Protect Democracy & Expose Western Liberal Democracy

Posts tagged ‘Yemen’

The Great Role of Abyssinia in Liberating the Region


The great Role of Abyssinia in Liberating the Region

The great Role of Abyssinia in Liberating the Region

Important Update Notice on 24 July 2018: I have updated my Abyssinian Hypothesis  after discovering the that single-hump camel (The dromedary) was unknown in Arabia, Aram, Assyria, and Kemet before 950 BC, while in abundance in the land of Punt.

This led to make the following major changes:
1- The proposed origin of Israelite from being Arabic-speaking Arab Yemenis to Ge’ez-speaking African Puntite;
2- Rename the Abyssinian Hypothesis to the Ge’ez Puntite Hypothesis;
3- The Turkic Mongolian colonizers and rulers of Neo-Babylonia invited elders from the House of Israel to Babylonia in around 580 BC in what is called the Babylonian Exile to help the create Judaism and colonize Aramaic land in 530 BC;
4- The Hebrew Language and the Hebrew Israelite are products of admixture between Ge’ez Israelite, Turkic Mongolian Persians, and colonized Aramaic. They existed only after 530 C; and
5- The Lost Sheep of the House of Israel are those Israelite who  left the land of Punt and decided to collaborate with Turkic Mongolians to invent Judaism and colonize Aramaic lands; and turned into Hebrew Israelite.

Therefore, the Israelite Exodus of 1446 BC was only within Punt, from one region to another. The Jews are not Israelite at all; and the name Judah was just used deceptively to relate the Jews to the Israelite. The Israelite were scattered all over the world and they no longer exist as a nation or a tribe.

For more details on the Ge’ez Puntite Hypothesis read the following three articles:
1- How Persians Cooked a Cult and Called it Judaism Part 1
2- The Turkic Mongolian-African Israelite Joint-ventures
3- Jesus Pointing to “The Lost Sheep of the house of Israel” and “the Gentiles”
[End of notice]

The Abyssinians (Habesha), the descendants of Punt, put an end to the Turkic Mongolian colony of D’mt (c. 980 BC–c. 400 BC) and liberated their lands in 400 BC.

Then also stopped the Turkic Mongolian colony of Kush in 350 AD and saved the people of present day Sudan.

The Abyssinian struggles against foreign colonization in the region ended with the overthrow of the murderous kingdom of Ḥimyar (110 BC–525 AD) in 525 AD, the heir to the Sabaean Kingdom (between 1200 and 800 BC to 275 AD) which was a Turkic Mongolian pretender of biblical Sheba.

It is truly regrettable and damaging to find unjustified aggrandizement for the kingdom of Kush, which is meant to obliterate the original history and civilization in Sudan that is the civilization of Kerma, which built the first foundation and lasted for more than 2,000 years.

This is seen in false allegations of mentioning Kush in sites dates back to Kemt’s Middle Kingdom era, but that is impossible to be because Kush (c 785 BC–c AD 350) was not yet made at that time.

The honorable and great roles played by Abyssinia in maintaining peace, justice, and prosperity in the region are indeed great examples of humility and fairness. Thanks Habesha!

[Note: The Turkic Mongolian groups who devastated all the Middle East, India, Europe, and Africa are originally from Western Mongolia, East Kazakhstan Region and the Uyghurs of Xinjiang in China. They are of Mongolian and Turkic speaking groups from the Altaic Family. They are the creators of Persians, Jews, Turks, Romans, yellow Indians, Gypsies, Bedouins, and Arabized Turkic rulers and wealthy in Arabia and Africa]

Advertisements

How did the Civilizations of Punt and Kerma Fall?


How did the Civilizations of Punt and Karma Fall

How did the Civilizations of Punt and Karma Fall

Important Update Notice on 24 July 2018: I have updated my Abyssinian Hypothesis  after discovering the that single-hump camel (The dromedary) was unknown in Arabia, Aram, Assyria, and Kemet before 950 BC, while in abundance in the land of Punt.

