Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts

A RELIGION FOR ARYANS

by Professor Revilo P. Oliver

Many believe that, as is quite possible, a large population of mediocrities requires the spiritual sustenance of a religion that promises survival after death as a compensation for the inevitable disappointments and sorrows of human life. If that is so, a replacement must be found for the demoralizing cult of the Jew-god that has, for fifteen centuries, blighted our race and sapped its vital instincts. And if the substitute religion is not to impair our race's vitality, it must be in harmony with the Aryan psyche.

An attempt to design and launch such a religion is being made by a group who call themselves Reincarnation, Incorporated, with perhaps a gentle pun in the title. Their initial promotion is a forty-page tabloid paper, oddly but cleverly entitled What Is, of which seventy thousand copies are said to have been distributed from the new Delphi (P.O.Box 3009, Agoura Hills, California). A second printing of the same quantity is in prospect to recruit more "New Age Activists," as members of the cult like to call themselves.

The obvious basis for an Aryan religion is the doctrine of metempsychosis, which is congenial to our racial psyche and was a faith held wherever our race established its superiority, from India to Scandinavia. It reappears, with only a little modification, in Schopenhauer's doctrine of the palingenesis of the will.(1) It is foreign to all the Semitic religions, and appears among Mongolians only under the influence of Buddhism, which was exported from India to China.

(footnote 1. Schopenhauer drew inspiration for much of his philosophy from the fifty Upanisads that he read in the Latin translation by Anquetil Duperron (Strassburg, 2 vols., 1801-1802), of which he said (Parerga, II, 185), "It has been the most elevating reading which (with the exception of the original text) there can possibly be in the world. It has been the solace of my life, and will be of my death.")

Belief in the transmigration of souls is not inherently unreasonable. It is untainted by the trumpery 'revelations' and preposterously childish tales of the Jewish concoction called Christianity. Since souls are, by definition, invisible and impalpable, one cannot prove that they do not exist and do not act as a catalyst, so to speak, in initiating and maintaining the chemical and bio-electrical reaction called life. And if souls exist as a kind of subtle energy, the transfer of the undetectable spark from one organism to another would conform to a psychic law of the conservation of energy, and one could, of course, give the doctrine a now fashionable embroidery by discoursing on analogies with quantum mechanics. A soul thus conceived could be the real personality of an individual, and not entirely irrational explanations can be found for an incarnate soul's inability to remember its previous incarnations. Unlike other religions, a faith in metempsychosis need involve nothing that is demonstrably false.

The doctrine of metempsychosis was brought to its fullest and most logical form by the Aryans of India, who perfected it by combining with it the concept of karma (karman).(2) This produces a grandiose system of psychic evolution that neatly parallels the scientific fact of biological evolution. The individual soul is presumed to have begun with the lowest and simplest form of organic life and to have developed itself, through its experiences and actions in each incarnation, ascending gradually to ever higher forms of life and eventually to the higher mammals, who become capable of conscious moral activity. By the time that we become human beings (perhaps even before), the moral quality of an individual's actions automatically determine, by an unalterable natural law, his social status and his fate (i.e., what happens to him, as distinct from what he does voluntarily) in his next incarnation. If he discharges faithfully his moral obligations in the status in which he is born, he will have a higher (and morally more demanding) status in his next life; if, on the other hand, he violates the morality of the natural law, he will revert to a lower social status and suffer in it condign tribulations, or, if his guilt exceeds such demotion, he reverts to a subhuman mammal and has to progress to human form once more.

(footnote 2. When one cites Sanskrit nouns and adjectives, one does not give the nominative singular, as in Greek and Latin, but the special base, or 'pausa,' form that is used in dictionaries and in grammatical treatises, from which the inflected cases are derived.)

This is, of course, a rational religion. Karma is governed by a natural law inherent, like gravitation, in the structure of the universe. There is no need for a theodicy, the intellectual reef on which all monotheist religions are wrecked. There is no need for a creator of an eternal universe and no function for a god who intervenes in human affairs. One of the six orthodox religious philosophies of India, the Nirisvara-Samkhya, is frankly atheistic in the sense that it excludes a creating or governing god, although it does admit higher forms of life to which humans may evolve and thus become beings that are superhuman, just as we are supersimian.

If you must have a god, the alternate (Sesvara) system will give you one who is like the god in Plato's Politicus: he designed and fashioned the perfect mechanism of the universe and, after setting it in motion, left it to function automatically, giving no further attention to it and its inhabitants. Only fools would try to attract his attention by performing childish rites or whimpering prayers, but by the moral law of the universe austerities and self-mortification automatically (and regardless of an individual's intent in performing them) release the cosmic energy of tapas and thus confer psychic powers that may be exerted in this or in subsequent lives.

