This is my sixty-fifth monthly teaching letter and continues my sixth year of publication. In the last lesson, Watchman’s Teaching Letter #64, we covered the demise of the Genesis 10 White Adamic table of nations. Today there is little left of them in their original racial integrity except for the true descendants of Jacob-Israel. With this lesson we will continue the same subject in somewhat greater detail. Again I will be using the notes of William Finck as a guideline for this, with some of my own comments appended. Therefore I will dispense with the usual quotation marks:
The Race of Genesis 10: We are only going to travel the history of this planet once. There are no second chances. One history, one Bible, one trek from the garden of Eden to the gathering of the Wheat. If we find not the foundations of our race in Genesis chapter 10, then our history, along with our Bible, is absolutely unreliable and we are mired in futility! I (William) often begin oral explanations of Genesis 10 by quoting Epictetus, copied from the opening pages of Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: άρχὴ παιδεύσεως ἡ τῶν ỏνομάτων ἐπίσκεψις, or “the beginning of learning is the investigation of names.” And I must agree with Epictetus!
The chronology of the Greek Septuagint translation of the Bible may be more reliable than the Masoretic Text, and according to many (e.g. Adam Rutherford) from that source the date of the flood of Noah may be fixed around 3245 B.C. I would purport that Genesis 10 is a snapshot, a profile of those tribes from which our race — the family of Noah — first blossomed in the first few centuries after the Deluge. I would think that, five thousand years ago, one would find no “Aryan” or “Caucasian” civilization outside of these Genesis 10 people — and that all of these people are indeed “Aryan” or “Caucasian.” It is certainly no mistake, that as it may be made evident here, so many of the tribes listed in Genesis 10 are found with names similar to those gleaned from the earliest secular records of our race. Although it is frustrating that some of the Genesis 10 people seem to have vanished at an early time, too early to be identified in secular records uncovered thus far (that I, William, have found), surely enough of these people may be identified that one may see the truth of these words concerning Genesis 10 fully demonstrated. [Haberman’s Tracing Our Ancestors p.9, has it 2344 B.C. likely MT]
Genesis 10:2-3: The historian Josephus made the mistake of associating Gomer with the Kelts, an error probably derived from an early Greek name for them, 54::[email protected], and many of his copyists have followed this mistake, which is based solely upon this weak phonetic similarity. That the Kelts sprang from a portion of the children of Israel deported by the Assyrians (see Missing Links Discovered In Assyrian Tablets by E. Raymond Capt) is evident from many factors, including their late (7th century B.C.) appearance in history, their location today, and their role in early history in fulfillment of many of the prophecies concerning Israel. However that discussion is beyond the scope of my purpose here. Simply note that the “Galatians” of Paul’s epistle are Kelts, and Paul was writing to Israelites.
At this point, I (Clifton) will interrupt William for an interesting item found in The Ancient World Of The Celts by Peter Berresford Ellis. While Ellis is a profound researcher and author of many books on the subject, he is blind to the truth that the Celts were Israelites. On page 15 he states: “I find that it is not stretching the imagination to suggest that when the Greek merchants first started to encounter the Celtic peoples and asked them who they were, the Celts simply replied. ‘the hidden people’— that is, to Greek ears, Keltoi.”
That should immediately set off a signal in our minds, as Psalm 83:3 should instantly be recalled which says: “They have taken crafty counsel against thy people, and consulted against thy hidden ones.” While the Kelts had the veil of darkness over them by Yahweh, at least they understood they were “hidden”, and informed the Greeks in an allegorical statement to that fact. This comment by the Kelts is simply amazing.
Now, back to Bill: By contrast, in Ezekiel 38, Gomer is allied with those in opposition to the children of Israel, which makes it easy to accept the statement which A. Koestler, on page 72 of his book The Thirteenth Tribe (bear in mind that Koestler, a “Jew”, writes from a “Jewish” perspective) claims that Togarmah, Gomer’s son, is the common ancestor of the Uigur, Dursu, Avars, Huns, Basilii, Tarniakh, Khazars, Zagora, Bulgars and Sabir. Surely the Biblical prophecies indicate that Gomer’s descendants are to be found among the Asiatic hordes of this age.
