White Aryan people of Nordic race are the true Israelites

well that's just your opinion, maaaaaan.

I'm Nordic, don't mix me up with that middle east clusterfuck.

You could be onto something OP but even i think the whole israelite story is twisted or some fabrication to exclude the white race which is a dead giveaway in itself!

Its true. Its been proven. There's a similar thread in the archives with all the links.

tell us more or post links

The Old Testament Roots

of Norse Mythology

part one of three on the bible roots

of early european mythology

The religion of the early Norse exhibits customs and rituals which bear an amazing correspondence to the religion of the Hebrew Old Testament. Can all of this be just a coincidence, or is there a connection? Here is the interesting evidence.

Does Bible prophecy actually speak to us of the Norse and related peoples of Europe? I believe that it does, and that these peoples are in fact the descendants of the lost tribes of the House of Israel, removed out of their land in Assyrian captivity two thousand seven hundred years ago, and lost to recorded history. As we will see, only the Caucasian peoples who migrated out of Asia into Europe, have fulfilled many of the prophecies in both the Old and New Testaments concerning Israel in the latter days. Let's begin our study in the one of the foremost prophetic books of the New Testament, Revelation.

In Revelation chapter 12, there appears a spectacular vision which has intrigued Christians for centuries. The vision concerns "a woman." Bible commentators see this woman as representing Israel, and the vision as prophetic of events which were to take place in world history.

We are told in verse two that this woman, Israel, was about to give birth. The child was none other than Jesus Christ, for we are told in verse five that he was "a man-child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron." It is obvious here that the woman who gave birth to our Savior is Israel, for Christ was born of the Israel tribe of Judah, of the line of David.

The vision expands in verse three. We read, "And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns......the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born." This should remind us of the prophet Daniel's prophecy of four great beast kingdoms. They were: Babylon & Assyria, Medo-Persia, Macedonia, and Rome. They formed one continuous succession of four beast empires, each one "devouring" or absorbing the previous. Using the year-for-a-day principle of prophecy, the next verse speaks of Israel being attacked and persecuted for 1,260 years by the dragon-beast, a period which ended with the fall of Rome in 410 AD.

Verse six says, "And the woman fled into the WILDERNESS, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days." Where in Israel's history do we read of the chosen nation fleeing in dispersion into the wilderness? This occurred when Assyria, the first beast-empire, conquered them in 721 B.C., dispersing them out of Palestine, into the wilderness of Europe. This is the prophetic story of Israel in the wilderness going to a place prepared by God, and it is a fascinating account of how God's prophecies have come to pass. (745 B.C. to 476 A.D. is a 1260 lunar year period!)

We read of Israel's dispersion into the wilderness in the Old Testament apocryphal book of II Esdras, chapter 13 and verse 40. Here the prophet Esdras tells us this about their whereabouts: "These are the ten tribes, who were taken captive from their land in the days of King Hoshea, whom Shalmanesar, the King of the Assyrians, led away into captivity and transported them across the river Euphrates. But they decided to leave the multitude of peoples and proceed to a more remote region... The way to that country, which is called Arsareth, required a long trek of a year and a half."

The Prophet Esdras gave us still another solid clue in tracing Israel's northern trek when he said that they "passed through the narrow entrances of the Euphrates River." (verse 43) This refers to the head-waters of the Euphrates, which were toward the north, in northern Mesopotamia. In fact, rivers always flow from north to south in the northern hemisphere.

So we know two things for sure about the land to which the Israelites migrated: it was northward toward the Caucasus and Europe, and it was a remote wilderness. As the late Bible scholar, Dr. Pascoe Goard, has stated, "We know sufficient of the history of all the territory south of the Caucasus to be able to say that they could find no such unsettled land there. But plains, forests and river valleys of Europe still remained which had not even been explored in the days of Herodotus, three and a half centuries later. To that country they took their way." ("Post-captivity Names of Israel," p. 35) Remember that Esdras said they traveled to "a more remote region," a wilderness; and that this journey was a long one over a great distance, requiring "a year and a half" of travel.

Yes, northward from the upper reaches of the Assyrian Empire was the wilderness of Europe, and there is a river Sereth in southeastern Europe even today. Over six centuries after their dispersion, the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus wrote, "The ten tribes did not return to Palestine...There are but two tribes in Asia and Europe subject to the Romans, while the ten tribes are beyond the Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude." (Jos. Antiq., Ch. 11, pp. 2, 5) The lost ten tribes were no longer in Palestine, and were outside the realm of the Roman Empire. Even though Israel had been hidden in the wilderness for six centuries when Josephus wrote, he informs us that they were an identifiable people and a great multitude which no man could number.

Where else in the annals of history is there a record of nearly an entire nation suddenly converging on a wilderness? Only the migrations of the Anglo-Saxon-Gothic tribes into early Europe, that land "where never mankind dwelt," (II Esdras 13:41) can fit the picture, and that occurred at the very time that Israel was dispersed and became lost to history. The Angles, Saxons, Celts, and Goths, who overspread Europe, are said to have originated in the region of Medo-Persia, about 700 B.C., the very time and place in which the nation of Israel was lost to history.