You will have seen that this is also a socially perfect religion. However disagreeable may be your present status in life and however great may be the injustice and suffering that you must endure, you are thus expiating your moral errors in a preceding life, while your fortitude in accepting without protest the consequences of your past immorality automatically generates the moral quality that will raise you to a higher status in your next life. The doctrine even reconciles the races: a nigger is assured that by good conduct he can ascend racially and eventually be born an Aryan.(3) A society that fully accepts the belief in karma is one in which discontent, social agitation, political conflict, and revolutions are all impossible.

(footnote 3. The stages of transition from the Vedas to the doctrine of the later Upanisads is obscure, but one conjecture, drawn from the term dvija ('born again'), applied only to Aryans, is that originally only Aryans were thought capable of reincarnation, while black-skinned Dravidians and apes were thought to perish like all other lower mammals. That was a biologically wholesome attitude, and an historian may regret that it was superseded by formulation of the complete scheme of spiritual evolution called karma. By another conjecture, one regarding the origin of the caste system, one can suppose that the civilized white race that preceded the Aryans in the Indus Valley was included among the 'born again.')

Such is the perfectly logical and coherent religion that the Aryans in India fashioned from the religion of the Rg-veda that was theirs when they invaded that sub-continent and which they never formally repudiated, despite the implications of the doctrine I set forth above.(4) The older religion and its analogues naturally dominated the great literature in Sanskrit. All belief in hyper-physical phenomena was, for a time, challenged by the strictly rational and materialistic (i.e., scientific) conception of the universe and life called Lokayata.(5) The religious conceptions of India were profoundly perturbed and altered by the disastrous and egalitarian heresy called Buddhism, a religion that had been fashioned from gross perversion of the austere and profoundly pessimistic philosophy of Gautama. And the common people, increasingly mongrelized by miscegenation in defiance of the Aryan Laws of Manu, while never doubting metempsychosis, sought to evade natural law by magic, that is, by invoking the intervention of a god (e.g., Krishna) or goddess (e.g, Kali) whom they pleased and flattered by sacrifices and other acts of special devotion.

(footnote 4. I have given a concise, perhaps too concise, summary of Hindu religions and religious philosophies in Appendices A, B, and C to my translation of the Mrcchakatika (Little Clay Cart); cf. Appendices D, E, and L. The essentials can be learned from any good reference work.)

(footnote 5. In a very early article, written with Spenglerian fatalism, I wrote: "We need not be astonished that Hindu skepticism enjoyed only a relatively brief existence: no malism was ever more than transitory, for in philosophy, as in daily life, men are naturally cowards and optimists. "Skepsis" always consumes itself; it is a brilliant flame that, like a magnesium flare, bursts forth for a moment in the tenebrous night, and then vanishes, leaving the darkness more impenetrable than ever." According to Spengler, gerontic civilizations enter a period of "second religiosity" before they die; we may now have reached that stage. Other and perhaps better explanations are possible, such as the observed decline of the level of intelligence in proletarian and multiracial societies, or the necessary effect of a civilization that contravenes the innate instincts of our species. (I am thinking of an extremely important article by Alan McGregor that will appear in a coming issue of the Mankind Quarterly; I plan to consider it in connection with the phenomena of sexual perversion.))

It would be pointless to mention here the wild variety of grotesque sects, each with its gang of holy men intent on exploiting the superstitions of the populace, that flourish in modern India, but it may be relevant to give a glimpse of the corruption of the old Aryan conception of reincarnation and karma among the most highly cultivated Hindus of the age that followed the rise of Buddhism in India. A good example is one of the great works of Sanskrit literature, the Kadambari of Bana (completed after his death, c. A.D. 650, by his less talented son). It is written in the ornate and alembicated prose that is esteemed as more poetic than verse -- a mannered and artificial style that reminds one of Euphuism, but paradoxically also reminds one of the German style of Kant, for, given the incomparable lexical and syntactical suppleness of Sanskrit, it can be said of Bana, as it was of Kant, that he often dives into a sentence and comes up, several pages later, with the verb in his mouth. The Kadambari is a work that was accessible only to the most highly cultivated readers.(6)

(footnote 6. If you have sufficiently mastered Sanskrit to read the Mahabharata or the Kathasaritsagara without difficulty, you will find that reading Bana is like breaking trail in three feet of snow. There is an English translation by C. M. Ridding (1906), which I have not seen. Aside from the inimitably ornate and poetic diction, Bana's work has a considerable charm in its sensitivity to the beauties of nature, but the late Arthur Berriedale Keith, the foremost authority on Sanskrit literature, was certainly right in saying that it will seem fantastic, uninteresting, and tedious to readers who have no settled belief in metempsychosis.)