Riphath, another of Gomer’s sons, is unmentioned elsewhere in the Bible (except for a copy of Genesis 10 found at 1 Chronicles, chapter 1). Ashkenaz, however, is easily identified. Mentioned in Jeremiah 51:27 along with Ararat and Minni (both part of modern Armenia), Ashkenaz is there shown to be not far from the ancient land of the Khazars, once a great empire and of which modern Kazakhstan is a remnant. In the first millennium many of the Edomites and Canaanites who had adopted Judaism migrated to Khazaria, and had converted a great many Khazars to Judaism, including the Emperor of the Khazars. The “Jews” being absorbed into the general population, these people later adopted the name Ashkenaz, or “Ashkenazi Jews”, for Ashkenaz was recognized as an ancestor of the original Caucasian population of the area.
As was mentioned in lesson #64, and will be repeated here: Over 1500 years before the Germanic Rus conquered the land which bears their name today, Ezekiel wrote of Rhos (LXX) or Rush (A.V.) being the leader (“prince”) of Gog, Meshech and Tubal (Ezek. 38). This is by no means coincidental! Whoever Magog may have been in prehistoric times, we can be certain that his descendants are found among those gigantic (“Gog”) mixed masses of Caucasian-Mongol-Chinese-whatever blood who are found inhabiting much of Russia today.
In light of the relationship which the Rus were to have with Magog, Meshech and Tubal, which Ezekiel 38 illustrates, Herodotus mentions two tribes among those under Persian domination, the “Moschi” and “Tibareni” (Herodotus 3:94 and 7:78), in a convenient geographic region that without stretching the imagination, we may associate these ancient Japhethites with the dwellers around the Russian cities of Moscow and Tobolsk today. However, it is certain that at some point in time all of these peoples have mingled with pre-Adamic races related to those of the Orient.
That Madai is identifiable with the Medes should be evident simply by checking both terms in Strong’s Concordance. The Greeks wrote “Mede” as Μῆδος, the “η” in English being either an ‘a’ or an ‘ê’ or ‘e’. Herodotus (7:62) wrote that, “These Medes were anciently called by all people Arians” although it is more likely that the term “Aryan” was rather used by Israelites who once sojourned in Media (with which Dr. G. Moore agrees in his The Lost Tribes And The Saxons Of The East And The Saxons Of The West), since the term “Arya” seems to be “mountain of Yahweh” in Hebrew (i.e. Daniel 2:45), and that the Greeks had Israelite tribes in Media confused with actual Medes. Regardless, with the Medes fulfilling a destiny in history which the prophets had already assigned to Madai (Isaiah 21; Jeremiah 25:25; 51:11, 28 and Daniel 8), there should be no doubt as to this identification.
It may well be that the Medes are found in the Slavs of today. The Slavs may be, at least in part, traced to a people that Romans and Greeks called Sarmatians (Sauromatae). Diodorus Siculus, discussing certain Sakae (Scythian) kings, (2:43:5-7) states that “It was by these kings that many of the conquered [by the Scythians] peoples were removed to other homes, and two of these became very great colonies: the one was composed of Assyrians and was removed to the land between Paphlagonia and Pontus, and the other was drawn from Media and planted along the Tanaïs, its people receiving the name Sauromatae. Many years later this people became powerful and ravaged a large part of Scythia.” If this is so, and we have so many Slavs among us today, that such must be the fulfillment of Genesis 9:27, for we Germanic, Scandinavian, Anglo-Saxon and Keltic peoples are descendants of the Scythian-Israelites, and the true Semites. [For to “dwell in the tents of Shem” implies that Japheth was absorbed and became part of Shem’s family.]
