2022-06-27T09:35:00-08:00
Article link:
If you ask any ordinary Egyptian, average cultured person, or elite, a general, non-specific question: Who is the people that invaded Misr in the history of ancient Misr?
His answer quickly and without hesitation will be: Hyksos.
The Hyksos are a name present in the historical imagination of the Egyptian person, because they are the only people mentioned in history books who invaded Misr, so much so that this name has become used by many as a joke, to any occupation or invasion currently taking place by any country or group.
But the strange thing is…even though history mentions another invasion of Misr by a non-Egyptian people, the Egyptian will not mention the name of that people in his answer, so he never brings up that other invasion, rather he does not consider it an invasion, and he considers it an authentic part of his history, and he considers it A beautiful and wonderful invasion and occupation of Misr.
This invasion is the Greek invasion of Misr.
Any Egyptian’s answer to our question is supposed to be: the Hyksos and Greece…but the Egyptian’s historical imagination is preoccupied and focused only on the Hyksos and does not consider Greece as invaders.
what is the reason ?
The reason is the history that was written and the way this history was written, which became an official, recognized history and became approved as national history in Misr, taught in schools and universities.
If you look at history… you will find that the method of drafting the history that was written for Misr is very clever and cunning, and behind the writing of this history there is an awareness that is very careful in choosing words and very careful in the process of formulating descriptive sentences for the events of this history.
The ancient history that has reached us has been able to create two models of ancient occupations in the human imagination in Misr, but these two occupations are opposite and contradictory, and these two occupations are: the Hyksos occupation, and the Greek occupation.
Regarding the Hyksos invasion
– When history talks about them, it always focuses on them being a Bedouin (backward) people.
– History emphasizes that they were not insisting.
History emphasizes that the origins of this people are Semitic people (note: the term Semitic was invented by the West some time ago to describe the peoples of the region, including the Arabs).
-And this people had a religion different from the religion of the Egyptians
They worshiped gods different from the gods of ancient Misr
– Their names were different from the names of the Egyptians (their names are close to Arabic names).
The ancient Egyptians did not welcome them, and they hated them
– The Hyksos killed, slaughtered, and captured women in Misr
The Hyksos occupied Misr for 100 years.
– Establish a capital different from the official capital
The ancient Egyptians refused to be under the rule of the Hyksos kings
-The ancient Egyptians revolted against them
– After 100 years, an ancient Egyptian hero appeared and expelled them from Misr, and restored the Egyptians to their former, ancient state.
The Egyptians erased the traces of that Hyksos occupation with evidence that they had no influence left in Misr and no influence of their culture was discovered on the land in Misr.
As for the invasion of the Greeks
– When history talks about them, it always focuses on them being a cultured and educated people.
– History does not indicate that they were not insisting.
History does not talk about the origins of this people, but as is known, the Greeks are European.
History focuses on this people who believed in the religion of the Egyptians
History focuses on the fact that the Greeks worshiped the Hut, which they imported from the Hut of ancient Misr.
The names of the Greeks were similar to the names of the Egyptians (Greek names).
History focuses on the fact that the ancient Egyptians welcomed them until the priests imitated their kings’ antlers and installed them as pharaohs. History focuses on the fact that the Egyptians loved them and revered them.
– The history written about their invasion of Misr does not say that they practiced killing, slaughtering, and captivating women in Misr
– History does not say that they occupied Misr for 250 years, but rather it says that they established a state in Misr.
– They did not establish a capital different from the official capital of the Egyptians.
The ancient Egyptians felt proud and happy to be under the rule of the Greek kings.
The ancient Egyptians did not revolt against them, but rather adapted to them because they were an Egyptian model.
– No Egyptian king appeared and expelled them from Misr, and the Egyptians did not return their previous, ancient state, because it was an extension of the same ancient state.
The Egyptians did not erase the traces of the Greek occupation era, because they considered them an integral part of Misr’s cultural formation, as evidenced by their influence remaining in Misr through the survival of Egyptian deities similar to the Greek gods, and traces of their culture have been discovered on the ground in Misr, such as the Rosetta Stone. And Cleopatra’s stone, etc.