The story opens at the court of a famous king and dramatist, Sudraka, whose very name shows that he was not a true Aryan. (He cannot have been a Sudra, but he probably was a hybrid like Dumas, his father's Aryan blood mingled with that of a woman of lower race.) To him comes a Candala, a maiden of wondrous beauty, although she belongs to the very lowest and most despised caste.(7) (Don't worry: you will eventually discover she is the goddess Lakshmi in disguise.) She presents to the king a learned and eloquent parrot, who, after composing verses in the king's honor, narrates a long and intricate romance, inset with subordinate stories, which is the body of the work but need not be outlined here. The wise parrot's discourse causes the "veil of ignorance" to fall from before the king's eyes, and he learns of his earlier incarnations on earth and, at the behest of the disguised Lakshmi before she ascends to heaven, he dies and eventually discovers that he is really Lord of the Night, Regent of the Moon. His terrestrial sufferings have atoned for the moral lapse that brought upon him the curse that sent him to earth, so he rejoins his favorite wife and wins Kadambari, the maiden whom he especially loves and long desired in vain. The three thereafter dwell in his lunar orb, together with their friends and associates, but from time to time revisit the two terrestrial kingdoms that belong to them.

(footnote 7. The offspring of a white woman of the highest primary caste by a brown-skinned male of the lowest is the result of miscegenation so monstrous that he (or she) is particularly accursed. The descendants of such persons are Candalas; they are legally dead and must carry rattles to warn of their approach so that decent persons can avoid the loathesome sight. They serve as executioners and porters of corpses, since they cannot be more polluted than they are by birth. They are, however, morally superior to Englishmen and Americans, who commit the heinous crime of eating beef and will therefore be reborn as pigs or worse.)

You will not need to be shown how drastically this story departs from the basic simplicity and rationality of the Aryan doctrine of karma that I outlined above. I have mentioned it expressly to show how the pure doctrine of karma can survive contamination by notions of deities who intervene in earthly affairs, incarnate divinities, and even the mystical efficacy of curses.(8) That should make us cautious in criticizing modern adaptations of the doctrine that are designed for popularity today.

(footnote 8. The parrot is an estimable young man who was reborn as a parrot because he was cursed, not by a holy man as is so common in Hindu story, but only by a maiden whom he had wearied with protestations of love.)

The concept of a transmigration of souls is, as I have said, native to our race. It reappeared frequently in the literature of the Nineteenth Century (e.g., in two of Edgar Allan Poe's most memorable short stories or Theophile Gautier's Avatar). Langdon Smith spontaneously saw the parallel between metempsychosis and biological evolution in his one well-known poem, "When you were a tadpole and I was a fish,/ In the Paleozoic time." In our century, the concept has been popularized by the "memories" of "Bridey" Murphy, Joan Grant, "Taylor Caldwell" (Mrs. Marcus Reback), and others. The doctrine, furthermore, is susceptible of a kind of "proof."

Most literate persons read in their youth vivid tales set in ancient or transcendentally exotic cultures, such as Ryder Haggard's She, Flaubert's Salammbo, Georg Ebers' Der Kaiser, Merejkowski's Tutenchamon auf Kreta, Maseras' Ildaribal, Pierre Louys' Aphrodite, or any of a hundred others. Such stories, set in a panorama of a vanished civilization, make a deep impression on the minds of youthful readers, but fade from the conscious mind in subsequent decades. As the readers, especially if they are female, approach or enter middle age, their youthful impressions can be recalled in hypnosis; they may spontaneously mistake them for memories of a past incarnation, and they will almost certainly do so, if they have been prepared for a "past life regression" by a skilled hypnotist.

There should, therefore, be a large and active market for a new religion based on metempsychosis and karma, now that Mme. Blavatsky's Theosophy is quite worn out. It is not easy, however, to estimate the potential of Reincarnation, Incorporated.

