part of DBS's teachings.  What is the connection between the Khans nd Khazars? Or modern day Cohens.  Selective history! Got love this shit.  Read Azixx's posts.

[Anonymous]

A new thread for Koestler (so as to not cloud this post with too many concepts, it should be kept for the original topic of discussion), called "Koestler and Khazars - Is the info accurate or even substantiative?'

Please view there and respond there about the newly introduced topic of Koestler info validity.

[LatinAmericanview]

I retract my previous comments related to Azixx. I find criticisms of Andre valid. For anyone wanting to understand this- Azixx basically called Andre to task for providing a DBS link with was less than flatteringly to DBS's body of work when all that was needed was a link to DBS's website.

[Anonymous]

Ottomans: AD 1517-1831

As a disciplined caste of soldiers and administrators, the Mamelukes are of use to the Ottoman sultans in the administration of middle eastern regions. By the 18th century they have recovered so much power in Egypt that they are beyond the control of the Ottoman governors of the province. And from 1749 Baghdad is officially ruled by Mamelukes as a province within the empire.

Eventually their power proves intolerable. Ottoman troops massacre the Mamelukes in Egypt in 1811, and destroy their counterparts in Baghdad in 1831.

Thanks for the info.  Can you post some links, perhaps in a separate thread? These synopses are little too short.

[LatinAmericanview]

Khanverse, history is really screwed up. The study of history is even more perverse. However certain patterns can be observed.  The simplest of these to notice is the persistence of Hierarchy. That is to say that human communities tend to organize in pecking orders.  This tends to lead us the observation that small number of elites have have had enormous control over the great bulk of humanity. The primary difference between these groups is property and education. High intelligence is a given between those that have and those that want be cause they understand the nature of the problem.

The Mamelukes are one of my favorite groups in history. They were warrior accounts and Judges.  In other words they could gut you on th battle field or a courtroom.  EVENTUALLY THIS WELL TRAINED GROUP OF ADMINISTRATORS WENT OFF THE RESERVATION. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY SO BEGAN TO REALIZE THAT THEY ALONE PRODUCE WEALTH! THEY DECIDED TO KEEP WHAT THEY PRODUCED. THE MINUTE THEY DECIDED TO KEEP THEIR PRODUCTION THEY WERE NO LONGER SLAVES.  SINCE THEY HAD THE MIGHT TO BACK UP THEIR ACTIONS THEY KEPT THEIR PROPERTY. SLAVES CAN NOT OWN PROPERTY. THEY RULED OVER PARTS oF EGYPT AND BAGhDAD FOR 70 YEARS? It was Napoleon that eventually conquered them in 1811 0r 1812.

Here is a basic outline of the Mamelukes:

Baghdad and the Mamelukes: 9th century AD

The Abbasid caliphs of Baghdad unwittingly create a group of considerable power in the Middle East. To strengthen their armies, they acquire slaves from the nomadic Turks of central Asia. These slaves, who become known as Mamelukes (from the Arabic mamluk, 'owned'), distinguish themselves in the service of the caliphate and are often given positions of military responsibility. Well placed to advance their own interests, they frequently take the opportunity.

The first Mameluke to seize extensive power is Ahmad ibn Tulun. In the early 870s he takes control of Egypt. By 877 he has conquered the Mediterranean coast through Palestine and up into Syria.
        Click for interactive version

Click to print section

eenb





This first Mameluke dynasty lasts only a few decades, until 905. But the Mamelukes retain their importance and power throughout the Middle East. They have the natural strength of a small, self-aware military elite. They speak their own Turkish language in addition to the Arabic of their official masters (the weak caliphs in Baghdad, whose rule technically extends throughout the Muslim Middle East). And they constantly replenish their numbers with new recruits from the fierce tribes of central Asia and the Caucasus.

The height of Mameluke power begins in 1250, when they again seize control of Egypt. Ten years later they confront the Mongols.
        

exc




Mamelukes and Mongols: AD 1250-1260

The decade beginning in 1250 provides a succession of dramatic events in Egypt, Palestine, Syria and Mesopotamia. In 1250 the last sultan of Saladin's dynasty is murdered in Egypt by the slaves of the palace guard. This enables a Mameluke general, Aybak, to take power. He rules until 1257, when his wife has him killed in a palace intrigue. His place is immediately taken by another Mameluke general, Qutuz.

In the following year, 1258, Baghdad and the caliphate suffer a devastating blow. Mongols, led by Hulagu, grandson of Genghiz Khan, descend upon the city and destroy it. The Middle East appears to be open to conquest and destruction.
   


In 1259 Hulagu and the Mongols take Aleppo and Damascus. The coastal plain and the route south to Egypt seem open to them. But in 1260 at Ayn Jalut, near Nazareth, they meet the army of the Mameluke sultan of Egypt. It is led into the field by Baybars, a Mameluke general.