The next of Japheth’s sons to be discussed is Javan. Strong, in his Concordance, identifies Javan with the Ionian Greeks, and the Septuagint translators seem to also, rendering the Hebrew word #3120 as Ἰωύαν (Iōuan). This is not without reason, for on the Behistun Rock (and other Eastern inscriptions) the Greeks are called “Yavana”, and Sir Henry Rawlinson wrote “Ionians” there in his famous translation of that inscription. Other Persian inscriptions assure this same connection (see G. Moore’s The Lost Tribes... and E. R. Capt’s Missing Links...). These Ionians once inhabited the coasts of Anatolia (Turkey today) and many of its islands, that land called Ionia generally, and also were the founders and principal inhabitants of Athens.
Of the sons of Javan, all are identified with the sea trade with Tyre in Ezekiel chapter 27: Elishah at 27:7, Tarshish at 27:12, Kittim (or Chittim) at 27:6 and in the Septuagint, Dodanim which is a mistake by the Hebrew copyists for Rodanim (as Strong’s attests), at 27:15 (where the A.V. has “Dedan”), or “Rhodians” (Ῥόδιοι) in the LXX. Elishah and Kittim are both identified with Cyprus, with several varying spellings of these names found in ancient inscriptions. Kittim is the word for Cyprus throughout the Hebrew prophets. Rodanim are the Greeks of Rhodes, as identified in the LXX. Tarshish is a region of southern Spain known as Tartessus. The Ionians (or Javan) are connected with Tyrian sea trade also at Ezek. 27:13 and 19, mentioned with Dan: for a portion of that tribe also settled Greece at an early time, and were known as Danaans.
The ships of “Tarshish” are mentioned in Kings, Chronicles, Psalms and several of the prophets. Although a separate and quite lengthy topic, it can be convincingly demonstrated that the “Phoenicians” of Tyre and elsewhere were the Israelites — called Phoenicians by the Greeks, right from the pages of the Bible, with much evidence also added by secular historians. Carthage was a Phoenician colony of Tyre, and the Carthaginians eventually controlled the land we call Spain today, then called Iberia, “Hebrew” or “Eber” land, just as the land south of the Caucasus mountains, where the deported Israelites first settled and became known as Scythians, was also called Iberia even in Roman times.
Diodorus Siculus (25:10:1 ff.) discusses wars between the Carthaginian Hamilcar Barca and the “Iberians and Tartessians” in the third century B.C. Herodotus (4:152) is writing about a period much earlier than his own, even predating the Trojan War, and says, “This trading town was in those days a virgin port, unfrequented by the merchants.” The Trojan War was 200 years before King Solomon’s ships, so maybe Herodotus was correct. Surely Herodotus’ calling Tartessus a “trading town” illuminates the Scriptural record. In their Greek-English Lexicon, the learned Liddell & Scott readily identify Τάρτησσος as “the Tarshish of Scripture.”
The last Japhethite tribe to discuss is Tiras, or in Strong’s Hebrew spelling, Thiyrac. Although I have no recorded sources for a connection, many modern writers have made perfect etymological sense in presenting Thrace as the habitation of these people.
Modern anthropologists, archaeologists and historians often discuss the “sea peoples” whom they usually claim were Caucasians who came from the Aegean area and invaded the Mediterranean. The true origin of these “sea peoples” are as the Japhethites of Genesis 10, who were spread along the waterways from the Caspian and Black Seas and as far west as Spain, and at a very early time. Contrast Genesis 10:5 with 10:20 and 10:31, where the Japhethites are specifically assigned the “isles” or “coastlands”, but not the Hamites or Shemites.
Genesis 10:6-14: Before beginning a discussion of Ham, or his son Kush (or Cush), it is quite important to acquire an understanding of the word “Ethiopian”, as the Greeks called the Kushites, as the word is often translated in our Bibles and as we call the people inhabiting the land of Kush in Africa today. Our “Ethiopian” comes from the Greek word Αἰθίοψ which properly means “shining face”, “glowing face” or “sun-burnt face”, and was certainly not used by the earliest Greek writers to describe the dark races. There are several words used to describe “black”, “swart”, “dark”, etc. in Greek which are applied to people. Among them are μέλας, κελαινός, πελός and φαιός. Other words meaning “dark”, but seemingly not applied to people, are σκότος, κνέφας, γνόφος, δνόφος, ζόφος and ζόφερος.