The forty pages of its tabloid, half of them written by one man, are chiefly devoted to glowing descriptions of how wonderful it is to be a "New Age Activist," and they have comparatively little to say about a specific metaphysical doctrine. One principal theme is a vehement but entirely justified polemic against the Jesus-jerks of the "Moral Majority" and "New Christian Right," who are so lavishly promoted by the Jews' boob-tubes and have already excited such mindless fanaticism that one of the chief hokum-peddlers has set himself up as a candidate for the Presidency, and the Revolutionary Tribunal in Washington has shown ominous signs of coming to a working agreement with the crude communism of early Judaeo-Christian cults. One can only applaud the polemic, which gives the new religion a present utility.

The bits of doctrine that one can gather from obiter dicta scattered through the forty pages indicate that the basic doctrines of karma have been incorporated in an odd mishmash. The sect teaches acceptance of the world as it is, and that is good, but then we encounter a blob of Christian sentimentality in the strange affirmation that "the Law of Grace supersedes the Law of Karma... All your positive and loving thoughts and actions go to cancel out your stored-up bad karma." Now this directly contravenes the basic doctrine, according to which sentiments and thoughts have no effect in themselves, and actions are all that count. The word karman means 'an act, deed,' and is in some writings taken as an antithesis to belief and the kind of thought that does not result in physical action. Thus karmanurupa may designate what is in accord with a constant action or function, such as a chemical reaction, as well as the conduct and fate of a man that are in accord with his actions in a previous life. It is the latter conception, of course, that is fundamental to the religio-philosophical doctrine that takes its name from karman.

Then we are told "everyone is here on earth to fulfill their [sic] dharma and to resolve their karma by rising above fear and learning to express unconditional love." I am not sure what this means. Dharma is 'duty, propriety, justice,' and hence the prescribed conduct of a man (or woman) in the social status and position to which he (or she) has been born. Fulfilling those obligations faithfully advances one spiritually; violation of that duty will result in rebirth in a lower and more unpleasant status. It is the dharma of a slave to serve his master loyally; the dharma of a soldier, to slay the enemies of his king; and the dharma of a king (as is so clearly stated in the famous Arthasastra ), to be merciless toward criminals and subversives, and to root them out, even by using a corps of "agents provocateurs." There isn't a word about bubbling with love, conditional or unconditional.

The "New Age Activists," we are told, "will be an army of people armed with love" and they will "replace repression and fear with peace and light." So we end with more of the old buncombe. Such pie may be served in the sky, but it will never be found on earth, and it is a great disservice to arouse an appetite for an imaginary confection. I suppose this nonsense was put in to stimulate the glands of compulsive do-gooders.

I refrain from commenting on the two-page spiel by a certain Joseph Goldstein, who twice assures us that "Sexual misconduct can most easily be understood as refraining [!] from those actions of sensuality which cause pain and harm to others." If he means what he says, he should laud the famous Marquis de Sade, who was most emphatically not guilty of such misconduct.

What is most disturbing is that Reincarnation, Incorporated, carries with it a whole passel of fakirs and mystery-mongers, all eager to perform magic if you cross their palms with silver. One female will bang a Tibetan gong (probably made in Brooklyn) to help you remember your past lives in Tibet and to "facilitate...the rising of the Kundalini." I forbear asking about her qualifications, but in my quite limited reading in the sources, if memory does not deceive me, it was implied that only males have a kundalini, a cute psychic snake that issues from the sexual organs, climbs up the spine, and enters the brain to fill it with transcendence.

There are "psychics" who will read your destiny from tea leaves, from quartz crystals (giving you "crystal energetics"), from the palms of your hands, just as they used to do in the tents of the old carnivals. "International authorities" will teach you how to raise your "vibrational level" and will introduce you to "spirit guides," just waiting to act as your unseen (but not unpaid) cicerone and show you the sights of spookland; how to have fun in trances, even if you don't know what you are doing; how to work up enough "psychic ability" to remember at least three of your past lives; and how to get such a big dose of awareness that you will be "attuned to the awesome power that guides the universe" and make "love's psychic dimensions" work for you. "Top parapsychologists" will teach you how to have "extra-sensory perception" and "nurture your ESP ability," to the astonishment of your friends. (That should be lots of fun, but my guess is that any card-shark could teach you more about stacking a deck of cards and would do it for less.) And to complete the show, there are astrologers all over the lot, and all of them have got computers now and can tell you with scientific accuracy just what the planets, including Pluto and, I suppose, the larger asteroids, such as Vesta, Ceres, and Pallas, are going to do to you tomorrow. One wizard, who has the same address as Reincarnation, Incorporated, will, for only $16.00, jiggle his "IBM System 36" computer for you and give you a print-out to "bring energy to each part of your personality" and, you know, a big computer like that just couldn't make a mistake.