In one of the decisive battles of history Baybars defeats the Mongols. It is the first setback suffered by the family of Genghis Khan in their remorseless half century of expansion. This battle defines for the first time a limit to their power. It preserves Palestine and Syria for the Mameluke dynasty in Egypt. Mesopotamia and Persia remain within the Mongol empire.
        

exe




Baybars and his successors: AD 1260-1517

Baybars is ruthless - in the best Mameluke tradition. Seized as a boy from the Kipchak Turks, north of the Caspian, he has been brought to Egypt as a slave. His talents have enabled him to rise to high command in the Mameluke army. In 1260, the year of his great victory at Ayn Jalut, he defeats and kills his own Mameluke sultan. He is proclaimed in his place by the army.

During his reign of seventeen years Baybars crushes the Assassins in their last strongholds in Syria, drives the crusaders from Antioch, and extends the rule of Egypt across the Red Sea to control the valuable pilgrim cities of Mecca and Medina.
        Click for interactive version

Click to print section

exi





In exercising this extensive rule, Baybars takes the precaution of pretending that he does so on behalf of an Abbasid refugee from the ruins of Baghdad - whom he acclaims as the caliph. His many successors maintain the same fiction. These Mameluke sultans are not a family line, like a traditional dynasty. They are warlords from a military oligarchy who fight and scheme against each other to be acclaimed sultan, somewhat in the manner of the later Roman emperors.

But they manage to keep power in their own joint hands until the rise of a more organized state sharing their own Turkish origins - the Ottoman empire.
        

exj





The Ottomans, cautious about Mameluke military prowess, tackle other neighbouring powers such as the Persians before approaching Egypt. But in 1517 the Ottoman sultan, Selim I, reaches the Nile delta. He takes Cairo, with some difficulty, and captures and hangs the last Mameluke sultan.

Mameluke rule, spanning nearly three centuries, has been violent and chaotic but not uncivilized. Several of Cairo's finest mosques are built by Mameluke sultans, and for a while these rulers maintain Cairo and Damascus (500 miles apart) as twin capitals. A pigeon post is maintained between them, and Baybars prides himself on being able to play polo within the same week in the two cities.
        

exk




Ottomans: AD 1517-1831

As a disciplined caste of soldiers and administrators, the Mamelukes are of use to the Ottoman sultans in the administration of middle eastern regions. By the 18th century they have recovered so much power in Egypt that they are beyond the control of the Ottoman governors of the province. And from 1749 Baghdad is officially ruled by Mamelukes as a province within the empire.

Eventually their power proves intolerable. Ottoman troops massacre the Mamelukes in Egypt in 1811, and destroy their counterparts in Baghdad in 1831.


Now for the kicker: There always has to be dynamic tension between empires. It is good for War and the creation of Fear. Control!


The Holy Alliance was a coalition of Russia, Austria and Prussia created in 1815 at the behest of Tsar Alexander I of Russia, signed by the three powers in Vienna on September 26, 1815.[1]

Ostensibly it was to instill the Christian values of charity and peace in European political life, but in practice Klemens Wenzel von Metternich made it a bastion against revolution. The monarchs of the three countries involved used this to band together in order to prevent revolutionary influence (especially from the French Revolution) from entering these nations. It was against democracy, revolution, and secularism. Except for Great Britain, the Vatican and the Ottoman Empire, all other European nations joined. The Holy Alliance was, in a manner of speaking, the first modern international peacekeeping organization, although it was rooted in their own models of politics. The Alliance is usually associated with the Quadruple and Quintuple Alliances, which included the United Kingdom and (from 1818) France with the aim of upholding the European peace settlement concluded at the Congress of Vienna. The Alliance was conventionally taken to have become defunct with Alexander's death in 1825. The Holy Alliance also tried to interfere with Latin America, and was stopped by British disapproval and the Monroe Doctrine of United States President James Monroe.


This was the "unholy alliance" -Except for (Great Britain, the Vatican and the Ottoman Empire Catholic or Jewish controlled states), all other European nations joined.  Anyway this stuff get complicated but let us say that places of power do not really fall but rather change management. Form the perspective of the masses there is never  break in the oppression. NEVER.