A word akin to Αἰθίοψ is αἰθός, which the large 9th edition of Liddell & Scott defines as “burnt...II. shining...red-brown...”. The 1996 Revised Supplement to this edition inserts after burnt “perhaps black- or dark-complexioned”, and emends shining to bronze-coloured. The black I must reject. Red-brown describes a sun-tanned Caucasian, and not a dark-skinned negro who only gets blacker in the sun.
Other words related to Αἰθίοψ are: αἴθων “fiery, burning ... of metal, flashing, glittering ...”; αἴθω “to light up, kindle ...”; αἴθρη “clear sky, fair weather”; αἶθοψ, the closest, “fiery-looking, of metal, flashing; of wine, sparkling”, but according to Liddell & Scott, someone recorded in the Greek Anthologies, a late and wide collection of Greek inscriptions mostly from well into the first millennium A.D., either translated or used αἶθοψ as “swart, dark.” However, this is clearly contrary to the true spirit of the word’s meaning. Applied to Kush, a White man, or his White descendants, could only mean “sun-burnt” as in bright red or brassy-colored, which is something which happens only to Caucasians in the outdoors and is exactly what one may expect Kushites in Ethiopia to look like!
Moses fled Egypt, as recorded in Exodus chapter 2, and met with the Midianites, descendants of Abraham and Keturah (Genesis 25:1-2) from whom he took a wife. These Midianites lived in the land of Kush, as can be discerned from Numbers chapter 12. Abraham had sent his sons with Keturah “east- ward, unto the east country” (Gen. 25:6), and surely this “east country” is that called Kush in Genesis 2:13, beyond Mesopotamia, to where we have the Hindu-Kush mountains today. Or at least somewhere between the Euphrates and that country, as we will soon see from the Greek writers. Moses did not go to Ethiopia in Africa for his wife, and there are no Midianites ever spoken of there.
In Hesiod’s “Theogony”, probably written in the 8th century B.C., Memnon, legendary king of the Ethiopians, was the son of Eos, or “Light.” In the “Aethiopis” by Arctinus of Miletus, written as a sequel to Homer’s Iliad, Memnon the Ethiopian aided the Trojans in the war against the Greeks, only to be slain by Achilles. Herodotus (3:94) mentions the “Ethiopians of Asia”, and although he also describes black and wooly-haired Ethiopians (3:101; 7:70), I will refer to Diodorus Siculus for a more complete picture below. Herodotus calls Susa, the famed capital city (along with Persepolis and also the Median city Ecbatana) of the Persian Empire, the “city of Memnon” (5:53-54), since the Greeks believed that Memnon founded that city.
Diodorus Siculus, relating the tradition concerning Memnon, has Ethiopia in Asia sending aid to the Trojans, including Assyrians and “men of Susiana” (2:22:1-5, 4:75:4). So the Greeks have many witnesses of an Ethiopia in Asia, in lands and cities known to be inhabited by Caucasians, and with people taking part in some of the first events recorded by the Caucasians of Europe. Thus, the Hebrews have a Kush in a land which may be supposed to be the same as the Greek, if not close, yet the Hebrew record is not much earlier than the events the Greeks were recording. As a third witness, we have a Kush on our own modern maps not much further east than where we may assume that the ancient district was situated. This surely can not be coincidental, especially considering the reference in Genesis 2:13, mentioned previously.