This led to make the following major changes:
1- The proposed origin of Israelite from being Arabic-speaking Arab Yemenis to Ge’ez-speaking African Puntite;
2- Rename the Abyssinian Hypothesis to the Ge’ez Puntite Hypothesis;
3- The Turkic Mongolian colonizers and rulers of Neo-Babylonia invited elders from the House of Israel to Babylonia in around 580 BC in what is called the Babylonian Exile to help the create Judaism and colonize Aramaic land in 530 BC;
4- The Hebrew Language and the Hebrew Israelite are products of admixture between Ge’ez Israelite, Turkic Mongolian Persians, and colonized Aramaic. They existed only after 530 C; and
5- The Lost Sheep of the House of Israel are those Israelite who  left the land of Punt and decided to collaborate with Turkic Mongolians to invent Judaism and colonize Aramaic lands; and turned into Hebrew Israelite.

Therefore, the Israelite Exodus of 1446 BC was only within Punt, from one region to another. The Jews are not Israelite at all; and the name Judah was just used deceptively to relate the Jews to the Israelite. The Israelite were scattered all over the world and they no longer exist as a nation or a tribe.

For more details on the Ge’ez Puntite Hypothesis read the following three articles:
1- How Persians Cooked a Cult and Called it Judaism Part 1
2- The Turkic Mongolian-African Israelite Joint-ventures
3- Jesus Pointing to “The Lost Sheep of the house of Israel” and “the Gentiles”
[End of notice]

The people between the First and Sixth Cataract of the Nile, first created the African Kerma Civilization (2500 BC-1500 BC) which evolved from the indigenous Pre-Kerma (c. 3500–2500 BC)
then came the Early Kerma (c. 2500–2050 BC) or C-Group Phase Ia–Ib;
then the Middle Kerma (c. 2050–1750 BC) or C-Group Phase Ib–IIa;
then the Classic Kerma (c. 1750–1580 BC) or C-Group Phase IIb–III;
then the Final Kerma (c. 1580–1500 BC) C-Group Phase IIb–III.

Kerma was disintegrated by Arab Israelite from Yemen came as nomadic refugees via Punt since 1876 BC. While north Kemet (Aka Delta of Egypt) was invaded and colonized by Turkic Mongolian Hyksos (1630-1523 BC) who are the forefathers of Persians, Jews, Turks, Romans, yellow Indians, Gypsies, Bedouins, and Arabized Turkic rulers and wealthy in Arabia and Africa

The Israelites who were Yemenite Arabs took refuge in Punt in 1876 BC. The people and rulers of Punt received them well for 430 years. During their refuge, many of those Israelites moved further into Kerma (ancient Nubia) and neighboring countries. Soon after their arrival the nomadic Israelites started looting, damaging, and enslaving the peoples of Punt, Kerma, and their neighbors, including the Beja people.

But the rulers of Kerma and Punt in cooperation and support from the kings of Kamet (It was not yet called Egypt) started to protect themselves. King Ahmose I who ruled from 1549 BC until 1524 BC till King Thutmose III who ruled from 1479 BC until 1425 BC began liberating north Kemt from the Turkic Mongolian Hyksos in 1523 BC and chased them till the borders with Assyria. Then Kemt went further and assisted Kerma and Punt to kick out the Israelites and expelled them from their lands and push them back to Yemen by force in 1446 BC.

Unfortunately, the eastern coast of Punt, particularly the land of the Beja, fell again under raids since 1200 BC but this time from Turkic Mongolians coming from the Arabian Peninsula after they devastated it. Around 1000 BC the Turkic Mongolian raiders established themselves in Southern Arabia and created in 800 BC the Sabaean chieftaincy pretending to be Sheba of Punt.