The early Christian church noted a remarkable fact: There was a distinct resemblance between ancient Israel's religion and that of the early inhabitants of Europe. Early Christian writers used the Latin phrase, "Preparacio Evangelica," meaning that European mythology constituted a good "preparation for the Gospel." We now know why Norse mythology, Celtic Druidism, and Greek mythology all bear such striking similarities to the Old Testament -- it's simply because these peoples were the physical descendants of ancient Israelites who migrated to Europe in ancient times, bringing deep-rooted traces of their religion with them when they came.

But other amazing parallels exist, as well. There was also an uncanny resemblance to ancient Canaanite religion, since ancient Israel corrupted themselves with that form of worship, according to the Bible account. In addition to that, early European mythology also bears traces of the religious customs of the Babylonians and Assyrians, as you might expect, since these peoples exerted some influence when they brought Israel in captivity out of Palestine. Let's see how history offers proof of both Biblical and Babylonian influence among the people of early Europe.

The central figure of Norse Mythology is the hero known as ODIN. He is believed to be an historic figure, the king who led his tribes northwestward from their former residence in a city called Asgard to their new home in Western Europe. Asgard literally means "city of God," and perhaps by implication, "the city of God's people." Although it has never been identified by archaeologists, it is believed to have been located either in southern Russia or Northern Assyria, placing it in the region where the ten tribes were lost to history. After Odin's death, his great deeds were expanded until he took on godhood in the folk memory of the people. But it is important to note that the name "Odin" shows unmistakable evidence of a Babylonian origin.

Alexander Hislop in his book, "The Two Babylons," gives us a definite connection between Odin and the Middle East. ODIN was the great Norse war god. The Assyrians and Babylonians also had a war god known as "ADON," and the Greeks later had a god named "ADONIS," as well. The Babylonish Adon was the god of WINE. In the NORSE ELDER EDDA we are told that Odin ate no food but wine: "The illustrious father of armies, with his own hand, fattens his two wolves; but the victorious Odin takes no other nourishment to himself than what arises from the unintermittent quaffing of wine. For 'tis with WINE ALONE that Odin in arms renowned is nourished forever."

It has also been established that the Norse religion involved worship in sacred groves, which were trees planted to simulate the walls of a temple. The Canaanites, too, had sacred groves for worship, and the disobedient nation of Israel had adopted this form of worship at the outset of their wanderings out of Palestine.

But the similarity between middle-eastern and Norse mythology does not end there. One of Odin's sons in Norse mythology was called, "BALDER," which Hislop states comes from the Chaldee form of "Baal-zer," meaning the SEED OF BAAL. Quoting Alexander Hislop, "The Hebrew z, as is well known, frequently, in the later Chaldee, becomes d. Now, Baal and Adon both alike signify 'master' or 'lord;' and, therefore, if Balder be admitted to be the seed or son of Baal, that is as much as to say that he is the son of Adon; and, consequently Adon and Odin must be the same."

The name of Odin's other well-known son is THOR. Again to quote Mr. Hislop: "Now as Odin had a son called Thor, so the second Assyrian Adon had a son called THOUROS (Cedrenus, vol. 1, p. 29). The name Thouros seems just to be another form of Zoro, or Doro, meaning, 'the seed.'" So, as Professor Hislop points out, Odin's son, Thor, is an exact parallel to the Assyrian god Adon's son Thouros. Quite an amazing similarity! (Lexicon, pars 1, p. 93: "The D is often pronounced as Th; Adon in the pointed Hebrew, being Athon.")

It is extremely doubtful that all of this parallel detail could be mere happenstance. A very definite cultural connection somehow took place between the ancient Assyrians and Babylonians and the early European Norse. Yet another author lends credence to this, the professor Hans Gunther, in his book, "Religious Attitudes of the Indo-Europeans." He finds much to admire in the Norse mythology, yet is led to admit that, "one perceives in him (Odin) the voice of an alien non-Nordic race." (page 11) Professor Gunther goes on to associate certain aspects of Norse mythology with Babylon. (page 57)

Yet one more proof of a connection between the Norse and the ancient Canaanites should be noted: the evidence we have of human sacrifice. For although human sacrifice appears to have been unknown in the British isles, it was definitely practiced in early days on the continent of Europe by the Celts.

But it is appropriate at this point to show that there are also some undeniably distinct similarities between Norse religion and that of the ancient Israelites. In fact, from the Norse sagas we learn many facts which lead to a comparison of both God, and God in the flesh, Immanuel, Jesus Christ. The tribes of Israel, at the time of their dispersion, would have been familiar with the Old Testament prophecies of a coming Messiah. Many of these ancient beliefs could have remained with them in their traditions after their dispersion from Palestine. So let's compare Bible prophecies with some of the basic beliefs cherished by the early Norse.

The Norse myths recount a remarkable account of creation, which differs from the Bible in that the flood was said to be caused by the blood of a slain giant. However, in Genesis 6, verse 4, the Bible does speak about the Nephilim, or giants, during the account of the flood. In the Norse account, the world is wiped out in this catastrophe, with the exception of one household who escaped on a skiff or boat, and from whom is descended the new race from which the god Odin came.