Now to turn to the Kush, or Ethiopia, of Africa. In the first eleven chapters of his third book, Diodorus draws from earlier historians (as he always did) to describe the various peoples of African, Ethiopia and the various tribes contrast with one another quite starkly. The first “Ethiopians” he discusses are endowed with what we may consider a well-developed form of “western civilization”, for he states “they say that they were the first to be taught to honor the gods and to hold sacrifices and processions and festivals.” They quote Homer in reference to themselves (Iliad 1:423-24), they recount the unsuccessful invasions into their country by Cambyses and Semiramis, and they claim that the Egyptians were originally Ethiopian colonists, led by Osiris. The two types of their writing (like Egypt) popular (demotic) and sacred (hieroglyphic), are described, and it is said that the sacred is common among these Ethiopians. Their priests were much like the Egyptian. They believed that their kings gained sovereignty by Divine Providence, their laws and punishments were from custom, and they practiced the same flight of refuge which the Greeks did, which was similar to the Hebrew Levitical cities of refuge. An Ethiopian king under Ptolemy was educated in Greece and studied Philosophy, and aside from a few odd customs there is no reason to believe that these Ethiopians, whose physical characteristics were not mentioned, were anything but civilized, and not much different than the rest of “western” society.
In stark contrast to those Ethiopians first discussed, starting at 3:8:1, Diodorus says: “But there are also a great many other tribes of the Ethiopians, [here it is made apparent that, like “Phoenicia” and other labels, “Ethiopia” has become only a geographic designation], some of them dwelling in the land lying on both banks of the Nile and on the islands in the river, others inhabiting the neighboring country of Arabia [between the Nile and the Red Sea], and others residing in the interior of Libya [the rest of Africa — Sudan here]. The majority of them, and especially those who dwell along the river, are black in color and have flat noses and wooly hair.” Here it is evident that Diodorus is describing the Nubians and other wandering black tribes of the region. He continues: “As for their spirit they are entirely savage and display the nature of a wild beast ... and are as far removed as possible from human kindness to one another ... and cultivating none of the practices of civilized life ... they present a striking contrast when considered in the light of our own customs.”
So surely it seems here that if we do not have a White culture in Ethiopia in an era not long before Diodorus’ own, we certainly have at least a remnant of one. Ezekiel 30 lists Ethiopia among “all the mingled people”, and all of this fits very well with a once-Caucasian but now adulterated Kush in that region.
To briefly revisit the Asian portion of Kush, in his book The Lost Tribes pp. 148-150, Dr. Moore proposes that the word “Kush” may be the underlying root of “Khazar” and “Cossack” (Kush, Kosa, etc.), and hence the ancestors of those people which later became prominent, and among those set to fulfill the destiny set for them in Ezekiel 38 and other prophecies are very likely revealed.
Surely Mitsrayim, or Mizraim, is Egypt. Where the Old Testament reads “Egypt”, in all places the Hebrew reads “Mitsrayim.” The term “Egypt” is that used throughout Greek literature, “Aegyptus.” Mitsrayim was not Egypt as we know it, but only a much smaller district along both banks of the Nile. The early Greeks seem to have written little about Egypt outside of Thebes and Heliopolis, although I still have reading to do in that period so I can’t comment fully on the matter. There is much to be said about early Egypt that is beyond the scope of this discussion, but warrants at least a mention. First, early Egypt actually consisted of several alien cultures adverse to one another and eventually amalgamated, which was surely not a good idea. The pharaonic civilization in Egypt appeared rather suddenly, not long after 3000 B.C., consistent with Septuagint chronology. There were actually two groups in early Egypt, centuries apart, remembered as “Hyksos.” The first group little is known about, a noble Adamic race, probably Shemites and maybe even Hebrew, who built the Great Pyramid. The second were Kenites who invaded and occupied the Delta shortly before the Genesis account of Joseph. During the tῬόδιοιfont-family: span style=ime of Joseph, the Pharaohs at Thebes were of the House of Shem, as was the priesthood of On (Heliopolis or Beth-Shemesh). It was these Egyptians whom Joseph was sold to as a slave.
There are nearly 1800 years between the time of the Deluge and the writing of the Pentateuch, and about 800 more to the time of Ezekiel and Jeremiah — all of this time the various tribes of Adamites were seeking new and better land throughout the known world and points beyond. With so few written records, how difficult it is to determine their movement. Homer, the earliest Greek writer we know of, was contemporary with Hosea and Isaiah, rather late in the history of Israel!