In the eastern coast of Punt they created a Turkic Mongolian colony calling it D’mt (c. 980 BC–c. 400 BC). The Sabaeans and D’mt worked together and in c 785 BC a third kingdom was created in what used to be Kerma. The new sister kingdom was called Kush. With these three kingdoms Turkic Mongolian devastation, looting and slavery continued in Arabia, Punt, and Karma.

This resulted in the final fall of civilizations of Punt and Karma. Kush indeed was degeneration and vulgarization of the Kerma civilization that was one of the greatest and oldest African and human achievements. The fall of the Beja to Turkic Mongolians had grave repercussions led to the loss of independence, freedom, and development in Punt and Kerma.

The Turkic Mongolian groups who devastated all the Middle East, India, Europe, and Africa are originally from Western Mongolia, East Kazakhstan Region and the Uyghurs of Xinjiang in China. They are of Mongolian and Turkic speaking groups from the Altaic Family.

The Most Important Groups Created by Turkic Mongolians

The Most Important Groups Created by Turkic Mongolians

Discovering Real Friends and Real Enemies


The Most Important Groups Created by Turkic Mongolians

The Most Important Groups Created by Turkic Mongolians

Important Update Notice on 24 July 2018: I have updated my Abyssinian Hypothesis  after discovering the that single-hump camel (The dromedary) was unknown in Arabia, Aram, Assyria, and Kemet before 950 BC, while in abundance in the land of Punt.

This led to make the following major changes:
1- The proposed origin of Israelite from being Arabic-speaking Arab Yemenis to Ge’ez-speaking African Puntite;
2- Rename the Abyssinian Hypothesis to the Ge’ez Puntite Hypothesis;
3- The Turkic Mongolian colonizers and rulers of Neo-Babylonia invited elders from the House of Israel to Babylonia in around 580 BC in what is called the Babylonian Exile to help the create Judaism and colonize Aramaic land in 530 BC;
4- The Hebrew Language and the Hebrew Israelite are products of admixture between Ge’ez Israelite, Turkic Mongolian Persians, and colonized Aramaic. They existed only after 530 C; and
5- The Lost Sheep of the House of Israel are those Israelite who  left the land of Punt and decided to collaborate with Turkic Mongolians to invent Judaism and colonize Aramaic lands; and turned into Hebrew Israelite.

Therefore, the Israelite Exodus of 1446 BC was only within Punt, from one region to another. The Jews are not Israelite at all; and the name Judah was just used deceptively to relate the Jews to the Israelite. The Israelite were scattered all over the world and they no longer exist as a nation or a tribe.

For more details on the Ge’ez Puntite Hypothesis read the following three articles:
1- How Persians Cooked a Cult and Called it Judaism Part 1
2- The Turkic Mongolian-African Israelite Joint-ventures
3- Jesus Pointing to “The Lost Sheep of the house of Israel” and “the Gentiles”
[End of notice]

Discovering Real Friends and Real Enemies

The crises of tyranny and bad governance and the lack of political participation and restriction of fundamental freedoms in the countries of the region and in neighboring countries, including Sudan, Eritrea, Somalia, Djibouti, Yemen and the Gulf States is primarily due to the old and long legacy of looting and exploitation by Turkic Mongolians (and not only the Turks and the Mongols), and these ropes are still wrapped around the necks and the conscience and in economy, politics and society.

Therefore, the emancipation from this legacy and the resolution of the resulting crises must only be based on understanding the real causes and the real history and then forming an international and regional movement to withdraw the foreign backing that assists these regimes against their people; and to provide sustainable support and partnership with popular movements and political organizations to liberate their countries from the Turkic Mongolians who control them.

Appealing for support from similar corrupt governments and embassies, most of them in fact partners in this devastating legacy will not benefit; and will certainly harm genuine opposition groups and peoples.

Perhaps the current governments in Ethiopia, Egypt and southern Africa are the most capable and most qualified to move outside the influence of Turkic Mongolian groups, including the Turks, Romans, Persians, fake Europeans and their collaborators.