Odin is also called the "RAFNAGUD," or Raven-god, because he is said to have two ravens named Hugin and Munin, which he sends out into the world each day, returning at nightfall to tell him what they observed. Quoting the Norse Elder Edda,

"Hugin and Munin
Fly each day
Over the spacious earth.
I fear for Hugin
That he come not back
Yet more anxious am I for Munin"

This bears an unmistakable similarity with the account in Genesis chapter eight of Noah sending two birds out into the world, one of them the raven which Noah was anxious for, because he did not return.

There are many other interesting legends in the Norse sagas, such as Thor conquering a serpent-monster, while dying in the process. This was prophesied of Israel's Messiah in GENESIS 3:15, who conquered the serpent's seed by his own death. Other Norse religious traditions come from the Old Testament, as well. As an example, Odin is referred to as "the law-giver." This is a title our heavenly father, Yahveh, could well claim, who gave Moses upon Mount Sinai the laws for the nation.

Another important Norse god was LOKI, the author of all evil, who was said to be of a swarthy complexion and originated in a land to the south. This may well be Israel's remembrance of the Edomites of Palestine. An interesting parallel exists between Loki, who is said to lead the forces of evil in the last great battle in Norse mythology, and the Edomites of Bible prophecy at the end of the age. In Ezekiel chapters 36 to 39, in the last great battle, the Edomites are prominent in the forces of evil which come against God's Israel.

The number twelve also must have been held in sacred significance to the Norse, for we read in the book, "Germanic Origins," that Odin arrived in Svithoid, or Scythia, with twelve chief priests. The presence of these twelve priests corresponds representatively to the twelve original tribal patriarchs of Israel.

Early Norse scholar, Snorri Sturluson, translator of many ancient Scandinavian legends, compiled the HEIMSKRINGLA, OR HOME CHRONICLES. He says that just before Odin died he let himself be marked or wounded with a spear-point and that he was the owner of all men slain with weapons, and would go to Godheim (the world of the gods) and there welcome his friends. The comparisons with the Bible are again unmistakable. The Old Testament contains over one hundred prophecies relating to the coming of our God in the flesh, our "Immanuel," or "God with us." We find many of these in Norse mythology transferred to the character, Odin. In our Bibles we read that our coming God was to be SACRIFICED, (Zechariah 13:7), that he was to be PIERCED (Zechariah 12:10), but would have NO BROKEN BONES (Psalm 34:20, and Exodus 12:46 where Passover is a type of Christ). And whereas our Savior was sacrificed on the tree (in 1Peter 2:23, the word translated "cross" literally means a tree) for nine hours (Psalm 22 and Matthew 27:46), Odin is said to have hung on a tree for nine days. Compare those Bible prophecies I've just read with these lines from the Norse Elder Edda:

"I know that I hung
On a wind-rocked tree
Nine whole nights,
With a spear wounded
And to Odin offered
Myself to myself;"

The Norse legends prominently refer to the end-times. They say that in the end of the world a great battle called Gotterdammerung, or the "Twilight of the gods," will take place between the forces of good and evil. In this great battle, all of the forces of good will be killed except for one called the "All-father."

This brings me to my most important point. "Bulfinch's Mythology" states that "the Scandinavians had an idea of a deity superior to Odin, uncreated and eternal," which they called the Alfadur or "ALL-FATHER." For although the Norse mythology allows for a pantheon of gods, yet only ONE GOD is said to be immortal. Thor, Odin, and the others I have mentioned are mortal and die at some point in the sagas.

But above Odin was said to be the one eternal true God - unnamed except to be called the "All-father," meaning the "ever-lasting father," as he is called in our Bibles in ISAIAH 9:6 and other places. In the original language of the Old Testament, God's name was YAHVEH, which Ferrar Fenton translates as meaning, "the Ever-Living." The Norse called the 'All-father' by no other name, believing that his personal name was too sacred to be spoken, although they apparently didn't have any record of what that name was. Compare this with the actions of the few Israelites of the House of Judah who returned to Palestine and removed God's name, YAHVEH, from our Bibles, believing it too sacred to be spoken. Yes, I am convinced that although the Norse mythology was corrupted with the religion of Assyria and Canaan, yet the proofs are there that they were indeed "the people of the Book."

yeah! who the fuck wants to be one of those inbred muhfuhkas? my genes is clean of that nasty trash.

The tribal bloodlines of ancient Israel have been scattered to the wind across the earth just like God said he would do.

Knowing God, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if a billion people had the blood in them.

The least of people's to the greatest of people's.

Nordic people are only a small sliver of Europe and None of the Caucasian peoples are Aryan.

You are associating White pale skin with being a Nord which shows that you are ignorant. Persians,Northern Indians(India) and Afghans are the Aryan peoples NOT Caucasoid.


You are obviously an Americans who thinks that pale skin equals "Whiteness" it does not.

"Whites" are an American creation. The English Anglo Saxon named his Irish slaves "White" because they kept uniting with his Black slaves and rebelling.

Th Anglo Saxon used the name "White" to give the Irish slave a little status and h gave them permission to steal and rob from the Black Slave creating a Caste system among the Blacks and whites.