It is difficult to discern why the name Phut was associated with Libya (see Nahum 3:9), and in the Septuagint, as well as the A.V., it was translated as such at Ezekiel 30:5, 38:5 and Jeremiah 46:9 (LXX 26:9). The Lubim (hence “Libya”) and Sukkim (2 Chron. 12:3) may have been pre-Adamic (aboriginal) people, and it may well be that our writers of Scripture knew that Phut had mingled with these. Like Kush, Phut is listed among “all the mingled people” at Ezekiel 30:5.
Diodorus Siculus (20:55) writes of Libyans dwelling on Africa’s northern coast, in cities, and friendly to Carthage, but then of the nomadic “Lybians” of the interior, hostile to Carthage. He does not, however, describe Libyan or Carthaginian physically. Hesoid, probably a contemporary of Isaiah, writing in his “Catalogues of Women” (fragment 40A) mentions both the “boundless black-skins and the Lybians” but says that from Epaphus, son of Chronos, “sprang the dark Libyans and high-souled Ethiopians”, but also the “underground folk and feeble-pygmies.” Surely the more reliable early source may be Aeschylus (a writer contemporary with Ezra and Nehemiah), who in his “Suppliant Maidens” at lines 277-290 lists a group of races and compares the likeness of their women to those of the (“Greek”) Danaans, among those mentioned being Libyans, Egyptians and Amazons, very likely indicating some degree of homogenization among these people. Aeschylus is relating a parody of events which transpired a thousand years before his own time: the migration of Dan from Egypt to Greece.
In this age we have a mixed race, the Berbers, as evidence of a former White civilization in this region, although the settlements of the Phoenicians, the later Germanic invaders of Carthage, the Vandals, and then the rise of Mohammedism all did much to further confound an already mingled North African world.
Mitsraim, Kush, and Phut, the Ludim of Genesis 10:13 (not of Lud the son of Shem discussed below), and the Lubim (Lybians) are all mentioned in one or more of the following verses (sometimes with other people): Ezekiel 27:10; 30:5; 38:5; Nahum 3:9; 2 Chron. 12:3 and 16:8. Since Ezekiel 38 is unfulfilled, it may be clear that the Arab (meaning “mixed”, see Strong #6154, the result of which is described in Strong #6150) peoples descended from them will be opposed to the children of Israel (not the “Jews”) in the last days.
The Anamin of Genesis 10:13 are likely the “Anami” mentioned in an 8th century B.C. cuneiform inscription. Naphtuhim may be a word borrowed from Egyptian meaning “people of the delta,” Pathrusim “people of the southern land.”
The Philistim, or Philistines, had dwelt in the land of Caphtor before their own migration to Palestine (an unrelated word), and Caphtor was very probably in Egypt. See Amos 9:7, Deut. 2:23 and Jer. 47:4. Certainly the Philistines were Adamic (Zech. 9:6), and some had surely migrated west with the children of Israel (Isaiah 11:14). Goliath was not actually a Philistine, but rather a mercenary in their army, one of the sons of Rapha the Canaanite giant. Of which see 1 Chronicles 20:4-6, where “the giant” is in Hebrew ha-rapha, the source of the Rephaim (i.e. Genesis 14:5; 15:20; 2 Samuel 5:18; 23:13 et al). There also should be noted an obscure entry in Herodotus, at 2:128: “Hence they [the Egyptians] commonly call the pyramids after Philition, a shepherd who at that time fed his flocks about the place.” Some suppose that this may be a memory of ancient Philistines in Egypt, and the first “shepherd kings”, connected to the building of the Great Pyramid.
With Nimrod we may very well have mention of both the first Adamite tyrant, a man who would rule over his kin outside of the laws of God, and the first multicultural “empire,” since the cities mentioned had long existed and were populated with peoples of other races. There is much evidence that the beginnings of “western” civilization appeared rather suddenly here in Mesopotamia, by which the Genesis 11 account has much creditworthiness once it is realized that this represents the beginning of the White race, and not all races.