Now I am sure that some prospective customers will be repelled by some or all of those side-shows and turn away from the main tent, and others will be displeased by the somewhat inept collocation on page 9 of "the liberal leadership, New Age practitioners, homosexuals (estimated at over 40 million)" as three groups, presumably equally precious, who will be run into "Nazi death camps," if the awful "Fascists" get control after the impending collapse of this ruined and bankrupt country. What I do not profess to know is what percentage of potential customers will be alienated by such ingredients in the mishmash.

The potentiality of Reincarnation, Incorporated, furthermore, is delimited by the fact that if a new religion is to attract multitudes, it must exhibit a great novelty and seem to be radically new. It must differ drastically from all religions in vogue when it is introduced. The new cult, however, offers only crambe repetita, warmed-over cabbage. The chatter about "love" and "higher consciousness" and "transcendental values" that Theosophy peddled in its hey-day, when such figments of the imagination differed attractively from the dreary quibbles of Christian theology, are now stale and tedious; they are offered today by a hundred competing sects and with only slight variations.

To give a specific example: What does Reincarnation, Incorporated, offer that is not also offered by the Stelle Group, which I mentioned obiter in Liberty Bell, August 1984, p. 13? The differences are only in the trimmings of the worn-out garments.

If a new religion based on metempsychosis and karma is to command wide adherence, it must offer some doctrine that is not now tediously familiar to everyone who has gone shopping in the salvation-marts.

In sum, then, I am inclined to believe that the new religion is perhaps fatally flawed as it comes from its makers, and I should suppose that it has little chance of becoming more than just another weird cult for people who want to believe whatever is incredible. But when I remember the jumble of inconsistent and even antithetical ideas in all of the most popular cults in India, of which the best is illustrated by the Kadambari, I prudently refrain from categorical predictions about what Weishaupt's "marvellous mind of man" cannot be made to believe.

Links To The Stars.....
















COSMOTHEISM


* http://www.cosmotheism.net/
* http://www.cosmotheism-community.com/

CREATIVITY

* http://www.solargeneral.com/creator/
* http://www.creativitymovement.net/
* http://www.phpbbplanet.com/forum/library.html
* http://rahowa.com/
* http://www.rahowa.com/hypatia/
* http://creativityne.org/
* http://aa.1asphost.com/WeltKirche/
* http://www.rac-usa.org/wau/kozel.html
* http://www.overthrow.com/creator/
* http://www.churchoftherahowa.com/

PROMETHEISM

* http://www.promethea.org/
* http://www.prometheanmovement.org/


CONSCIOUS EVOLUTION/NEO-EUGENICS/FUTURISM/OTHER

* http://conev.org/
* http://www.euvolution.com/
* http://www.evolve.org/pub/doc/index2.html
* http://www.eugenics.net/
* http://neoeugenics.home.comcast.net/
* http://whatwemaybe.org/
* http://www.transtopia.org/
* http://www.designerchildren.com/
* http://newdawnmagazine.com/



Classic Creativity: Matt Hale

Anglo-Saxons are NOT Israelites

Here is a breakdown of my understanding of British Israelism/Christian Identity as I have learned it through self study. It took 2 days to write this out, but over 20 years to research it(Christinsanity in general, not just THIS subject).

The whole concept of CI rests on the notion that the Ten Tribes were lost. If this is proved to be not true, then everything else the advocates of Christian Identity may say is of no avail to prove their cases.

The fact of the matter is that the ten tribes were never lost and the term "ten tribes" as applied to the ten tribes of Israel is a misnomer. It may sound wonderfully mysterious to talk about lost tribes, and the idea that they are members of Gods chosen race is very exciting to many, hence the popularity in the WN/Racialist movement.

To prove that the ten tribes were never lost you must look at history, not the Bible. I won't use mythological stories and legends as a source of infomation as the CI adhearents do, other than the bible.

Most who have an understanding of the bible know that under Saul, David and Solomon Israel existed as twelve tribes, with Levy being the 13th but having no spereate inheritance, and two of the tribes came from Jospheph through his sons Ephraim and Manasseh.

The kindoms split under the rule of Solomons son Rehoboam. The ten northern tribes followed his leadership as he set himself up as the king of Tirzah(as we can read in "1 Kings 14:17) Under Omri, the sixth king of the Northern tribes, the kingdom was re-located in Samaria. This kingdom lasted about 250 years under 19 wicked kings and 9 families.