—————
Now make a comparison between the history that was written about the Hyksos who occupied and ruled Misr and the history that was written about the Greeks who occupied and ruled Misr… Through vocabulary and descriptive sentences…so that you understand the reasons for any Egyptian’s answer to our previous question.
For example
You always find the description of the Hyksos as not being Egyptian, and their identity is unknown, and the possibility that they are a Semitic race… but you do not find such a description when talking about Greece, as there is no talk about the ethnic origins of the Greeks, as if they were a people known to the ancient Egyptian and not foreign.
You always find the word (occupation) to describe the Hyksos entry into Misr, but you do not find such a word to describe the Greek entry into Misr.
You always find in history the word “revolution” to describe the actions of any Egyptian towards the Hyksos, but you do not find such a word to describe the Egyptian’s reaction towards the Greeks..
You always find words in history (hatred and enemy) to describe the ancient Egyptian’s feeling towards the Hyksos, but you find words (love and reverence) to describe the Egyptian’s feeling towards the Greeks.
You find history saying that the Egyptians rejected the Hyksos as kings, but the Egyptians themselves appointed the Greeks as kings over them.
You find history saying that the Hyksos founded a state different from the ancient Egyptian state, but you find history saying that the Greeks founded a state that is an extension of the ancient Egyptian state.
You find the heroics of the Egyptians appearing when it comes to occupying the Hyksos, but those heroics disappeared among the Egyptians when it came to occupying Greece.
You find history saying that the ancient Egyptians erased all traces and influences of these Hyksos because they were non-Egyptian monuments that did not belong to them, but you find history saying that the Egyptians considered Greek influences as part of their culture and preserved their effects.
This is the official ancient history that was written for Misr and is nationally approved, and which is studied by people in Misr… and it is natural that this history will make any Egyptian consider Greece an authentic part of Misr and not an occupation at all, and the Hyksos will be considered the invaders and occupiers of Misr, despite Although the two are occupations and invasions of Misr, history is biased and takes well into account the occupation of the Greeks, compliments their occupation, and deals with this occupation as not an occupation, but rather an inherent part of Misr and a natural context with Misr, and makes the Egyptians love this occupation and submit to them. It makes the Egyptian respect him and adapt to him.
The logical question: What is the real reason for writing this history in this way and style?
The truth is that this history, which was written in this way, had the main purpose of creating two historical imaginations in the Egyptian’s mind, in order for the Egyptian’s answer to be that quick answer, and to make him deliberately ignore the Greek occupation, or in other words, the purpose of writing this history was to create two views in the Egyptian’s imagination during Reality reading.
How and why ?
Because the history that was written about Misr in particular and the region still preserves for us two other invasions of Misr and the region, and the effects of these two invasions still remain to this day in the reality of the Egyptian and any human being in the region.
The history that was written about Misr talks about four invasions that took place in Misr, and those invasions are:
Hyksos invasion
Invasion of Greece
The Arab-Islamic invasion
Napoleon’s invasion.
– If you consider these invasions from the perspective of Egyptian sources of knowledge.
You will find that there are three invasions that reached the Egyptian through the printer’s books. No Egyptian saw them, nor was he a witness to them, but the Egyptian believes in them not because they are true, but because they are written only in the printer’s books, and they are the invasion of the Hyksos and Greece and the Arab invasion. The Islamic invasion… As for the fourth invasion, it is a recent invasion and any Egyptian knows it through his local and international popular memory, and also through the printer’s books as well, and it is Napoleon’s invasion.
Three invasions from the printer’s books… (Hyksos – Greece – Islamic)
One conquest of popular memory… (Napoleon)
– Even if you consider these invasions from the perspective of their chronological age
You will find that there are two very old invasions, the Hyksos invasion and the Greek invasion, and there are two relatively newer invasions than the previous two, the Arab-Islamic conquest and the Napoleonic invasion.
Two ancient invasions… (Hyksos – Greece)
Two relatively more recent invasions… (the Islamic invasion – Napoleon’s invasion)
– Even if you consider these invasions from the perspective of their continued impact on the Egyptian reality today.
You will find that there are two invasions that did not have a major impact on Misr, which is the Hyksos invasion. The Hyksos did not leave any impact on the Egyptian reality, and there is an invasion that left a slight impact on the Egyptian reality, which is the Greek invasion that left behind the Rosetta Stone and the Cleopatra Stone.
