- Joined
- Nov 17, 2021
- Messages
- 306
- Reaction score
- 1,933
Isaac Newton is often cited as an early chronological revisionist, so I downloaded a 1728 edition of his Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms to see what I could find.
The chronology of ancient kingdoms amended. To which is prefixed, a short chronicle from the first memory of things in Europe, to the conquest of Persia by Alexander the Great : Newton, Isaac, Sir, 1642-1727 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
The story of its publication is suspicious. Supposedly Newton wrote this in his spare time, without ever intending to publish it. The future Queen of England, Caroline of Ansbach, found out about his work and asked for a copy "to educate her children". After he gave it to her, she showed it to "a nobleman from Venice" named Conti, who gave it to the French Jesuit and Orientalist Étienne Souciet, who translated it into French and published without Newton's authorization in 1725, along with his own lengthy refutation of it.
Abrégé de la Chronologie de Newton
(Newton died in 1727 and the book was not published in English until 1728, meaning the French version predates it.)
In 1726, still in French, a response to the first edition was published, including the following letter from Newton explaining the situation:
Seven drafts of Newton's defence of the Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms (Normalized)
Newton accuses Conti of being an agent of Leibniz (!).
Senior Conti came into England in Spring 1715, & while he staid in England he pretended to be my friend but assisted Mr Leibnitz in engaging me in disputes, & hath since acted in the same manner in France.
Note that Caroline of Ansbach also maintained a correspondence with Leibniz, who served her family in Hanover before she moved to London and became Queen of England.
Multiple drafts of this letter are in the Yahuda archives in Israel. Let's read what the National Library of Israel has to say about the archives:
Newton Manuscripts
These papers introduce facets of Newton’s personality and work that the public has never before encountered. They are evidence of the great lengths that Newton went to in trying to decipher writings that, in his opinion, contained secret knowledge encrypted in the Holy Scriptures of ancient cultures and in historical documents. A perfect exmple of this type of research are Newton’s efforts to produce knowledge of scientific significance from the Biblical and Talmudic descriptions of the Tabernacle and Temple.
The manuscripts found at the National Library are part of the collection of Abraham Shalom Yehuda (1877-1951), an expert in Middle Eastern affairs. Professor Yehuda purchased the manuscripts at a public auction at Sotheby’s of London in 1936. Other manuscripts in the collection, dealing mostly with the topic of alchemy, were purchased by the well-known economist, John Maynard Keynes, and are located at King’s College in Cambridge University.
From the following article:
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/saving-isaac-newton
When Isaac Newton died on March 20, 1727, he left a mass of disorganized papers containing upwards of 8 million words. These manuscripts presented a picture of Newton quite unlike the one enshrined in Westminster Abbey as the paragon of English rationality. Complex and confusing, the papers were deemed “unfit to be printed,” and, aside from brief, troubling glimpses, they would remain hidden from sight for more than a century and a half. They passed through the hands of relatives, collectors, scientists, and scholars. In 1936 Sotheby’s held a historic auction that scattered the bulk of these writings to dozens of buyers all over the world. One of the men who set out to collect as many of these manuscripts as possible was a Jewish polymath, teacher, writer, researcher, linguist, and collector of rare documents, Abraham Shalom Yahuda.
Yahuda published his first book at the age of...sixteen. In 1935, he wrote a book called The Accuracy of the Bible: the Stories of Joseph, the Exodus and Genesis Confirmed and Illustrated by Egyptian Monuments and Language.
Since I suspect the Bible is a massively edited and rewritten document that has been used as a template to forge history, I can only see such a title as a sign that we are dealing with an agent. Unfortunately it is not available online.
Yahuda is not just some random scholar. He belongs to an ancient royal line. From the TabletMag article:
In 1915 Yahuda was offered a professorship in rabbinic literature and languages at the University of Madrid, the first such position to be created in Spain since the expulsion of the Jews in 1492. Directed to make an appearance before King Alfonso XIII, Yahuda took the opportunity to proclaim both his heritage and his independence: “I am not the first in my family who appears in audience before one of your majesty’s family,” he informed the monarch. “It was in the midtwelfth century, when one of my forefathers, Sheshet Benveniste, had the high honor of appearing before your majesty’s forefather, King Alfonso II.”
Daniboy recently linked to the work of the Spanish New Chronologist Andreu Marfull-Pujadas, which I've been going through, although much of it is over my head. Check out the following excerpt from this article: Kalonymus, Colom, Colón, according to X-185 Chronology
Marfulls derives "Columbus" from "Kalonymus".
One more juicy line from the Marfull-Pujadas article, which I strongly suggest everyone here read:
The more the official history is explored, the more evident it is that the project of the Catholic Monarchs is, essentially, a company of converted Jews associated with a lineage, that of the Benvenist, who are all subsequently dispossessed of their powers and privileges.
Maybe this is how Yahuda got his first book published at sixteen, scored an invitation to the First Zionist Congress at twenty, was offered the first professorship of rabbinic studies in Spain since 1492, received an audience with the King in which he proclaimed his independence (!), etc.
In 1896, Abrahm Yahuda first met the founder of modern political Zionism, Theodor Herzl (1860-1904), in London. He asked Herzl to establish relations with the Palestinians to secure their support for the Zionist project.