These northern tribes endulged in idol worship throught this entire period of time and not one of their kings was a godly man. The two southern tribes retained the descendants of David as their king and after the other tribes were enslaved they had 3 revivals of their religion and had 150 years of freedom after the other 10 tribes were stolen. Any real study of these kingdoms clearly shows that Judah and NOT Israel was the channel that Jewhova chose to preserve his "truth"(wow, it was painful calling this 'truth').

THe CI theory rest upon the idea that these 2 kingdoms were seperate and existed as completely seperate nations and have very seperate destinies. It doesn't account for any mixture of the peoples, nor the possibility that all the 12 tribes finally emerged into one ethnic and religious group. The 'facts' as recorded in the bible clearly state that there was constant interacion between the people from these 2 kingdoms and that after captivity they eventually lost their tribal identity and finally were known as Jews.

Not all of the people in the ten tribes followed Jeroboam when he built his seperate kingdom. Some of these people united with Benjamin and Judah and it is clearly indicated in 1 Kings 12:21-24.

The "remnant of the people" could be none others than the 10 tribes who chose to say with Rehoboam and teh kingdom of Judah. It is clear that the southern kingdom actually represented the people from all the tribes.

Eventually, the entire tribe of Levy joined the south along with a large number of people from the 10 tribes who decided to come back. If you read 2 Chron 11:14-17 you see that once again there is a gathering of the people from all the tribes in the southern kingdom.

Not long after that, under the rule of King Asa, there was a religious revival of sorts with blessings from God in Judah when a great number of the northern people joined in the south with their racial kinsmen. Then in 2 Chron 15:9 we read that a great number of of the ten tribes joined with Asa and his people. It is more than obvious that the kingdom of Judah did not only represent the people form the two tribes but also from the rest of Israel as well.

Then gain under Hezekia we can see that the people who 'rejoiced' together in the worship of God included the remnants of teh ten tribes(2 Chron 30:25-26). According to this, it is clear that God favored Judah and it was form this kingdom that the majority of the godly people from the ten tribes identified theselves with. It was blessed by David, the temple of Solomon and some 'godly' kings that ruled and led durring these reliious revivals. This means that the norht was qwiouth a king of Gods choice and without a temple that god has designed.

Its clear that Jewhova recognized the kings of judah as the kings of his ENTIRE chosen race/nation. he never intended that the ten tribes should even continue to exist as seperate kingdoms and he spoke of the day when the two kingdoms would unite into one with Jewrusalem as the center of worship. In Chron 2 21:1-2 you can see that Jehoshaphat who is the 4th king of the southern tribes is called the KING OF ISRAEL. In 2 Chron 28:19 Ahaz, who is the 11th ruler of Judah is called the KING OF ISRAEL. According to the bible, god considered these descendants of David as the rulers of his ENTIRE 12 tribes. I guess god didn't recognize the distinction between Israel and Judah that the Anglo-Isralite theorists insist is an absolute necessity.

That is not where the merging of the tribes ends though. In 721 BC, after the kingdoms were taken into captivity, they were defeated by teh Assyrians and a number of them were taken captive. The OT doesnt tell us how many were deported from the land, but an inscription by Sargon, the ruler who succeeded Shalmaneser says...and I quote:

"I besieged the City of Samaria and took it. I carried off 27, 280 of the citizens; I chose 50 chariots for myself from the whole number taken; all the other property of the people of the town I left for my servents to take. I appointed resident officers over them, and imposed on them the same tribute as had formerly been paid. In the place fo those taken into capitivity I sent thither inhabitants of lands conquered by me, and imposed the tribute on them which I required from Assyrians."

It's possible that some of other deportions took place but this text indicates that the large majority of these people were left in their own lands with Assyrian aapointed leaders to rule over them. These citizens of the ten tribes were the majority of the population and placed themselves under the rule of Judah. This is clearly pointed out by the fact about 100 years after Assyria handed them an ass kickin' and deported some fo the people a large number of the people joined in the religiou festivals durring the revival under Josia, the KING OF JUDAH, as seen in 2 Chron 34:9 and 2 Chron 35:17-18.

This means that most of the people were NOT displaced by Assyria and in fact stayed in their own lands and many joined with the king of Judah. Even afetr the ten tribes were taken into captivity, in a very real sense, the process of amalgamation(sp?) between the two people of Judah and Israel continued.