It worked like a charm as many White Slaves today run about posting bullshit like this tread full of misinformation and lies.

Here is a challenge: Go get your Y-DNA and your Mitochondrial DNA tested, you will find that as a person born in America you are more Black African,Native Hispanic than you will never be Nord.

Very interesting stuff. I want to hear more on this...

According to popular myth, the Arabs and the Jews have two branches emanating from a common ancestor - the biblical Abraham. The author strongly argued the impossibility of accessories sort the great patriarch of the Jews. But it turned out that Arabs and Jews Thoroughbreds (Kohanim), do have a common ancestor. Even two common ancestors, none of which are not suited to the role of the forefather of "the people of Israel."

"So, we have two" Abraham "- one in haplogroup J1, the other - in haplogroup J2. The lifetimes of the two - almost the same. The offspring of both dispersed in the Jewish and Arab lines. In both branches have Kohanim, the lot. One difference - Cohanim in haplogroup J1 took back a thousand years ago, in haplogroup J2 - about 3,300 years ago.

Semitic Haplogroup J2(Y-DNA) spreading:
[link to ask.inwiki.org]

Furthermore. Islam,(Hellenic)Judaism and Christianity are a construct of the Roman Empire.

They are its invention. They saw their military might waning and they created a mechanism to forward the Hegelian Dialectic of Thesis,Antithesis,Synthesis to further their aims using secret societies to control all three.

Look at the ritual of the Maons,Shriners,Knights of Malta,Rosicruscians etc. and you will see that they combine aspects of all three religions.

The heads of ALL Three religions are members of these "Masonic" groups and are controlled by the Romans through them to this day whether they are Muslim,Jew or Christian.

You Cave boy fools make me laugh. You are fodder for a greater plan that doesn't even involve you.

You think you are superior because your ancestors agreed to commit crimes against humanity in order to amass huge fortunes through ritual human sacrifice,Torture and Genocide. I'll bet 99% of your bank accounts don't even reflect the humungous amounts of wealth that were garnered through the 500 year slaughter from 1666 to 1999.

Pathetic.

Israelites are a fable.

ETHNOLOGY:

Physical Type of Early Hebrews in the Holy Land

(Authorities: Various)

THE NORDIC HEBREWS

Until fairly recent years a true assessment of the racial origin of the Hebrews has been almost impossible, owing to the long-prevailing obsession that the present-day Jewish people accurately reproduce the racial characteristics of ancient Hebrew forbears.

Now that abundant proof has been found to show that the Jews of to-day contain elements of many races and are, in the main, not true Hebrews at all, the racial origin of these ancient people becomes an open question, and it may usefully be enquired 'Who were the Hebrews?' without displaying what would once have been considered an abysmal ignorance of self-evident facts.

The Habiru first became prominent, in the Middle Euphrates area, in the centuries prior to 2000 B.C. By the time of Abraham they had pushed colonies northwards and westwards, through Persia, Palestine and Egypt. Some of these pioneers moved further westwards, through North Africa and Spain, reaching even as far as Britain. To those who remained behind, the land of Palestine was known as Amurru (the land to the West) and its occupants, whether Canaanite or Hebrew, were Amorites (westerners).

Thus, in addition to the other nations of Canaan, there were in Palestine 'Amorites' who were descended from Ham - the Amorites of the Bible - and also Hebrew descendants of Shem - the Amurru - who, together with the Israelites who followed them, became the Amorites described as such by modern ethnologists.

It can be shown conclusively that these Hebrew-Amorites were of the racial type now known as Nordic. In the words of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, these dwellers in Palestine were 'a race much more like the northern Europeans' than the type which has popularly been termed 'Semitic'.

SEMITE RACE - A MISNOMER

Great confusion of thought has arisen through the indiscriminate misuse of the term Semitic. It is popularly considered that there is, and always has been, a Semite race. The Arabs and the modern Jews (and therefore the ancient Hebrews) have been awarded this racial classification by authorities who should have shown more care. As mentioned by Gunther, in his Racial Elements of European History (p. 74), and by other authorities, there is no such thing as a Semitic race; there are only Semitic-speaking peoples, showing varying racial compositions. There is a Semitic language-group, but that is a very different matter. It should be noted that some authorities have used the name Semite to describe people whom they admit were of Hamitic descent. It cannot be too strongly emphasised that - in its correct usage - the term Semitic denotes linguistic and not racial attributes. The true understanding of the movements and development of the Hebrew peoples has been completely clouded by its persistent misuse.

THE AMORITES

As this name has often been used rather loosely by modern authorities, it is very necessary to have a correct appreciation of its full meaning. The word Amorite is used first in the Bible in Genesis ten, where it is stated that Canaan, son of Ham, begat Sidon and Heth. Then follows a list of tribes who sprang from Canaan: Jebusites, Amorites, Girgasites, Hivites, Arkites, Sinites, Arvadites, Zemarites and Hamathites. It is probable that these names were not patronymics, but were geographical terms. Thus, the Jebusites mentioned in Genesis ten were those descendants of Canaan who had settled in the city of Jebus (Jerusalem). Similarly, the Arkites resided in Arca, the Hamathites in Hamath, and the Zemarites in the place to this day called Sumra. The term Hivite would also be geographical.