Among them are two invasions that left a great impact that still remains on the Egyptian reality until today, which is the Arab Islamic conquest, because the Egyptian today is a Muslim and an Arab, and this means that the impact of that invasion still remains today. As for the fourth invasion, it is relatively recent and its impact still remains. In the Egyptian reality, it is the invasion of Misr by Napoleon and his army. Napoleon and his state’s translations of Egyptian inscriptions still remain today, and any Egyptian deals with them now, and this means that the impact of that invasion still remains to this day.
Invasion without effect (Hyksos)
An invasion with a slight effect (Greece)
Two invasions with a very great impact (the Islamic invasion – Napoleon)
Now, after contemplating the angles of those invasions, you will come closer to understanding the reasons for writing the story of the Hyksos and Greece in this way in history.
The real purpose of writing the story of the Hyksos and the Greeks as a history of Misr is not because it is a real history, but rather in order to create two models in the Egyptian’s imagination when reading his reality, so that the Egyptian performs a smart operation that makes him feel astonished at discovering the solution, when he discovers that there is a great match between the two ancient models and those found in His imagination with the two other invasions, whose great effects still remain today in the Egyptian reality… and then he will project the two models, with all their vocabulary, descriptions, and formulations, onto his reality, which is linked to the other two invasions and are identical with the two models in his imagination.
how ?
The purpose of history is to make the Egyptian reach the point where the Egyptian matches the Hyksos invasion with the Arab-Islamic invasion, and the Greek invasion with the French invasion, and then he applies all the terms of both histories to his current reality, meaning that he will match the Greek invasion with the French invasion, and the Hyksos invasion with the Arab-Islamic invasion.
how ?
If you try to make a comparison between the history of the Hyksos invasion and the history of the Arab and Islamic invasion, you will find a very large match.
– The Hyksos are a Semitic race (note that the Semitic race was a purely Western invention in a relatively recent period and they tried to create a term to include Al-Yahoud and Arabs in it), and according to the West’s classifications of the Semitic race, the Arabs are among them.
The Hyksos were Bedouins, and the story of Mecca depicted its characters as Bedouins
– The Hyksos are not Egyptians, and the Arabs are not the inhabitants of Misr, but rather the Jebetans
The Hyksos had a religion different from that of the Egyptians, and the Islamic invasion brought a new religion to Misr.
The Hyksos had a language different from the language of the Egyptians, and the Islamic invasion brought a new language different from the language of the Egyptians.
– The Hyksos had Semitic Arabic names different from the language of the Egyptians, and the Islamic invasion brought Semitic Arabic names, some of which were different from the Jebbetian language of the Egyptians, including the name of Misr, whose name is Kmit.
Therefore, the Hyksos model will match the Arab-Islamic invasion in the Egyptian’s imagination, and his imagination will reveal this match very easily.
If you try to make a comparison between the history of the invasion of Greece and the invasion of France led by Napoleon, you will find a very large match.
The Greeks are European, and the French are European
Greece did not mention in history that they were occupiers, not Egyptians, and France did not mention in history that they were an occupation, but rather a mandate and a scientific and cultural campaign.
The Greeks believed in the religion of the Egyptians, and the French had the same Christian religion as the Copts on the basis that they were Christian residents of Misr, and it was said that Napoleon claimed Islam.
The Greeks had a language similar to the language of the Egyptians, and Napoleon’s conquest came in the language of the ancient Egyptians, Jibt (close to Greek) after deciphering the inscriptions of Misr.
The Greeks had names similar to the names of the Egyptians, and Napoleon’s invasion came with the names of the ancient Egyptians (similar to Greek) after deciphering the Egyptian inscriptions.
The Greeks brought culture and science and created the Library of Alexandria, which included many books. Napoleon’s invasion brought culture, science, modernity, and the printer that printed huge books in Arabic.
The Greeks carried out huge translation operations in Misr, and Napoleon’s invasion carried out huge translation operations via the printer.
The Greek kings were famous for their love of science and culture, and Napoleon was famous for his love of science, literature and culture.
The King of Greece translated a religious book in Misr, and Napoleon translated an ancient sacred religious writing in Misr.