Another mistake the CI's make in their effort to 'lose' the ten tribes is the fact that Assyria and Babylon became one empire. Less than 50 years later the two kingsdoms were under the same rule. Therfore when Babylon started to transport captives out of Judah they were moving them to a place where people rom the 10 tribes were living. Its easy to prove this. 2 Kings 17:6 tells us where they were the Israelites were taken, in about 721 BC. When Ezekial was carried away to Babylon in about 590 BC, just befoer Judah was completely defeated 4 years later, he and the other exiiles from Judah lived in this area. Its here that the Assyrian and Babylonian captives gradually merged into one people.

Years later when the remnant returned from captivity to the lands of Palestine, Ezra DEFINITLY recognized the Jews as representing all of the tribes of Israel. This is clearly shown in Ezra 6:17, which I'll quote:

"And he offered at the dedication...twelve he-goats, according to the number of the tribes of Israel".


When Alexander the Great was leading, many of the Jews settled in Palestine and had great freedoms. Other jews were establishing colonies through the world by this time. Everywhere - Asia Minor and the coastal regions of the Agean, souther europe, egypt, northern africa india and china all knew the presence of the jewish menace. There was jew synagogs everywhere but at the great feast celebrations(you know, holidays) Jewrusalem was their center of worshop and millions would come to the city to pay respect to their tribal god of insanity, murder, mayhem and evil(AKA Jewhova) and anyone who was connected with Moses and still looked to Jewrusalem as the Holiest City were considered Jews.

The ten tribes were never lost and James recognized this in teh NT when he write his epistle to the Jewish believers of his day. He recognized them as athe twelve tribes and used the term "twelve tribes" when addressing them(James 1:1). In this day when anti-semitism was common, remember that EVERY one of Jesus apostles who Jesus himself allegedly chose was loyal to the religion of Jewrusalem. Jewsus himself practiced the rituals of this Jewish faith. When he sent his desciple to the lost 'sheep' of the house of Israel, he obviously ment the jews. According to the British Israelites and CI's, the TRUE Israelites should have been in Britain for several hundreds of years by this time. I guess Jesus did not know this when he sent his spostles throught Judaea to reach the "lost sheep of israel". ( lachen ) It was in sysnagogs that they carried their message. Remeber too, that on the day of Penticost a large number of of the people from ALL parts of the Great Aryan Empire of Rome who were jews gathered for their religious holidays. The people who Peter preached to on the day of Penticost were the same people who cried "Crucify Him. His blood be on us and our children". Just read Peters declaration to them in Acts 2:22-24.

These same people that rejected Jewsus were the ones who Peter gave the message of repentance. Peter told these jews - who crucified Jewsus - that this'Christ" would return as their King if they wold "recieve him"(Acts 3:19-26)

If the Israelites were indeed in Britian at this time, then Jesus and Peter made the horrid mistakes in the message to these jews that rejected Jewsus as the "Christ".

It's all based on legends. One shoudl assume that a theory of this nature would be backed by historical prof. This is not the case though. Not at all. Some of these people - even some who post here on FNF! - think that some of the lost tribes made their way to Denmark and then to England. Then they say that another group from Dan followed Jeremiah to Ireland who brought with them the daughter of Zedekiah, the last king of judah. Her name was Tea Tephi. She supposedly fell in love with the king of Ireland and they got married. Then they claim that Queen Victoria is a direct descendant of these people and therefore the kingdom of Israel was transfered to England. There is NO evidence that Zedekiah's daughter went to Ireland. Hell, we have NO REASON AT ALL to even believe there was even a Tea Tephi. Ther are a few old poems and songs that mention somone named Tea,a nd also some of somone named Tephi, but this is only in Mythology and there is no real evidence to support this. If we are to believe these fables then we must agree that there were: a) flying fire breathing green scaled dragons, b) werewolfs, c) magic trolls, and last but not least - d) flying pigs. The CIs like to play games with words and tie these two seperate mythologies together to create their mythology of an anglo-israelite queen named Tea Tephi.

Its a well known fact that there is no reliable history intil a few centuries after Jewsus lived. No respectable scholar will for a monment take these ludicrous claims on the Anglo-Israelite theorizers. I wonder why the CI never make reference to the fact that Zedekiah was not even a rightful king of Judah. He was made the king by Nebuchadnezzer but he didnt have legal rights to the throne. He was the uncle of the last legal king Jehoiachin and his sons were the heir to the throne( 2 kings 24:17-18 and 1 Chron 3:17 and also Matt 1:11-12) Even if Zedekiah had surviving sons they would NOT have been legal heirs to the throne. Ezekiel even refers to Zedekiah as the "prince in Jerusalem" not the king.