Yahuda was nineteen in 1896, and he's somehow in a position to make demands on Theodor Herzl? This only makes sense if Yahuda was not only a prince but recognized as such by the leaders of Zionism.
I know this thread is about Newton and I am about to digress within a digression before even getting there, but the way these things fit together is incredible. Twice in the last few days I have stumbled across references to Freud's Moses and Monotheism, one of the first and best books of revisionist history I ever read. Freud argues that Moses was an Egyptian, that he didn't invent monotheism, and that the Jews killed him in the desert. He published the book in 1939 in Nazi Austria, which many Jews found incomprehensible given Freud's origins. Well, when researching Yahuda I discovered that he contacted Freud personally to persuade him not to release the book. When Freud published it anyway, Yahuda wrote a long refutation of it (in Hebrew). Given that Freud was (1) one of the most famous men in the world at the time, (2) a passionate Egyptologist, and (3) a member of B'nai B'rith, I suppose it's not out of the question that Yahuda approached him not just as a scholar but as a Nasi. Not only that, a man named O'Farrell wrote a book claiming that the King Tut "curse" was actually a series of murders to cover up the fact that what was actually found down there were documents proving that Jesus was the son of Moses (or something like that, I haven't read the book). Freud somehow found this out, and multiple attempts were made on his life to keep him quiet. Take it or leave it. It is known that Freud, despite his grave illness and the dire political situation in Vienna, was determined to publish Moses and Monotheism before he died (he barely made it). He really wanted this information to come out, and he wanted the power of his name behind it. Of course it's also possible that the Nasi Yahuda knew something Freud didn't (in fact I'm sure of it), but when I looked at his refutation of Freud, it's full of Chosen garbage such as:
"The most saddening thing is that specifically a Jewish scholar fell onto such a fabrication. The corrupting power of assimilation is so very great...that it sows a seed of hatred toward [our] heritage in the hearts of the great scholars among us."
By "corrupting power of assimilation" he means "corrupting power of Gentiles". The implicit threat in this line ("submit to scripture or else") is enough to tell me that Freud, whom I consider to be a benefactor of humanity, is on the correct side of this debate and that Yahuda is a deceiver. "Hatred of our heritage" = "Refusal to recognize my claim to kingship". Hypothesis: Yahuda knows that his ancestors were the rulers of Spain until the invention of Catholicism in the 16th century. He can't say that out loud because it would make him sound crazy; the Jesuits did their job of imposing the new chronology around the world too well for him to touch that hot potato. Since his goal is not to reveal the truth but simply to re-establish what he considers to be his birthright (Benvenist dominion), he and his fellow Nasis probably decided that the best course of action was not to blow up the fake history, but simply to leave it in place and use it to their advantage via the legal claim to the Holy Land the fake Bible offers them. Freud probably did NOT know any of this, but his book was such dynamite to the Old Testament anyway that Yahuda found it necessary to silence him. Freud was a brilliant man and was probably figuring out a bit too much.
Back to Newton.
Yahuda:
It was the very extensiveness of the theological writings—the obsessive drafting, the lengthiness of the treatises—that spoke of Newton’s desire to “extend the universalistic character of Christianity.” By this Yahuda meant that Newton envisioned a truer, deeper religion, one that surpassed mere sectarianism, that “did not see the problem of religion exhausted in Christianity or Judea, but wanted to include all antique religions and the spiritual development of all other peoples besides the Israelites.”
Were they already trying to cook up a one-world religion in Newton's day, or were later agents like Yahuda trying to grandfather him into a new project?
But it was already very clear to him that the papers revealed that Newton was “more a monotheist than a Trinitarian.” In some parts of the manuscripts, Newton himself had concluded that “Jehovah is the unique god.”
So, Yahuda claims that Newton believed that Jehovah was the unique God, but that he should be accessible to all people. Sounds like the same proto-Noachide stuff we see everywhere.
In a recent thread, I brought up the work of Joseph Yahuda, who wrote a controversial book entitled "Hebrew is Greek". Well, Abraham is Joseph's uncle. Given the royal pedigree, I suspect he knows something we don't about the pre-Reset world. I also suspect he is more honest than his uncle and knows that Jews were a direct outgrowth of the Byzantine civilization, and were once kings of Europe.
Hypothesis: Yahuda, the spooky polymath/rabbi's son/prince of Zion was a disgruntled heir to a generational Intel project begun centuries earlier, the goal of which was to "prove" (forge) the reality of both the Bible and a distorted version of antiquity. Originally that project was undertaken to promote Christianity as the one true religion, and all the passionate theological debates between people like Leibniz, Spinoza, Newton, etc. were actually political debates between utopian social engineers. At some point in the 19th century a branch split off which was more interested in promoting (the fake Biblical version of) Judaism with a new Noachide variant added on.
(Another spooky item in the Yahuda Collection is the Naopleonic archives from the Egyptian campaign: Join us on Napoleon's expedition to Egypt and the Holy Land..)
The article also includes a letter Yahuda received from his buddy Albert Einstein that includes this juicy line:
The formative development of Newton’s lasting physics works must remain shrouded in darkness, because Newton apparently destroyed his preparatory works...
So he left behind eight million words (that's about 30,000 pages) of theological rambling but destroyed his preparatory physics works? I love how they just assume that because they can't find them, he must have destroyed them.