Thus the Biblical term Amorite was applied to those descendants of Canaan who resided in a portion of the territory known to the people of the Euphrates basin as Amurru (Mar-Tu, the land to the West) many centuries before the Israelites entered the Promised Land.

But the term Amurru was not used consistently, for a Hebrew resident of Palestine might be called either a Canaanite or an Amorite by a dweller in ancient Babylonia (vide Cambridge Ancient History, Vol 1, 1929, p. 230), for usage varied with time.

But the 'Amorites' so called by modern archaeologists were something far greater than the comparatively small number of the Hamitic people using that name, mentioned in Scripture as sharing Palestine with numerous other tribes. According to modern research, an 'Amorite' race originated in the area of the Middle Euphrates. About the time of Abraham (c.1900 B.C.) they had gained control of the whole of Babylonia and had pushed out pioneering colonies over Palestine and even as far as Egypt. Many authorities consider that the Hyksos who controlled Egypt for a period were of this dominant race. It is clear that descendants of Canaan and Amoritic Hebrews had dwelt together in Palestine for centuries.

Prof. R. B. Dixon, in his Racial History of Man (1923), p. 172, mentions that in the period 2500 B.C. - 1500 B.C. the population of Palestine consisted primarily of 'Mediterranean' and 'Caspian' peoples.

It will be recalled that the Ammonites and Moabites, who dwelt to the east of the Jordan, derived frorn Hebrew
parents who moved in from the Euphrates area at the sarne time as Abraham.

[link to www.ensignmessage.com]

If you want to see RIGHT NOW How the "Romans" employ this ancient form of the Hegelian Dialectic just watch events unfold in Syria where SUNNI MUSLIMS from Qatar,Saudi and Yemen are working with (Jews)Mossad and (Christians/Luciferians)CIA to overthrow Bashir Assad who is a MUSLIM.


We are playing Checkers while they are playing Chess.


Most of the "Whites" who cry Aryan superiority and Judaic supremacy are of IRISH descent and the Celtic/Gaelic Gods and Goddesses are easily seen with the push of a button.

Rome forcefully converted the British Isles, the wars were short but documented.

Pathetic.

You would be surprised that the true Aryan tribe was from northern af-ganistan.no shit,google it

The Irish(Oppressed) tend to identify with their Oppressor because of low self esteem from a long history of bondage.

To Rome,the English,and before that the Vikings. Going back altogether about 2000 years of being Slaves.

You will Never see a NORD claiming to be a Jew. NEVER.

Nor a German,Nor a Dutchman etc.

Unless they actually are a practicing Jew you will never see them claiming to be "Israelites" because the fable of the Israelites is about a DOWN TRODDEN enslaved people who were rescued by God and set above their oppressor.

Only Oppressed people identify with this Fable.

HEBREW AND ENGLISH

Five Leading Scholars Prove the Link Exists

By

Pastor Jory Brooks (Canada)

The Language Connection

IS modern spoken English descended from the language of the patriarchs? Strong evidence now exists that it is, according to five leading language scholars, whose independent studies have all reached a similar conclusion. This language connection would, in turn, indicate some form of physical contact or migration in early times. Did Israelites of the age of the patriarchs visit the shores of Britain, settle there and impart their language? Evidence from historians shows how that may have taken place.

In ancient times, trading ships from the coast of Palestine sailed throughout the Mediterranean and as far as the coast of Britain. Where trading ships went, colonies soon developed. Now, as fascinating proof of this early colonization, leading language scholars have discovered amazing links between the modern English language and the ancient language of the Hebrews of the Old Testament. They tell their story in the paragraphs to follow, combining to present strong evidence that Hebrews themselves came to the British Isles at an early date. Our thesis is that between the beginning of the Egyptian captivity (1448 B.C.), and the Assyrian-Babylonian invasions (745-586 B.C.), Biblical Israelites first settled the shores of Britain. The result is a fascinating account of the fulfillment of Bible prophecy. Here are their stories:

1. Pritchard: A leading English language scholar

One of the 19th centuries' most notably famous language experts was James Cowles Pritchard, who lived from 1786 to 1848. Called 'the founder of modern anthropology,' one modern reviewer stated that he had "unquestionably done more than any other single individual to place Ethnology on a scientific basis." In his "Eastern Origin of the Celtic Nations" (1857), he says that there is "a remarkable analogy" between the Hebrew-Semitic languages and the Celtic (which he spells old-style with a 'k' as in 'Keltic' ). He further states that the Celtic language "forms an intermediate link between [the Indo-European] and the Semitic, or perhaps indicates a state of transition" from Semitic to European languages. (p.349) Dr. Pritchard prepared a three-page chart tracing word origins showing his readers the connection between Celtic and Semitic, and states, "it does not appear probable that the idioms of North Africa are even so nearly related to the Semitic, as the latter are to the Indo-European languages."

Pritchard tells an interesting story demonstrating the connection between Hebrew and Celtic. He says, "From another I have learned that a crew of Bretons (i.e., Celts) understood the natives of Tunis [in North Africa]. How? Because the Kelt tongues were so like the Hebrew, and the Carthaginian was the same." (p.108) A ship from the British Isles had stopped in port in North Africa, in modern Libya, and the crewrnembers were surprised to be able to understand the natives who spoke Carthaginian, a Hebrew dialect.