Another retarded claim of teh CIs is that God cursed Jehoiachin (Jewr 22:24-30) and therefore the throne right is passed along to his uncle Zedekiah. This is not true though. Although the curse would make it so his literal seedline could not take the throne, Jewsus was not a physical descendant of Jehoiachin. In teh openeing chapter of Matthew, he was establishing the legal right to the throne of David. As the adopted son of Josphef the curse does not apply to him and also Zedekiah is not mentioned as the ancestor of Jewsus in the NT geneologies. It should insult anyone who actually believes in Abrahamic faith as their own that these people latch onto a mythical female descendant of a man who had no rights to the throse in the first place.

Another ethod used by CIs and BI's is childish plays on word sounds. Because the Hebrew word "berith" means 'covenant" and the Hewbrew word "ish" means "man", they conclude that British" means "men of covenant". The dont seemed too impressed by the fact that philologists are UNAMIMOUS in declairing that there is NO connection between the kyke hebrew and the noble Anglo-Saxon tongue. (NONE, regardless of any threads on FNF! that you may have read stating otherwise.)

I just researched Dr. Lawrence Duff-Forbes about this(http://www.amazon.com/baleful-bubble-British-Israelism-Lawrence-Duff-Forbes/dp/B0007FVONA) and I suggest that all CI's read his work with an open mind. Here is what he has to say about it all(NOTE: I could not find it online, so you better thank me for typing this out of a book!):

Quote
"But Hold! There us a fly in the ointment! Since the word 'covenant" posesses no adjectival force in Hewbrew, the two nouns are in what is known as the construct state. So placed, the meaning would be "a man of the covenant," but even for this concept it shoudl rather be "Ish HaBrith". Thus, to get even remotely near this philological monstrosity we should require to reserve the order of the words.

The B/I (British Israel) balderdash based on "Brit-ish," if it proves anything it proves too much. For what of the word "BRITAIN"? Permitting me a similar use of assonance, may I remark that "Ain" in Hebrew is a particle of negotion, meaning "NOT" or "WITHOUT> It is so tranlasted in Hosea 3:4, "AIN MELECK," "without a king," etc. Thus, if "BRIT-ISH" is 'covenant-man," then "BRIT-AIN" is "without a covenant!".....

....British Israelites do considerable violence to philology generally. They weave a fanciful tale that "Isaac's sons" is really the basis of the word "SAXONS." The full humor of this can only be appreciated by a Hebrew scholar!" If it is really legitiment to thus ride from one nationality to another by saddling an assonance, could we not equally prove that the inhabitants of Hamburg were mountaineers of negro origin violating the Jewish dietary laws? Again warning against the vagaries of B/I, Professor (H.U) Parker (of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario :) ) declares: "as a matter fo fact there are hardly more than two dozen words, exclusive of Bible names, in the English vocabulary which can be traced to Hebrew roots...Nearly every one of the "Hebrew" words we do have come to us via Greeks, and might more reasonably be credited to Pheonician than to Hebrew."

I could give many examples of this pseudo-scholarship among British-Israeli followers but just one more should do the trick. To follow the movements of the Tribe Of Dan and to prove that it was one of those among the settlers of ireland, they point to the many instances that a 'din', 'dun' or 'don' is part of the name or territory, city or river they supposedly passed through or settled. A few mentioned names I've seen were Macedonia, Dardanelles, Danube, Denmark, Dunbar, London etc. Likewise, when using this is non-logical approach one could asl make claims that the tribe of Dan went to Africa where there are names like the Danakil and Dinka, where there are the Donalists(a christian cult) also it is where one can find Dondo and Denkera. Any person with a good imagination can present a convincing case based on this non-logic, as the Anglo-Iiraelites do with "Dan".

Great Britian and the USA/Canada can NOT be Ephraim like many CI/BI's claim. We can read that Jacob and his sons were in te line of Shem. The mates they chose were of the line of Ham(maning they were negros). Joseph, by marrying a Hamitic girl produced offspring that was semitic-hamitic, even. if the Tarshish of Ezekeil 38 is Britain as the CI's claim, then it's people must be Johpetic. Genosis 10:4 makes it very clear that Tarshish is a descendant of Japheth, making it impossible for Britains to be Ephraimites. Also, it's a joke and an insult on our intelligence to assume that the USA is Manasseh because that wold mean he people who left England walked onto a ship Ephramites and came off of it as Menassehites. I wonder if the sea and open air had a strange potency to make this transformation ( :) ).

The jews living upon this earth are the mythical Israelites, and there is nothing you can say to change that.

Thank you for reading,
The Ontaryan