Or maybe there were none because he had simply inherited them as part of his intelligence activities?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.632433
Assuming this isn't just woke propaganda, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to imagine that some field agent of the British East India Company found something like this and transmitted it to his bosses, who gave it to Newton to figure out.
Remember, Newton himself wrote the Royal Society pronouncement giving him precedence over Leibniz in the calculus debate...without even allowing Leibniz to present his case!
Sarah Dry, the author of a book on Newton's papers:
How did Newton come to his discoveries? That’s what we want to know about any great thinker. That’s why we want to hear about this process of genius and creativity that we can see on this page. But he didn’t leave any working pages of the first edition of the Principia, just a clean copy that he sent to the printer when he was finished. The Principia went through three editions, and there were many drafts between one and two and two and three. They show a lot, but he actually covered up his methods in his published works. He presented his discoveries of optics in a formal language that covered up the traces of the hard work that one assumes went into it. And it’s because Newton didn’t want people to know how he had come to his knowledge. I think that might relate to his religious beliefs regarding anti-Trinitariansim. He believed there was an elite cadre of people that were given the truth of religion. And the vulgar masses weren’t strong enough.
The Strange, Secret History of Isaac Newton's Papers
An elite cadre...the vulgar masses...again, sounds like some kind of initiate.
A quick look at Sarah Dry reveals her to be fully enmeshed in the usual spook networks like the Gates Foundation (and a probable tranny). These foundations are full of trannies -- it's always amusing to click on the photos of the board members. She is heavily involved in pushing both the climate change and epidemic/vaccination psyops. Verdict: deceiver, so everything she says must be considered pre-spun to confuse your brain.
The 1728 English edition contains an introduction from John Conduitt, Newton's successor as Warden of the Mint (an intel position) explaining that we must attribute certain internal inconsistencies to the fact that Newton never intended to publish it, and therefore had not worked out all the kinks yet.
Conduitt, a Fellow of the Royal Society, was married to Newton's niece and they all lived in the same house. So already the door is open to all manner of confusion and skulduggery.
- Did Conduitt, Conti, or Souciet simply forge this text and have it attributed to Newton?
- Did the Queen receive a different private text with a very different chronology?
- Were Conti and Leibniz given a dummy text full of disinformation?
None of that feels quite right.
Keep in mind that during this whole thing, Newton is over eighty years old and not in the best of health. Was Newton's last Intel assignment before he died to whore out his name and his credibility (themselves artificially inflated anyway) to some hack history work in order to give it legs? Did he initially refuse? Did they then go around him by having it published in France first with his name on it, thereby forcing him to recognize it? If we can trust Sarah Dry, Newton's "real" Bible work appears to be looking for some kind of code in there.
There's no way to unwind any of this with any certainty, so for the purpose of this exercise I will assume Newton really wrote it and move on to the text itself, or what I've read of it so far, namely the abridged chronology and the chapter on Egypt.
First observation: there is no personality, no style, no distinct voice. This could have been written by anyone, or by a computer.
Second observation: it's incomprehensible to me. I can't even provide a summary of the chapter on Egypt because I could identify no "center" to summarize. There is no real attempt to organize information in a way that paints a living picture. Instead we get lists of dozens, even hundreds of kings, all of whom have at least five interchangeable names. For example:
Or this one:
Or this one:
So, Sesac = Sihor = Silus = Nilus = Egyptus = Osiris = Busiris = Bacchus = Mavors = Mars = Hercules = Belus
But this contradicts what he says in his opening paragraph on Egypt, in which Osiris, Bacchus and Hercules are listed as three separate kings, not doubles of each other:
There is moreover a complete confusion of Biblical names, Greek names, and Egyptian names. Ariadne, Saturn, Prometheus, Thoth, etc. pop in and out, sometimes as gods, sometimes as mortals, with no clear distinction drawn between the two. After a few pages you are lost. Or at least I was lost. I defy anyone to make sense of this. Everything melts together in a blob of battles, genealogies, and conquests with basically no framework.
If I were writing such a work, I would regularly "step back" and try to synthesize and schematize the information for the reader. He never does this. It's just a cascade of names, not even always presented in chronological order.
Newton appears to be employing the same method as someone like Fomenko, looking for doubled names and biographies. However, from what I've read so far at least, he does not suggest there was ever a concerted effort to distort history, simply an organically accumulated body of errors. He identifies doublings based on the most superficial similarities of names and deeds.
The subjective impression I get is not that he is really attempting to sort out confusion, but rather to add one more layer to it. Again the technique identified by Kammeier. Produce one source (Herodotus) that partially conflicts with a second source (Diodorus). Add a third commentator (Newton) that blends the two together while introducing even more names and lists. Have a fourth scholar (the Jesuit Souciet) dispute the conclusions of the third in a way that sets up the desired false dialectic and presto, you have given historians enough false leads to waste their time for a hundred years. You've also given them an arsenal of literally hundreds of more or less interchangeable names that they can use to spin future archaeological finds (or forgeries) in an infinity of different ways given how shapeless the whole construction is.
Diodorus Siculus, who I presume is a creation of the proto-Renaissance, supposedly wrote forty volumes of history, of which "only" fifteen remain, totaling three thousand pages.
Imagine trying to get through three thousand pages of this. It's a literal hazing. By the time you read all the fake ancient authors, you're already old and your mind has been thrown into a state of confusion from which there is no return. And if you haven't read them, then you're not a serious student of history. Win-win for the forgers.
