#and should not exist because as I said… the implications that victims of racism ‘deserve’ that racism is there

[lesbiansanemi]

I don’t know. I just think maybe we shouldn’t compare potential “prejudice” against a fantasy species that literally eats people to actual real life racism

[hundtoth]

while this should not have to be said aloud - heathenry is not a racist faith! unfortunately, such a statement is necessary to voice... unless you’re a chauvinistic and/or a xenophobic heathen, that’s what this post pertains to: sure, it’s not untold that in the modern world heathenry has been pockmarked by the allotment of symbols seized by hate groups alongside the adulteration of our religious ‘brethren’, with hateful individuals that warp our teachings to portray their hateful demands. our much beloved germanic neopaganism has become a justification for racist behaviour, from the propaganda of the nazi party which applied many of our symbols (such as the fylfot), to the germanic people pointing with pride as the pinnacle of the aryan race. a big problem that faces the heathen practice, while it is innocuous at heart, are the attempts to bear on labels to various heathen sub-groups as ‘racist’ and ‘not racist’. it has become favoured by heathens to cleave up heathenry into splinter groups; universalism, tribalism, and folkism (as the dominant ones), which are often viewed as ‘not racist’, ‘racist?’ and ‘racist!’ respectively. let me be the one to unburden that and say that these terms are not key definitions to those three groups, and that this is the root of the problem. the issue is that these terms are neither here nor there and cannot be applied in whole to the groups that they are supposed to attain to. this is because there exists no foundation within the religion for racist beliefs, which means that those who venture into the ancient praxis could fall under the folkish bracket and may not be and are often not racist. albeit, it’s commonplace for people to label themselves such things to be closer to those who share their views on racism, but that causes some to abandon a title tailored to their practice in favor of one that doesn’t, simply to avoid the bleak implications of said title. in my mind, i believe that we should not be giving monikers to those within the faith with racist tendencies as they simply are not deserving of them. they do not deserve to ornament themselves with the title of a specific group as this just causes a continuation upon the idea that their beliefs around that area of the faith are valid, altering its meaning entirely. to clarify the true to life meanings behind these groups, as they are applied to the preferences of method of practice by each heathen, we have;

universalism - a belief that anyone, irregardless of race, gender or sexual orientation, may practice under the heathen umbrella. the universalism belief structure has been criticized often for failing to motivate its followers to the same depth as others, and allowing the prevalence of contrary philosophies to those present within heathenry. universalists reproduce declaration 127, also known as havamal-stanza 127, which can be cherished by anyone for its simple utterance of: recognize evil, speak out against it, and give no truces to your enemies. however, declaration 127 is denounced commonly due to its poor efforts (similar to the criticism of social media campaigns for ‘likes’ with no physical backing) and it’s false sense of security within heathenry.

tribalism - considered to be ‘in the middle’ by many heathens. tribalists try to vindicate the old and new methods through moderate reconstructionalism, and have a tendency to conceptualise ethnic heritage without maintaining boundaries within practice. the purest way to describe a tribalist is a practicing heathen that integrates the ‘old ways’ into their lifestyle, and they often assert that one must earn the title of heathen - that it doesn’t matter who you are, you must put in the effort and study, which may span years.

folkism - folkist beliefs carry the most stigma, in which racist beliefs are widespread, claiming that germanic paganism is an ethnic right. while this is not always the case, it gives the impression that germanic paganism is only open to those with a connection to the germanic peoples, in a ‘heretic’ kind of way. within folkism, there exists a cross-section as to how this should be enforced, though it is unclouded that it has become a seedbed for racism within the overarching faith that is often under-fire for being contradictory to itself with no substantive evidence that the nordic peoples were racist.

what these terms have set out to do is prognosticate the beliefs of heathens away from how they comfortably choose to practice their faith. the three groups aforementioned fell into those titles not solely due to racism but to essentially describe a heathens practice through daily life. these terms inflict uncertainty to several thought processes within heathenry where race is not a factor, thus cold-shouldering heathens who heed to such traditions when they are presumed to be mirroring the racist views held by their counterparts under the tribalist or folkish stamps which have precured their titles because of racist prospects, not because of how they adopt practice, which is the true basis of these terms. in retrospect, trying to rank the groups within heathenry with the aim of plucking out a method of practice under ‘racism’ only adds more conflict to our community as a whole. i suggest that, especially to new heathens, you should explore these groups further to better your understanding of the people that you may be dealing with and what their ideas are but, be mindful of the fact that you are not required to declare yourself as anything, as these terms tend to only exist as a guide into finding like-minded people. additionally, it would be baseless to create suppositions about anyone within heathenry for the titles that they have chosen to align under as each group is diverse, not only in its members but in its beliefs. another important concept to mention when discussing racism in heathenry are the origins of germanic paganism. germanic ancestors adored the idea of ancestry through honour and worship, and as they would of been white, such ancestors must of been white, too. this would give the impression that when one turns their hand to ancestral veneration within heathenry, while not being white, by very definition they would be inclined to practice their own ancestral faith, which would not be heathenry - because they are not white. to connect to one’s ancestors, many heathens find it essential to practice their ancestral ways through faith and culture, but when someone has no nordic ancestry, heathens may imply that other heathens should be following their own ancestry instead, which is quite paradoxical and backs many people into a corner. an argument often occurs within heathenry regarding spirituality and how it is ‘passed through the ages’, validated by claims that we assume elements of our fate and soul from our lineage and how our ancestors could be reincarnated as a factor of that. as such, it is only those with nordic ancestry who may hear the call of the old gods. they attempt to rationalize this by claiming that white people cannot feel the call of other ancestral ways and other religions, and thus is all fair and equal. however, when we are called back to the ‘old ways’, the old ways are our own individual pasts, as something ingrained into our spiritual histories. for those who are non-whites, this path would not be heathenry, at least according to those who convey this claim. withal, symbols, in my own opinion, have greater intrigue for racists undertaking heathenry above all, with many already falling victim to the racist facets of such symbols whilst being used erroneously by hate groups for many years. additionally, new symbols are often purloined and misappropriated, rather than observed as segments of a faithful movement, instead they are seen as the ideograms of ancient whites; mjolnir, runic othala, valknut and ravens, amongst many more. as mentioned in an earlier paragraph, many symbols now associated with the nazi regime (the SS and swastika) are, or were, once deep-heathen symbolism. ofcourse, the swastika is immediate throughout history but if we were to be straight-thinking, we can surmise that the nazis used it for its association to heathenry, not its association to buddhism, etc. even if these people understood the symbols that they clutched on to and their authentic meanings in a religious sense, they are still related to the previously mentioned concepts within the origins that they have already manipulated to suit themselves, for example, the othala rune, which at a very basic level relates to heritage and ancestry. with a racists obsession with white ancestry, its very easy to see why an ancestral symbol from a white culture would be appealing. within this post, i have tried to emphasise that there is no basis for racism within heathenry if one was to, with all intents and purposes, understand heathen-history and its logic. here are a select few reasons as to why i personally think that any racist who applies heathenry to validate their intolerant opinions are both wrong and uneducated:

assuming that one’s spiritual inclination was genetic, which a vast majority of pagans today discredit, it simply wouldn’t matter. conducting a shallow study on genetics would reveal that it would be almost impossible in the ever-present to have a direct gene from any ancestor who would have been pagan in the viking era. some of the most controversially racist heathens today haven’t had a directly european ancestor in the last 200 years, oops! to paraphrase wayland skallagrimsson, there have been roughly 50 generations between the end of ancient heathenry and today, which means that for most people, contributions to DNA from any heathen ancestor amount to ‘less than 1 ten-trillionth of one percent’. contributions from christian ancestors would be 25-50% of one's genes. let us entertain the concept that one had inherited the genes of their heathen ancestors, scientists largely agree that thoughts and beliefs are culturally influenced anyway. while it is understood that mental illnesses can be inherited, they hold basis not in memory but in brain development, hormonal signals and genetically encoded processes within the body. perhaps it is true, after all, there is the disorder of victim mentality where one believes themselves to be under constant attack, so perhaps racists are just merely ill? poor souls.

there exists no single indication within the eddas and sagas of racial exclusion. our ancient germanic ancestors were well travelled and would have had a large sense of worldliness, caring little about those of other ethnicity, otherwise we would have a myth expanding upon that. in point of fact, odin seeks knowledge from the jötuns who, from a mythological standpoint, represent the ‘outsiders’. despite being the adversaries to the gods on almost all occasions, they often married into the aesir and were included amongst the figureheads (see loki and skadi), and had children together that were pivtotal to the tale of the world, such as magni and modi, children to thor and the jötun named jarnsaxa, whom of which are not only divine, but so pure that they take up the role of thor, and his hammer, after ragnarok to be the defenders of all. the mixing of the ‘outsiders’ to the central gods conveys a pespective from the ancients that position of birth has no bearing on one’s own ability to be pure and welcome.

similarly, there exists no historical evidence to say that ancient germanics were inherently racist. ibn fadhlan, an arabian traveller with produced written works on the germanic people of his age, was entitled to observe and learn of the ‘northern way’, involving himself in rites, alongside slaves who were integrated into the culture and religion historically - which is how we now have accounts of such things. not only do we have have the assimilation of others into the norse culture, we also have norsemen’s graves decorated with arabic emblems, proposing that they themselves diverged from their own ‘righteous path’, to be open and embracing of other cultures and faiths. in fact, germanics have been depicted on many occasions to have participated in the religious celebrations of the cultures to which they travelled, most notably the baptism of king radbod, in honor of a christian friend. additonally, archaeologists have deliberated in many different practices that the norse learnt skills and adopted traits from other cultures, such as the filling of teeth, prior to the occurrence of those practices in nordic culture, telling us that they took back cultural idiosyncrasies of other cultures to their own homelands - our faith would not have kept body and soul together without the aid of many ancient scholars belonging to other creeds and races, and it is a disgrace to disregard them today.

my final disproof is purely opinionated, which is that racism as a whole goes against the very tenants of heathenry. to strive to bar another person from coming into your ‘territory’ shows an acknowledgement of threat from that person. a threat, of course, can only be a threat if you acknowledge that they could overtake you, should you be weak. so, in being racist and fearing the prevalence of other races, racist whites are putting themselves into a position of weakness and equality with those other races. after all, if they weren’t equal certainly it wouldn’t take any effort at all on the part of the white peoples to be dominant, right? no! racism is cowardly and shows an easily wounded ego on the part of the racist; some of the greatest insults in the old norse language are to be weak and cowardly, and thus it is impossible for any racist to truly uphold the values of heathenry.

[katribou]

Maybe its not supposed to be a racism allegory. It still works for the story and worldbuilding. Just like Beastars, where attempts to compare it to real life won't work since the problems the characters face are really specific to their own society and their own nature, so the story wouldn't make sense if you replaced them with humans. But if the allegory really was the author's intent, then you're right and it was poorly done.

alright. i want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but there is a bit of ignorance to what you say. so i’ll be as thorough as possible about my thoughts.

authorial intent is really powerless when it comes to what a piece of media says or does. if a piece of media harms, but the author did not mean it to harm, does that make the harm any more less? 

content creators and content consumers alike are likely familiar (and if not, should be) with the notion of ‘death of the author.’ from tvtropes’ summary of the concept:

Death of the Author is a concept from mid-20th Century literary criticism; it holds that an author's intentions and biographical facts (the author's politics, religion, etc) should hold no special weight in determining an interpretation of their writing. This is usually understood as meaning that a writer's views about their own work are no more or less valid than the interpretations of any given reader. Intentions are one thing. What was actually accomplished might be something very different. The logic behind the concept is fairly simple: Books are meant to be read, not written, so the ways readers interpret them are as important and "real" as the author's intention. [...]

Bottom line: A) when discussing a fictional work with others, don't expect "Author intended this to be X; therefore, it is X" to be the end of or your entire argument; it's universally expected that interpretations of fiction must at least be backed up with evidence from within the work itself and B) don't try to get out of analyzing a work by treating "ask the author what X means" as the only or even best way to find out what X means — you must search for an answer yourself, young seeker. Writing is the author's job; analyzing the work and drawing conclusions based on it is your job — if the author just gave away the answers every time, where would the fun be in that?

>interpretations of fiction must at least be backed up with evidence from within the work itself. okay, fine. so i argue brand new animal is a racism allegory. let’s look within the show to find evidence of this.

from episode 9: “But Nazuna wants to give a glimmer of hope and dreams to the beastmen who’ve been persecuted and suffered for so long.”

'the beastmen who have been persecuted.’ what exactly does that mean? persecution as defined in mac’s dictionary function (which cites new oxfords english dictionary): hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of race or political or religious beliefs. 

the beastmen are not oppressed because of who they believe in, so not of religious beliefs or political beliefs, with the exception of believing they deserve rights, which plays into... that they are persecuted for race.

i dont really think i need to back up that statement, but for the sake of a sound argument, this is from episode 1.

it’s clear that this human dude has a distaste for michiru here because of what she is, a beastman, which is essentially what she is, her race. hence racial persecution, or, racism.

in your own words, “attempts to compare it to real life won't work since the problems the characters face are really specific to their own society and their own nature, so the story wouldn't make sense if you replaced them with humans.”

is the above exchange really so displaced from real life? this kind of thing really does happen; being targeted and even beat up simply for existing as you are is not something that is so specific to only the world of bna. 

sure you may argue that replacing humans into the whole story would not make sense and well sure, yes. it is indeed a work of fiction so it won’t be a perfect replication of the human experience. but there is enough situations like the above to argue it mirrors racial prejudice in real life.

the evidence is there, so with the philosophy of “death of the author,” it is arguable this piece of media exists as a racial allegory, whether or not trigger wrote it to be that way. if they somehow did not have real race/minority relations in mind when writing this, which i would find very hard to believe, than it has still become bigger than them. because people who face racism will relate to scenarios such as beastmen being the target of hate crimes like the above, and nothing the authors meant to do really changes that feeling.

when such a scenario as above is set up in the very first episode to give you a picture of what this persecuted group experiences, while simultaneously likening itself to what minorities in real life experience, the treatment in following episodes of said group will reflect back as commentary on real life groups whether or not the authors intended that.

in bna’s case it’s rather damaging with implying this minority group is prone to rage and destruction because of their nature or dna:

episode 9: “Beastmen are easily influenced by their emotions. When their frustration builds up, the slightest thing sends them into a fury, causing confusion.”

episode 10: “The stress from multiple species invading your habitat accumulates subconsciously. In that situation if there is a powerful mental shock, the enrage switch in beast [dna] is set off, and their fight instincts take over.”

this is where you may argue in your own words “the story wouldn't make sense if you replaced them with humans.” which, yes that is true, but again this is fiction. the dynamic they establish in that first episode with beastmen being persecuted by humans is one founded in real race relations so the show at large becomes a vehicle to which it addresses race relations.

ep 10: “They’re [the drug vaccine that cures beastmen of being animals] made to subdue beastmen who have turned savage.”

goodness this almost becomes about eugenics! which is another movement founded on racism and other -isms!

the word “savage” generally refers to wild, violent unconfined animals, which, fine, i suppose, after all these ARE animal people in the show. but the show has established this animal people group as a targeted victim minority. historically in real life, the word “savage” has been a label used to describe many persecuted groups, like indigenous peoples or african americans, in a way to dehumanize them by comparing them to animals and force the idea that they are uncivilized while making the people in power feel more justified about their rough treatment of the targeted group.

i suppose arguably they are using the word “savage” to describe animals as the word originally was intended, but after establishing the framework of these animals as being persecuted peoples, do you understand the implications? are they basically saying yes, targeted minorites, are savage? admittedly i will say that that idea is a big jump, but even if you stick to the world of the show, basically this establishes that everyone is at the mercy of their genes turning them bad... not a great message.

i kind of went beyond the scope of what you addressed in your message, but wanted to show an example of how i think it is very important to consider how a piece of media can very easily become bigger than its creators, and that you cannot hide behind authorial intent saying otherwise when media expresses potentially damaging ideas. 

to reiterate the line from tvtropes: Intentions are one thing. What was actually accomplished might be something very different.