اكتشاف الاصدقاء و الاعداء الحقيقيين

ازمات الاستبداد في الحكم و انعدام المشاركة السياسية و تقييد الحريات الاساسية في دول المنطقة و الجوار و منهم السودان و اريتريا و الصومال و جيبوتي و اليمن و دول الخليج ترجع في المقام الاول لارث قديم و طويل من النهب و السبي قام به الترك منغول (و ليس فقط الاتراك و المغول) و لازالت حبائله ملتفة حول الاعناق و الوجدان و في الاقتصاد و السياسة و المجتمع.

لذا فان الانعتاق من هذا الارث و حل الازمات الناتجة عنه لا تقوم الا بفهم الاسباب و التاريخ الحقيقي و من ثم تشكيل حركة اقليمية  دولية لسحب الدعم الاجنبي الذي يسند تلك الانظمة المتأمرة ضد شعوبها و لتوفير مساندة مستدامة و شراكة مع الحركات الشعبية و التنظيمات السياسية للتحرر من اذناب الترك منغول المتسلطين عليهم.

اما استجداء انظمة و سفارات اغلبهم شركاء في هذا الارث المخرب فلن يفيد بل و سيضر المعارضين و الشعوب. ربما الحكومات الحالية في اثيوبيا و مصر و الجنوب الافريقي هم الاقدر و الاكثر تأهيلا للتحرك خارج اطار نفوذ مجموعات الترك منغول و منهم الاتراك و الرومان و الفرس و الاوروبيين المزوريين و عملائهم.

Earliest Signs of Eritrea Departing Punt


Fattovich found three distinct ceramic traditions in a part of Punt

Fattovich found three distinct ceramic traditions in a part of Punt

It came to my understanding as an idea and now a hypothesis that the Arabian Peninsula and Punt Land came under very strong Turkic Mongolian settlements and slavery since 1600 BC and became well-established around 1000 BC. This was part of a very wide Turkic Mongolian raids and expansions.

This transformation is what resulted, among other disasters, in the downfall and disappearance of ancient Arabs, Punt, and Kerma. It also led, with the involvement of Persians (who are also of Turkic Mongolian colonization of Iran) to the replacement of the genuine religious Law of Moses with a political Turkic Judaism in 530 BC.

The initial settlements in the Red Sea region created Saba’a of Yemen (which is totally different and centuries later from Sheba of Punt Land) and also D’mt. These two Turkic regimes assisted in the formation of Kush in Kerma (ancient Nubia) and all of them were slavery and gold based businesses.

The disintegration of Punt separated the Beja and formed secessionist identities which formed, with later Ottoman role, the present states.

The introduction of horses as military weapon; FGM; homosexuality; face and body tattoos; and the symbols of Moon, Sun, bull head, and cross of Tengrism are among the most common features of Turkic Mongolian settlements and they could be used to identify them.

I support my hypothesis with the following argument:

Excerpts from “Reconsidering Yeha, c. 800–400 BC”

Here are excerpts from an article, by late Professor Rodolfo Fattovich (Trieste 1945 – Rome March 23, 2018) in African Archaeological Review · December 2009. Published online: 28 January 2010
by Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

[Abstract

Yeha, in Tigray, is the most impressive site with evidence for South Arabian influence dating to the first millennium BC in the northern Horn of Africa (Eritrea and northern Ethiopia). The evidence from this site was used to identify a ‘Pre-Aksumite’ or ‘Ethiopian-Sabean’ Period (mid-first millennium BC) when an
early Afro-Arabian state apparently arose in the region. A ‘Pre-Aksumite Culture’, characterised by South Arabian elements, was also suggested as a distinctive archaeological culture in northern Ethiopia and Eritrea. However, recent fieldwork in these countries suggests that a Pre-Aksumite culture actually did not exist and South Arabian features were restricted to a few sites, which were scattered in a mosaic of
different archaeological cultures in the first millennium BC. This hypothesis is tested through a comparison between the ceramics from Yeha and those from Matara and other sites of the first millennium BC in Tigray and Eritrea.]