I must admit that I sometimes get a similar feeling when reading Fomenko and other New Chronology writers, namely that I am wandering in a swirling fog of names and dates. I get lost. Maybe I just lack a solid base in academic history.
Third observation: there is a constant effort to downplay anything that sounds too "supernatural" or divine. Newton (if he really wrote this) regularly argues that the gods of old were just men whose legacies had been inflated over time. For example:
I get the feeling that his "job" here is to (1) undermine the collective memories of a very different kind of world and (2) drown everything in such confusion that readers just give up on attempting to understand antiquity.
Fourth observation: as previously mentioned, the two historians he cites most in this chapter are Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus. I've never read more than excerpts of either, but if they're anything like this, I can only consider their writings to be earlier iterations of a similar project of shrouding antiquity in complete confusion. Was Newton's task to update their work in order to erase certain truths that had been considered permissible at an earlier stage of the forgery operation, but no longer were?
Maybe I'm too paranoid, but my ears pricked up when I saw this:
I believe that 33 means "Intel wrote this". Newton attributes it to Diodorus, which suggests to me - this is ultra-circumstantial, I know - that "Diodorus" is an earlier agent, probably forged not so long before Newton. Perhaps that is true for "Herodotus" as well. Check out this statue of him, with the inept inscription obviously added in a hurry by whoever dug the bust up:
Why do that unless Herodotus was fake? I mean "fake" in a very loose sense:
- There was a real "Herodotus" who wrote a real text that was altered, OR
- There was no real text but there were references to someone named "Herodotus" in other real texts along with real fragments that were later incorporated into the forgery and served as its skeleton, OR
- The whole thing was faked from the ground up.
Fifth observation: there is no attempt to connect anything he describes with the current world. The whole thing exists in some kind of abstract cloud.
Sixth observation: it is VERY difficult to believe that this confused text was written by the man credited with inventing modern science. He never really explains his reasoning. There's no "taste of genius".
And a few random anomalies:
- He has an entire (long) chapter dedicated to a description of Solomon’s Temple and its precise dimensions.
- Newton claims that corn was farmed in the Nile Valley after its "invention". This is curious for two reasons. One, corn supposedly comes from the New World, and you would expect the scientist Newton to know this. Two, corn is a cultigen, meaning it really was "invented" and not simply farmed. Newton's word choice is perhaps a tell here. The "official" story of corn is that it was slowly transformed from this into this:
But here we encounter the same logical contradiction we find in Darwinian evolution for structures like the eye. It can only function in its finished state, which implies that there was already an "idea" of this finished product at the beginning of the long, slow, and random process.
Corn is a rabbit hole unto itself.
He attributes its invention to Ceres in 1030 BC:
Did "corn" mean something different in 1728?
- An idea occurred to me while reading. Newton brings up posthumous "deification" a lot, which he records as an event. For example, in his introductory chronology, he writes "937. Hercules and Aesculapius are Deified." Why is it capitalized? Why is it worth including? My first thought was that Newton was trying to write the gods out of history. But there's another possibility as well. Did the practicing alchemist Newton know that deification was a real, scientific process by which the dead were trapped on Earth and transformed into powerful spirits? There's this woo idea that I've encountered in some of my less responsible readings that the spirits of the dead can be artificially kept on Earth by feeding them sacrificial life-energy, but the inevitable result is that these spirits become corrupt, senile, and psychotic, since they are resisting the natural order, which is that the dead must reincarnate.
- Apparently Diodorus believed Moses created the Temple in Jerusalem:
I looked up the (short) passage in Book 40, and Newton's summary is correct. As I was reading it, it struck me that the slight discrepancies between all these ancient accounts (Moses instead of Solomon, but basically the same story) actually make them MORE psychologically convincing: we would expect such inconsistencies to creep in after "thousands of years".
- Another example: it's not Akhenaton who attempted to impose monotheism but Cheops, the supposed builder of the Great Pyramid:
- Here's a wild idea:
I'd like to conclude by attempting a reductio ad absurdum thought experiment that starts with the following assumptions:
- Our history was forged sometime in the Renaissance
- Herodotus, Diodorus Siculus, the Bible, etc. are forgeries incorporating some real elements
- The continuing forgery is a generational project entrusted to high-level initiates and intelligence agents
- Starting with these three assumptions, it would be logical to conclude that people like Newton, Leibniz, Caroline of Ansbach, etc. probably belonged to the group of people who "knew".
- If they all knew, then Newton's Chronology must have been written and published with an intent to deceive.
- Is it possible that Caroline of Ansbach did NOT know, and that the forgery operation targeted her as well as the general population?
- It would make sense for the forgers to keep as many powerful people as possible out of the loop, because such people would pose a security risk. Also, what better way to salt in a fake history than by having the sovereign believe it and communicate that belief to her subjects with no cognitive dissonance?
- It is even conceivable that the history forgers deemed their project successful enough at some point to be terminated. More and more real history was deliberately withheld from each successive generation of intelligence agents in order to make it impossible for anyone ever to know the truth. If the original goal of the operation was the complete obliteration of the ancient world (and not simply the artificial creation/maintenance of a hierarchized society run by initiates who would derive their power from secret knowledge), then we should actually expect them to do this.