[beardofkamenev]

When Adults Attack! (Teenagers)

(Sorry to everyone for dragging this up again, but some people are chronically incapable of letting drama die down.)

The last time I posted about this was 18 February. It’s now late-March. Despite repeatedly claiming to be “over it”, a self-proclaimed “respected history blogger” has been screaming into the void for over a month now. She seems to be under the unfortunate impression that she’s completely innocent of wrongdoing, all the criticism is unprovoked, she has been targeted by “white bigots”, and that she’s somehow the real victim here. So now I have to explain why that’s bullshit. Unlike her and her two friends, I don’t make extreme but vague accusations with zero evidence. I don’t make empty threats about “exposing” people.

The short story? She involved her own self in a situation that had nothing to do with her, downplayed her friends’ racism towards others, incited her followers to harass a teenager, repeatedly lied to her followers about the multiple POC who criticised her friends being “white”, and has continued to inflame the issue while trying to downplay her role in doing so. The long story? Well, I’ll let the receipts do the talking.

That’s Olivia’s first post at the start of February, days before I or anyone else had even said anything. “My anonymous Jewish friend said!” should have been a red flag to anyone capable of reading anything longer than 280 characters. I’ve already explained why Haley (lucreciadeleon/turtlemoons plus her 92849374 alt accounts) is full of shit and so have plenty of others (here, here, and here, to name a few).

Olivia claims that, as a Romani woman, she’s not obliged to engage with content that offends her. Fine. So why is a black teenager obliged to engage with Haley’s deranged anons? Why are her hate anons are so worthy of a response that not responding is an act of ANTISEMITISM that warrants Olivia telling everyone what an antisemite this teenager is for not responding? FYI, NO ONE is obligated to respond to anon hate, especially from people they’ve already blocked. And considering Haley admitted not once, not twice, but three times to breaking Tumblr’s TOS to circumvent a mutual block and send those anons (including how she did it), people are especially not obligated to engage with her.

I made my first posts exposing Taylor (lucreziaborgia/elizabethblount) and Haley’s lies and backtracking on 6 and 7 February. This was before I acknowledged Olivia’s role in inflaming the situation. In fact, I didn’t even know about her tweets until 8 February. Yet, here she is on 6 FEBRUARY already bitching about my posts to her Twitter followers. She has some nerve acting like I victimised her, just because I posted the screenshots of her bitching about me. And bragging about ‘gaslighting’? The word that multiple people have separately described what her two friends subjected them to? Classy.

I can’t “stalk” her public Twitter any more than she can “stalk” my public blog. What an exceptionally stupid claim to make, considering her tweets kept getting recommended to my mutuals whether they liked it or not. Have some integrity and own the shit you say, rather than backtracking, deleting your posts, and pretending that you didn’t say the things we saw you say. If you want to talk shit about others in public, be ready to answer for it in public.

I also wonder how this started over Henry VII. I specifically wonder how this discussion between myself and May (richmond-rex) triggered Taylor’s totally unprovoked racist comments about how we and Nathen Amin “simp for a dead white man”, and we should “simp for someone who actually advocated for the rights of others” instead. The implication being that Tudor history is only for white people like Taylor, and that only her fave is worthy of discussion (“AnNe BoLeYn WaS oThErEd BeCaUsE sHe WaS tAn.” Good grief).

When multiple POC called bootleg Regina George out for it, not only did she say she couldn’t possibly be racist because Haley approved of her racism, but also tried to argue that Nathen Amin deserved it because it was inappropriate for a British man to joke about Brexit. She then claimed we called her “anti-Welsh” (another fucking lie) to make it seem like a bunch of cRaZy blacks and browns were attacking poor, innocent white her (with Olivia coming to the rescue, of course). And as if that wasn’t enough, Haley then sent these bad faith hate anons calling Nathen Amin’s tweet ANTISEMITIC, for no other reason than to retroactively justify Taylor’s racist comments (though I didn’t see Haley getting offended when she was hate-scrolling through his blog before Taylor was called out).

That was the “antisemitic shit” Haley “privately messaged about” that Olivia thinks deserves a response. In case it's not clear: defending racism makes you complicit in racism. Being Jewish is NOT a get-out-of-racism-free card, and Haley trying to use it as one is absolutely dishonest, especially when NO ONE even knew she was Jewish until she finally admitted in February she was the anonymous ‘Jewish friend’ who sent those batshit anons. Other Jewish people also called Haley out on it, yet Haley and Olivia have conveniently ignored that little fact since it contradicts their narrative.

You think it’s over? Nope. Taylor then slunk into May’s dm’s with a half-arsed apology, where she admitted that the only reason she made those racist comments about Nathen Amin was because we “attacked Gareth Russell first” (“BeCaUsE AnNe FaNs CiTe HiS wOrk”) and she “just wanted to educate us about not lionising Henry VII” (even though anyone with eyeballs can read our discussion see she’s full of shit). At the same time, she and Haley were messaging other history bloggers, telling them that everyone who called them out were antisemites (including an openly Jewish mutual of ours) in an attempt to alienate them from the community. And this was just in JANUARY.

“I can’t be racist! My Jewish friend agrees with my racism!” That steaming load of backtracking horseshit is unfortunately the kind of nonsense Olivia has chosen to defend. FOR WEEKS Taylor ignored May’s messages, explaining why she — a black woman — found Taylor’s comments offensive. Did Taylor listen? Nope. In fact, she only replied in February: after she already started posting about how ignoring Haley’s hate anons was “antisemitism”. How convenient. Taylor might be a fucking idiot but we’re not. She only replied to May because she was afraid we’d use her own words against her. Clearly she never learnt a damn thing because here she is on 6 February backtracking on her apology. “Actually, I did NOTHING wrong! Also, you’re all antisemites for saying I did because my Jewish friend agrees with me!” And what made Taylor feel as though she had permission to start deflecting her vile behaviour onto others in order to get the heat off her? Olivia’s post about ‘their Jewish friend’ Haley: the one that followed Olivia’s “private discussion” with “her two friends”. Taylor is a racist hypocrite who hides behind the few minority friends she has to justify her racism, and attacks every other minority who disagrees with her. It’s no coincidence that the majority of the history bloggers who have a problem with Taylor and Haley’s nasty behaviour happen to be POC.

Despite Olivia admitting that she knew nothing about that situation other than what those two told her, she still took it upon herself to misconstrue and downplay to all her followers the extent of her friends’ racism, lies, and general nastiness (here she is on 9 MARCH). For her, our problems with racism are little more than “stupid drama”, “Henry VII drama”, “Gareth Russell drama”, “overreacting to a joke”, and “petty disagreements over dead people” because her friends are the perpetrators. Yet she demands everyone sympathise with her never-ending dramas and projects her behaviour onto others, despite the fact that she’s shown absolutely no understanding for why so many people have problems with her friends and has consistently defended the perpetrators. She’s entitled to be upset at whatever she wants to be upset at, but she is not entitled to tell her followers that we can’t be upset about racism directed at us, especially when that situation NEVER EVEN INVOLVED HER.

I agree. It’s disturbing that three grown women in their mid to late 20s have a vendetta against an 18 year old. Olivia acknowledged that her posts were reckless and that she would have acted differently if she just sat down and thought for one fucking second. But rather than correct the record on the same platform she made those accusations, she doubled down and took off to Twitter, saying that her anger entitled her to act that way. All with zero acknowledgement of the fact that the teenager SHE falsely accused and repeatedly mocked for her age was still being harassed by HER followers as a direct result of HER posts.

She might love the ‘clout’ that comes with a large following, but she evidently doesn’t care about the responsibility that comes with it. In Taylor and Haley’s case, it’s little more than a means to intimidate others into silence. Olivia might be a “respected history blogger” or a “good historian”, but that definitely doesn’t make her a good person. Far from it, if her behaviour is anything to go by.

This was on 9 February, 3 days after my first post. Bitching about me was all fun and games until the receipts came out, huh?

There’s nothing “insane” about keeping receipts, especially when Taylor and Haley are notorious for lying out of their arses and fake-apologising to people in the dm’s, only to continue mocking them on Twitter afterwards. You know what is insane though? Searching ‘romani’ on our blogs in a pathetic attempt to dig up dirt that doesn’t even exist (yeah, stat trackers exist). Do you know what else is insane? Haley spamming people with passive aggressive anons and sending anon hate to people who’ve already blocked her. She also “stalked” our WOTR group chat, though she’ll never admit to it, despite accidentally posting the dated receipts proving it. Oops!

It’s no secret that Taylor and Haley are cowards (as all bullies are), so it was no surprise when they eventually involved Olivia in their month-old vendetta against a teenager. They wanted to school a black girl on racism and Congolese genocide apologism, so they needed to get a “respectable history blogger” on their side. And Olivia happily obliged, kicking up such a fuss on their behalf that the teenager just offered to end it (despite the fact that Olivia vagued her first). Yet still Olivia continued, publicly mocking her age and calling her an “antisemite” long after the discussion was over (here she is on 24 February still carrying on). Either a teenager is old enough to be publicly shamed for being an “antisemite” and “antiromani bigot”, or she’s too young to be taken seriously. But at 25, Olivia is certainly old enough to know better than to participate in this kind of vile, petty, wannabe Mean Girl behaviour.

Olivia is not black. Taylor is not black. Haley is not black. So for the record, if you are not black, it is not your place to tell BLACK PEOPLE whether they can take issue with apologism for BLACK GENOCIDE. Multiple black history bloggers have already explained why they had a problem with Gareth Russell’s comments about the Congolese genocide (including the teen in question), yet that was less important to Olivia than not being able to call him a sexist weirdo because he’s gay. Olivia cannot speak on all minority issues — especially black and brown issues — and it is arrogant of her to assume that she can, especially since her understanding of the Gareth Russell issue came purely from “what she discussed with her two friends” by her own admission.

What a take. Here’s the “anti-Romani” post that I supposedly made. Precisely ZERO of my posts were about Olivia and not once did I even name her directly. So her claims that I mounted some kind of “vicious attack” against her is, uh, bullshit. Criticising her and her friends for their nasty, dishonest, and irresponsible behaviour isn’t “anti-Romani” just because she’s Romani. It’s no more “anti-Romani” than her erratic attempts to “expose” me are anti-Asian just because I’m Asian. It’s not any more “anti-Romani” just because the UK government has passed anti-Romani laws, any more than her telling deranged lies about me for over a month is an anti-Asian hate crime simply because there’s been an increase in anti-Asian hate crimes. I’m not British. I’m not from the UK. I have no control over whatever dumb, racist crap her government does. So she can fuck off and continue fucking off if she wants to make me personally responsible for that. The backlash she received had nothing to do with her identity and everything to do with how she purposely incited harassment against a teenager, defended her friends’ racism, and spread demonstrable lies to her followers. The “viciousness” of the backlash she received is directly proportionate to the viciousness of her own baseless attacks against others. She can claim to be more mature than an 18 year old all she wants, but do you know what the actual mature thing to do would have been? To not promote her friends’ lies and nonsense, especially when the other people they tried to involve had the sense to stay out of it.

Olivia, Taylor and Haley are fully-grown adults, but take no responsibility for their actions. Yet, they expect teenagers to have total control over not only their own emotions, but also the emotions and actions of others. Olivia thinks that a teen should be personally responsible for the behaviour of fully-grown adults, yet she’s close friends with Taylor — a racist, xenophobic bully who screenshots Tumblr people’s posts to mock them on Twitter (here and here from December), called Poles who’ve lost relatives in the Holocaust “genocidal loving freaks”, accused an openly Ashkenazi Jewish blogger of “internalised antisemitism” just for criticising her (a white gentile), said that people who like Mary I “resent their own siblings”, co-opted our struggles under Spanish imperialism just so she could bully ‘Spaniards’ (despite her being American and therefore equally responsible for genocide, by her flawed logic), and said that the black teen who called out her racism “really deserved to be bullied” and “needed to be policed”. Olivia is also close friends with Haley, who has a history of attacking people over posts that have nothing to do with her, publicly admitted to circumventing blocks in order to send hate anons, and likened me — a Filipino immigrant — to DONALD TRUMP and a neo-Nazi conspiracy theorist just because I posted the receipts exposing her lies, harassment of others, and projection.

Most of the people who have spoken out against these three didn’t even know each other until last month. Some of ‘us’ have actually blocked each other. Yet all of us agree that their behaviour towards others has been absolutely unacceptable. How is it that so many unrelated people from different corners of the ‘fandom’ have exactly the same problems with exactly the same people? If Olivia want us to take personal responsibility for “our friends’” behaviour, then she should first take responsibility for hers.

This is on 26 February, over a week after I last posted. As anyone with eyeballs can see, I called her British once. Not “repeatedly”. ONCE. So she can fuck off again with that bullshit. And why did I point that out? Because Olivia, a British citizen, made pejorative comments about “white Eastern Europeans!!!” just because she thinks some Polish people committed the heinous crime of... screenshotting her tweets. They didn’t even do it, and even if they did, how is that even relevant? Everyone knows that one specific Polish person lives rent free in Taylor’s head, so clearly Olivia just took Taylor’s word for it that it must have been The Poles who were “stalking” her. Maybe don’t take paranoid liars at face value next time?