Genesis 10:15-19: Canaan, Ham’s youngest son, was cursed by Noah. The reason why Canaan, and not Ham himself and his other sons, was cursed should be apparent reading Leviticus 20:11. Canaan was the result of Ham’s illicit behavior — warranting his special mention at Genesis 9:18. Canaan’s descendants are later found mixed with the race of Cain (Genesis 4:16-26; 15:19-21; Deut. 7:1-2), who was also cursed (Genesis 4:10-15), and several races with no Biblical genealogy, indicating that they are of non-Adamic (non-white) origin. Some of the “ites” here in Genesis 10:16-18 also may well be of non-Adamic stock, races that the Canaanites mixed with rather than races which sprung from Canaan. The “Hivites” may actually, in all occurrences, be a scribal error for “Horites”, evident by comparing Genesis 36:2, 20, 30, and also the LXX at Genesis 34:2 and Joshua 9:7. The Horites, Hurrians to the anthropologists and archaeologists today, are an Oriental race which invaded Mesopotamia at an early date. Some Horites dwelt at “Mount Hor”, to which the Edomites, the descendants of Esau, and also cursed, joined themselves. Mount Hor was later called Mount Seir, and today is known as Petra in Jordan. See Genesis 36. All of these people aforementioned may be traced to the people we call “Jews” today, although many are also among the “Arabs.” See: Matt. 23:35; Luke 11:57; John 8:33-47; Romans 9:1-13 and Josephus’ Antiquities 13:9:1 (13:254-58), 13:15:8 (13:395-97), 15:7:9-10 (15:253-66) and Wars 2:20:4 (2:566-68), 2:8:2 (2:119-121) and 4:4:4 (4:270-73).
Heth was a precursor to the people who were later known as Hittites, probably a pre-Adamic tribe whom Heth had settled with, and therefore named by the rest of the Adamic race. The name Sidon is found in the city in Canaan of the same name, and its environs. Seven hundred years before the Greeks first wrote of “Phoenicians”, the Canaanites of Tyre and Sidon and the rest of the coast were driven out by the children of Israel, who then inhabited those cities. The “Phoenicians” were Israelites!
Summary thus far on Genesis 10 on what we have here presented (more to come in later lessons): This concludes for this lesson the notes by William Finck, along with some of my own appended observations.
If you have followed very closely what has been presented here, you are probably beginning to acquire a concept of how serious a problem we are facing today concerning race. As I pointed out in lesson #63, race is at the very heart of the agenda of the enemy. Additionally, by understanding our past in a greater light, we can observe more thoroughly and with better perception the process which is happening in our world today before our very eyes. It should be comprehended by all White people that the present race-mixing phenomena we are confronted with was designed and advocated as far back as prior to the Civil War. As a matter of fact, that is what the Civil War was all about! But, as one can quickly observe from this lesson, its origin goes back beyond, and is linked with Genesis 3:15 in the Garden of Eden.
While I do not agree fully with Philip Jones in his book Racial Hybridity, (and he being at the opposite end of the spectrum to his brother, Stephen E. Jones), I will cite, in part, a couple of passages from the chapter “The Challenge To Destroy The White Race”, on pages 215 and 217:
“One of the foremost exponents of race-mixing was David Croly (1829-1889). His book Miscegenation honestly informs us of the reasons behind the Civil War and giving negroes ‘rights.’ Croly admits:
“It is idle to maintain that this present [Civil] war is not a war for the negro. It is [indeed] a war for the negro. Not simply for his personal rights or his physical freedom ... it is a war if you please, of amalgamation, so called ... a war looking, as its final fruit, to the blending of the white and black ... Let it go on until ... church ... state ... society recognize ... the necessity of the fusion of the white and black’” ....
“The ideal or type [of] man of the future will blend in himself all that is passionate and emotional in the darker races, all that is imaginative and spiritual in the Asiatic races, and all that is intellectual and perceptive in the white races. He will also be composite as regards color. The purest Miscegen will be brown, with reddish cheeks, curly and waving hair, dark eyes, and a fullness and suppleness of form not now dreamed of by any individual people.” Is this what you want for your children and grandchildren? - ? - ?