An extended quotation from the scholarly Dr. Pritchard. dealing as he does with "pronominal suffixes," "vocables" and similar technical terms, would be beyond the capability and understanding of the average person. However, he summarizes by saying, "Consequently, even cautious investigators have not only given a list of Semitic elements in the Keltic, but have made the Keltic specially Semitic. " Does this have any relevance as to the origin of the Celtic peoples themselves? Prichard says, "A common language is prima facie evidence in favor of a common lineage ... Language is one of those signs of community of origin which is slow to be abolished - slower than most others." Pritchard believes that the Celts arrived in Britain from Asia, and suggests (p.380) two routes were used to travel westward to the isles: First, from Asia across Northern Africa and by sea to Britain; second, west from Asia and the Caucasus to Europe. Referring to other writers, he says, "With the Irish ... writer upon writer asserted for them an origin from Egypt, Persia, Palestine, or Phoenicia - especially from Phoenicia... The Phoenicians were what the Hebrews were, and the Hebrews were what is called Semitic... the Hebrew language... and the Keltic tongues... practiced the initial permutation of letters in their grammatical formations... Then there were certain habits and superstitions among the Kelts which put the comparative mythologist in mind of certain things Semitic; the Bel-tane, or midsummer-day fire of the Highlands of Scotland.. got compared with fire- worship of the Phoenician Baal. Then there were the words Bearla Fena, or language of Fene of the Irish annals... well translated by Lingus Pena, or Linge Punica - the language of Phoenicia." (p.75) Our tract, "The Hebrew-Celtic Connection." has further information about the origin of the Celts and their connection with the Hebrew nation.

One final important point indicates a connection with the Hebrews. "The evidence then, as far as it goes, is in favor of deducing the word, Kelt, from the wild Iberi... One of the several frontages of the Iberians may have called itself Kelt. " (pp. 66, 68) The Biblical Hebrews called themselves the "Ibri" or "Iberi", according to the Bible Archaeological Review magazine. (November-December, 1991, p.59)

Cont'd
[link to www.ensignmessage.com]

The Romans never conquered Ireland, it was to much of a bother and their resources stretched thin. They did go to the Isle of Man if I recall and wiped out all the druids, what was left of their oral traditions with it.

Hebrews and Jews are not the same people. You can believe that if you like. I don't really care.

To the so called Scholars who wish to prove either Supremacy or a link to "Mythical Israel", every book written by a European or American between the 18th-early to mid 20th century had ONE over arching or underlying prime directive embedded within it and it was to justify and rationalize the trans Atlantic slave trade of Africa,the genocide of the native American and the system of racial apartheid that followed that enriched Western Nations beyond measure.

HOW THE POPES GAVE IRELAND TO ENGLAND





GENERATIONS of Roman Catholic Irish Republicans have proclaimed loud and long that the source of all of Ireland's woes has been the presence of the English. The Emerald Isle, once famed as a land of Saints and Scholars, has been drenched in blood down the centuries, as inhuman fiends posing as patriots have murdered, maimed and massacred, rebelled and waged civil war, often with the blessing of the Roman Catholic clergy, in the supposed cause of Irish freedom.

However the suppressed facts of history are that when King Henry IIof England landed with an army of 4,000 at Waterford in October 1171, he came at the Pope's behest and carrying as his authority the Papal Bull Laudabiliter, by which the Roman Pontiff claimed the right to bestow Ireland as a gift to the English King on condition that he suppressed the ancient Celtic or Culdee Church, and brought the island and its people into submission to Rome.

We reproduce herewith the Bull Laudabiliter by which Pope Adrian IV gave Ireland to England:

"Adrian, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to our well beloved son in Christ, the illustrious King of the English greeting and Apostolic Benediction. Laudably, and profitably, does your majesty contemplate spreading the glory of your name on earth and laying up for yourself the reward of eternal happiness in heaven, in that as becomes a Catholic Prince, you propose to enlarge the boundaries of the Church, to proclaim the truths of the Christian religion to a rude and ignorant people (the Irish), to root out the growth of vice from the field of the Lord; and the better to accomplish this purpose you seek the counsel and goodwill of the Apostolic See. In pursuing your object the loftier your aim and the greater your discretion, the more prosperous we are assured with God's assistance will be the progress you will make: for undertakings commenced in the zeal of faith and the love of religion are ever wont to attain to a good end and issue. Verily as your excellency doth acknowledge, there is no doubt that Ireland, and all the islands on which Christ the sun of righteousness has shone, and which have accepted the doctrines of the Christian faith, belong to the blessed Peter and the Holy Roman Church, wherefore the more pleased are we to plant in them the seed of faith acceptable to God, inasmuch as our conscience warns us that in their case a stricter account will hereafter be required of us.