[General Remarks

The archaeological evidence I have tentatively reviewed in the previous pages suggests the following:
First, indigenous sedentary people with at least three distinct ceramic traditions occupied central Tigray (Yeha I, Sefra Abun, Sefra Turkui and Aksum region), Agame and Akkele Guzay (Gulo Makeda, Sobea and Matara VIII–V) and Hamasien (‘Ancient Ona’), respectively, in the early first millennium BC. Cattle herders were also moving at the margins and across these regions at this time, and most likely contributed to the development in an exchange network among them, and between the communities on the highlands and those in the lowlands and coastal regions (see Finneran 2007: 92–8).

The culture historical meaning of these three main ceramic traditions is still unknown. They might represent either three variants in pottery manufacture by the same people with a common subsistence economy and settlement pattern (and perhaps language) or three separate populations (see also Curtis 2009). The ‘Ancient Ona Culture’ in the Greater Asmara region (Hamasien) might be ascribed to a separate population as this culture is characterised by some specific features, such as ritual stone bulls heads, which do not occur in the other regions (Schmidt 2009).

Moreover, an alignment of six collapsed monoliths with roughly rectangular crosssections at Keskese might suggest that this was an important ceremonial centre in the early first millennium BC, and may point to the emergence of a hierarchical society in Akkele Guzay at this time. These monoliths are in neither a South Arabian nor Aksumite style and may thus be ascribed to a local tradition (see also Curtis and Habtemichael 2008: 321–3).

The way the populations living in these three main regions interacted with each other is uncertain as well. At present, there is no sure evidence of any interaction between the populations living in Eritrea and Tigray in the early first millennium BC. A few fragments of red-orange coarse ware like that of Yeha I in central Tigray have been collected on the surface at Keskese in Akkele Guzay and might suggest some contacts between these regions (Fattovich 1980: 35), but this evidence is much too scarce to be conclusive. Red-orange coarse ware like that of central Tigray was also collected in sites of the lowlands near Kassala, and may suggest contacts between these regions in the early first millennium BC.

The occurrence of the same types of vessels at Matara (IV–III), Gulo Makeda, Yeha (Yeha II), Hawlti and Kidane Mehret suggests that a common ceramic tradition spread over Akkele Guzay, Agame and central Tigray in the mid-first millennium BC (Fattovich 1980: 50–4). This might indicate greater interaction between the populations inhabiting these regions, through either massive circulation of ceramics
within a more intense exchange network or movement of female potters in both directions as a consequence of marriages. Black-topped polished ware was a major component of the ceramics, suggesting a possible origin of this tradition in Akklele Guzay and Agame rather than in central Tigray, where red-orange ware most likely disappeared.

The ‘Ancient Ona’ people in Hamasien indisputably maintained their ceramic tradition (and thus perhaps a specific cultural identity) at this time. The occurrence of jars in the style of the ‘Ancient Ona Culture’ at sites in Akkele Guzay and central Tigray, as well as a geometric bronze filigree seal comparable to specimens from Yeha II, Hawlti and Sobea at Mai Chiot may point to some contacts with the regions
to south and east of Asmara (Schmidt et al. 2008: Fig. 6.42; Leclant and Miquel 1959: Pl. LVIII; de Contenson 1963b: Pls. XLII b, LIII a; Anfray 1963a: Pls. CLII hk, CLIV e-h). Moreover, a few fragments of storage jars from Sembel (Tringali 1978: Fig. 24c), which are similar to those of the Jebel Mokram group in the western Eritrean-Sudanese lowlands, as well as fragments of Ona jars from sites near Agordat (Brandt et al. 2008), and Ona-like small stone and clay bulls’ heads from Sabir near Aden (Buffa and Vogt 2001: fig. 3.3) may suggest contacts both with the western lowlands in Eritrea and Sudan and with the coastal regions of Yemen.

Finally on this point, the occurrence of different ceramics at Yeha III and the late ‘Pre-Aksumite’/early Aksumite (according to Anfray’s chronological sequence; Anfray 1967) occupation at Matara may suggest the re-emergence of two separate ceramic traditions in central Tigray and Akkele Guzay in the late first millennium BC.

Second, so far, ceramics in a South Arabian style occur only in sites of central Tigray, Agame and Akkele Guzay, and form a minor (almost insignificant) component of the pottery assemblages at these sites (Fattovich 1980). These ceramics thus do not support the presence of any consistent South Arabian community on the Ethiopian/Eritrean highlands in the first millennium BC. Most of them may also be local imitations of South Arabian prototypes, such as bowls with a ring-foot and possibly the so-called ‘amphorae’ (see Phillipson 2009).

In any case, these pots may suggest that both the people of central Tigray and those of Agame and Akkele Guzay had some contacts with the populations of southwestern Arabia beginning in the early first millennium BC. Ceramics in a South Arabian style occur in the earliest strata at Yeha (Yeha I), where they may be contemporary to the construction of a small temple probably in a South Arabian (Hadramawt?) style in the eighth century BC (Robin and de Maigret 1998; see also Manzo 2009). A few fragments of big jars similar in the style to those from Sabir (Aden) were collected in the lower strata at Matara (Anfray 1966; Fattovich 1980: 76, 84), and may point to contacts with the coastal regions of Yemen in the early first millennium BC. These contacts are also supported by rock inscriptions in the region of Qohaito recording the names of individuals (not ‘tribes’ or colonists) who penetrated from South Arabia into central Eritrea as early as the ninth or eighth centuries BC (Ricci 1994). So far, however, there is no archaeological evidence of their presence, suggesting they were completely amalgamated with the local population(s).

Bowls with a ring-foot and the so-called ‘amphorae’, which were typical of Yeha I, also occur in the ceramic assemblages of Yeha II and Matara IV–III suggesting that they were incorporated into the common ceramic tradition of central Tigray, Agame and Akkele Guzay in the mid-first millennium BC, but represent an insignificant component of this tradition (Fattovich 1980: 51–52).

Finally, these vessels completely disappear in the ceramic assemblages of Yeha III, suggesting they were no longer used in the late first millennium BC when a new (proto-Aksumite) ceramic tradition emerged in the region of Aksum (Fattovich 1990, 2004; Fattovich and Bard 2001).

Third and last, at present, only the ceramics of Yeha II and Matara IV–III, ascribable to a common tradition of central Tigray, Agame and Akkele Guzay, can be safely associated with monuments, votive altars, offering tables and inscriptions in a South Arabian style (Fattovich 1990).5 All other sculptures, inscriptions and votive altars in a South Arabian style, which are usually dated to the mid-first millennium BC on a comparison with possible prototypes in Yemen, have been recorded out of context, and thus cannot provide any firm cultural or historical information. We can tentatively assume they were associated with a few ceremonial centres scattered from central and eastern Tigray to central Eritrea (Fattovich 1990, 2004), and were possibly contemporary with the sites with ceramics similar to those of Yeha II and Matara IV–III. These artefacts suggest that a powerful elite emerged in the highlands, most likely in the mid-first millennium BC, and adopted some South Arabian symbols as a manifestation of their power (Fattovich 1990; Curtis 2008; Manzo 2009). A few votive altars with inscriptions apparently recording individuals from Yemen (Saba) may suggest that some South Arabians, maybe traders or craftsmen, were living in Tigray as well (Schneider 2003: 613).

Conclusion
An exhaustive synthesis of the cultural history and the social, economic and ideological transformations in the early- to mid-first millennium BC is still premature as most of the northern Horn of Africa is archaeologically unexplored and the collected evidence is mainly from surface surveys (see e.g., Fattovich 2005: 12–15; Curtis 2008).

The very scarce archaeological data we have may only suggest that two different ceramic traditions merged into one common tradition in the region from Aksum to Matara, and a major ceremonial centre with monumental buildings in a South Arabian style and an elite cemetery was located at Yeha in the mid-first millennium BC. Two separate ceramic traditions again emerged in the same region when Yeha
declined in the late first millennium BC (Yeha III).

This evidence might reflect the development of a hierarchical society, most likely at a state-level of complexity, which was characterised by the manufacture of similar ceramics and the use of symbols of power in a South Arabian style, in central Tigray, Agame and Akkele Guzay in the mid-first millennium BC. However, the identification of the Tigrean/Eritrean ceramic tradition of the mid-first millennium
BC with a specific polity, such as D‘MT, is questionable in the absence of a more detailed analysis of the rate of similarity between the ceramics in the single sites, which might support or reject the existence of a discrete archaeological culture, and a proper archaeological context for most buildings and artefacts in a South Arabian style in the region.]

To download the full article “Reconsidering Yeha, c. 800–400 BC” by late Professor Rodolfo Fattovich from researchgate.net click HERE

Eritrea is Just the Turkified Part of Abyssinia


History tells that Eritrea is not an old nation or a state; but it is only a new formation.

Eritrea is just the Turkified population and part of Abyssinia. Discovering and exposing the real collapse that happened shall bring back the coastal regions and its population to its Abyssinian origin and shall reunite Abyssinia.

I will try to research and write on this subject soon. I hope you could translate and post the following article written in Arabic “Explaining the contradiction between Ethiopia’s neutral position and Eritrea’s pro-coalition stance against Yemen” before I get the time to do it: تفسير التناقض بين موقف اثيوبيا المحايد و موقف اريتريا الموالي للتحالف ضد اليمن

It seems that this contradiction and difference is due to ethnic and historical political reasons implicated in the past.

Ethiopia represents Abyssinia and ancient Abyssinian relations with the original Arabs. While Eritrea is part of the history and the presence of the Turkic Mongolian groups, including the Jews, the Arabized Turkic Bedouins, and Sabaeans and they are in contrast to the original Arabs and the true history of Yemen

For sure the motives were trading posts, slaves, and gold. That is why Eritrea has very low population density, mineral deposits, and military bases.  Eritrea was depopulated by Turkic Mongolian slavery very long ago.

And it was used to tamper with the sensitive history and security of both Yemen and Abyssinia so as to conceal the true history of Israelite and their refuge in Africa in 1876 BC until their Exodus in 1446 BC.

This history if proved and revealed shall destroy the legitimacy of the Old Testament, the Jews, and the present state of Israel, plus the Judaeo-Christianity and Roman Catholicism.

Queen Sheba of Abyssinia is not Sabaean from Yemen


Important Update Notice on 24 July 2018: I have updated my Abyssinian Hypothesis  after discovering the that single-hump camel (The dromedary) was unknown in Arabia, Aram, Assyria, and Kemet before 950 BC, while in abundance in the land of Punt.

This led to make the following major changes:
1- The proposed origin of Israelite from being Arabic-speaking Arab Yemenis to Ge’ez-speaking African Puntite;
2- Rename the Abyssinian Hypothesis to the Ge’ez Puntite Hypothesis;
3- The Turkic Mongolian colonizers and rulers of Neo-Babylonia invited elders from the House of Israel to Babylonia in around 580 BC in what is called the Babylonian Exile to help the create Judaism and colonize Aramaic land in 530 BC;
4- The Hebrew Language and the Hebrew Israelite are products of admixture between Ge’ez Israelite, Turkic Mongolian Persians, and colonized Aramaic. They existed only after 530 C; and
5- The Lost Sheep of the House of Israel are those Israelite who  left the land of Punt and decided to collaborate with Turkic Mongolians to invent Judaism and colonize Aramaic lands; and turned into Hebrew Israelite.

Therefore, the Israelite Exodus of 1446 BC was only within Punt, from one region to another. The Jews are not Israelite at all; and the name Judah was just used deceptively to relate the Jews to the Israelite. The Israelite were scattered all over the world and they no longer exist as a nation or a tribe.

For more details on the Ge’ez Puntite Hypothesis read the following three articles:
1- How Persians Cooked a Cult and Called it Judaism Part 1
2- The Turkic Mongolian-African Israelite Joint-ventures
3- Jesus Pointing to “The Lost Sheep of the house of Israel” and “the Gentiles”
[End of notice]

The old and existing associates of Sabaeans (or Sabeans) and Ḥimyarite are descendants of a Turkic Mongolian gangster nicknamed Saba’a (means captor or slaver who claim to be Sun worshiper Saba’a ibn Yishgub bin Yarub bin Qahtan). They were and are the remnants of Turkic Mongolian looters and colonizers, together with their slaves and collaborators.

After their destruction and erasing the long ancient history of Yemen and Arabs which existed until their invasion of Yemen they invented and imposed fake history made up by Persians, Romans and Jews.

The new history gave them an Arab origin and claimed that the Arabs before them became extinct. The invented history is still hostile to genuine Arabs, Israelite, and Yemenis.

They are also malicious towards the civilizations of Abyssinia, Kemet (ancient Egypt), Kerma (ancient Nubia), and all other Africans.

One of the biggest frauds in history was made by confusing and blurring the history of the Abyssinian Queen Sheba and the Hebrew King Solomon with that criminal regimes of Sabaeans (or Sabeans) and Ḥimyarite.

Certainly, the Abyssinian Kingdom of Sheba is totally different from the regime of Turkic Mongolian Sabaeans.

The Old Testament does not mention the founding person of the Sabaeans (or Sabeans) and whether they were in Yemen or Abyssinia. It does not help in resolving the confusion between Saba’a and Sheba.

 

Abyssinian Hypothesis New Interpretation of Bible History


Abyssinian Hypothesis on Israelite, Hebrew, Jewish History – New Interpretation of Bible History

Important Update Notice on 24 July 2018: I have updated my Abyssinian Hypothesis  after discovering the that single-hump camel (The dromedary) was unknown in Arabia, Aram, Assyria, and Kemet before 950 BC, while in abundance in the land of Punt.

This led to make the following major changes:
1- The proposed origin of Israelite from being Arabic-speaking Arab Yemenis to Ge’ez-speaking African Puntite;
2- Rename the Abyssinian Hypothesis to the Ge’ez Puntite Hypothesis;
3- The Turkic Mongolian colonizers and rulers of Neo-Babylonia invited elders from the House of Israel to Babylonia in around 580 BC in what is called the Babylonian Exile to help the create Judaism and colonize Aramaic land in 530 BC;
4- The Hebrew Language and the Hebrew Israelite are products of admixture between Ge’ez Israelite, Turkic Mongolian Persians, and colonized Aramaic. They existed only after 530 C; and
5- The Lost Sheep of the House of Israel are those Israelite who  left the land of Punt and decided to collaborate with Turkic Mongolians to invent Judaism and colonize Aramaic lands; and turned into Hebrew Israelite.

Therefore, the Israelite Exodus of 1446 BC was only within Punt, from one region to another. The Jews are not Israelite at all; and the name Judah was just used deceptively to relate the Jews to the Israelite. The Israelite were scattered all over the world and they no longer exist as a nation or a tribe.

For more details on the Ge’ez Puntite Hypothesis read the following three articles:
1- How Persians Cooked a Cult and Called it Judaism Part 1
2- The Turkic Mongolian-African Israelite Joint-ventures
3- Jesus Pointing to “The Lost Sheep of the house of Israel” and “the Gentiles”
[End of notice]

%d bloggers like this: