Alphabetical Listing of Papers

Analytical Review of Philip Jones’ The Negro, Serpent, Beast and Devil, #6

Category: 

As I was proceeding with my constructive criticism through Jones’ book, I arrived at the end of page 29 and discovered that pages 30 and 31 were missing. So the reader will understand, several years ago Philip xeroxed his book (evidently selling out all of the books he had printed up) and voluntarily gave me a xeroxed copy of this work. By far, though, Philip Jones’ best work was his Racial Hybridity, which everyone in Israel Identity should have a copy of in their personal library. However, on a few subjects, he and I don’t exactly see eye-to-eye. But for now, we will concentrate on the subject at hand.

Although I don’t have a copy of pages 30 and 31, the last three lines on page 29 gave me a clue to what Philip had addressed on these two missing pages. On the last three lines Philip states in part:

Some writers say that Ham sinned against Noah by castrating or sodomizing him (Thomas F. Gossett, Race:The History Of An Idea In America, 2nd Ptg. Dallas. 1964), but it is more reasonable to see that Ham raped his own ....” [end of page]. Undoubtedly, Philip continued stating on the next page, “mother”.

Arabs, Friend or Foe?

Category: 

This is a subject that I have been needing to address, and address it I will. For about the last two months I have been pondering how I might go about this, and a letter from William Finck to myself he laid it all out very appropriately. Bill has written this same thing to several others, and here is the general outline of those letters (except that the names of those promoting the moslem arabs as our friends are withheld, unless those persons become obnoxious). I will dispense with the usual quotation marks as Bill writes the following:

6th August 06, Dear Clifton, ... So that you know, this is what I’ve been writing concerning the situation in Palestine, which of course reflects my full position on the subject:

I’ve heard that there is some confusion, or even division, in the Identity community (what else is new?) concerning the current recent events in the Middle East. Allow me to discuss my opinions concerning this matter here. I will try to be brief.

Be Kind to Your Kind

Category: 

The primary object of this paper is to bring to the fore the word “kind” as used of a race of people, and secondly, as that benevolent nature found inherent with a single lineage of people. You will notice I have used the word “kind” in both of these senses in the above title. The word kind is the root for the word kindred or kind-red. Oddly enough, the New College Edition of The American Heritage Dictionary Of The English Language shows the same root-word in its list of Indo-European word derivatives for both of these senses of meaning. Significantly, the Adam-kind #120 can take the life of most anything, but another #120 kindred man, Genesis 9:6. At Ruth 2:20 the translators chose both the English words “kindness” and “kinsman” in close proximity. The following are the definitions of the word “kind” as used as an adjective and secondly as a noun. Interestingly, both are derived from the same Indo-European root “gene-.”

kind1 (kind) adj. kinder, kindest. 1. Of a friendly nature; generous or hospitable; warmhearted; good. 2. Charitable; helpful; showing sympathy or understanding: a kind word. 3. Humane; considerate: kind to animals. 4. Forbearing; tolerant; charitable: very kind about the broken window. 5. Courteous; thoughtful: Thank you for your kind reply. 6. Generous; liberal: his kind words of praise. 7. Informal. Agreeable; beneficial: a soap kind to the skin. [Middle English kynde, kind, Old English gecynde, natural, innate. See gene- in Appendix.*]

Benjamin Franklin’s Stance on Race in 1751

Category: 

Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, etc. as typeset by him, from: www.ditext.com/franklin/observations.html [“” omitted]

1. Tables of the Proportion of Marriages to Births, of Deaths to Births, of Marriages to the Numbers of Inhabitants, etc. form’d on Observations made upon the Bills of Mortality, Christnings, etc. of populous Cities, will not suit Countries; nor will Tables form’d on Observations made on full settled old Countries, as Europe, suit new Countries, as America.

2. For People increase in Proportion to the Number of Marriages, and that is greater in Proportion to the Ease and Convenience of supporting a Family. When Families can be easily supported, more Persons marry, and earlier in Life.

3. In Cities, where all Trades, Occupations and Offices are many delay marrying, till they can see how to bear the Charges of a Family; which Charges are greater in Cities, as Luxury Is more common: many [stay] single during Life, and continue Servants to Families, Journeymen to Trades, hence Cities do not by natural Generation supply themselves with Inhabitants; the Deaths are more than the Births.

4. In Countries full settled, the Case must be nearly the same; all Lands being occupied and improved to the Heighth; those who cannot get Land, must Labour for others that have it; when Labourers are plenty, their Wages Will be low; by low Wages a Family is supported with Difficulty; this Difficulty deters many from Marriage, who therefore long continue Servants and single. Only as the Cities take Supplies of People from the Country, and thereby make a little more Room in the Country; Marriage is a little more incourag’d there, and the Births exceed the Deaths.

Biblical Canaanites, Who Are They?

Category: 

A better question might be: Biblical Canaanites, who are they today? Many are acquainted with the term as used in the Old Testament, and a few occasions in the New, but do they still exist today? And if so, how would we recognize one if we were to meet one of them? The first mention of “Canaan” in Scripture is at Gen. 9:18, as a person. We have to be careful, though, using this designation, as at various times it can mean different things (i.e., a person; a geographic area; a nation or a tribe or a group of nations or tribes). Canaan, as a person, has a peculiar origin. At Gen. 9:18 we are told: “And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan.” At verse 22 we read: “And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.”

Now there is a lot of speculation that because Ham saw his father’s nakedness, it was a matter of homosexuality, which is not true. Yet about 95% of those who read this verse insist upon that explanation, ignoring such verses as:

  • Leviticus 18:7-8: “The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. 8 The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s nakedness.”
  • Leviticus 20:11: “And the man that lieth with his father’s wife hath uncovered his father’s nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”
  • Deuteronomy 22:30: “A man shall not take his father’s wife, nor discover his fathers skirt.”
  • Deuteronomy 27:20: “Cursed be he that lieth with his father’s wife; because he uncovereth his father’s skirt ...”
  • Ezekiel 22:10 (RSV): “In you, men uncover their fathers’ nakedness; in you they humble women who are unclean in their impurity.”
  • 1 Corinthians 5:1: “It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the heathens, that one should have his father’s wife.”
  • Amos 2:7: “That pant after the dust of the earth on the head of the poor, and turn aside the way of the meek: and a man and his father will go in unto the same maid, to profane my holy name.”
  •             Genesis 35:22: “And it came to pass, when Israel dwelt in that land, that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father’s concubine: and Israel heard it ...”
  • Genesis 49:4: “Unstable as water, thou (Reuben) shalt not excel; because thou wentest up to thy father’s bed; then defiledst thou it: he went up to my couch.”
  • 1 Chronicles 5:1: “Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he was the firstborn; but, forasmuch as he defiled his father’s bed, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright ...”)
  • 2 Samuel 16:22: “So they spread Absalom a tent upon the top of the house; and Absalom went in unto his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel.”

Biblical Racial Law & The 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

Category: 

Our Christian Bibles are racial books from beginning to end, Old and New Testaments alike, including some of the Apocrypha. Today, the Holy Bible of is considered anathema to all the left-wing liberals, who loudly proclaim we must be “politically correct”.

The 1st Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance.”

These “politically correct” manipulators go so far as labeling we Christians who quote passages from our Bible concerning “race” as “S.T.G.”, or “security threat groups”! Even less intelligent imbeciles loudly spout that the subject of “race” is never mentioned in the Bible. Nothing could be further from the truth!

This “politically correct” propaganda is like the giant taconite crusher that was developed after we ran out of softer iron ore, which was crushed by conventional rollers. These taconite crushers applied relentless pressure rendering taconite amenable to conventional blast furnaces to extract iron. This “politically correct” propaganda has now altered the mental and spiritual awareness of nearly every White-Caucasian-European-American for the worse, and it IS NOT Biblical! Therefore, we will have to demonstrate just what is Biblical and what is not!:...

Billy Graham Claimed Christ was Swarthy rather than Ruddy!

Category: 

An Associated Press Release from Victoria Falls, Rhodesia, dated February 18, 1960, reads in part as follows:

... However, [Billy] Graham declared, ‘I don’t see how the South African approach (of rigid segregation) can possibly work’ ... ‘Christ was not a European,’ he said, ‘He wasn’t fair skinned. I should say He was swarthy ...’.”[Destiny, June 1962]

It is quite surprising, to say the least, to find Graham teach- ing that Christ ‘wasn’t [FAIR] skinned – but [SWARTHY]’!

In The American Heritage Dictionary with Indo-European Roots, the word “fair” as an adjective means: “1. Visually beauti- ful or admirable; lovely: a fair maiden2. Of light color, as a. Blond: fair hair ....” Webster’s New World Dictionary has on the adjective “fair”: “1. attractive; beautiful; lovely. 2. unblemished; clean ... 3, [< notion that dark coloring was foul] light in color; blond [fair hair] ....” Webster’s definition for “swarthy” is: “... having a dark complexion; dusky ...”. One of the meanings of “dusky” is “lacking light; dim; shadowy” somewhere between intense light and deep darkness, which would be “arab” in the Hebrew at Strong’s #6150, where it means, “... to grow dusky at sundown ...” & #6154 where it means, “... a mixture, (or mongrel race) ....” Thus, we have four words to pursue here; “fair”, “ruddy”, “swarthy” & “arab”.

Born Under Contract

Category: 

Imagine yourself being born, and when you took your first breath, you found yourself under a binding legal obligation emanating from your ancestors which you cannot, in any way, annul. As a matter of fact, if you are a member of a certain group of people, you have several contracts by which you must abide which will affect every major phase and all the decisions of your life.

Both Jews & Arabs are Serpent Seed, #1

Category: 

This will be a sequel to my brochure entitled Arabs, Friend Or Foe? I put that flyer together with the help of William Finck with his letter to me August 6, 2006 where Bill stated: “So that you know, this is what I’ve been writing concerning the situation in Palestine, which of course reflects my full position on the subject.” If you want to know the entirety of that paper, you will need to obtain a copy. In that essay pertaining to the arabs, it was clearly demonstrated that the arabs were as satanic as the jews. This is the subject that I will address in this pamphlet.

A friend of mine ran a search on the Internet, checking out what he could find concerning the genetics of the arabs in relation to the jews. His E-mail read: “I pulled together a few sources that hopefully can aid you in your discussion of the Arabs. Some of these sources of information in discussing the similarity between Kenite (‘Jewish’) DNA and that of the Palestinian (Arab) are very interesting! You can find more sources by searching at a search engine such as www.google.com for such combined keywords as ‘genetic’, ‘genes’, ‘jews’, ‘arabs’, ‘dna’.”

This party sent me the addresses of three websites to check out, and while the scientific evidence is very damning to both jew and arab, some of the nonscientific postulations, conjecture and abuse of terms made by these sources do not correspond entirely with history or Scripture. Therefore this paper will be written as a critical review. But as to the DNA evidence presented by these sources, we can hardly question their veracity. I will quote the following as presented, and you, the reader will have to judge for yourself just what to accept or reject. At the end, I will make some of my own critical observations. Like so many good sources, these are not entirely without error.

Pages