Whereas then well beloved son in Christ you have expressed to us your desire to enter the island of Ireland in order to subject its people to law (Papal Canon Law) and to root out from them the weeds of vice (the ancient Culdee faith) and your willingness to pay an annual tribute to the blessed Peter (the Pope) of one penny from every house, and to maintain the rights of the Churches of that land whole and inviolate. We therefore meeting your pious and laudable desire with due favour, and according a gracious assent to your petition, do hereby declare our will and pleasure, that with a view to enlarging the boundaries of the Church, restraining the downward course of vice, correcting evil customs and planting virtue and for the increase of the Christian religion (Romanism) you shall enter that island and execute whatsoever may tend to the honour of God, and the welfare of the land; and also that the people shall receive you with honour and revere you as their Lord: provided always that the rights of the Churches remain whole and inviolate and saving to the blessed Peter and the Holy Roman Church the annual tribute of one penny for every house. If then you should carry your project into effect, let it be to your care to instruct that people in good ways of life ... that the Church there may be adorned, that the Christian religion (Romanism) may take root and grow ... that you may deserve at God's hands the fulness of an everlasting reward and may obtain on earth a name renowned throughout the ages."

Pope Adrian's successor Alexander III wrote to the Bishops of Ireland calling on them to submit to King Henry:

"Understanding that our dear son in Christ, Henry, illustrious King of England stirred by divine inspiration and with his united forces has subjected to his dominion, that people a barbarous one, uncivilized and ignorant of the Divine Law - we command and enjoin upon you that you will diligently and manfully assist the above said King to maintain and preserve that land and to extirpate the filthiness of such great abominations. And if any of the Kings, Princes or persons of the land shall rashly attempt to go against his due oath and fealty pledged to the said King you shall lay ecclesiastical censure on such a one."

Cont'd
[link to www.ensignmessage.com]

THE CRADLE OF MANKIND

by

the late G. R. GAIR F.R.A.I., F.E.S.

PROFESSOR Sir ARTHUR KEITH is to be congratulated on restating, in his Frazer Lecture on March 4th, 1932, in the
University of Glasgow, the general truth of the Caucasian theory. He states, “the evidence to my mind is now conclusive that Europe was colonized by Caucasians at a comparatively late date when reckoned according to the calendar used by geologists.” This statement is the more welcome since there has been a very strong tendency in recent years to overthrow the Asiatic for an African or African- cum-European hypothesis.

The knowledge that relationships existed between Early Stone Age cultures in Europe and those of Northern Africa became strong presumptive evidence for a connection between the races of Europe and Africa. This, of course, was more and more
strengthened as discoveries in Africa proved that not only were the relations of European culture with Northern African demonstrable, but also with those of Kenya, Rhodesia and even South Africa.

The outcome of these discoveries developed a great school of thought which looked upon Africa as the primitive homeland, not only of the great apes, but also of early man. From little known Africa, men streamed northwards to settle in Europe at the close of the glacial period. Some of these peoples fixed their homes on the shores of the northern seas and underwent a process of bleaching which gave rise to the fair-skinned, light-eyed and yellow-haired peoples of Britain, Scandinavia and Germany. Such is the viewpoint which we may term the African hypothesis and one accepted in parte, or in toto, by many leading anthropologists and archaeologists. The theory of the independence of Europe from Asia, however, has in the past received strong support from well-known philologists. In fact, it is perhaps to the philologist that this outlook is very largely due. Dr Isaac Taylor(1) echoes the views of many scholars both past and present, when he classes as a mere figment, wholly contrary to the evidence and highly improbable, “the hypothesis that a small Aryan clan in Central Asia could have sent out great colonies which marched four thousand miles to the shores of Europe.”

To be brief, many philologists, ethnologists, archmologists and anthropologists have, in the past, slowly forsaken an Asiatic centre of dispersion for men and civilization, in favour of development, very largely, in Europe supported by inflowings of Africans. It is at such a point that we do well to hearken to the voices of the scholars of outstanding distinction who have dissented in whole or in part from these views. In fact, it is essential to the traditionalist to review very carefully the whole field, for, if the view lux ex oriente is untenable, in the face of revealed facts, then is his school of thought, with its highly developed philosophical, ethical and religious concepts, in imminent danger of disintegration.

Fifty years ago philologists were led to the valley of the Oxus and the mountains to the south as the starting points of the nations. These views were based on the then known historical and linguistic evidence. By comparative philological methods these views were raised almost to a level of an historical certainty. Adolphe Pictet(2) attempted to show that the Aryan cradle was ancient Bactria. From this original homeland of the white race, according to Pictet, came the Celts, who settled round the Southern Caspian in the region of the Caucasus, in the districts of Albania and Iberia, before they moved northwards to maritime Europe. Slowly opinion turned, as already stated, against such a hypothesis. The views of Karl Penka(3), O. Schrader(4) and others represent the late anti-oriental school. However, opposing these, we have the famous Max Muller(5), Ch. de Ujfalvy(6), Van de Gheyn(7). Max Muffler’s conclusion is interesting: “I cannot bring myself to say more than non liquet. But if an answer must be given as to the place where our Aryan ancestors dwelt before their separation, whether in large swarms of millions, or in a few scattered tents and huts, I should still say, as I said forty years ago, ‘Somewhere in Asia,’ and no more.”