– You even find the history that was written for the Greek rule of Misr identical in its vocabulary with the history that was also written for Napoleon’s invasion… The modern history that was written for Misr calls it Napoleon’s campaign and does not call it Napoleon’s invasion, and it also calls the French occupation as (the mandate or colonialism) and deals with Napoleon. As a hero and a wonderful personality.
Therefore, the model of Greece and the invasion of France will match in the Egyptian’s imagination, and his imagination will discover this match very easily
Conclusion…there will be a match in the Egyptian’s imagination between two hypothetical models, namely the Hyksos invasion and the Arab invasion (which represents the Egyptian’s reality), and another match will also occur in the Egyptian’s imagination between a hypothetical model, which is the Greek occupation, with a realistic invasion, which is Napoleon’s invasion.
And here is the problem
Because it matches two contradictory hypothetical models, with two other models, one hypothetical (representing the character of the Egyptian) and another realistic that applied to the Egyptian.
Hyksos = Arab conquest (default model = hypothetical model)
Greeks = French (hypothetical model = realistic invasion)
France will be represented by the Greek invasion, which the Egyptian does not consider an occupier, but rather loves and considers him a nice person, and the Arab-Islamic invasion (and the Egyptians are now Arab and Muslim) will be represented by the Hyksos invasion, which the Egyptian considers backward and does not consider him Egyptian, but rather hates him and considers him an enemy, hates him, and revolts against him. And he expels him.
This will be reflected naturally in the Egyptian’s view of Napoleon’s invasion, and he will not consider it an occupation, but rather he will love the invasion of France, and it will also be reflected naturally in the Egyptian’s view of himself (the Arab-Islamic invasion), and he will consider himself an occupation of Misr, and Islam is not the religion of Misr and Arabic. It is not the language of Misr.
When we see the reflection of the hypothetical models of the Hyksos and Greece on the Egyptian reality, we will find that the matter is indeed clear.
For example, you find this matter clearly in the mentality of many of the elites in Misr, especially those who are not of Egyptian origin, but rather those who are descendants of the remnants of the Turkish occupation and the Greeks brought by Muhammad Ali Pasha and other remnants of Napoleon’s campaign, and others who also love Reading French translations of Egyptian inscriptions, you will find their minds matching the history written about the Hyksos and Greece.
There are, for example, two famous models of elites… Anis Mansour and Tawfiq Al-Hakim, who were famous for those ruptures that Napoleon’s campaign was able to create in the character of the Egyptian, through this history that was written for Misr and which produced these models from reality, after the Egyptian’s mind had been filled with three hypothetical models. .
And you also find it… in many of the elites in Misr who love reading translations of Napoleon’s invasion, or who are amateurs in reading the ancient history of Misr, especially those who call themselves Egyptologists… Many of them suffer from severe schizophrenia and carry within them contradictory personalities, intense self-hatred, and an all-in-one complex.
For example, he speaks Arabic, and he is Muslim or his family is Muslim…but he has a hatred for the names of his Arab reality and believes that the true religion of Misr is what Napoleon’s invasion revealed to him, and they even attack everything related to Islam and the Arabs.
You have the example of Zahi Hawass… who came out to us several months ago and made a statement in Arabic: “The Egyptians were not Arabs.”
Also…if you try to read the pages of the ancient history of Misr on social networking sites and those who closely follow the books and articles of ancient Egyptian history written by France, you will see the cases of correspondence that we are talking about, by reading the topics of those pages and reading the comments on them.
You will find many of them…………..your head is always drowning in the Arab and Islamic invasion of Misr, for there is no talk of it except the Arab invasion of Misr, and that Misr was not Arab and its inhabitants were not Muslims, but rather it worshiped Isis and Osiris, and that Misr was Her name is Kumait, and there is nothing that occupies him in his life except that Misr was called Kumait, and its original name is Kumait, and Misr is a Semitic Arabic name, and there is a strong hatred for the name Misr and for Arabic.