- If so, did Newton come before or after the cutoff point at which even initiates were fed fake history? Was he an heir of "Herodotus" and "Diodorus", or their victim?
- If Newton indeed "stole" calculus, etc. from ancient manuscripts, then he was a knowing deceiver.
- Was Newton so eager to find the "Bible Code" because he knew the manifest content of these history texts could not be trusted, but he hoped/believed/knew that there was a cipher in there that would unlock the "real" history? Is that why he spent so much time researching the Temple of Solomon in such excruciating geometric detail?
- This would also explain why so many "alternative history" writers like Laurence Gardner, Zechariah Sitchin, Immanuel Velikovsky, Ralph Ellis, etc. appear to have secret society connections. Maybe they're not engaged in pure, gratuitous deception, but have actually been commissioned by the heirs of the history forgers to take their best shot at reconstructing a history they themselves have lost.
I'm not sure I can get through any of the other chapters in this book, but maybe someone else wants to do those...
The chronology of ancient kingdoms amended. To which is prefixed, a short chronicle from the first memory of things in Europe, to the conquest of Persia by Alexander the Great : Newton, Isaac, Sir, 1642-1727 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
The story of its publication is suspicious. Supposedly Newton wrote this in his spare time, without ever intending to publish it. The future Queen of England, Caroline of Ansbach, found out about his work and asked for a copy "to educate her children". After he gave it to her, she showed it to "a nobleman from Venice" named Conti, who gave it to the French Jesuit and Orientalist Étienne Souciet, who translated it into French and published without Newton's authorization in 1725, along with his own lengthy refutation of it.
Abrégé de la Chronologie de Newton
(Newton died in 1727 and the book was not published in English until 1728, meaning the French version predates it.)
In 1726, still in French, a response to the first edition was published, including the following letter from Newton explaining the situation:
Seven drafts of Newton's defence of the Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms (Normalized)
Newton accuses Conti of being an agent of Leibniz (!).
Senior Conti came into England in Spring 1715, & while he staid in England he pretended to be my friend but assisted Mr Leibnitz in engaging me in disputes, & hath since acted in the same manner in France.
Note that Caroline of Ansbach also maintained a correspondence with Leibniz, who served her family in Hanover before she moved to London and became Queen of England.
Multiple drafts of this letter are in the Yahuda archives in Israel. Let's read what the National Library of Israel has to say about the archives:
Newton Manuscripts
These papers introduce facets of Newton’s personality and work that the public has never before encountered. They are evidence of the great lengths that Newton went to in trying to decipher writings that, in his opinion, contained secret knowledge encrypted in the Holy Scriptures of ancient cultures and in historical documents. A perfect exmple of this type of research are Newton’s efforts to produce knowledge of scientific significance from the Biblical and Talmudic descriptions of the Tabernacle and Temple.
The manuscripts found at the National Library are part of the collection of Abraham Shalom Yehuda (1877-1951), an expert in Middle Eastern affairs. Professor Yehuda purchased the manuscripts at a public auction at Sotheby’s of London in 1936. Other manuscripts in the collection, dealing mostly with the topic of alchemy, were purchased by the well-known economist, John Maynard Keynes, and are located at King’s College in Cambridge University.
From the following article:
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/saving-isaac-newton
When Isaac Newton died on March 20, 1727, he left a mass of disorganized papers containing upwards of 8 million words. These manuscripts presented a picture of Newton quite unlike the one enshrined in Westminster Abbey as the paragon of English rationality. Complex and confusing, the papers were deemed “unfit to be printed,” and, aside from brief, troubling glimpses, they would remain hidden from sight for more than a century and a half. They passed through the hands of relatives, collectors, scientists, and scholars. In 1936 Sotheby’s held a historic auction that scattered the bulk of these writings to dozens of buyers all over the world. One of the men who set out to collect as many of these manuscripts as possible was a Jewish polymath, teacher, writer, researcher, linguist, and collector of rare documents, Abraham Shalom Yahuda.
Yahuda published his first book at the age of...sixteen. In 1935, he wrote a book called The Accuracy of the Bible: the Stories of Joseph, the Exodus and Genesis Confirmed and Illustrated by Egyptian Monuments and Language.
Since I suspect the Bible is a massively edited and rewritten document that has been used as a template to forge history, I can only see such a title as a sign that we are dealing with an agent. Unfortunately it is not available online.
Yahuda is not just some random scholar. He belongs to an ancient royal line. From the TabletMag article:
In 1915 Yahuda was offered a professorship in rabbinic literature and languages at the University of Madrid, the first such position to be created in Spain since the expulsion of the Jews in 1492. Directed to make an appearance before King Alfonso XIII, Yahuda took the opportunity to proclaim both his heritage and his independence: “I am not the first in my family who appears in audience before one of your majesty’s family,” he informed the monarch. “It was in the midtwelfth century, when one of my forefathers, Sheshet Benveniste, had the high honor of appearing before your majesty’s forefather, King Alfonso II.”
Daniboy recently linked to the work of the Spanish New Chronologist Andreu Marfull-Pujadas, which I've been going through, although much of it is over my head. Check out the following excerpt from this article: Kalonymus, Colom, Colón, according to X-185 Chronology
Marfulls derives "Columbus" from "Kalonymus".