[high_treason]

I agree with all the historical information although the weakness of the Caliphate was also due to other factors including the Seljuks (First Turkish Empire) who were used to fight off the Romans and the Fatimids (Shia'a rulers of Egypt). Also the Caliph Al Mamoun I think was the first to start hiring Mamluks when his brother was betrayed by his own generals so they used Mamluks as Praetorian guards. Also the split of Persia and India from the Caliphate and breaking up in to Shahdom of Khwarizm, Ghorid Empire, Ghazni Empire and Kingdom of Sindh was all done by Turks who were former soldiers in the Caliph service. Even though the Mamluks and Turks took power, they were able to save the Caliphate on more than one occassion and did have a very positive impact on the whole area. One person whom people keep forgetting especially in the Muslim world is Najm El-Dinn Zanghi who defeated the Crusader Kingdom of Antioch and then sent Sherikouh his general with Sherikouh's nephew young Salah-ElDinn to Egypt to defeat the Crusaders who took it over Salah ElDinn inherited Zanghi's Legacy. Also as you mentioned defeated the Mongols and the Roman Empire was taken over by the Ottoman Turks and saw them as the sole superpower for a few decades.

"Eventually their power proves intolerable. Ottoman troops massacre the Mamelukes in Egypt in 1811, and destroy their counterparts in Baghdad in 1831."

Its a bit different, you see Muhammed Ali Pasha (Albanian) the architect of the massacre and also the catalyst of modern Egypt, he saw how weak the Ottomans have become especially that England freed Egypt from France and not the Sultan. So when he came to power he saw that the Mamluks are retaining all the power even though the French defeated them so they had no right to keep ruling and they were heavily taxing the population and not modernizing Egypt.

So he killed them, declared independence declared war on the Ottomans and even conquered Palestine, Syria and was almost at the gates of Constantinople but a fleet of Britain, France and Russia defeated him and he signed a treaty with the Sultan to retain Egypt and Syria as independent states from the Empire. Which is how Egypt remained a Kingdom until 1952 when it ended with a socilaist military coup. Muhamed Ali Pasha modernized the Egyptian Army, made education mandatory, sent outstanding pupils to France to be taught in universities, built schools, reinnovated Al Azhar which saw years of neglect under the Mamluks and built libraries, hospitals and created a modern administration. Egypt was greatly neglected it is known as the dark age from 1500s (when the Ottomans defeated the Mamluks but kept them in power) until Muhammed Ali Pasha.

[LatinAmericanview]

Its a bit different, you see Muhammed Ali Pasha (Albanian) the architect of the massacre and also the catalyst of modern Egypt, he saw how weak the Ottomans have become especially that England freed Egypt from France and not the Sultan. So when he came to power he saw that the Mamluks are retaining all the power even though the French defeated them so they had no right to keep ruling and they were heavily taxing the population and not modernizing Egypt.

Yeah this is interesting and is a spin on histroy from the ruling Egypt class.

So he killed them, declared independence declared war on the Ottomans and even conquered Palestine, Syria and was almost at the gates of Constantinople but a fleet of Britain, France and Russia defeated him and he signed a treaty with the Sultan to retain Egypt and Syria as independent states from the Empire. Which is how Egypt remained a Kingdom until 1952 when it ended with a socilaist military coup. Muhamed Ali Pasha modernized the Egyptian Army, made education mandatory, sent outstanding pupils to France to be taught in universities, built schools, reinnovated Al Azhar which saw years of neglect under the Mamluks and built libraries, hospitals and created a modern administration. Egypt was greatly neglected it is known as the dark age from 1500s (when the Ottomans defeated the Mamluks but kept them in power) until Muhammed Ali Pasha.

Some say that modern history began to be wriiten in the 1500s irrespective of the facts. In other words they just made shit up! I would mention that that Mamaelukes ruled until Napoloen  conquered Egypt. Nappy was an agent of Rothschild and the Medici Family.

[Anonymous]

Word.

The one thing that is certain is there is a very important difference between the Caliphate that immediately succeeded the Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw) with the first 4 rightly guided khalifas and the numerous Caliphates based on temporal power and not a spiritual station that came after that.  A caliph is the successor of a prophet who is the single, solitary spiritual guide of the ENTIRE body of muslims.  After the first 4 caliphs there were many caliphates established, certainly many concurrently as well.

For example, there is now the 2nd coming of the SPIRITUAL Caliphate.  But although this movement is growing rapidly within Islam, orthodox Islam is collectively rejecting and persecuting it while seeking to establish other TEMPORAL Caliphates which they have proven utterly incapable of.

Most of the history of the "Caliphate", as understood by the Orientalists is that of political, temporal rule.  This certainly puts this governance in the same category as other oppressive non-islamic rules, albeit on a sliding scale.

This was spoken about by the Holy Prophet (saw):

The Holy Prophet (saw) said, "Prophethood shall remain among you as long as Allah shall will.  He will bring about its end and follow it with Khilafat on the precept of Prophethood for as long as He shall will and then bring about its end.  A tyrannical monarchy will then follow and will remain as long as Allah shall will and then come to an end.  There will follow thereafter monarchial despotism to last as long as Allah shall will and come to an end upon his decree.  There will then emerge Khilafat on the precept of Prophethood (musnad ahmad by Ibn Hanbal)