Thus we find that while the trend of opinion was rising against an oriental origin, there were yet great names willing to subscribe to that view. In other words, the oriental cradle, while badly shaken, was not disproved, or cast into limbo. We may venture to
suggest that the early discoveries of Stone Age men in Europe (and not elsewhere) were moving factors in this direction.

However, we again find ourselves at a crucial point in the history of discovery and investigation. It is now known that early men were not confined to Europe. True, their discovery in Africa tended to support, at first, the occidentalist; but to-day we find very ancient remains coming from all over the world, including Asia.

Therefore, there is now no point in such an argument. At this juncture the purely archaeological evidence is exceptionally important. We have the oldest centres of civilization, so far discovered, located in Egypt, Mesopotamia (Kish, Ur, Al’Ubaid, Eridu, Erech, etc.), Susa and the Indus basin (Mohenjo, Daro, Harappa, etc.). Investigations also indicate that Anau in Turkestan must be taken within this purview, while cropping up all over the now arid mountainous area between Anau, the lndus and Mesopotamia, there are numerous sporadic evidences of the remains of civilization equally early. Therefore our evidence nowadays turns to this area, once considered the cradle of the Aryans (and, indeed, by some, of mankind), as the centre of the world’s earliest civilizations.

In consequence of these considerations, investigators are being compelled to go back to theories of an older generation represented by the names of Max Muller and others. We find that Dr. A. C. Haddon(8) voices these new, but old, concepts when he says: “The tall, fair, blue-eyed dolichocephals of North Europe are generally believed to be a variety of the Mediterranean race, but these may equally well be two varieties of a common stock, the former probably having their area of characterization in the steppes north of the plateaux of EurAsia “ while Sir Arthur Keith, in the lecture referred to, says, speaking of the mountainous area of Iran, “ Discoveries are being made which, if they do not reveal the actual original Aryan home, do guide us in its direction.”

Therefore scientific discovery has completed its cycle of development in this matter, and is returning with added proofs, to a position in accordance with the minds of great scholars of the past. Furthermore, it is slowly, but surely, aligning itself with traditional and historical conceptions. From the Orient come our peoples and our civilizations-and from that Orient with which we are familiar in our ancient literature. Civilization and race-development neither started in the shell heaps of the Baltic nor in the equatorial regions of Africa.

In the foregoing I outlined the Caucasian theory as based upon the conceptions of philologists during the past century. Its growth and eventual decadence were traced. Finally the resuscitation of the hypothesis, due to the amazing amount of archaeological and anthropological evidence since discovered, was outlined. In this connection Professor Sir Arthur Keith’s
adherence to the Caucasian theory was welcomed.

Before dealing further with evidence of an archaeological or anthropological character in favour of this point of view, there arises a natural difficulty to be surmounted-a question of bio geography! If we are to postulate that races and civilizations grew up in, and spread out of, Iran, what of the climatic factors ? This is a very natural difficulty which is bound to present itself to enquirers at the outset. The plateau region of Iran is part of the great Eurasiatic spine, rising from 6,000 feet in Anatolia to nearly 12,000 feet over much of Persia. Today this plateau region consists very largely of poor steppes and deserts. The January temperatures (reduced to sea level) are 60 to 50 degrees Fahrenheit. Let us say 55 degrees Fahrenheit. When due allowance is made for altitude, let us take an average height of 6,000 feet, this means that the average temperature in this month is about 35 degrees Fahrenheit. The July temperature similarly approximated, gives us an average of over 70 degrees Fahrenheit. A range of 35 degrees Fahrenheit between the two months. (The range between these months in most of Britain is about 20 degrees Fahrenheit.) The rainfall, which is a more important matter than temperature in this case, is less than one inch in January and July. The consequence is, the population is less than two persons to the square mile in some areas, and in the more populous parts, ranges from two to twenty-six persons per square mile. Bearing these facts in mind, the Caucasian theory, be it never so strong in its purely academical concepts, seems to be untenable on a physical basis. Can the great mountain mass of Iran really be the home of civilization? On first consideration it seems hard to believe such a region as this could be the centre of dispersion of hordes of humanity and in particular the focal centre of the great Aryan peoples.

At this point it is necessary to remember that climate has not always been the same as it is to-day. In fact, concerning this region the many prehistoric sites demonstrate forcibly that something radical has happened to the general conditions of life during the last 6,000 years.

Meteorology, astronomy, anthropology, archaeology, zoology and geology all unite in proving that there have been great changes in climate since life appeared on the earth; and in the case of geology alone, there is evidence of these changes before the appearance of life at all. Proof of an Ice Age is to be found in the oldest known rocks-the Archaean. Later in Lower Cambrian, then in Permo-Carboniferous and finally in Quaternary times, evidences of cycles of glaciation are found.

Cont'd
[link to www.ensignmessage.com]

News flash, no one is on the internet to spend 20 minutes reading short stories, most of them half truths or fantasies.

Do you gave more on this or a link to a thread?

Thanks in advance

Norway is the best. Pass the Lefse.

Tribe of Dan as in Danish, Irish Tuatha-de-Danaan, Danube River, slight corrupted as Lon-Don. They were seafaring Phoenician types who would have sailed past the Mediterranean and to Northern Europe.