And at the same time, you will find them… they never talk about the French invasion at all, and they always fill your head with the impact of Napoleon’s invasion of Misr and its transfer of modernity. There is nothing to talk about except the role of France in transferring modernity to Misr, and that Napoleon is a wonderful personality, and that he is one of the He introduced modernity to Misr, and that if it were not for France, Misr would not have known the history of the ancient civilization that the Arabs came and hid. There is a strange love for France and the West, and a love for Napoleon as well. He never calls his invasion an occupation, but rather a modernization of Misr, a cultural and scientific campaign, and Misr is beautiful with the French, and French is the language of culture, science and literature.
A character who hates his Arabic language and loves the French language, the language that the French occupier claimed to have extracted from the inscriptions of his ancestors.
A character who hates the stories of his society and loves the stories that the French occupier claimed to have extracted from the inscriptions of his ancestors
A character who hates his religion and loves the religion that the French occupier claimed to have extracted in the inscriptions of his ancestors
A character who hates one Allah and loves the gods that the French occupier claimed to have extracted from the inscriptions of his ancestors.
A character who hates the name Misr, and loves the name Kmit, which the French occupier claimed was present in the inscriptions of his ancestors.
A character who hates the name of Al-Masjid Al Haram, and loves the name of the pyramid and pyramid that the French occupier wrote for him
A character who hates the name Ibrahim, and loves the name Akhenaten, which the French occupier claimed was present in the inscriptions of his ancestors.
Or, in short, a character who enjoys despising himself and can kill himself, so that the French occupier may live and live… This is a summary of the personality that the French imbalance was able to create in the Egyptian person as a result of this history produced by Napoleon’s printer.
So, we are facing a neuro-linguistic programming project for people’s imagination only, by creating three virtual image models in the Egyptian’s imagination, in order to match them with reality.
By matching a hated model with another model after the religion and language of the Egyptian were introduced into it, so that the Egyptian hates and despises himself so much, and also matching another hypothetical model with a real invasion that took place in the Egyptian’s reality, and the Egyptian still lives within what this invasion left for him, until… Al-Masry loves and adores the occupation and all the actions he carried out in his country.
In other words… creating a personality that hates itself and everything that belongs to it, in exchange for love for the occupier, its products, and everything that he does, writes, or speaks.
Or in other words…a mental creation of man in Misr that makes him live inside an imaginary space, causing him severe disability when trying to read reality correctly, so that the Egyptian continues within the project brought about by Napoleon’s invasion, and is unable to understand it or get out of it.
This is a very natural thing in all the policies of the Western occupation that it carried out in every land that it invaded. It was carrying out the process of erasing the knowledge of its peoples and inventing a new history for them, so that it strives to make its peoples enslave to it, by writing a hypothetical and false history that makes them despise and hate. At the same time, it makes her adore and love the Western occupier and its products.
This is the goal that a British neuroscientist spoke about by saying:
“To liquidate peoples, we begin by erasing their memories, by destroying their books that contain their culture and history, then someone else comes to write other books for them, give them another culture, and invent another history for them, and then after that the people gradually begin to forget, who he is!, and how he was like.” And the world around him will quickly forget him too.”
So……..this psychology, mentality, and outlook that Napoleon’s conquest worked so hard to create for the Egyptian person is not a spontaneous and random creation, but rather completely intentional, to create the complex that makes the Egyptian completely hate himself and hate everything that belongs to him, and makes him enchanted and unable to sense or perceive reality. And he is a mentally disabled person who never, ever, ever, ever understands that Allah tells him that the Qur’an is the word of Allah, written in reality for him in the inscriptions of ancient Misr in the same tongue that became complicated by them, after the West disbelieved in them, and that Napoleon came with his huge army to Misr in order to forge them, so they made The fake Greek Rosetta Stone, and they claimed to have decoded it and made it in a foreign Greek language, under the pretext of the existence of Greece in ancient times, this charming and cute Greek history that the Egyptian adores and loves and is unable to abandon, and the Egyptian does not know that this Greek history is called by Allah for him by the name ( Magic ) .
{A Book whose verses are explained in detail. We read it in Arabic for a people who know. * But the devils disbelieved, teaching people magic. * The tongue of the one to whom they turn is foreign, and this is a clear Arabic language.
(And thus to you We have revealed to you a Qur’an in Arabic, that you may warn the mother cities and those around them, and warn the assembly. There is no doubt about it: a party in Paradise and a party in the Hellfire.)
.