Shameless, ignorant, tone deaf nonsense. Olivia constantly demands that people treat her and her identity with the utmost respect, yet here she was on 9 February already disrespecting the identities of others just so she can score some petty ‘oppression points’ against them. Why even bring their nationalities up? And why call them “white Eastern Europeans” instead of Polish since she knows they’re Polish? Is it because acknowledging that they are Polish would mean acknowledging that she doesn’t actually have a monopoly on a claim to discrimination or Holocaust trauma? Could it be that dismissing them as just some “white Eastern Europeans” was just another way for her to add credence to her own “pathetic lies” about the situation? There’s a word for that behaviour, and it starts with pro- and ends with -jection.

Let me reiterate: it is IGNORANT of her to use their identity against them, especially when hate-crimes against Polish immigrants have increased in her home country, and especially when the specific people she insulted lost close relatives (including Jewish relatives) in the Holocaust. It’s not “repeatedly mocking her identity” to point out her hypocrisy. Her being Romani is not an excuse for casual xenophobia. She might be able to hide her identity in the UK (though she shouldn’t have to), but Polish immigrants do not have the privilege of passing as first-language white British. I cannot pass as non-Asian. The black girl she and her friends tried to bully off Tumblr cannot pass as non-black. Olivia weaponising people’s identity against them just because she thinks they saw her public tweets is ignorant, petty, and completely uncalled for. She should be absolutely ashamed for using that pathetic argument, but based on her most recent farrago of nonsense, she probably won’t be.

Here’s her on 7 MARCH. And of course Taylor was the first to like it lol. Olivia may have deluded herself into believing she was just an innocent bystander, but unfortunately, enough people saw her admitting to inserting herself into the situation at the behest of her two friends. With every post before and since, her accusations have gotten wilder and wilder, falser and falser, and more and more irrelevant because she knows full well that none of her followers will bother fact-checking her. That’s the beauty of vagueing people. It’s how Taylor and Haley have been able to get away with pulling the wool over peoples’ eyes for so long. Too bad repetition, projection, and self-righteous outrage doesn’t equate to the truth because those are all those three have.

“SOMEONE NEEDS TO EXPOSE THE WHOLE DAMN LOT OF THEM! BUT IT WON’T BE ME!” 

No one has said anything since 18 February, yet here’s Olivia publicly inciting her followers again. She’s “done talking about it”, yet she’s the only one continuing the drama. She is being ‘persecuted’, yet she mobilises her followers to go after others. She needs to be defended against critics, yet she also can’t resist bragging about big her Tumblr following is, how “piddly” our notes are compared to hers, how she got over 30 followers to report my posts (they’re still up lol), and how many people she can get to dig through our blogs to find anything to “expose” us. Olivia, I’m sorry that you require constant validation from strangers on the internet, but not everyone has the same priorities as you. Some of us just come here to have fun, but having shitstarters in the community is decidedly un-fun.

All my posts were directed at Taylor and Haley, but since Olivia insists on making this revolve around her, let me clarify: she is a hypocrite and a professional victim. Words have meaning, and those words are the most accurate words to describe her behaviour. It has fuck all to do with her identity. She and Haley are professional victims because they act as if their minority statuses exempt them from basic rules of online courtesy and entitle them to run their mouths about others with no consequence. And Olivia is a hypocrite because she demands the respect and understanding that she has repeatedly refused to show to others. She made ignorant, xenophobic comments against Polish people because she falsely assumed they screenshot her public posts bitching about others. She pretends that the many POC who have spoken out against her are just some “white” hive-mind because admitting that we’re not white will discredit the victimhood narrative she’s been peddling to her followers. And she arrogantly presumes to be ‘our’ voice in the community, all while mobilising her following to intimidate and silence the minorities who take issue with her and her friends’ vile behaviour.

It’s extremely telling that in every one of her unlettered rants, Olivia made the conscious choice to conflate us with “white gentiles”, “white antisemites”, and “white Eastern Europeans”. Why? Because in order to “name and shame” us, she’d have to admit to her followers that the majority of the people criticising her aren’t actually “white”, but are in fact black, brown, and Jewish. Having repeatedly demanded that her followers defend her, her reputation and credibility now depends upon people continuing to see her as the oppressed victim of “bigoted whites”. Unfortunately for her and her friends, the truth will always come out. That’s what receipts are for, no matter what they claim.

The history community didn’t side with “a white gentile woman”. We sided with a black teenager who Olivia and her friends repeatedly mocked for her age, publicly and privately spread false accusations against, and incited their followers to harass with their never-ending posts. We sided against white racists like Taylor, and her white-passing enablers like Olivia and Haley. Since being called out for racism by a black girl discredited them, they had to discredit her. And unlike the others Taylor and Haley tried to involve, Olivia was their willing accomplice. If she has now been “alienated by half the history fandom”, it is because of her own behaviour and rightly so.

The ideal course of action would be for Olivia to finally take some responsibility for her actions, publicly apologise for her role in inflaming this drama, and move on like the rest of us have tried to do. But unfortunately, she may be too far gone in her own pathological need for online validation to ever admit wrongdoing without some serious introspection. So perhaps, Olivia, if anything else, you should just take your own advice and, once and for all, SHUT THE FUCK UP.

[acsversace-news]

You finally need two hands to count all the current TV shows with Asian American protagonists. Fresh Off the Boat (ABC) and Master of None(Netflix) arrived with fanfare for breaking ground (though a third season of Aziz Ansari’s romantic comedy was uncertain even before the star’s current scandal), while Quantico (ABC) and Into the Badlands (AMC) keeping chugging along, and the comedy Brown Nation (Netflix) and children’s melodrama Andi Mack (Disney Channel) have yet to become blips on the mainstream pop cultural radar. So it’s a bit strange, and off-putting, that the latest series with an Asian lead—one of the most anticipated shows of the year, it so happens—isn’t being described as such. In fact, its network—once a standard-bearer for prestige TV’s lack of diversity—is highlighting the drama’s focus on queerness and homophobia—and by doing so largely erasing its main character’s racial identity, especially in the first half of his story.

The Assassination of Gianni Versace: American Crime Story isn’t about the titular victim but his killer: Andrew Cunanan, a San Diego native born to a Filipino father and an Italian American mother. Writer Tom Rob Smith adapted journalist Maureen Orth’s nonfiction account Vulgar Favors, structuring the episodes in reverse chronological order so we work backward from Versace’s murder. In a recent interview, Smith said of his source material that it “reads very much like an outsider commenting on a world of which they’re not part, and sometimes that can make you seem quite removed from it.” I agree with his assessment; Orth’s book includes lengthy and salacious discussions of Versace’s HIV status and the popularity of meth among gay communities. But Smith’s description could also be turned on The Assassination of Gianni Versace, which is a white writer’s dramatization of another white writer’s interpretation. American Crime Story’s first season, The People v. O.J. Simpson, tackled issues of both race and gender skillfully; there’s no reason why we should accept any less from its second.

The show’s Andrew, played by Darren Criss, does mention his father’s plantation in the Philippines early on. But between his pathological lying and that country’s colonial past, his race isn’t confirmed till about midway through the nine-hour season. A few character details here and there suggest Andrew’s racial self-hatred and the prevalence of anti-Asian racism within the gay community, but the relative sparseness of these implications is all the more noteworthy in contrast with the richly developed portrait of the decade’s homophobia.

Credit where it’s due, even if the bar for praise here is laughably low because Hollywood’s institutional aversion toward Asian stories and characters remains so entrenched: In casting Glee’s Criss (who played Blaine Anderson), Ryan Murphy hired a half-Filipino (if white-passing) actor to play the half-Filipino role of Andrew Cunanan. Criss is excellent, and in later episodes, the Philippines-born Broadway performer Jon Jon Briones is electrifying as Andrew’s father, the sociopathic Modesto, who teaches his favorite child all the wrong lessons about the American dream.

If The Assassination of Gianni Versace feels urgent as it revisits the stifling homophobia of the ’90s, it’s far less successful in reimagining Cunanan from a racialized point of view, at least in the first eight episodes. (The season finale was not provided to critics in advance.) It’s certainly not as if those racial and ethnic depictions of Cunanan don’t exist. In his analysis of the divergent foci of the mainstream American and Filipino American media narratives about Cunanan, scholar Allan Punzalan Isaac notes that the former wagged its tongue about his “deviant” sexuality (Tom Brokaw infamously referred to the killer as a “homicidal homosexual”), while consumers of the latter looked on with a mixture of “pleasure and horror.” The horror is understandable enough. The pleasure, perhaps, is easier to grasp when you’re part of a group whose presence and history are constantly made invisible by the larger American culture. “Perhaps [the Filipino American fascination with Cunanan] stemmed from a longing to be reflected in the small screen in this American media sensation,” Isaac wrote several years after Cunanan’s death. Filipinos preferred participation, he conjectures, in “any American drama, even for the wrong reasons.”

Nearly all of the eight Filipino American scholars, activists, and advocates I talked to for this story say that Cunanan has fallen out of popular Filipino American lore, just as he’s been forgotten by American pop culture until now. Professor Christine Bacareza Balance told me in an email interview that when she polled 40 or so students in a recent Filipino American Studies course, only one or two knew who Cunanan was. But among gay Filipino Americans, he remains something of a cult figure and for a few Filipino American writers, a literary muse. Isaac begins his seminal book about Filipino American identity, American Tropics, with a meditation on Cunanan’s incarnation of many of the concepts central to his subject: the possibility of “assimilation gone wrong,” the fear of rejection and the eagerness to belong, the embodiment of Filipino/American “mestizo” beauty standards, the corresponding ethnic ambiguity. (Isaac quotes a New York Times article describing Cunanan’s face as “so nondescript that it appears vaguely familiar to just about everyone.”) Paul Ocampo, a co-chair of the Lacuna Giving Circle, a philanthropic group that fosters leadership in LGBTQ Asian American communities, offers a more cynical interpretation: “There’s an aspect of the glitter and glitz of Hollywood to this story that attracts many in the Filipino American community more than the macabre.”

It’s important to remember that Cunanan murdered five people, apparently in cold blood. His victims deserve to be mourned. But in the absence of other well-known personages (or the inconspicuousness of many successful celebrities’—e.g., Bruno Mars’— Filipino-ness,), it’s perhaps inevitable that some Filipino Americans see or project certain facets of themselves in one of the very few Filipino Americans to appear on TV and on page 1, especially during that era. Ben de Guzman, a policy advocate in D.C., saw Cunanan on the news and thought, There but for the grace of God go I. “As a young, gay Filipino American man who was around his age when he was in the news,” de Guzman recalls via email, “I was forced to look at how the same forces of homophobia and racism that informed my life must have affected him too.”

The former party boy and escort remains a symbol of queer defiance for some in the gay Filipino American community. “Here was a gay Filipino man who seemed unapologetic and daring in his acceptance of his sexuality,” says Ocampo. “In this, he seemed to exude a self-possession that many people struggle with.” Balance says that the image of Cunanan as a “queer Asian/Filipino American on the warpath” “truly goes against many dominant representations within ‘mainstream’ U.S. media.” Isaac contrasts Cunanan’s narrative with the gay/bi film Call Me by Your Name, which he observes is “set outside the U.S., outside the AIDS scare, outside any class conflict—all part of the Cunanan spectacle.” Isaac seems to anticipate a reckoning as Cunanan’s story unfurls on the series: “How is this story of intergenerational sex, wealth, casual prostitution, and reckless living in the gay demimonde of the ’90s to be received in this age of domesticated gay marriage?”

And if Cunanan’s messy and unpredictable life story seems ripe for fictional inspiration, The Assassination of Gianni Versace certainly didn’t get there first. A decade after Cunanan’s death, novelist and playwright Jessica Hagedorn (a canonical Filipino American writer), along with songwriter Mark Bennett, launched in the killer’s hometown a workshop production of their musical Most Wanted, a thinly fictionalized version of Cunanan’s story that explores media sensationalism and marginalized individuals’ desperation to belong. Smaller-scale works like Regie Cabico’s poem “Love Letter From Andrew Cunanan,” Gina Apostol’s short story “Cunanan’s Wake,” and Jason Luz’s erotic short story “Scherzo for Cunanan” likewise attempt to humanize a murderer who, while deplorable for his actions and indisputably extreme in personality, almost certainly had some desires and experiences common to many Filipino Americans. None of these works add up to a complete portrait, or could. But created from Filipino American perspectives, they explore the aspects of Cunanan’s life that white America still isn’t fully grappling with.