One more juicy line from the Marfull-Pujadas article, which I strongly suggest everyone here read:
The more the official history is explored, the more evident it is that the project of the Catholic Monarchs is, essentially, a company of converted Jews associated with a lineage, that of the Benvenist, who are all subsequently dispossessed of their powers and privileges.
Maybe this is how Yahuda got his first book published at sixteen, scored an invitation to the First Zionist Congress at twenty, was offered the first professorship of rabbinic studies in Spain since 1492, received an audience with the King in which he proclaimed his independence (!), etc.
In 1896, Abrahm Yahuda first met the founder of modern political Zionism, Theodor Herzl (1860-1904), in London. He asked Herzl to establish relations with the Palestinians to secure their support for the Zionist project.
Yahuda was nineteen in 1896, and he's somehow in a position to make demands on Theodor Herzl? This only makes sense if Yahuda was not only a prince but recognized as such by the leaders of Zionism.
I know this thread is about Newton and I am about to digress within a digression before even getting there, but the way these things fit together is incredible. Twice in the last few days I have stumbled across references to Freud's Moses and Monotheism, one of the first and best books of revisionist history I ever read. Freud argues that Moses was an Egyptian, that he didn't invent monotheism, and that the Jews killed him in the desert. He published the book in 1939 in Nazi Austria, which many Jews found incomprehensible given Freud's origins. Well, when researching Yahuda I discovered that he contacted Freud personally to persuade him not to release the book. When Freud published it anyway, Yahuda wrote a long refutation of it (in Hebrew). Given that Freud was (1) one of the most famous men in the world at the time, (2) a passionate Egyptologist, and (3) a member of B'nai B'rith, I suppose it's not out of the question that Yahuda approached him not just as a scholar but as a Nasi. Not only that, a man named O'Farrell wrote a book claiming that the King Tut "curse" was actually a series of murders to cover up the fact that what was actually found down there were documents proving that Jesus was the son of Moses (or something like that, I haven't read the book). Freud somehow found this out, and multiple attempts were made on his life to keep him quiet. Take it or leave it. It is known that Freud, despite his grave illness and the dire political situation in Vienna, was determined to publish Moses and Monotheism before he died (he barely made it). He really wanted this information to come out, and he wanted the power of his name behind it. Of course it's also possible that the Nasi Yahuda knew something Freud didn't (in fact I'm sure of it), but when I looked at his refutation of Freud, it's full of Chosen garbage such as:
"The most saddening thing is that specifically a Jewish scholar fell onto such a fabrication. The corrupting power of assimilation is so very great...that it sows a seed of hatred toward [our] heritage in the hearts of the great scholars among us."
By "corrupting power of assimilation" he means "corrupting power of Gentiles". The implicit threat in this line ("submit to scripture or else") is enough to tell me that Freud, whom I consider to be a benefactor of humanity, is on the correct side of this debate and that Yahuda is a deceiver. "Hatred of our heritage" = "Refusal to recognize my claim to kingship". Hypothesis: Yahuda knows that his ancestors were the rulers of Spain until the invention of Catholicism in the 16th century. He can't say that out loud because it would make him sound crazy; the Jesuits did their job of imposing the new chronology around the world too well for him to touch that hot potato. Since his goal is not to reveal the truth but simply to re-establish what he considers to be his birthright (Benvenist dominion), he and his fellow Nasis probably decided that the best course of action was not to blow up the fake history, but simply to leave it in place and use it to their advantage via the legal claim to the Holy Land the fake Bible offers them. Freud probably did NOT know any of this, but his book was such dynamite to the Old Testament anyway that Yahuda found it necessary to silence him. Freud was a brilliant man and was probably figuring out a bit too much.
Back to Newton.
Yahuda:
It was the very extensiveness of the theological writings—the obsessive drafting, the lengthiness of the treatises—that spoke of Newton’s desire to “extend the universalistic character of Christianity.” By this Yahuda meant that Newton envisioned a truer, deeper religion, one that surpassed mere sectarianism, that “did not see the problem of religion exhausted in Christianity or Judea, but wanted to include all antique religions and the spiritual development of all other peoples besides the Israelites.”
Were they already trying to cook up a one-world religion in Newton's day, or were later agents like Yahuda trying to grandfather him into a new project?
But it was already very clear to him that the papers revealed that Newton was “more a monotheist than a Trinitarian.” In some parts of the manuscripts, Newton himself had concluded that “Jehovah is the unique god.”
So, Yahuda claims that Newton believed that Jehovah was the unique God, but that he should be accessible to all people. Sounds like the same proto-Noachide stuff we see everywhere.
In a recent thread, I brought up the work of Joseph Yahuda, who wrote a controversial book entitled "Hebrew is Greek". Well, Abraham is Joseph's uncle. Given the royal pedigree, I suspect he knows something we don't about the pre-Reset world. I also suspect he is more honest than his uncle and knows that Jews were a direct outgrowth of the Byzantine civilization, and were once kings of Europe.
Hypothesis: Yahuda, the spooky polymath/rabbi's son/prince of Zion was a disgruntled heir to a generational Intel project begun centuries earlier, the goal of which was to "prove" (forge) the reality of both the Bible and a distorted version of antiquity. Originally that project was undertaken to promote Christianity as the one true religion, and all the passionate theological debates between people like Leibniz, Spinoza, Newton, etc. were actually political debates between utopian social engineers. At some point in the 19th century a branch split off which was more interested in promoting (the fake Biblical version of) Judaism with a new Noachide variant added on.
