By now most people on this board know that the Cabal are actually the Phoenicians or Canaanites, NOT the Jews.
Where did ALL the Phoenicians Go?
http://mileswmathis.com/phoenper.pdf
We have already established that the Phoenicians flourished due to their early control of shipping and
banking, but it appears a semi-monopoly on iron production was also a part of it. Turns out the “Sea
Peoples” destroyed the Hittite Empire in about 1200BC. The Phoenician capital Byblos was right
on the southern border of the Hittite empire. So it is probable the Sea Peoples were so dominant at that
time because they were the only ones with iron armor and weapons. Everyone else in Europe and the
Near East was fighting with bronze until many centuries later. The only other people who had iron at
that time were the Indians, but the Indians were never especially interested in war. The Hittites got the
technology from India, but like the Indians they weren’t that interested in empire building. It was the
Phoenicians who had the fleets and who were interested in conquest.
* * *
The mainstream historians pretend not to be able to place the Sea Peoples, but just coincidentally the
history of Phoenicia matches the history of the Sea Peoples. It is admitted Phoenicia's high point was
1200-800BC, right after the Sea Peoples sacked the entire world. While everyone else was in a dark
age, Phoenicia was still prospering. Wikipedia doesn't want to tell us anything about that time, but its
authors do give up the farm rather conspicuously in this section, if you bother to read closely:
A unique concentration in Phoenicia of silver hoards dated between 1200 and 800 BC,
however, contains hacksilver with lead isotope ratios matching ores in Sardinia and Spain.
[40] This metallic evidence agrees with the Biblical attestation of a western Mediterranean
Tarshish said to have supplied King Solomon of Israel with silver via Phoenicia, during the
latter's heyday.
We just saw Sardinia above, didn't we, as misdirection away from Sidon and Sherdan. Mainstream
historians tell us the Sherdan can't be Phoenicians, since the word Srdn has that “r” in it, and since the
ancient Sardinians—the Nuragics—had horns on their helmets like the Sherdan.
* * *
Let's see, who else had horns on their helmets? The Vikings.
To see some third-rate misdirection on this topic, you may go to the History.com, a front for the usual
people. There we are assured by Elizabeth Nix that the Vikings did NOT have horns on their helmets.
And are we really
supposed to believe that only one Viking helmet has been found in all of history? C'mon! How stupid
does she think we are? She then goes on to admit that 19th c. Wagnerians based their depictions on
recent discoveries of actual horned helmets from that place and time, but we are assured these predated
the Vikings. Really? So, the helmets had dates on them? That's convenient. Just so you know, you
can't carbon date recent metal artifacts, because they don't contain carbon and aren't old enough. They
generally have to be dated by where they were found. So this claim that they predated the Vikings is at
best wild conjecture and at worst the usual boohockey.
Amazingly, she then admits that Greek and Roman historians reported Northern European warriors
wearing horns, wings and antlers, but that is dismissed thusly:
not only did this headgear fall out of fashion at least a century before the Vikings appeared, it
was likely only donned for ceremonial purposes by Norse and Germanic priests.
But wait, didn't Nix just admit Norse priests wore horns? That's good enough for me. Plus, the first
part of that sentence doesn't even make any sense. How does she know what was in fashion then? And
how did the Vikings “appear”? They weren't there one year and suddenly they were there the next?
After a few centuries of Norwegians wearing horns as fashion, suddenly they quit and then started
calling themselves Vikings? I can't make sense of this, can you?
* * *
As I was studying the history of Lydia and these other places, noticed no real evidence of a dark age after 1200BC. It now appears to me that this period was called a dark age only because it was the period when Phoenicia most obviously took over the entire Mediterranean. The famous historians, who are, almost to a man, Jewish, don't want to tell us anything about that period, so it is dark for that reason, not because people were any more starving or ignorant than before. The period isn't dark, it is blacked out to hide the Phoenicians.