[delwray-blog]

CANAAN IS AMERICA TODAY

The Sin of Canaan, America's Sin

“And the LORD spake unto Moses in the plains of Moab by Jordan near Jericho, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye are passed over Jordan into the land of Canaan; Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their pictures, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their high places:” Numbers 33:50-52 “But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you; then it shall come to pass, that those which ye let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell. Moreover, it shall come to pass, that I shall do unto you as I thought to do unto them.” Numbers 33:55-56 By Pastor Del Wray The Sin of Canaan has become the sin of America, the New Canaan taking up its “sinful lifestyle and habits.” Canaan is America today. And America is reaping the “Curse of Canaan” which curse is now the “Curse of America,” the curse of mongrelization, the curse of homosexuality, the curse of demonology. “Come out of her my people” for America has been cursed. Mongrelization is the worst form of genocide. If you kill ninety-nine percent of a race but leave the other one percent pure-blooded they will in time restore the race. But, when you mongrelize them, you have destroyed that race forever. Once mixed with the black or yellow races, the white race will be totally and forever destroyed, hence God has forbidden it. Hence, God forbids the mixing of races! Sodom and Gomorrah weren't destroyed just for their homosexual lifestyle but primarily for their mixing of races, their marriage with “strange” women or strangers in the land. America has become the “melting pot” of the world and the axis of mongrelizing all the races on earth. The Canaanitish immigrants have infiltrated this country, changed its culture and polluted its land. America is fast becoming a curse to other nations. Mongrel America is committing genocide, and she has been cursed by God, bringing down God's anger. While all the while instead of repenting she has become mad with God and warring with Shem. Whoever said that “history runs in circles” couldn't have said it better for the truth speaks for itself the Canaanites have come to America. America and “The Will of Canaan” is being exploited. “But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee: That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God.” Deut. 20:16-18

Let me begin by saying contrary to what some Bible believers claim, the Canaanites were not the absolute worst specimens of humanity that ever existed or the worst that existed in the ancient Near East. Although the land of Canaan was the center and hub from which all their evil deeds

and practices spread across the known world. God being the righteous God that He is, has always meted out punishment for the transgressors. Canaan happened to be the reservoir that collected all the filth that had migrated north from the South which was Africa the land of Ham and his descendants. Canaan could be considered the land where all the vice and evil known to man was practiced and spread. Canaan was a unique, unrepeatable historical land, and I could not justify Israel‟s attacking the Canaanites unless God had commanded this by special revelation. Even so, God had patiently waited over 400 years until the Canaanites would be ripe for judgment, Genesis 15:16 though this would mean Israel‟s enslavement in Egypt in the meantime. By the Israelite attack on Canaan, God accomplished two things. First, He brought righteous judgment on the deserving Canaanites, a kind of corporate capital punishment. God directed this destruction, however, less against Canaanite persons as it was against Canaanite religion Deuteronomy 7:3–5; 12:2-3; Exodus 34:12-13. The Canaanite gods/goddesses engaged in all kinds of sexual acts including incest and bestiality. Not surprisingly, worshippers of these deities engaged in ritual prostitution, not to mention infant sacrifice and other deviant acts. In our sex-saturated culture, many people do not seem concerned about sexual immorality and the destruction it wreaks on individuals, families, and society. Our anger may flare up about racism or gender discrimination, but today‟s society has jaded our moral instincts when it comes to other soul-destroying activities. God‟s anger at a society‟s moral and spiritual suicide mission, His saying “Enough,” turns out to be a sign of moral concern. Second, God was able to prepare a land for His people to create the proper religious setting to make sense of a coming Messiah who brings redemption to Israelites and Gentiles alike, Genesis 12:3. Who are the intended recipients of this salvation? Jews! Yes, but also Israel‟s most hostile enemies, Assyria, Egypt, Babylon, and Philistia Psalm 87:4–6; Isaiah 19:23–25. Killing the Canaanites was not racially motivated; rather, it was theologically and morally motivated via divine mandate. If I may, let me divert from here and give a brief history of the “Sin of Canaan” and afterward, conclude with a more concise summation.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF CANAAN AND THE SIN OF CANAAN: 

America and the World are at War with God and with God‟s people Shem, the Semites. The War with Shem: “They sacrificed unto demons, which were no gods.” Read in Deuteronomy 32! “They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your father‟s feared not. Deut. 32:17

In the churches of America, Christians worship a somewhat paternal God; the bearded patriarch whom Michelangelo depicted on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, an authoritarian figure who is also the Father of our Teacher, and our Saviour, Jesus Christ. God is revered as the original Creator of our universe, and as the ultimate moral guide. In this setting, humanity is a somewhat harmless group, placed in a rural setting, generally obedient to the laws of God, and subject to punishment when disobedience occurs. Religious observance based on this concept is adequate until this Arcadian scene is disturbed by misadventures or calamities. It also begs the question of innate or inescapable evil. Satan, the fallen angel, and rebel against God, Satan, a Hebrew word meaning "adversary" appears in the Bible. There are frequent references to God's admonishment, and often, chastisement, of wrongdoers, both individually and in large groups. Here again, the persistent appearance of evil throughout the history of mankind is dealt with as it occurs, but it is difficult to fix either its sources or its causes. Therefore, humanity has existed under a considerable disadvantage, unable to recognize or understand evil before being injured by it. Indeed, the great movement of modern history has been to disguise the presence of evil on the earth, to make light of it, to convince humanity that evil is to be “tolerated,” “treated with greater understanding,” or negotiated with, but under no circumstances should it ever be forcibly opposed. This is the principal point of what has come to be known as today's liberalism, more popularly known as secular humanism. The popular, and apparently sensible, appeal of humanism is that humanity should always place human interests first. The problem is that this very humanism can be traced in an unbroken line all the way back to the Biblical "Curse of Canaan." Humanism is the logical result of the demonology of history. Modern-day events can be understood only if we can trace their implications in a direct line from the earliest records of antiquity. These records concern pre-Adamic man, whose origins are described in ancient books. Satan, the leader of a band of approximately two hundred angels, descended on Mt. Carmel. They had lusted after the daughters of men from afar, and now they took them for wives. These fallen angels, known as the Order of the Watchers, taught their wives magic. The issue of these unions was a race of giants, known as Nephilim. The Bible does not mention the Nephilim specifically by name. However, here are several verses; “There were giants in the earth in those days…” Genesis 6:4, These giants later became known as “the sons of Anak.” In, Numbers 13 we read, “And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.” Numbers 13:33, These giants constituted a powerful menace to other peoples. In Deuteronomy 9 is the complaint, “…Who can stand before the children of Anak?” Deuteronomy 9:2, Nevertheless, they were all finally killed or driven out of the land of Israel. “There were none of the Anakims left in the land of the children of Israel: only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod, there remained.” Joshua 11:22

These early giants would be considered as mutations by modern scientists. Because of their peculiar parentage, they had habits and lusts which horrified their neighbors. Their leader, Satan the “adversary of God,” was the serpent who entered into the garden and seduces Eve, producing the first murderer, Cain. Not only were the Nephilim a menace to others, their uncontrollable hatred and violence sometimes led them to attack and kill each other. They then ate their victims, introducing cannibalism to the world. According to some accounts, God slaughtered them, while the Archangel Michael imprisoned the fallen angels, the Order of the Watchers, in deep chasms in the earth. Unfortunately for humanity, this was not the end of the matter. Satan, through his children, the Nephilim, and also through Cain, had now established a demonic presence on the earth. His rebellion against God‟s world resulted into continuous suffering and travail on earth for centuries to come. The history of mankind since his rebellion is the history of the struggle between the people of God and the Sect of Satan. With this understanding, it is now possible to trace the historical events which reveal the actual archives of the two adversaries. There is a Talmudic legend that demons originated in sexual assembly between humans and demonic powers. This offers a reasonable explanation as to why all occult ceremonies stress three things: drugs, incantations, which express hatred of God, and bizarre sexual practices. The study of demonology in history discloses answers to otherwise inexplicable aspects of man's, history. The torture and murder of children, obscene rites and mass killings of innocents in worldwide wars, as well as other catastrophes, are phenomena which bear little or no relation to mankind's day by day routine of tilling the soil, raising families, and maintaining the standards of civilization. On the contrary, these types of calamities are direct assaults on the normal existence of humanity. Furthermore, they are expressions of the rebellion against God, as attacks on His People. Because of their extraordinary powers, demons have always attracted a certain number of followers on earth. "Secret" organizations, which insist on concealing their rites and their programs from all “outsiders" must do so in order to prevent exposure and the inevitable punishment. While they were wandering in the desert, the Jewish tribes worshiped demons and monsters. They revered their mythical monsters, Leviathan, Behemoth, aid Raheb, who well may have been survivors of the tribe of giants, the Nephilim. They also made sacrifices to the demon of the desert, Azazel. Their mythology developed a certain hierarchy of demons. A demon arch, who presumably was Satan, ruled over all demons on earth. He was also known as the Prince of Evil, Belial, the Hebrew Be'aliah, meaning Yahweh is Baal. Next in the hierarchy of demons was Asmodeus, King of the Demons, and his wife, Lilith, chief demoness of the Jews. Lilith is well known today as the patron goddess of the lesbians. Her name survives in many current organizations, such as the Daughters of Lilith. This choice of a patroness suggests that there may always have been a certain amount of demonic impulses in homosexual practices. This motivation would fit in with the basic rites of occultism, such as defiance of God, and the development of “unusual lifestyles.” The inevitable retribution for these practices has now appeared among us in the form of the widespread plague of AIDS.

Lilith is typical of the demons that were created by sexual intercourse between the daughters of man and the Watchers. They first appeared during the six days of creation as disembodied spirits and later took physical form. Ancient writings say, “All pollution of semen gives birth to demons.” Also, they say, “The impurity of the serpent that had sexual relations with Eve.” The Kabbalah claims that Lilith had intercourse with Adam and produced demons as part of the cosmic design, in which the right and the left are the opposing currents of pure and impure powers, filling the world, and dividing it between the Holy One and the serpent Samael. Webster's Dictionary says of Lilith: “Heb. meaning of the „night.‟ 1. Jewish folklore, a female demon vampire. 2. Jewish folklore, she was the first wife of Adam before the creation of Eve.” Many legends identify Lilith as the first wife of Adam. These myths claim that God formed Lilith out of mud and filth. She soon quarreled with Adam. Because of her conceited pride, she refused to let him lie on top of her. It is for this reason that she was adopted as the patroness of the lesbians. She left Adam and fled to the shores of the Red Sea, where she was said to indulge in her sexual fantasies with demons, living among the wild beasts and hyenas. Her presence gave rise to many terrifying legends; she became the chief of Jewish demonesses and was said to prey on newly-born children, sucking the life out of them. She also was known to suck the blood from men who were sleeping alone and is referred to as “the night hag,” Isaiah 34:14. And wild beasts shall meet with hyenas, the satyr shall cry to his fellow; yea, there shall the night hag alight, and find for herself a resting place. Except for this one verse, her name was excised from all Scripture because of her unsavory reputation. Other legends claimed that Lilith and her accompanying demo-nesses ruled over the four Seasons: as did Lilith-Naamah, Mentral, Agrath, and Nahaloth. They were said to gather on a Mountaintop near the mountains of darkness, and there celebrate the Witches Sabbath when they would have intercourse with Samael, the Prince of Demons. It was because God had had such an unfortunate result with Lilith, after creating her out of mud and filth that he decided to go to Adam's rib for his next creation, Eve. She was subsequently known as "haw wah," "Mother of All the Living," and also as "the Serpent Mother" because of her later association with Satan. The Prince of Darkness had a number of disguises, but when he incarnated sexual desire, as he did for Eve, he always appeared as a serpent. Because evil was now established on earth, through the presence of the demons and their followers, it was necessary for God to punish mankind. In inflicting this punishment, He resolved to be just. For this, it was necessary for Him to select those who were without stain, and who would be allowed to survive the punishment. His method of selection was a simple one. He chose those who had not been contaminated. His choice was Noah and his family. Noah is described in Genesis 6:9, "Noah was perfect in his generations." The word generations here is an imperfect translation of the Hebrew word "to-Ied-aw," which means ancestry. An earlier and more appropriate translation is "Noah was a just man, and perfect, without blemish in his generations." He was God's choice because he and his family were the last remaining pure-blooded Adamites in the world. "Noah was blameless in his generations,"

The site of the Flood, which was God's prescribed punishment for mankind, was not in the Near Eastern area, as is commonly supposed. Archeologists have been puzzled for years that they could find no evidence of such a flood in this area. In fact, because Cain had been banished "east of Eden," Noah and his family lived in the Tarim Basin, located in the Upper Sinkiang Province. This basin was fed by the River Tarim, and here the Deluge took place. Having been warned by God of the impending catastrophe, Noah succeeded in building the Ark, one of the greatest engineering feats of all time. Weighing 36,750 tons, it was built entirely of wood. It was 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet in depth. On this Ark, God commanded Noah to “take of every living thing of all flesh.” Because of the limited space on the Ark, there could be no possibility of further reproduction of these species during their time aboard, and God commanded that “no intercourse” should take place. This commandment was violated by an inhabitant of the Ark, Ham, and the second son of Noah. Ham had intercourse with a pre-Adamite woman on the Ark, a dark-skinned person. Their offspring was a black son named Cush, who became the symbol of Ethiopia. Noah was dismayed when he learned that his son had violated God's commandment because he knew that retribution would come. After the Flood had subsided, and life on earth went back to its usual routine, Noah continued to be haunted by his fears. The subsequent occurrences have since had dire consequences for all of mankind. In the Bible, it appears as somewhat of a riddle, since the characters are identified and misidentified in sequential verses. Neither the exact sequence of events nor their explanation or the identification of the principals can be followed as it appears in Genesis, possibly due to mistranslations or editing over the centuries. Although life on earth had resumed its pre-Deluge felicity, Noah continued to be distressed by Ham's transgression. So vexed was he that he drank too much wine, and he lay exposed in his drunkenness. As it is recounted in Genesis 9:24-27! Ham's son Canaan saw his grandfather exposed, although at one point he is referred to as “Noah's youngest son,” instead of the correct designation as his grandson. Noah's other sons, Shem, and Japheth seeing their father exposed hastened to cover him with a cloak. However, when he awakened, Noah was greatly infuriated by what had taken place, and he pronounced a curse on Canaan, “Cursed be Canaan; a slave of slaves shall he be to his brothers, Shem, and Japheth.” Here again is something of a riddle, as Shem and Japheth were the uncles of Canaan, not his brothers. The “riddle” is probably an intentional one because it is intended to evoke a special study of these verses to come to an understanding of these very important messages, warnings to all future generations.

Various explanations have been offered for Noah's tremendous anger at Canaan, and his Curse of Canaan. One, which has now largely been discounted, is that Ham may have slept with Noah's wife, or that he had made an attempt to do so. No basis for this conjecture has ever been established. Another explanation is that Noah cursed Canaan because he was still vexed at Ham's violation of God's commandment to the inhabitants of the Ark that they should refrain from intercourse while on board. Because Ham had slept with the pre-Adamite woman on the ark, Noah finally vented his wrath in the Curse of Canaan. This also fails to ring true; the men of the Old Testament were very direct in their dealings; if Noah was vexed with Ham, he would have cursed Ham, not Canaan. None of these explanations offer a valid reason for the vehemence of Noah's curse, a curse which has blighted humanity for three thousand years. The only rational explanation for the curse is Noah's anger that Canaan had done something which thoroughly outraged his grandfather. Looking on him while he was exposed would hardly have caused such a reaction. Scholars finally concluded that Canaan had done something so degrading that Noah had to pronounce a curse upon him. What would this have been? The Bible as presently translated does not really give us a clue. These scholars decided that Canaan, being of mixed race, and therefore not bound by the rigid moral code of the Adamites, had probably committed a homosexual act on his grandfather. Being of pure stock, Noah would have been exceedingly wroth at such an act and would have reacted as he did. The Curse of Canaan was extended to the land which was named after him, the Land of Canaan. The Canaanites themselves, the people of this land, became the greatest curse upon humanity, and so they remain today. Not only did they originate the practices of demon-worship, occult rites, child sacrifice, and cannibalism, but as they went abroad, they brought these obscene practices into every land which they entered. Not only did they bring their demonic cult to Egypt, but, known by their later name, the Phoenicians, as they were called after 1200 B.C., they became the demonizers of civilization through successive epochs, being known in medieval history as the Venetians, who destroyed the great Byzantine Christian civilization, and later as “the black nobility,” which infiltrated the nations of Europe and gradually assumed power through trickery, revolution, and financial nimbleness. The reputation of Canaan is to be found in many ancient records, although its foul history has been carefully expunged from even more of the historic archives and libraries. In 1225 B.C., the Pharaoh Merneptah, who, because of his victories in the Canaanite region, was known as “Binder of Gezer,” set up a monument to commemorate his successes. Among the inscriptions placed thereon was this: "Plundered is Canaan, with every evil; all lands are united and pacified.” This inscription did not mean that Merneptah had used every evil to plunder Canaan; it meant that he had in his sojourn there encountered every evil practiced by this notorious tribe. Ham had four sons; Cush, who founded the land of Ethiopia; Mizraim, who founded Egypt; Put, who founded Libya; and Canaan, who founded the land of the Canaanites, the area now in contention as the State of Israel, in Agatha. Cush is said to be black-skinned as punishment for Ham's, having had intercourse on the Ark. “Three copulated in the Ark, and they were all punished, the dog, the raven, and Ham. The dog was doomed to be tied, the raven exerts his seed into the mouth of his mate, and Ham was smitten in his skin. From him descended Cush, the negro, who is black-skinned." In Talmudic literature, Cushi always means a black person or the Negro race. Cushite is synonymous with black. The Bible as presently translated makes no reference to "Cush's color. Reference to his descendants, the Cushites, appears only in Numbers and in 2 Samuel. Numbers 12:1 reveals that "Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman he had married, for he had married a Cushite woman." Here again, no explanation is given as to why Miriam and Aaron turned against Moses, yet the matter is obviously of some importance because the same verse emphasized by repetition that he had married a Cushite woman. We find the explanation by turning to the Talmud, which tells us that "Cushite" always means black. The verse in Numbers should read, and originally may have read, "Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the black or Cushite woman he had married." Second Samuel contains seven references to Cushites, but again no descriptions are given.

Dr. Sayee, the noted Egyptian scholar, and authority on the ancient Near and the Middle East, explains that Canaan means “low,” and Elam means “high.” The Canaanites were those who inhabited the low places; the Elamites occupied the high ground. Dr. Garnier, in his great work, "The Worship of the Dead," quotes Strabo's observation that "the Cushites inhabit the coastal regions of all Asia and Africa." They were never aggressive enough to fight for or remain on the higher ground and were forced to remain in the low, swampy areas, exposed to the elements, areas which other peoples would not contest them for. Garnier continues in “The Worship of the Dead”: “We have also seen that Osiris was black, or of the Cushite race and this was characteristic of the Egyptians. Herodotus speaks of the Egyptians generally as black and wooly haired. There were two races in Egypt, the Mizraimites, who first colonized the country, and the black Egyptians, the latter receiving their name from Aegyptus, the son of Belus, that is to say, Cush. There can be little doubt, therefore, that Aegyptus, the father of the black Egyptians, and son of Belus, is the same as the black Osiris.” Garnier informs us: “The Aryan immigration and Brahmanism were subsequent to that of a Cushite race more or less hostile to them and their religion. We find Aryan traditions speaking of them as white and the Dasyns as black, to be exact Cushite.” Garnier quotes a description of the Cushites as follows: “They call them demons and devil-worshippers, and lascivious wretches who make a god of the Sisna, the Lingam, and the Phallus.” Garnier goes on to observe that “Buddha must be identified with those gods whose human origin was Cushite, from Cush, the great prophet, and teacher of the ancient Paganism, the father of the black or Ethiopian race. Buddha, although the chief god of the yellow race is constantly represented, like black with wooly hair and Negro features, the flat noses and thick lips of many of the ancient statues which occur in Hindustan, for these are clearly the well-known features of the genuine African Negro; the human origin of Buddha was Cush.” Ham's subsequent acts did nothing to clear his reputation. He stole the garments which God had made for Adam and Eve before He expelled them from the Garden of Eden. Cush inherited these garments from Ham and passed them on to his son, Nimrod. Because of these garments, Nimrod became known as "the mighty hunter." He was considered to be invincible as long as he wore these garments, which are recorded in Genesis 3:21. Animals and men cowered before the onslaught of Nimrod because of these garments, which conferred great powers upon him Nimrod, who was born on December 25th, the High Sabbath of Babylon, was the founder of Babylon and the city of Nineveh. In the history of mankind, Nimrod stands unequaled for his symbolism of evil and satanic practices. He is credited for having founded Freemasonry and for building the legendary Tower of Babel, in defiance of God's will. In Talmudic literature, he is noted as “he who made the entire people rebel against God.” The legend of the Midrash recounts that when Nimrod was informed of Abraham's birth, he ordered all the male children killed, to be certain of eliminating him. Abraham was hidden in a cave, but in later life, he was discovered by Nimrod, who then ordered him to worship fire. Abraham refused and was thrown into the fire.

The legendary symbol for Nimrod is "X" the use of this symbol always denotes witchcraft. When "X" is used as a shortened form meaning Christmas, it actually means “to celebrate the feast of Nimrod.” A double X, which has always meant to double-cross or betray, in its fundamental meaning, indicates one's betrayal into the hands of Satan. When American Corporations use the “X” in their logo, such as “Exxon,” the historic Rockefeller firm of Standard Oil of New Jersey, there can be little doubt of this hidden meaning. The importance of Nimrod in any study of the occult cannot be over-emphasized. Because of the powers given him by the clothing of Adam and Eve, Nimrod became the first man to rule the whole world. He indulged that power by launching excesses and horrors which have never been equaled. Ever since the time of Nimrod, Babylon has been the symbol of depravity and lust. Nimrod also introduced the practice of genocide to the world. His grandfather, Ham, having consorted with other races, and brought children of mixed race into the world, was persuaded by his consort, the evil Naamah, to practice ritual murder and cannibalism. She informed Ham that by killing and eating fair-skinned people, his descendants could regain their superior qualities. Throughout the ensuing centuries, the fair-skinned descendants of Shem, Noah's oldest son, have ritually been slaughtered by the darker descendants of Ham and Nimrod, in the world's most persistent campaign of racial and religious persecution. This is the beginning of the war against the people of Shem. Not only did Nimrod kill and eat the fair-skinned descendants of Shem, in his fury and hatred he often burned them alive. The type of human sacrifice involving the eating of the slaughtered human victims derived its name from the combined names of his uncle, Canaan, and the demon god Baal, the two names being combined to form the word “cannibal.” Nimrod was also known in ancient history by the names of Marduk, Bel, and Merodach. Because of his importance in its history, Babylon was known as the Land of Nimrod. Nimrod has also cited in the most ancient writings the founding of the Masonic Freemasonry. Nimrod's downfall reputedly came about when he began to build the Tower of Babel, a ziggurat or temple tower, which was planned to rise up into the heavens. Because of this offense against God, Shem, the eldest son of Noah, pronounced judgment against Nimrod and executed him. Josephus says that “Ham's black grandson, Nimrod, was beheaded by Shem.” Other accounts add that Shem then cut Nimrod's body into pieces and sent the pieces to the pagan temples of Babylon, as a warning to the priests that their sex orgies and child sacrifices would result in a similar judgment of execution; Instead of abandoning their hideous ceremonies because of this warning, the priests literally went underground. No longer did “their altars smoke with human blood,” as Kitto, the great Palestinian authority, described them. The priests took the pieces of Nimrod as relics to their secret meeting places, which were hidden in "groves" and "shrines." This was the origin of the secret Mystery cults, whose orgies could no longer be performed in public temples. Because of the power of Shem, the priests from that time on conducted their forbidden orgies out of the light of day, in their secret hiding places. Their meetings were bounded with secret rites, which no one outside of their order was permitted to know, on pain of death. This was the origin of the Gnostics, the Knowing Ones, who knew the secrets. It may be for this reason that Nimrod became known as the founder of Freemasonry, because its fundamental rites were established and invoked after he was killed, in order to carry on his work of evil.

“The history of mankind for the past three thousand years has been the history of the struggle between the fair-skinned descendants of Shem and the darker-skinned descendants of his brother, Ham, yet you will not find this struggle defined in any historical work.” The records of the genocide against the people of Shem are apparent throughout the archives of history, but there is not a school or university whose faculty will apprise its students of this simple fact. This in itself explains much which is usually dismissed as being “beyond explanation.” The reason for this development is that the descendants of Ham traditionally have usurped the educational process, through their earlier usurpation of the priesthood to carry on their satanic work. They have controlled the educational system ever since, converting it to their own evil purposes. It is of even greater interest that not a single school of theology anywhere in the world takes note of this central fact of history, a red thread which runs continuously through the record of events. In the Greek language, Shem appears as Ehu; in Egyptian mythology, he is Shu, the son of Ra the Sun God. It was through claimed descent from Shem that Louis, King of France, called himself the "Sun King." However, a much more important point and one that has again been obscured or hidden by the priests who controlled the educational system throughout the last three thousand years is the fact that it was Shem who founded and built the great civilization of Egypt. The rulers of Egypt were called Pharaohs, from the Hebrew word pira, meaning “long hair.” The native Egyptians were short-haired. Not only was Shem long-haired, but he was also fair-haired. In their records, the priests call Shem “Shufu,” or "Khufu," which means long hair. Being a great warrior, Shem easily led his people in the conquest of the native Egyptians. He immediately set about to commemorate his reign by building the “Great Pyramid” at Gizeh. Babylon was then overcome by the son of Shem, Elam; a later descendant, Cyrus of Persia, an Elamite, completed the final conquest of Babylon and built the great Persian Empire. It was to signify his great military successes that Shem adopted as his symbol the lion, which is still the symbol of rulers today. The Great Pyramid was later called Khiut, the Horizon, in which Khufu had been swallowed up, as the western horizon swallowed up the sun each evening. After extensive archeological investigations, the Royal Astronomer of Scotland concluded that the evidence was irrefutable that the Great Pyramid at Gizeh had been built by Shem. He found the name Shufu inside the pyramid, painted in red, which signified Shem's fair hair. Also, inside the pyramid is an inscription placed there after the death of his descendant, Amenhotep IV, “He stopped the barbaric practices of the priests which had been introduced by Naamah and her followers from Babylon, including Nimrod.” The priests murdered Amenhotep IV so that they could resume their orgies of lust and child sacrifices. They had admitted to Herodotus that the Great Pyramid had been built by “a wandering shepherd,” an odd observation, as shepherds do not usually create such grandiose monuments to themselves. However, this was one of the terms of derision by which they always referred to Shem after his death. Other inscriptions by the priests throughout centuries of Egyptian history revile Shem as “pig,” “dwarf,” and other terms signifying their hatred of him, possibly because he slew their mentor, Nimrod. In the same areas, other inscriptions extol the degenerate Ham, who had been corrupted by his consort, the evil Naamah, and introduced to the practices of human sacrifice and cannibalism.

Egyptian civilization reached its peak during the reign of Shem. The Sphinx is now admitted to be a portrait of him. After his death, the priests not only resumed their evil practices, but they embarked on a successful campaign to blackout his name from recorded history, a campaign which has largely succeeded during the ensuing three thousand years. They also launched terrible punitive actions against Shem's fair-haired descendants, often murdering them, or burning them alive. Not only did the priests falsify the records of Shem, but they also succeeded in eliminating most of the subsequent history of his fair-skinned descendants, the Shemites, or, as they are sometimes called the Semites. The Arab scholar Murtadi noted that Num and Khufu, Shufu, the builders „of the Pyramids, lived with Noah. Shem was also referred to by the name of Menes, from the Hebrew Meni, or man, which appears in the Egyptian “Book of the Dead,” referring to Uranus and his three sons, an obvious reference to Noah. Ham later became known as the Egyptian God Amon. Herodotus writes that the first king of Egypt, who reigned until 2320 B.C. Eusebius, says that three hundred successive sovereigns descended from him, the Thinite Kings, who had succeeded the demigods. The historian Murtado referred to Shem as Menes. As the ablest son of Noah, Shem exemplifies the qualities upon which all subsequent civilizations have been built; courage, the desire to build, and the willingness to subdue those who have adopted a lower form of life. He is the Adamite who created civilizations as we have known it. On the other hand, the descendants of Ham, the Canaanites, exemplify the satanic urge to destroy civilization and the rebellion against God. J. Hewlitt points out that Adamite meant a "thinker," and Mena or man produced Menes, the thinking man. This survives today in the intellectual society, Mensa. The distinction was made to distinguish the lineage of Adam from the pre-Adamites, or non-thinking Men, the Jewish Encyclopedia says that Shem became king of Jerusalem as the representative of God so that he could carry on the battle against the slave people, the Canaanites. In Genesis, we find this verse: "Bless be the Lord, the God of Shem!" Genesis 9:26. Shem had five sons: Elam, from whom came the Persian Empire; Asshur, from whom came the Assyrian Empire; Arpachshad, Lud, and Aram. So great was the reverence for the name of Shem in the ancient world that his name in many records became synonymous with God. Yahweh, or, in a later version, Jehovah, derives directly from the Hebrew verb Hava, meaning, “I am.” Historically, this was read as the older Khufu, or HWFW, instead of YHWH, and thus, it refers to Khufu or Shem, Shem was the builder of the Great Pyramid. It was because of the persecutions of the fair-skinned peoples by the priests that Khufu, which phonetically is almost identical with the Hebrew Hava, (h) became YHWH, the God of the Exodus from Egypt. The Encyclopedia Britannica notes of “Jehovah,” "The pronunciation „1‟ is an error resulting among Christians Combining the consonants YHWH with the vowels of „adhonay‟ Lord, Adonis which was substituted by the Jews for the sacred name YHWH, commonly called the tetra-grammaton or four consonants. The name „Jehovah‟ first appears in the manuscript of Martin's Pogio in the Fourteenth Century.” Thus the name of Jehovah, which is commonly used in our churches, is only 500 years old.

In order to understand why the name of Shem was systematically reviled and concealed throughout the records of history, we must return to the record of his thoroughly degenerate and evil nephew, Canaan. Canaan was so wicked that his last will and testament to his children was a formula for vice. It read, “Love one another, that is, of this tribe only, love robbery, love lewdness, hate your masters and do not speak the truth.” This remarkable document, the Will of Canaan is to be found in only one place in all the world's theological literature, the Babylonian Talmud, where it is presented thusly, “Five things did Canaan charge his sons: love one another, love robbery, love lewdness, hate your masters, and do not speak the truth.” Sound like the Muslims of our day. The Will of Canaan has been the Canaanites prescription for all of their operations during the ensuing three thousand years. Meanwhile, the people of Shem, knowing nothing of this document, vainly tried to "convert" the Canaanites, and turn them from their evil ways. If the descendants of Shem had been warned of the precepts imparted by this document, the history of the last three thousand years could have been very different. The Will of Canaan today remains the operating instructions of the Canaanite heirs, who presently control the World Order. At the same time, it remains unknown to the peoples, whom the Canaanites continue to rob, enslave, and massacre. The “Will of Canaan” contains the instructions necessary to resist the results of the Curse of Canaan, which condemn them to slavery. The instructions to "hate your masters," that is, Shem and Japheth and their descendants, is a command to commit genocide against the people of Shem. For this reason, all subsequent Canaanite rites are based upon these exhortations to struggle and commit acts of violence against the people of Shem. It is not only the basis for all of the revolutions and “liberation movements” since that time it is also a basic incitement to commit genocide and to carry on racial wars. Because of the three-thousand-year historical blackout, the people of Shem have never understood their peril, and they have frequently been subject to massacre because their essential goodness made it impossible for them to believe the vileness of the Canaanites. The Will of Canaan has always been concealed from them because it is the basic program of conspiracy and secret rites which enable the Canaanites to wreak their hatred upon the descendants of Shem. There it is in summary, the reason for our Muslim terrorist‟s problems today, the Canaanite saga continues. Much of the continuous hostility between these two forces is mentioned in the Bible, but never in the basic form which has been stated here for the first time. In a book which I read, “The Mystery of the Ages,” the author whose name evades me right now comments, “Canaanites, who were racially dark, had settled the land; God commanded the Israelites to drive them out.” as the Bible cites in Numbers 33 the basis for his reference, Num. 33:55-56. During the centuries of oppression and mass murder, God has not stood aside from His people. On the contrary, He has frequently exhorted them to attack and to rid themselves of the peril of the Canaanites. In the early years of this struggle, it was still possible for His children to hear and to obey. The vision of Obadiah is recounted in Obadiah 20, “And the capacity of this, host of the children of Israel, shall possess that of the Canaanites, even unto Zarephath; and this capacity of Israel which is in Sepharad shall possess the cities of the south.” Significantly, the New Bible Versions omits the mention of the Canaanites entirely. Only the King James Version uses the name Canaanites correctly.

The battle continued over a period of Centuries. In Joshua 17, we read: “Yet it came to pass, when the children of Israel were waxen strong, that they put the Canaanites to tribute but did not utterly drive them out,” Joshua 17:13. Hence, our problems today are because of the disobedience of God‟s people back then, “Canaanitish” and it is the Canaanites that we contend with even now. God expressed His will in the strongest terms to His children in Number 33:52-56: “Ye shall drive out all inhabitants of the land, Canaan, before you ... And ye shall dispossess the inhabitants of the land, and dwell therein: for I have given you the land to possess it ... But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land before you; then it shall come to pass, that those who ye let remain, of them, shall be pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell... It shall come to pass, that I shall do unto you as I thought to do unto them.” The children of Israel, that is, the descendants of Shem, obeyed God and did war against the Canaanites, but in later generations, they lost sign of this goal, permitting the Canaanites to live with them. During this period of history, there were great victories against their historic enemy, as recounted in Judges 1: “And Judah went with Simeon, his brother, and they slew the Canaanites that inhabited Zephath and utterly destroyed 1,” Judges 1:17. This victory came about because the children of Israel were distraught, and they sought guidance from the Lord. Judges 1:1-5: “Now after the death of Joshua it came to pass that the children of Israel asked the Lord, saying, „Who shall go up for us against the Canaanites first to fight against them?‟ And the Lord said, „Judah shall go up: behold, I have delivered the land into his hands.‟ And Judah said unto Simeon his brother, „Come up with me into my lot, that we may fight against the Canaanites‟ ... And Judah went up, and the Lord delivered the Canaanites and the Perizzites into their hand... and they slew the Canaanites and the Perizzites.” Later, the victors again fell into the evil practices of those whom they had conquered, and again they were punished by the Lord. Judges 4: 1-2: “The children of Israel dwelt among the Canaanites. And the children of Israel again did evil in the sight of the Lord, and the Lord sold them into the hands of Jabin, king of the Canaanites.” A later verse in Judges notes that the Israelites prevailed against Jabin and destroyed him and the Canaanites. Exodus 15:15 says, “Then shall the dukes of Edom be amazed; the mighty sons of Moab, trembling shall take hold of them: all the inhabitants of Canaan shall melt away.” Several Concordances lists more than eighty-five (85) Biblical verses referring to the Canaanites. Most of the references are unfavorable, and invariably they reveal God's determination to punish his people for their misdeeds. Ezekiel 16: 1-3:

“Again the words of the Lord came to me: „Son of man, make known to Jerusalem her abominations... Your origin and your birth are of the land of Canaan.‟ Considering the frequency of references to Canaanites in the Bible, it is surprising that religious leaders rarely make any mention of them. In fact, many of the wealthier religious leaders today are actively in league with the Canaanites, enabling them to garner millions of dollars in contributions from gullible Christians. Your current president “Abominable” is the biggest. Certainly, the barbaric practices of the Canaanites were never secret, nor were they unknown in ancient times, as evidenced by the number of references available. Psalms 106:37-38: “They sacrificed their sons and daughters to the demon; they poured out innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan.” Because of this well-documented record of their fiendish practices, God issued numerous orders those other tribes should not intermarry with this person. Isaac passed on one of these orders to Jacob. Genesis 28:1: "Isaac called Jacob and blessed him, and charged him, „you shall not marry one of the Canaanite women‟ “We have previously noted that Miriam and Jacob turned against Moses for marrying a Cushite, or black. The men of old were aware of the necessity to protect their genetic heritage, and they were equally aware that it could vanish in a single generation if the wrong marriages took place. The prohibition against mingling with the demon-worshipping Canaanites remained one of God's strongest commands. God said, “So shall we be separated, I and all of Thy people, from all the people that are upon the face of the earth” Exodus 3:16. God characterized the Canaanites thusly: “And I will make them a terror and an evil for all the kingdoms of the earth, referring to the Diaspora, as a reproach and a proverb, a taunt and a curse on all places where I shall scatter them” Jeremiah 24:9. Thus, we see the Canaanites, newly named the Phoenicians, dispersing along all of the trade routes and avenues of commerce throughout the earth. As God prophesied, they spread corruption, terror, and devastation wherever He scattered them. Later known as the Venetians, they dominated the avenues of commerce; when they settled inland, they specialized as merchants, and later, as bankers, at last comprising a group now loosely known as “the black nobility,” which holds seemingly irresistible power today. God further warned His people against the dispersed Cainites. Deuteronomy 7:2-5: “thou shalt smite them, left! Utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, like the League of Nations or the United Nations! Nor shew mercy unto them! Neither shalt thou make marriage with them: thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods; so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly. But thus, shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.”

This was a direct command to destroy the groves and shrines of the demon-worshipping Mystery cults, now known as Freemasonry. The prohibition against “graven images” has been misunderstood by many well-meaning Christians. God did not prohibit graven images, He prohibited the obscene images of the Baal and Ashtoreth cults, which were made to create sexual excitement as part of their obscene rites. The battle against obscenity goes on today, although it often seems that American Christians are losing it. In making these demands, they were not requests, God was not offering a program for a school picnic; He was laying out the only program which would allow His people to survive on this earth. Otherwise, He warned, “And a mongrel race will dwell in Ashdod” Zechariah 9:6. Should His people fail to carry out His instructions, God specifically described what would happen, and in so doing, He accurately described the world of today. “But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe and to do all His commandments and His statutes which I command thee this day, that all these curses shall come upon thee and overtake thee:... The stranger that is within thy gates, the Canaanites or their descendants shall get up above the very high, and thou shalt come down very low. He shall lend to thee, and thou shall not lend to him; he shall be the head and thou shalt be the tail” Deuteronomy 28:15, 43-44. The reversed roles we see in society today between black and white. Certainly, this is the situation which exists in the United States today. The Venetians control the Federal Reserve System; they lend to us, but we do not lend to them; they are the head, and we are the tail. Having become Satan's curse on humanity, the Canaanites now spread across the earth like some evil plague. Genesis 10:18: “The families of the Canaanites were spread abroad.” This Diaspora brought troubles to every nation in which this person landed. Ezekiel 16:3, 45, and 46 list the racial tribes of the Canaanites, denouncing them individually, “thy father an Amorite, their mother a Hittite, their older sister Samaria, their younger sister Sodom.‟ Jesus, the minister of compassion, when he was asked to cure a Canaanite, denounced them as dogs. Matthew 15:22: “And, behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and cried, „Have mercy on me, o Lord, son of David; my daughter is severely possessed by a demon.‟ But He did not answer her a word.” At last, He did answer her, verse 26, “And He answered, „It is not fair to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.” By children, He meant the children of Israel, and that the Canaanites were dogs. She persisted and he finally did heal her daughter. The Canaanite political parties were the Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots, Essains, Assissins, Herodians, and Scribes. A later group, the Edomites, descended from Esau and later intermarried with the Turks, producing a Turco-Edomite mixture which later became known as the Chazars, the present occupants of Israel, according to the great Jewish scholar, Arthur Koestler. The Canaanites were divided into the Amorites, Hittites, Moabites, Midianites, Philistines, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, Sepharvaims, Perizzites, and affiliated tribes, all of which are routinely denounced in the Bible! Genesis 3:17: “The Perizzites are the enemies of God; the Ammonites worshiped Moloch Chemos and were demon-possessed.” The Ashodites worshiped the fish and god, Dagon-they were robbers and hated God. The Egyptians were known as worshippers of black magic, which resulted in God's rebuff to Hagar. The Amorites were cursed by God, Ezra 9:1. Hittite was defined as meaning to destroy or to terrify; Perizzites came to stand for strife and disorder; the Sepharvaims, later Sephardim, were revolutionaries; Jebusites stands for trampling underfoot. In his monumental work, “The History of the Jews,” Joseph Kastein writes, “The Canaanitish cults were closely connected with the soil and expressive of the forces of nature, particularly the force of fertilization... This force or divinity was called Baal... Whenever any question arose involving their existence as a nation, they knew only one God, and recognized but one idea-the theocracy.” Thus, Kastein admits that the Canaanites were fertility cults, but he does not explain that the worship of Baal as a god of fertility, with the obscene rites of his queen, Ashtoreth, was so abominated in the ancient world that whenever Baal was used in this context, in referring to proper names, the suffix for Baal was “bosheth,” or shameful; thus, we get the names Ishbosheth, Mephibosheth! The destructive nature of the Canaanites upon other nations in which they settled is nowhere more strongly demonstrated than in Egypt, the first land to be corrupted by their barbaric practices. Originally, “Baal” simply meant Lord in the Canaanite language. The obscenity of the rites soon developed a popular image of Baal which had three heads, the head of a cat, the head of a man, and the head of a toad. His wife, Ashtoreth, also known as Astarte and Ishtar, was the principal goddess of the Canaanites. She also represented the reproductive principle in nature, and in case anyone might overlook it, all of her rites were sexual observances. In Babylon, the temples of Baal and Ashtoreth were usually together. Mainly, they served as houses of prostitution, in which the priestesses were prostitutes, and the male priests were Sodomites who were available for the worshippers who were of that persuasion. The worship of the Canaanite gods consisted of orgies, and all their temples were known as centers of vice. They also originated voodoo ceremonies, which became the rites of observance in Ethiopia through the Ethiopian Jethro, the tutor of Moses. These same rites now enthrall tourists in the Caribbean. There it is, it was not long before the simple ceremonies of vice began to pall on the worshippers of Baal. They sought greater excitement in rites of human sacrifice and cannibalism, in which the torture and murder of small children were featured. To consolidate their power over the people, the priests of the Canaanites claimed that all firstborn children were owed to their demon gods, and they were given over for sacrifice. This lewd and barbaric practice was noted in Isaiah 57:3-5: “But you draw near hither, sons of the sorceress, the offspring of the adulterer and the harlot. Of whom „are you making sport? Against whom make ye a wide mouth, and draw out the tongue? Are ye not children of transgression, a seed of falsehood? Inflaming yourself with idols under every green tree, slaying the children in the valleys under the cleft of the rocks?” Thus, Isaiah inveighed not only against the obscene expressions of the blood-maddened orgies‟, their salacious grimaces but also they're now the well-established custom of practicing their horrible rites in “groves” and “shrines,” where they could murder children without being seen and punished by the descendants of Shem.

King Solomon came under the influence of the child-murderers, and he rebuilt an altar to Milcom, Molech, from the Hebrew melekh, meaning king. I Kings 11:5-8. Molech, or Moloch, was honored by his worshippers by the building of a great fire on his altar. The parents were then forced by the priests to throw their children into the fire. In excavations at Gezer, the Pharaoh Merneptah had called himself the Binder of Gezer after he put a stop to the obscene rites of the Canaanites at Gezer, Macalister, under the auspices of the Palestine Exploration Fund, from 1904 to 1909, found in the Canaanite stratum of about 1500 B.C., the ruins of a “High Place,? A temple to Ashtoreth, containing ten crude stone pillars, five to eleven feet high, before which human sacrifices were offered. Under the debris in this “High Place,” Macalister found great numbers of jars containing the remains of children who had been sacrificed to Baal. “Another horrible practice was what they called the „foundation sacrifice.‟ When a house was to be built, a child would be sacrificed and its body built into the wall, to bring good luck to the rest of the family. Many of these were found in Gezer. They have been found also at Megiddo, Jericho, and other places.” read in, Halley's Bible Handbook. Halley's also notes that in this “High Place,” Macalister found large piles of images and plaques of Ashtoreth with rudely exaggerated sex organs, designed to stimulate sexual acts. Ashtoreth images found in many areas of the Canaanite influence emphasize over-sized breasts, sensuous smiles, heavily accented eyes, and nudity. The demonic nature of this sex worship is traced directly to Ham's intercourse with the witch Naamah on the Ark. Dr. Garnier, in his “Worship of the Dead,” writes, “Naamah was celebrated for her beauty, talent, energy, lustfulness, and cruelty, and she was of Nephilim, fallen angel parentage.” The Canaanite demonology is described as featuring Lilith, the vampire; Reseph, the god of the plague; Dever, god of pestilence; and the god of the underworld, Mot, from mavet, the Hebrew word for death. Despite their prominence as destructive influences in the ancient world, the Canaanites, and their demon-god Baal seldom appears in the authoritative works on the ancient Near East. Gaston Maspero's great history of Egypt, “The Dawn of Civilization,” published in 1894, and republished in 1968, does not mention either Baal or Canaan. H. R. Hall's “Ancient History of the Near East” does not mention Shem or Canaan in the index. Baal has a single mention. How much of this is due to the deliberate falsification and destruction of historical records by the Egyptian priesthood cannot be ascertained, but the results are obvious. Another contributing factor is the sudden disappearance of the names “Canaan” and “Canaanites” from all historical records after 1200 B.C. How did this come about? It was very simple. They merely changed their name.

“After 1200 B.C. the name of Canaanites vanished from history. They changed their name to Phoenician.” Thus, the most notorious and most hated people on earth received a new lease on life. The barbaric Canaanites had disappeared. The more civilized Phoenicians, seemingly harmless merchant folk, took their place. Having obtained a monopoly on the purple dye, which was highly prized throughout the ancient world, the Canaanites advertised their control over this product by calling themselves Phoenicians, from Phoenicia, phoenikiea, the Greek word for purple. From the outset of their history, the Phoenician Canaanites always managed to get a monopoly on some essential product. They later had a monopoly on the tin for some centuries, until the Greeks discovered tin in Cornwall in 233 B.C. Joseph of Arimathea, the uncle of Jesus, was said to have owned large tin mines in Cornwall. The change of name did not mean that the Canaanites had abandoned their worship of Baal and Ashtoreth. They became more prudent in their worship of Baal, and in the colonies which they established along the length of the Mediterranean, they built their temples to the female of the species, Ashtoreth. In the Egyptian city of Memphis, the Phoenician Temple of Ashtoreth was the largest religious edifice. She was known there as the wife of the supreme god, El, and his seventy deities. In their rituals, Ashtoreth was sometimes worshiped as the male demon, Astaroth, who survived in European rites as Astara or Ostara in this form, he became the patron god of the Nazi movement in Germany. The westernmost outpost of the Phoenicians was Cadiz, a Phoenician colony which derived its name from the Semitic Agadir, or fortress. Their most important colony, which soon became a rival to Rome itself, was Carthage, which they established about 900 B.C. The name derived from Hebrew, Kart-hadshat, or a new city. The Phoenicians often named their cities with the prefix of “new.” During the fifth century, the Carthaginians had fought the Greeks and survived, but in 264 B.C. Rome attacked in full force. A series of wars ensued, called the Punic Wars because the Carthaginians called themselves the Punics. St. Augustine noted that the Punic among them referred to their people as the “Chanani,” or Canaanites, but this name was like a secret code; they never used it in dealing with other people. Whether for purely commercial reasons or because they feared a military power astride their avenues of commerce in the Mediterranean, the Romans determined to utterly destroy Carthage. They succeeded in this resolve so absolutely that present-day archeologists are not sure just where Carthage was located. From 264 to 201 B.C., Rome waged three Punic Wars against Carthage, culminating in the defeat of their leader, Hannibal, by the Roman armies who were under the command of Scipio Africanus! The Romans killed or took into slavery every Carthaginian and razed the city. They completed their task by sowing the land with salt so that nothing would ever flourish there again. Nothing ever did. This defeat, although a major setback, did not destroy the world operations of the Canaanites, but it did inculcate in them a fierce hatred of all things Roman, which ever since has been characterized by the Canaanite school of propaganda as “fascism,” from the Roman rods, or fasces, which were carried by the magistrate to symbolize his determination to maintain order. The later Masonic assault upon the Catholic Church was largely dictated by the fact that it was headquartered in the city of their most ancient enemy, Rome, and therefore, the papacy became to the Phoenicians the modern embodiment of the force which had destroyed their most important headquarters. Few Americans realize that when the New School of Research in New York denounces “fascism,” joined by the columnists of the New York Times and the New York Post, they are merely echoing their ancient anger over the destruction of Carthage. Here again, our historians have only one goal, to obscure the past and to prevent us from realizing the nature of the forces at work.

It was not only the Canaanites who spread across the earth. The descendants of Shem also multiplied and journeyed to find greater opportunities for their families. They moved from country to country, founding great kingdoms and dynasties, which have survived to the present day. There are many people who can agree that the kings and leaders of the Western nations are descended from the tribe of Judah, but they fail to recognize an important fact, which is entirely omitted in the King James Version of the Bible, that there were three branches of the tribe of Judah. Those who lump all the descendants of the tribe of Judah together do not realize that there was a tainted branch. There were the families of Pharez and Zarah, Judah's purebred sons out of Tamar, and there was a third branch, Judah's descendants from a Canaanite mother, Shuah, who were known ever afterward as “the cursed Shelanites.” Tamar was the daughter of Aram, the youngest son of Shem. Shuah called Tamar's sons bastards because they had been born out of wedlock while the twins claimed to be the rightful heirs of Judah because they were of pure-blooded stock, the Adamite strain. From the Shelanites descended thirty-one cursed tribes of Canaanites of Judea and Samaria, including the Sepharvaims, a name which the Canaanites had adopted for deceptive purposes. At the birth of Pharez and Zarah, the midwife, seeing that there were twins in the womb, realized that it would be necessary to mark the firstborn, who would have primogeniture. She quickly wrapped a red thread around the wrist of Zarah, but it was Pharez who came out first from “the breach.” The Messiah was descended from Pharez, and he was said to have been sent by God to heal “the breach” which had existed since the birth of Pharez and Zarah. Tamar, the mother of Pharez and Zarah, had a descendant named Tamar Tephi, known in Irish legend as “the daughter of Pharaoh.” She married Eochaidh, king of Ireland, who was known as the Prince of the Scarlet Thread. Thus, the two lines of Pharez and Zarah were again reunited. The Scarlet Thread subsequently became an integral part of British history. A red thread is symbolically woven into every rope which is used by the Royal Navy, and every British monarch has delivered to him official documents which are wrapped with a red cord. The term also survives in “red tape,” that is, the official red cord which must be unwound before any state business is transacted. There is also the red carpet which tradition required to be unrolled before royalty walks in. Before he would give Tamar in marriage, Heremon, the father of Tamar, demanded that serpent worship and the rites of Bel, which were then practiced in Ireland, be renounced. The serpents then disappeared from Ireland, and there are no poisonous serpents there today. A later legend is that St. Patrick expelled the serpents from Ireland. Both legends call attention to the demonic practices of the Canaanites, as well as their descent from the serpent; its banishment established Ireland as a land of the true religion of God or the descendants of Shem. The disappearance of the serpents also signified that the evil powers of the Canaanites had vanished from Ireland. Both Spain and Ireland show their direct connection to the descendants of Shem in their names. Spain occupies the Iberian Peninsula, from Iberia, or Hebrew; Ireland is known as Hibernia, the land of the Hebrews, as are the Hebrides Islands. In his History of Ireland, Roger Chauvire says that Ireland is the last remaining part of Atlantis which is still above the surface of the sea. In his History of Ireland, A. M. Sullivan writes of the legendary origin of the present Irish race.

“The Milesian colony reached Ireland from Spain, but they were not Spanish. They were an Eastern people who had tarried in that country on their way westward, seeking aid, an island promised to the posterity of their ancestor Gadelius. Gadelius was the son of Niul, who was the youngest son of the King of Scythia. As a child, Gadelius had been bitten by a poisonous serpent. He was near death when his father persuaded Moses to use his rod to cure him. From that day, the Milesians carried westward their banner, which was emblazoned with a dead serpent and the rod of Moses, until they found an island which had no poisonous snakes.” The sons of Milesius, Gadelius' descendants, who sailed from Spain to Ireland, were Heber the fair, Amergin, Colpa, Heber the Brown, Ir, and Heremon. Their descendants ruled Ireland for one thousand years, the dynasty being established by Niall, Niul, who ruled at Tara from 310 to 405. He is described by Sullivan as “a splendid hero of the Gaelic blood, tall, fair-haired and blue-eyed, a great and noble-minded warrior, „kind in the hall and fierce in fray‟; from him descended the kings of Ireland, the Neills.” These conquerors of Ireland, the Milesians, derived their name from Milesius, the soldier, from the Latin miles, from which we get the word militia. Gadelius, the founder of the line, derived his name from the Hebrew “gadil,” meaning to become great, or in plural the exalted, the fortune-seekers, or the fortunate ones. Because of their great pride and their natural abilities, the Irish were later referred to as being from “the Land of Kings.” Of almost any Irishman, it could be boastfully said, “Sure, and he's the descendant of kings.” From the earliest records, the Irish and the Britons are shown to be historic enemies. Apuleius wrote in 296 A.D. of the “two races, the Britons, and Iberia.” Eumenius always wrote of Hibernia as the enemy of Britain. Caesar's Notes on the Gallic Wars, 58-50 B.C., wrote of “Hibernia, west of Britain.” The world was now swept by two diametrically opposed sides of history. On the one hand were the highly creative and productive descendants of Shem, who have since become known as Semites, and on the opposing side were the “cursed Canaanites,” who historically were anti- Semites, the foes of the tall, fair-haired, and blue-eyed descendants of Shem! Because the Semites were always known as great warriors; they handily defeated the Canaanites in every military encounter, and in many cases obeyed God's command to drive them out and to destroy them utterly. But the anti-Semites seemed to have great staying power; when driven out of one country, they appeared in another to continue their same type of corruption and betrayal. While the Semites were busily establishing one great empire after another, Asshur's was building the Assyrian Empire, Cyrus the Great was building the Persian Empire, and Shem himself creating the great Egyptian civilization, the anti-Semites were developing their own talents. These included a talent for trade and commerce, for travel, for making themselves at home in any country, and among any race of people. Generally, they established their trading colonies along the seacoasts, for they lacked the courage to venture into the great wildernesses of Europe, where the Semites always made themselves at home. The Canaanites always remained true to the precepts of the “Will of Canaan;” they were true to each other, regardless of the circumstances; they were constant in their love of robbery, their love of lewdness, and their hatred of the masters, that is, anyone who tried to interfere with their corrupt way of life. And they always refused to tell the truth. By remaining loyal to these unchanged precepts, the anti-Semites had at their disposal vital weapons for their war against the people of Shem. The Shemites, on the other hand, being fiercely individualistic, never hesitated to pit their empires against each other or even family against family, their conceited pride always taking precedence before any racial or historical imperative. During the Middle-Ages, the people of Shem found their typical characteristics best expressed in such organizations as the Teutonic Knights, a group of warriors which was invincible for hundreds of years. At the same time, the anti-Semites were busily expanding trade routes, and amassing their profits from trade (to this day, the British aristocracy professes disdain for anyone who sullies his hands with trade, an ancient prejudice against the Canaanites); with these profits, they eventually became bankers to the world. In pursuing this objective, they found a great opportunity during the Crusades. Not only did the Crusades open up trade routes throughout the known world, but they also opened up new avenues of graft and corruption, which allowed the Canaanites to amass even greater profits. When the Christian knights departed for the Crusades, dedicating themselves to the service of Christ, the Canaanites, who prudently remained at home, now perfected various schemes to rob the knights of their money and property while they were away. In “Ancient Knighthood and the Crusades,” we find that some of the crusaders “found shelter and protection at the hands of the Teutonic Knights, who were engaged in looking up the frauds perpetrated by the rapacious monks and clergy, who had forged title deeds and mortgages upon lands and property of absent Crusaders or those who had fallen in defense of the Cross in the Holy Land .... Time for reflection and study of the causes of the Crusades at home and abroad, when, other than the scum of Europe which settled upon its dregs, the best people had been almost entirely obliterated from the face of the continent. The capacity of the popes and clergy down to the lowest monks was appalling to those self-sacrificing, stalwart warriors of the Cross, who had returned and found utter strangers in the places and homes of their kindred, had upon investigation it was discovered that frauds, forgeries of title deeds, and confiscations under pretexts of heresy had despoiled their kindred, and the meager few who had survived were beggars upon the highway and lanes, perishing as tramps by the wayside.” The Knights of the Teutonic Order built the city of Riga In Latvia in 1201; they conquered Estonia in 1220; they conquered Prussia in 1293, establishing a military tradition there which ended only after World War II. Although they were disbanded in 1809, the Teutonic Knights remained the inspiration of the German military establishment, which guided Germany through two World Wars. It was Hitler himself who wrote “finis” to their proud traditions when he concluded the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in 1939. Not only did this pact cede the nations of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, the ancient strongholds of the Teutonic Order, to the Communists or Canaanites, but subsequently, all of the great estates of the last heirs of the Prussian tradition, the last survivors of the Teutonic Order, fell into the hands of the onrushing Soviet hordes. By this time, the reader must be thoroughly confused. The "Semites" are really the "anti-Semites" or Canaanites, the heirs of the “Curse of Canaan,” whose corrupt acts are dictated by the “Will of Canaan;” the true Semites are the fair-haired warriors who built one great civilization after another, then how do we recognize these various forces in today's world? “By their deeds, ye shall know them.” Those who are engaged in murderous conspiracies, those whose only loyalty is to secret international organizations, those who promote the use of drugs, bizarre sexual practices, and criminal undertakings, in short, those who continue the rebellion against God, these are the Canaanites, the anti-Semites. Those who remain true to Christ are the Semites. Despite great calamities and the sweep of powerful historical forces, the genetic pools of the original people of Shem, as well as those of the Canaanites, remain fairly consistent. How do we recognize the one group from the other? You should have no problem in looking about you and deciding who are the true descendants of Shem, often fair-haired, fair-skinned, predominantly blue-eyed, healthy, creative, productive, and proud disdaining to engage in any dishonest activity, and always fiercely individualistic, these are the people who remain true to the tradition of the people of Shem. The Canaanites, on the other hand, are generally shorter, darker, more furtive, and almost always engaged in some type of criminal activity, usually with special government approval or license. Roget equates license with “anarchy, interregnum, mob rule, mob law, lynch law, nihilism, reign of violence,” in other word, the acts of the Canaanites; yet in the United States today, we have imposed on the citizens requirements for license to do any of the things free men would not be licensed to do; to drive or own a car, to engage in a profession, and many other intrusions into the individuality of the people of Shem. “License,” which does not appear in the Constitution written by and for the people of Shem, means setting up requirements that only the Canaanites can meet, or license which only the secret clubs of the Canaanites will grant to their own; no others need to apply. This is the cohesiveness required by the Will of Canaan in everything they do, socialistic and communistic, the individual submerged in the mass, and committed to conspiratorial social and business practices. They are also frequently involved in some sort of extracurricular sexual activity which can be traced directly back to the orgies of Baal, human sacrifice, and obscene sexual rites. At the same time, these “anti-Semites” will go to great lengths to conceal their true identity and their real loyalties. In their communities, they are often found to be leaders in activities advertised as “compassionate” and “caring”; they are often to be found in government offices, in the media, and in the educational institutions. In these areas, they ruthlessly promote the interests of their own kind, while presenting a solid phalanx of opposition to anyone of the individualistic descendants of Shem who enter these professions. The great asset of the Canaanites is that the people of Shem have no idea what is going on; they rarely find success in a profession despite their great natural talents and appetite for hard work. Throughout their careers, they are oppressed by the realization that “luck” never seems to favor them while others find promotion almost automatic if they are members of their rivals, the Canaanites. Now time grows short. History will not allow the people of Shem additional centuries, or even decades, to come to their senses and realize what is going on. Just as they have been victims of massacre and genocide for centuries, the people of Shem now face the determination of the Canaanites to exterminate them utterly and finally, a goal which they hope to achieve by the end of this millennium. For here we see the continuing struggle between good and evil, the war on Shem, the fair-skinned people against the darker skin people known as Canaanites, the Cainites against the Shemites. Disclaimer: Sections and excerpts of this article have been taken from Eustice Mullin‟s book, “The Curse of Canaan.” A Demonology of History; The book itself was once a part of the Library of Congress later removed and outlawed while the author himself was for over thirty-two years, he and his family, under the watchful eye and investigation of the FBI. So as you can see even our own government still practices the Canaanite art of lying and hiding the truth from the people.

DRIVING OUT THE CANAANITES:

Now to God‟s command to drive out the Canaanites. Any conquest of Canaan was far less widespread and harsh than many people assume. Consider Joshua 10:40: “So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded” KJV. At first glance, it appears that Joshua captured all the land, defeated all the kings, and destroyed all the Canaanites. Not quite. Joshua used typical ancient Near East language that exaggerates what actually took place. Joshua was not trying to deceive people; the ancient audience would have readily understood what was going on. In fact, if we read the text closely, we see this is exactly right. Joshua later refers to nations that “remain among you,” and he warns Israel not to mention, swear by, serve, or bow down to their gods Joshua 23:7, 12-13; 15:63; 16:10; 17:13; Judges 2:10–13. The same is true in Judges, which is literarily connected to Joshua: “they did not drive out the Jebusites”; “they did not take possession”; “they did not drive them out completely” 1:21–36, KJV; “I will not drive them out before you” 2:3, KJV. In fact, these nations remained “to this day” 1:21, KJV. Yes, Joshua used ancient conventional warfare expressions. Many other ancient Near East military accounts are full of exaggeration, depicting total devastation. Ancient near East readers knew this was a massive overstatement and not literally true. Interestingly, Deuteronomy 7:2–5 uses words like “utterly destroy” right next to “you shall not intermarry with them” KJV. As we have seen, the chief concern is destroying the Canaanite religion not necessarily all the Canaanite people. You ask, what about 1 Samuel Chapter 15 where God commands Israel to “utterly destroy, “and “not spare” the Amalekites? Who were these people? They were Israel‟s enemies from the start, Exodus 17:8–16 and across the generations Judges 3:13; 6:3–5, 33; 7:12; 10:12; for nearly 1,000 years, the Amalekites dogged and threatened Israel. So did Saul really wipe them out, except for Agag, whom the prophet Samuel finished off? Well, there is more going on here. Despite all appearances, the Amalekites show up again in 1 Samuel 27:8 and then in 30:1–18. During Persian King Xerxes‟ time (486–465 B.C.), we encounter Haman the Agagite, Esther 3:1. Agag had been king of the Amalekites. Haman mounted a campaign to destroy the Jews as a people Esther 3:13. Repeatedly, we see that the Amalekites were resolutely hostile toward Israel. When reading the text of 1 Samuel 15:3, we are led to believe that Israel targeted and obliterated Amalekite noncombatants. However, Old Testament scholar Richard Hess argues that we do not actually have indications that this was so, whether toward the Amalekites or the Canaanites. Deuteronomy 2:34 states that “And we took all his cities at that time and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain” KJV. Again, in the next chapter, we read that Israel “And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city” 3:6, KJV.

The sweeping words like “all,” “young and old,” and “man and woman,” however, are stock expressions for totality, even if women and children were not present. The expression “men and women” or similar phrases appear to be trite for describing all the inhabitants of a town or region, “without predisposing the reader to assume anything further about their ages or even their genders.” Our understanding of the archeology history of Canaan offers some illuminating perspectives that help shed light on this discussion and reinforce this point. So let‟s explore this. This orthodox ancient Near East language of “all” people describes attacks on what turn out to be military forts or garrisons containing combatants, not a general population that includes women and children. We have no archeological evidence of civilian populations at Jericho or Ai Joshua 6:21; 8:25. The word “city” during this time in Canaan was where the military, the king, the army, and the priesthood resided. So for Joshua, mentioning, “women” and “young and old” turns out to be stock ancient Near East language that he could have used even if “women” and “young and old” were not living there. The language of “all” “men and women” at Jericho and Ai is an “orthodox expression for the destruction of all human life in the fort, presumably composed entirely of combatants.” The text does not require that “women” and “young and old” must have been in these cities, and this same situation could apply to Saul‟s battling against the Amalekites. Furthermore, people in Canaan commonly used the associated term melek “king” during this time for a military leader who was responsible for a higher ruler off-site. The civilian population typically lived in the hill country. According to the best calculations based on Canaanite inscriptions and other archeological evidence, no artifacts or “prestige” ceramics, Jericho was a small settlement of probably 100 or fewer soldiers. This is why all of Israel could circle it seven times and then do battle against it on the same day! Also, we should keep in mind that the large numbers used in warfare accounts in the Old Testament are a little tricky; they simply may not be as high as our translations indicate. The Hebrew commonly rendered, “thousand” can also mean “unit” or “squad” without specifying the exact number. As an aside, some people have wondered if the two spies coming to Jericho sought out Rahab for sexual favors. That is not the case here. Biblical writers elsewhere do not shrink from mentioning such liaisons, think of Judah and Samson. Apart from the fact of Rehab‟s genuine faith in Israel‟s God, the language in the text forbids this perspective. The spies “came into the house of Rahab” Joshua 2:1, KJV, not, “they went into Rahab” Judges 16:1, KJV. Furthermore, Rahab was in charge of what was likely the fortress tavern or hostel, not a brothel even if prostitutes sometimes ran these taverns. Traveling caravans and royal messengers would commonly overnight at such places during this period. These reconnaissance missions were common in the ancient Near East. An innkeeper‟s home would have been an ideal meeting place for spies and conspirators, a public place where they could learn about the practical and military dispositions of the area and could solicit a possible “fifth column” of support.

Rahab and her family were living demonstrations that a mission of killing Canaanites was not absolute and irreversible. The Canaanites were aware of God‟s power. Joshua 2:10-11; 9:9, and they could have repented. Indeed, Israel‟s sevenfold march around Jericho reveals an opportunity for its king, soldiers, and priests to relent. The Hebrew word circle, “March around” Joshua 6:3, involves various ceremonial aspects, including rams‟ horns, sacred procession, and shouting 2 Samuel 6:15-6; Psalm 48:12-3. The word contains the idea of an inspection; in Jericho‟s case, it was to see if the city would open its gates to evade its downfall. The text suggests that Joshua gave a genuine opportunity for Jericho to repent and trust in the one true God. Furthermore, Israel is not engaged in “genocide” or “ethnic cleansing.” Israel took in Rahab and her family just as it would accept Ruth. God regularly reminded Israel to look out for the alien in their midst. Why? Because Israelites had once been aliens in the land of Egypt themselves. Leviticus 19:34. Furthermore, God regularly threatened to judge Israel, and He did just that, as He had the Canaanites. In fact, we have seen that Israel‟s enemies are eventual objects of God‟s salvation. No ethnic hatred here. What adds further interest is the language of “driving out” and “thrusting out” the Canaanites Exodus 23:28; Leviticus 18:24; Numbers 33:52: Deuteronomy 6:19; 7:1; 9:4; 18:12; Joshua 10:28,30,32,35,37,39; 11:11,14. The Old Testament also uses the language of “dispossessing” the Canaanites of their land Numbers 21:32; Deuteronomy 9:1; 11:23; 18:14; 19:1. “Driving out” or “dispossessing” is different from “wiping out” or “destroying.” This provides yet a further indication that utter annihilation was not intended. “I will send my fear before thee, and will destroy all the people to whom thou shalt come, and I will make all thine enemies turn their backs unto thee. And I will send hornets before thee, which shall drive out the Hivites, the Canaanite, and the Hittite, from before thee. I will not drive them out from before thee in one year; lest the land become desolate and the beast of the field multiply against thee. By little and little I will drive them out from before thee, until thou be increased, and inherit the land,” Exodus 23:27–30, KJV. Expulsion is in view, not annihilation. And after examination, the “driving out” references are much more numerous than the “destroying” ones. How does this dispossessing or driving out work? It is not hard to imagine. The threat of a foreign army in the ancient Near East prompted women and children to remove themselves from harm's way, not to mention the population at large. They would be the first to flee. Josephus writes an attacked population would not wait around for the enemy to kill them. Only the defenders, who do not get out, are the ones who would get killed, Jeremiah 4: “The whole city shall flee for the noise of the horsemen and bowmen; they shall go into thickets, and climb up upon the rocks: every city shall be forsaken, and not a man dwell therein,” Jeremiah 4:29 KJV. Again, we have no indication from the biblical text that the “justified wars” of Joshua “were against noncombatants.” We read in Joshua and Judges that, despite the “obliteration” language, there were plenty of Canaanite inhabitants whom Israel did not “drive out”; rather, they lived in the areas where Israel had settled. In the following texts, Joshua‟s “utter destruction” of the Canaanites is exactly what “Moses the servant of the Lord had commanded”:

“And all the cities of those kings and all the kings of them did Joshua take, and smote them with the edge of the sword, and he utterly destroyed them, as Moses the servant of the LORD commanded.” Joshua 11:12, KJV. “And all the spoil of these cities and the cattle, the children of Israel took for a prey unto themselves; but every man they smote with the edge of the sword until they had destroyed them, neither left they any to breathe. As the LORD commanded Moses his servant, so did Moses command Joshua, and so did Joshua; he left nothing undone of all that the LORD commanded Moses.” Joshua 11:14-15, KJV. “For it was of the LORD to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favor, but that he might destroy them, as the LORD commanded Moses,” Joshua 11:20, KJV. Remember Moses‟ sweeping commands to “consume” and “utterly destroy” the Canaanites, not to “leave alive anything that breathes”? Joshua‟s comprehensive language echoes that of Moses. Scripture clearly indicates that Joshua fulfilled Moses‟ charge to him. So if Joshua did just as Moses commanded, and if Joshua‟s described destruction was really massive, exaggeration and common in ancient Near East warfare language and familiar to Moses, then clearly Moses himself did not intend a literal, comprehensive Canaanite destruction. He, like Joshua, was merely following the literary conversation of the day. Now let‟s look at it as we pre-suppose that Joshua was to destroy the entire populace of the Canaanites. First, just because Canaanite women did not fight did not mean they were morally innocent, note the seductive Midianites women in Numbers 25. Second, if Israel targeted children, we must remember that this act was unique and unrepeatable in Israel‟s history and that God‟s ultimate intentions were to bring salvation. Consider the parallel between Abraham and Isaac. God promised Abraham that Isaac would be the child of promise to bring blessing to the nations. So Abraham was convinced that God would keep His promise, even if this meant raising Isaac from the dead: “And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you.” Genesis 22:5. Likewise, the Canaanite question has as its backdrop the promise of blessing and salvation to all peoples, including Canaanites. Despite your remaining questions, we need to look at God‟s clear revelation in Jesus Christ, especially His incarnation and atoning death. A concerned, relational God, who made himself known to ancient Israel, showed up on the scene in flesh and blood. He entered into first-century life in Palestine, stooping to share our lot to enduring life‟s temptations, injustices, sufferings, cruelties, and humiliations. However we view the Canaanite question, God‟s heart is concerned with redemption. Christ‟s dying naked on a barbaric cross reveals how very low God is willing to go for our salvation. As the song goes about those who scorned and spurned God‟s salvation in Jesus of Nazareth: They mocked His true calling And laughed at His fate, So glad to see the Gentle One Consumed by their hate, Unaware of the wind and the darkening sky, So blind to the fact that it was God limping by! Since God was willing to go through all of this for our salvation, the Christian can reply to the critic, “While I cannot tidily solve the problem of the Canaanites, I can trust a God who has proven His willingness to go to such excruciating lengths, and depths, to offer rebellious humans reconciliation and friendship.” However we interpret and respond to some of the baffling questions raised by the Old Testament, we should not stop with the Old Testament if we want a clearer revelation of the heart and character of God. In fact, the New Testament clearly reveals a God who redeems His enemies through Christ‟s substitutionary, self-sacrificial, shame-bearing act of love Romans 5:10. Though a Canaanite-punishing God strikes us as incompatible with graciousness and compassion, God is also light 1 John 1:5, a God who is both good and severe Romans 11:22. Yet this righteous God loves His enemies, not simply His friends Matthew 5:43–48. Indeed, He allows himself to be crucified by His enemies in hopes of redeeming them: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Luke 23:34. Canaan is America today about to reap the consequences of her sin. America under the false pretense of technological advancement has regressed to become the ancient land of Canaan of years gone by. They sacrificed unto demons, which were no gods. They are practicing demon-worship, occult rites, child sacrifice, and even cannibalism. Our Country is now promoting these obscene practices; its leaders tolerate and legalize Demonology, the Worship of Pagan gods and Spirit-World Mystics. A Canaanite Court has replaced the Supreme Court passing laws in favor of the “Will of the Canaanite.” America‟s Cushite President, a Hamite Muslim out of the jungles of Africa plying, “lying to gain control,” the “Will of the Canaanite” documents. America is under siege! The government took control of public school education a long time ago. In 1962 the Canaanite Court (Supreme Court) through prayer out of the public schools (Engele vs. Vitale), and in 1963, it threw the Bible out (Abington School District vs. Schempp). In 1980, the Canaanites in (Stone vs. Graham), said the Ten Commandments could not be posted in school classrooms. And now we‟ve seen the satanic Court legalize Homosexuality, Same-sex marriage and enforcement of removal of any mention of God anywhere on public, State or government property. The military has done the same declaring that Jesus‟ name cannot be used in prayer or even spoken or talked about in the military. America is no longer the land of the free and home of the brave but has become the Canaanitish State of Socialistic Enslavery for Sheminites and God‟s Japhetic people. A haunt for Hamite and Cushite whoredom practices to bring in their One World Order.

How much time is left is hard to say, America is living on borrowed time. The sweet things have made her sick, the diabetic Laodicean church has sugar-coated the gospel so much that she‟s become anemic on love. Sweet things have brought on a coma and Laodiceans fill the hospitals and nursing homes with hospice care, too much love and sugar have sent her over the edge. As a

nation, we are near death and dying and what we should be asking is: What‟s On the Other Side of Death? All Scripture notations are from the King James Bible.

CANAAN IS AMERICA TODAY