(Another spooky item in the Yahuda Collection is the Naopleonic archives from the Egyptian campaign: Join us on Napoleon's expedition to Egypt and the Holy Land..)
The article also includes a letter Yahuda received from his buddy Albert Einstein that includes this juicy line:
The formative development of Newton’s lasting physics works must remain shrouded in darkness, because Newton apparently destroyed his preparatory works...
So he left behind eight million words (that's about 30,000 pages) of theological rambling but destroyed his preparatory physics works? I love how they just assume that because they can't find them, he must have destroyed them.
Or maybe there were none because he had simply inherited them as part of his intelligence activities?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.632433
Assuming this isn't just woke propaganda, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to imagine that some field agent of the British East India Company found something like this and transmitted it to his bosses, who gave it to Newton to figure out.
Remember, Newton himself wrote the Royal Society pronouncement giving him precedence over Leibniz in the calculus debate...without even allowing Leibniz to present his case!
Sarah Dry, the author of a book on Newton's papers:
How did Newton come to his discoveries? That’s what we want to know about any great thinker. That’s why we want to hear about this process of genius and creativity that we can see on this page. But he didn’t leave any working pages of the first edition of the Principia, just a clean copy that he sent to the printer when he was finished. The Principia went through three editions, and there were many drafts between one and two and two and three. They show a lot, but he actually covered up his methods in his published works. He presented his discoveries of optics in a formal language that covered up the traces of the hard work that one assumes went into it. And it’s because Newton didn’t want people to know how he had come to his knowledge. I think that might relate to his religious beliefs regarding anti-Trinitariansim. He believed there was an elite cadre of people that were given the truth of religion. And the vulgar masses weren’t strong enough.
The Strange, Secret History of Isaac Newton's Papers
An elite cadre...the vulgar masses...again, sounds like some kind of initiate.
A quick look at Sarah Dry reveals her to be fully enmeshed in the usual spook networks like the Gates Foundation (and a probable tranny). These foundations are full of trannies -- it's always amusing to click on the photos of the board members. She is heavily involved in pushing both the climate change and epidemic/vaccination psyops. Verdict: deceiver, so everything she says must be considered pre-spun to confuse your brain.
The 1728 English edition contains an introduction from John Conduitt, Newton's successor as Warden of the Mint (an intel position) explaining that we must attribute certain internal inconsistencies to the fact that Newton never intended to publish it, and therefore had not worked out all the kinks yet.
- Did Conduitt, Conti, or Souciet simply forge this text and have it attributed to Newton?
- Did the Queen receive a different private text with a very different chronology?
- Were Conti and Leibniz given a dummy text full of disinformation?
None of that feels quite right.
Keep in mind that during this whole thing, Newton is over eighty years old and not in the best of health. Was Newton's last Intel assignment before he died to whore out his name and his credibility (themselves artificially inflated anyway) to some hack history work in order to give it legs? Did he initially refuse? Did they then go around him by having it published in France first with his name on it, thereby forcing him to recognize it? If we can trust Sarah Dry, Newton's "real" Bible work appears to be looking for some kind of code in there.
There's no way to unwind any of this with any certainty, so for the purpose of this exercise I will assume Newton really wrote it and move on to the text itself, or what I've read of it so far, namely the abridged chronology and the chapter on Egypt.
First observation: there is no personality, no style, no distinct voice. This could have been written by anyone, or by a computer.
Second observation: it's incomprehensible to me. I can't even provide a summary of the chapter on Egypt because I could identify no "center" to summarize. There is no real attempt to organize information in a way that paints a living picture. Instead we get lists of dozens, even hundreds of kings, all of whom have at least five interchangeable names. For example:
But this contradicts what he says in his opening paragraph on Egypt, in which Osiris, Bacchus and Hercules are listed as three separate kings, not doubles of each other:
There is moreover a complete confusion of Biblical names, Greek names, and Egyptian names. Ariadne, Saturn, Prometheus, Thoth, etc. pop in and out, sometimes as gods, sometimes as mortals, with no clear distinction drawn between the two. After a few pages you are lost. Or at least I was lost. I defy anyone to make sense of this. Everything melts together in a blob of battles, genealogies, and conquests with basically no framework.
If I were writing such a work, I would regularly "step back" and try to synthesize and schematize the information for the reader. He never does this. It's just a cascade of names, not even always presented in chronological order.
The subjective impression I get is not that he is really attempting to sort out confusion, but rather to add one more layer to it. Again the technique identified by Kammeier. Produce one source (Herodotus) that partially conflicts with a second source (Diodorus). Add a third commentator (Newton) that blends the two together while introducing even more names and lists. Have a fourth scholar (the Jesuit Souciet) dispute the conclusions of the third in a way that sets up the desired false dialectic and presto, you have given historians enough false leads to waste their time for a hundred years. You've also given them an arsenal of literally hundreds of more or less interchangeable names that they can use to spin future archaeological finds (or forgeries) in an infinity of different ways given how shapeless the whole construction is.
Diodorus Siculus, who I presume is a creation of the proto-Renaissance, supposedly wrote forty volumes of history, of which "only" fifteen remain, totaling three thousand pages.
Imagine trying to get through three thousand pages of this. It's a literal hazing. By the time you read all the fake ancient authors, you're already old and your mind has been thrown into a state of confusion from which there is no return. And if you haven't read them, then you're not a serious student of history. Win-win for the forgers.
I must admit that I sometimes get a similar feeling when reading Fomenko and other New Chronology writers, namely that I am wandering in a swirling fog of names and dates. I get lost. Maybe I just lack a solid base in academic history.
Third observation: there is a constant effort to downplay anything that sounds too "supernatural" or divine. Newton (if he really wrote this) regularly argues that the gods of old were just men whose legacies had been inflated over time. For example:
Fourth observation: as previously mentioned, the two historians he cites most in this chapter are Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus. I've never read more than excerpts of either, but if they're anything like this, I can only consider their writings to be earlier iterations of a similar project of shrouding antiquity in complete confusion. Was Newton's task to update their work in order to erase certain truths that had been considered permissible at an earlier stage of the forgery operation, but no longer were?
Maybe I'm too paranoid, but my ears pricked up when I saw this:
- There was a real "Herodotus" who wrote a real text that was altered, OR
- There was no real text but there were references to someone named "Herodotus" in other real texts along with real fragments that were later incorporated into the forgery and served as its skeleton, OR
- The whole thing was faked from the ground up.
Fifth observation: there is no attempt to connect anything he describes with the current world. The whole thing exists in some kind of abstract cloud.
Sixth observation: it is VERY difficult to believe that this confused text was written by the man credited with inventing modern science. He never really explains his reasoning. There's no "taste of genius".
And a few random anomalies:
- He has an entire (long) chapter dedicated to a description of Solomon’s Temple and its precise dimensions.
- Newton claims that corn was farmed in the Nile Valley after its "invention". This is curious for two reasons. One, corn supposedly comes from the New World, and you would expect the scientist Newton to know this. Two, corn is a cultigen, meaning it really was "invented" and not simply farmed. Newton's word choice is perhaps a tell here. The "official" story of corn is that it was slowly transformed from this into this:
Corn is a rabbit hole unto itself.
- An idea occurred to me while reading. Newton brings up posthumous "deification" a lot, which he records as an event. For example, in his introductory chronology, he writes "937. Hercules and Aesculapius are Deified." Why is it capitalized? Why is it worth including? My first thought was that Newton was trying to write the gods out of history. But there's another possibility as well. Did the practicing alchemist Newton know that deification was a real, scientific process by which the dead were trapped on Earth and transformed into powerful spirits? There's this woo idea that I've encountered in some of my less responsible readings that the spirits of the dead can be artificially kept on Earth by feeding them sacrificial life-energy, but the inevitable result is that these spirits become corrupt, senile, and psychotic, since they are resisting the natural order, which is that the dead must reincarnate.
- Apparently Diodorus believed Moses created the Temple in Jerusalem:
- Another example: it's not Akhenaton who attempted to impose monotheism but Cheops, the supposed builder of the Great Pyramid:
- Here's a wild idea:
I'd like to conclude by attempting a reductio ad absurdum thought experiment that starts with the following assumptions:
- Our history was forged sometime in the Renaissance
- Herodotus, Diodorus Siculus, the Bible, etc. are forgeries incorporating some real elements
- The continuing forgery is a generational project entrusted to high-level initiates and intelligence agents
- Starting with these three assumptions, it would be logical to conclude that people like Newton, Leibniz, Caroline of Ansbach, etc. probably belonged to the group of people who "knew".
- If they all knew, then Newton's Chronology must have been written and published with an intent to deceive.
- Is it possible that Caroline of Ansbach did NOT know, and that the forgery operation targeted her as well as the general population?
- It would make sense for the forgers to keep as many powerful people as possible out of the loop, because such people would pose a security risk. Also, what better way to salt in a fake history than by having the sovereign believe it and communicate that belief to her subjects with no cognitive dissonance?
- It is even conceivable that the history forgers deemed their project successful enough at some point to be terminated. More and more real history was deliberately withheld from each successive generation of intelligence agents in order to make it impossible for anyone ever to know the truth. If the original goal of the operation was the complete obliteration of the ancient world (and not simply the artificial creation/maintenance of a hierarchized society run by initiates who would derive their power from secret knowledge), then we should actually expect them to do this.
- If so, did Newton come before or after the cutoff point at which even initiates were fed fake history? Was he an heir of "Herodotus" and "Diodorus", or their victim?
- If Newton indeed "stole" calculus, etc. from ancient manuscripts, then he was a knowing deceiver.
- Was Newton so eager to find the "Bible Code" because he knew the manifest content of these history texts could not be trusted, but he hoped/believed/knew that there was a cipher in there that would unlock the "real" history? Is that why he spent so much time researching the Temple of Solomon in such excruciating geometric detail?
- This would also explain why so many "alternative history" writers like Laurence Gardner, Zechariah Sitchin, Immanuel Velikovsky, Ralph Ellis, etc. appear to have secret society connections. Maybe they're not engaged in pure, gratuitous deception, but have actually been commissioned by the heirs of the history forgers to take their best shot at reconstructing a history they themselves have lost.
I'm not sure I can get through any of the other chapters in this book, but maybe someone else wants to do those...
Last edited:
