John Knight wrote:
> "Joseph A Nagy Jr" <pagan_prince at charter.net> wrote in message
> news:3D63B4EA.3030409 at charter.net...>>>>>>You are nuts. The homeland of my Grandparents (Hungary) was settled by
>>>>>>MONGOLIANS, not Israelites.
>>>>>>>>>>The Celts and other northern nations were also inhabited LONG before
>>>>>>Christ or Moses. There is PROOF
>>>>>>>>>>of this in your local natural history museum.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>durn, Joseph, you'd think if your grandparents were from Hungary, that
>>> at
>>>>least you'd know that the Mongolians didn't even get there until the
>>> 1200s
>>>>or later, which was 2,000 years or more after the Israelites got there,
>>> and
>>>>that after they left there wasn't much genealogical evidence that they'd
>>>ever been there. Not even DNA experts today can locate a Mongolian gene
>>> in
>>>>the Hungarian race.
>>>>I do know that they didn't get there that late. One of the oldest cities
>> still around in Hungary was
>>>only established around the 1200's (it's a tad over 700-800 years old). To
>> be able to establish a
>>>city, they would have needed time to not only settle down in the country,
>> but change their nomadic
>>>ways. That just doesn't happen over night. And the only people that ever
>> got conquered by the Huns
>>>were the Turks (who smacked right back) and surrounding European countries
>> at various times. Even
>>>ROME was a target for Atilla the Hun (and among etymologists, it is
>> believed that Atilla is more of
>>>a title (such as Rex or Ceaser) then an actual name as it is given to a
>> live person througout
>>>several centuries of Hungarian history).
>>>>Again your math is off.
>>> Genghis Khan wasn't even born until 1167, and it was during his reign that
> the Mongolians entered Hungary. If the Israelites ever built cities in
> Hungary (and I'm not claiming that they did, as they had been dispersed from
> their own cities at that time), those cities would have been long gone 2,000
> years later when Genghis Khan's Mongolians arrived.
>> It's your claim that Hungarians are Mongolians that I'm disputing, though.
> Having been to Budapest, I know from detailed discussions about this with
> Hungarians that this is a theory they would certainly find interesting.
So I guess the history books are wrong, then?
>The
> Hungarians definitely are a distinct White Race, and the Israelites are most
> likely their White ancestors. There are other candidates, but the widely
> known and documented dispersion of Israelites to that territory makes them
> the most likely candidates.
Right.
>> Another very misunderstood race are the Russians. There are very few real
> Russians in the US. Most of the people who call themselves "Russians" in
> the US are actually jews, or "Khazars". A real Russian in Russia is almost
> identical in racial features to a Swede, or many White Americans. Both the
> Swedes and the Russians agree that Russia was settled by the "Rus", with the
> difference in opinion being which way the Rus migrated. The Russians claim
> that the Rus migrated from Russia and established Sweden, while the Swedes
> claim that the Rus migrated from Sweden and established Russia. Either way,
> they are direct descendants of one of the Twelve Tribes of Israel.
<snip>
Don't really care about the Russians or the Swedes. Irrelevant to the discussion.
>>Not if you can only produce links to your web site containing that
>> transcript.
>>> If the following transcript differs by even one word, let me know asap:
>http://www.scoop.co.nz/archive/scoop/stories/c9/ed/200208151417.4599aa09.htm> l#b
>> John Knight
>>>
Not Found
The requested URL /archive/scoop/stories/c9/ed/200208151417.4599aa09.htm was not found on this server.
Next time, don't forget the "l" in .html
*goes to read*
