Refuting “Black Hebrew Israelites”

I wish I’d never had cause to write this, but there is an ideology which I must address: “Black Hebrew Israelites”. As the name indicates, this Afrocentric ideology contends that the descendants of Israel today are found in certain Negroe tribes, most notably African Americans.

To me this notion seems absolutely laughable, but many do not have sufficient knowledge of Scripture or history to see how absurd it is, and so even some White folks have fallen prey to this falsehood.

“Black Hebrew Israelites” have no clear historical basis for their contentions. They point out that some of the Judeans fled into Egypt after the Romans destroyed the temple and other more vague connections between ancient Israel and North Africa. They then extend this alleged connection all the way across the continent to their Bantu ancestors without a scrap of credible evidence.

What the “Black Hebrew Israelites” present as evidence is of no academic value and mainly consists of modern commentators, typically Jews. None of the writings they draw on are of any antiquity and that is on those rare occasions they cite a real extant source. Typically the sources offered are dead ends and probably often fabrications.

Even if some of the Judaeans ventured into sub-Saharan Africa they could not possibly be the true house of Judah. These Judaeans dispersed from Judaea after 70 AD were mostly Edomites and Kenites or Judahites Benjamites and Levites who had mongrelized with the Edomites, Kenites, Canaanites and other nations adulterated with non-Adamic stock. These are those anti-Christs who persecuted and despised Jesus such as Herod and Judas. Thus to claim descent from that brood is to condemn oneself as a bastard child of Satan.

‘The Satanic Origins of the Edomite Jews’

https://acompanyofnations.wordpress.com/2019/01/27/the-satanic-origins-of-the-edomite-jews/

Some of the “Black Hebrew Israelites” contend that the Northern house of Israel which was deported by the Assyrians ended up in Africa. This is absolutely contrary to all available information in Scripture and other ancient sources concerning the whereabouts of the house of Israel.

When the northern house of Israel went into the Assyrian captivity they were placed among the Aryan Medes (the Japhetic Madai) as a buffer population on the fringes of the Assyrian empire.

“6In the ninth year of Osee the king of the Assyrians took Samaria, and carried Israel away to the Assyrians, and settled them in Alae, and in Abor, near the rivers of Gozan, and in the mountains of the Medes.”
-2 Kings 17

The Northward migration of the house of Israel out of Mesopotamia is recorded in 2 Esdras:

“40 Those are the ten tribes, which were carried away prisoners out of their own land in the time of Osea the king, whom Salmanasar the king of Assyria led away captive, and he carried them over the waters, and so came they into another land. 41 But they took this counsel among themselves, that they would leave the multitude of the heathen, and go forth into a further country, where never mankind dwelt, 42 That they might there keep their statutes, which they never kept in their own land. 43 And they entered into Euphrates by the narrow places of the river. 44 For the most High then shewed signs for them, and held still the flood, till they were passed over. 45 For through that country there was a great way to go, namely, of a year and a half: and the same region is called Arsareth.”
-2 Esdras 13

The historian Flavius Josephus describes the location of these deported tribes in his own time from a Judaean perspective:

“the ten tribes are beyond the Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude and not to be estimated in numbers.”
-Josephus, Antiquities, 11:133

In the Dead Sea Scrolls in the War Scroll (4Q492) Togar (Togarmah) and Masha (Meshech) are “beyond the Euphrates” from a Judaean perspective. Togarmah and Meshech refer to lands in modern Russia and Anatolia that the Scythians and Kimmerians were known to have settled.

Many “Black Hebrew Israelites” point to Zepheniah 3.10 as evidence that the Israelites came to inhabit Africa to the South of certain Ethiopian rivers. Of course the “rivers of Kush”/”Ethiopia” of Zephaniah 3.10 must be identified in light of other Scriptural evidence concerning the whereabouts of dispersed Israel.

As we have just seen in 2 Kings, Josephus’ Antiquities and 2 Esdras the Israelites migrated North of Canaan into Northern Mesopotamia and Iran and not South into Africa. Several other Scriptures attest to Israel’s new location to the North and West of Canaan in Europe and Asia Minor, a point we will revisit later on.

There are two places named Kush/Ethiopia in history and Scripture. One is located in modern Ethiopia in the Horn of Africa. Another is located somewhere in Asia which is connected with the Hindu-Kush region (Herodotus, Histories 3.94, 7.70, Josephus Antiquities 1.6.2). This passage must be interpreted in light of the rest of Scripture and history, and so it must be understood that this refers to either the Israelites of the Assyrian captivity dispersed beyond the rivers of the Ethiopia of the East or to the Boer Israelites who in more recent times have settled South Africa. Perhaps this passage has a dual fulfillment found in both migrations.

‘Scythian Origins: the Lost Tribes in Iran, the Steppe and Europe’

https://acompanyofnations.wordpress.com/2019/02/13/scythian-origins-the-lost-tribes-in-iran-the-steppe-and-europe-2/

The Israelites are physically described several times in Scripture and what these passages describe is utterly alien to the Negroe (hereafter Congoid; the appropriate scientific racial classification).

“4 Thy neck is as an ivory tower; thine eyes are as pools in Esebon, by the gates of the daughter of many: thy nose is as the tower of Libanus, looking toward Damascus.”
-Song of Solomon 7.4

An ancient Judaean mosaic, ‘The Mona Lisa of Sepphoris’, Galilee.

Obviously the Congoid does not have a neck like ivory, eyes like pools of water or a nose like a tower. Rather it is dark skinned, dark eyed and flat nosed.

“42 And Goliath saw David, and despised him; for he was a lad, and ruddy (admoni, H132, purrazo 4449), with a fair countenance.”
-1 Samuel 17.42

Strong’s H4449, purrazo:

“be red.
From purrhos; to redden (intransitively) — be red.”

Strong’s H132, admoni:

“red, ruddy
Or (fully) admowniy {ad-mo-nee’}; from ‘adam; reddish (of the hair or the complexion) — red, ruddy.”

Judaean mosaic, Sepphoris, Galilee.

Obviously neither of these words describe the dark skinned and dark haired Congoid who has neither a bright or reddish color to either their skin or hair. Only Caucasoids are typically hyper-depigmented in hair and skin.

“10 My kinsman is white (tsach, H6703, leukos G3022) and ruddy (adom, H122, purrhos G4450), chosen out from myriads.”
-Song of Solomon 5.10

Strong’s G4450, purros:

“fiery red
From pur; fire-like, i.e. (specially), flame- colored — red.”

Strong’s H122, adom:

“red, ruddy
From ‘adam; rosy — red, ruddy.”

Strong’s G3022, leukos:

“white.
From luke (“light”); white — white.”

Strong’s H6703, tsach:

“clear, dry, plainly, white
From tsachach; dazzling, i.e. Sunny, bright, (figuratively) evident — clear, dry, plainly, white.”

Judaean mosaic, Sepphoris, Galilee.

The coloration of the Congoid, be it of the skin, hair or eyes, is not white, red, fire-like, rosy, sunny, bright, clear or white. All of the afforementioned descriptors can only describe hyper-depigmentation

“7 Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter (tsachach, H6705, lampo G2989) than milk, they were purified as with fire, their polishing was superior to sapphire stone.”
-Lamentations 4.7

Where the Septuagint reads “they were purified as with fire” the King James reads “they were more ruddy (adom H119) in body than rubies”.

Strong’s G2989, lampos:

“give light, shine.
A primary verb; to beam, i.e. Radiate brilliancy (literally or figuratively) — give light, shine.”

Strong’s H6703, tsachach:

“be whiter
A primitive root; to glare, i.e. Be dazzling white — be whiter.”

Strong’s H119, adom:

“be dyed, made red ruddy
To show blood (in the face), i.e. Flush or turn rosy — be (dyed, made) red (ruddy)”

Judaean mosaic, Sepphoris, Galilee.

The dark face of the Congoid does not shine, give light, radiate or beam as it absorbs light rather than reflecting or emitting it. Neither is it dazzling or bright or comparable to milk and snow. Of course the Congoid cannot show blood in the face, flush or turn rosy. The melanin in their skin prevents any observance of blood flow beneath. Only Caucasoids naturally exhibit this transparency of skin.

“22 Therefore thus saith the Lord concerning the house of Jacob, whom he set apart from Abraham, Jacob shall not now be ashamed, neither shall he now wax pale (chavar, H2357).”
-Isaiah 29.22

Strong’s H2357:

“wax pale
A primitive root; to blanch (as with shame) — wax pale.”

Judaean mosaic, Sepphoris, Galilee.

The Greek text of this verse reads “neither shall he now change countenance” which relays the same message but does not use the expression “wax pale”. Of course the Congoid cannot change its countenance or wax pale as their melanin prevents the observance of blood flow. If Jacob was physically unable to wax pale then the words of the prophet would be redundant, which the words of God never are. Of course Jacob, being Caucasoid, could wax pale.

“12 And he sent and fetched him: and he was ruddy (admoni, H132, purrazo, G4449), with beauty of eyes, and very goodly to behold. And the Lord said to Samuel, Arise, and anoint David, for he is good.”
-1 Samuel 16.12

I already gave the definitions for purazzo and admoni and of course these descriptors cannot possibly describe the heavily pigmented Congoid. Only Caucasoids meet the description of ruddy.

“7 Thou shalt sprinkle me with hyssop, and I shall be purified: thou shalt wash me, and I shall be made whiter (laban, H3835, leukaino, G3021) than snow.”
-Psalm 51.7

Strong’s G3021, leukainos:

“make white, whiten.
From leukos; to whiten — make white, whiten.”

Strong’s H3835, laban:

“make brick, be made, make whiter
A primitive root; to be (or become) white; also (as denominative from lbenah) to make bricks — make brick, be (made, make) white(-r).”

Judaean mosaic, Sepphoris, Galilee.

Notice that the natural state of the speaker when purified and cleansed is white. Of course Congoids do not turn white when washed, and so this can certainly not describe a Congoid. Rather this describes a Caucasoid.

The name Adam is derived from Strong’s H119:

“be dyed, made red ruddy
To show blood (in the face), i.e. Flush or turn rosy — be (dyed, made) red (ruddy)”

Many claim Adam derives from adamah (soil), but this defies all convention whereby the smaller component (adam) is the root of the larger derivative (adamah). Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance specifically tells us in the entry for Adam (H120) that it derives from H119.

The “Black Hebrew Israelites” like to point out that Esau was ruddy and they connect his ruddiness to that of Caucasoids.

“25And the first came out red, hairy all over like a skin; and she called his name Esau.”
-Genesis 25.25

What they miss however is that Esau was Jacob’s twin brother, a pedigreed Hebrew. In pointing out that Esau was a ruddy White man they only prove that Hebrews are indeed ruddy White men. The exact words rendered “red” at Genesis 25.25 are admoni and purrazo (H132 and G4449) and these are the same words which are elsewhere used in describing Israelites. (1 Samuel 16.12, 17.42). This is to say nothing of the obvious absurdity of the notion that Caucasoids and Congoids, two of the most genetically and physically dissimilar races, share a common direct ancestor less than 4 millennia ago.

“Black Hebrew Israelites” will point to the few verses where Hebrews describe themselves as dark. (Lamentations 4.8, Song of Solomon 1.5-6, Job 30.30 et al.) but completely disregard the fact that these descriptions are always given in lamentation and in connection with exposure to the sun and starvation. It is also portrayed as negative, unusual and shameful. Now if the Israelites were naturally black skinned Congoids they would not portray white, bright and ruddy skin positively and dark, drab and brownish skin negatively.

Judaean mosaic, Huqoq, Galilee.

“Black Hebrew Israelites” claim adom (H122) refers to a reddish brown hue and for this purpose they point to the red heifer of Numbers 19.2. However this position is ignorant of the use of adom. Adom can be used to describe any reddish hue just as the English word red. But what is important is its primary meaning determined by its etymology.

Adom clearly refers primarily to the ruddiness of blood (dam, H1818). Strong’s informs us that H122 comes from H119 which is defined as “to show blood (in the face), i.e. Flush or turn rosy”. Thus it is clear the primary meaning of H122 refers to the redness of blood and the ruddiness it causes in the transparent skin of Caucasoids.

Even if one errantly assumes adom refers to the brownish red of a red heifer when used to describe people this could not be taken to mean the people described were Congoid as no pure Congoid has skin that is remotely ruddy. Of course the Israelites had to have been a pure race according to the law and so we cannot imagine they were Congoids mixed with other races giving them a reddish hue. Rather they had to have been of a race naturally ruddy in its pure state which, in the Near East, could only be the Caucasoid race.

Judaean mosaic, Huqoq, Galilee. (Judaeans L, Mycenaeans R)

One of the passages the “Christian” branch of the “Black Hebrew Israelites” like to quote often is Revelation 1.14-15 which poetically describes Christ.

“14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;

15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.”-Revelation 1

The “Black Hebrew Israelites” take this to mean that Jesus has hair the texture of wool as they do. Of course this is not what the text actually says which is literally “white as if wool” (leukai hos erion). The comparison to wool is one of colour and not one of texture.

They also claim that brazen skin indicates a complexion similar to so-called “light skin blacks” as we see among African Americans. Of course pure brass burning in a furnace is radiant and not dark at all. The natural pigmentation of the pure Congoid race is an almost perfect black. One might see a bright brazen tone in a sun tanned European, but never in a full-blooded Bantu.

African Americans (by far the dominant demographic among “Black Hebrew Israelites”) hold many strange notions about race. They are often quite physically dissimilar to their Bantu relatives overseas, and for this reason they have imagined that they are a different kind of black person than full-blooded Bantus in Africa.

The truth is that African Americans are a racially mixed people who descend predominantly from Bantus, but who have mingled extensively with neighbouring populations. Thus they are somewhat dissimilar to full-blooded Bantus often having some Caucasoid features and producing “light skin blacks”. In fact the average African American has 24% European DNA.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/12/genetic-study-reveals-surprising-ancestry-many-americans

This alone precludes the possibility of African Americans being children of Israel as Scripture clearly forbids mongrels from having a part in the nation of Israel.

‘Fornication, Adultery and Idolatry: a Biblical Case Against Miscegenation’

https://acompanyofnations.wordpress.com/2019/03/06/fornication-adultery-and-idolatry-a-biblical-case-against-miscegenation/

The “Black Hebrew Israelites” have imagined that the Semites are their forebears while Ham fathered the full-blooded Bantus of Africa who have “pure” sub-Saharan African DNA. This leaves Japheth as the sole father of the other four main races; Caucasoids, Mongoloids, Australoids and Capoids. Of course this is all childish nonsense and it is clear from Scripture that the race of Adam is the unadulterated Caucasoid race.

‘Adam: The Patriarch of One Race’

https://acompanyofnations.wordpress.com/2019/01/27/adam-the-patriarch-of-one-race/

‘The Origins of the Non-Adamic Races’

https://acompanyofnations.wordpress.com/2019/02/02/the-origins-of-the-non-adamic-races/

‘Physical Descriptions and Depictions of the Adamites, Shemites, Hebrews, Israelites and Judahites’

https://acompanyofnations.wordpress.com/2019/05/26/physical-descriptions-of-the-adamites-shemites-hebrews-israelites-and-judahites/

Genetic evidence likewise refutes their absurd theories proving that before the Islamic conquest of the Levant the genetic makeup of the region most closely resembled modern Europeans and not Middle Easterners or North Africans, much less sub-Saharan Africans.

“Levant populations today fall into two main groups: one sharing more genetic characteristics with modern-day Europeans and Central Asians, and the other with closer genetic affinities to other Middle Easterners and Africans.”

“We reconstructed the genetic structure of the Levantines and found that a pre-Islamic expansion Levant was more genetically similar to Europeans than to Middle Easterners”

http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1003316

Syrian boys.

“Black Hebrew Israelites” claim that White folks would perish in the climates of the lands where Israel dwelt, but this is ridiculous. The Israelites recognized that excessive exposure to the sun would harm them (Psalm 121.6, Isaiah 49.10, Song of Solomon 1.6 et al.) and sought shelter from it in tents, buildings and suitable clothing. It must of course be noted that these regions were once much more temperate and lush.

Samaritan woman.

Mesopotamia and the Levant have forest lands to this day and much much more in antiquity. Even today Galilee (the nativity of Christ) has a considerable amount of woodland and grassland. Ancient Mesopotamian texts (the Israelites originated in Mesopotamia) like the Epic of Gilgamesh speak of evergreen forests as if they were at hand or very nearby. The Israelite colonists of the Exodus travelled through the desert in search of wooded lands and fertile fields which were to be found in ancient Canaan. They obviously considered the desert an inhospitable and alien environment.

Lebanese woman.

Even today hyperdepigmented locals persist in North Africa, the Levant, Syria and neighbouring regions, and these have not all died out due to exposure. With a little care and preparation a White man can easily survive in these lands, and of course we can adjust to the sun over time by tanning.

‘Syro-Levantine Europids: the Memory of Shem’s Blood in Western Asia’

https://facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=300155540588281&id=296739117596590

Syrian man.

“Black Hebrew Israelites” claim that biblical leprosy is actually what we call vitiligo today and that White people are in fact biblical lepers. They base this on descriptions of leprosy in Scripture as causing extreme pallour. The Hebrew and Greek words (Strong’s G3014 and H6883) are regarded by many lexicographers as refering to leprosy (Hansen’s disease), but even if we imagine it refers to vitiligo the “Black Hebrew Israelite’s” argument falls down as White people can also experience vitiligo.

Vitiligo causes patches of the skin to lose melanin content, and Europoids in fact do have melanin, though of a different chemical composition to that of Congoids. Europoids can experience vitiligo and develop patches of skin that are utterly whitened in contrast with their comparatively tanned skin.

Caucasian people are typically more ruddy than white as our transparent skin reveals the blood flow beneath. As we have seen earlier in this presentation this ability to show ruddiness is the very meaning of the word adom (H119) which is used in Scripture along with related words to describe Israelites. When afflicted with sickness we often blanch or wax pale draining the ruddiness from our face and making us “white as snow” as those afflicted by leprosy in Scripture (2 Kings 5.27, Numbers 12.10, Exodus 4.6).

It is clear from Scripture that leprosy was considered contagious which is not an attribute of vitiligo. Leprosy likely rather refers to infections or diseases manifest on the skin, possibly including, but not limited to, vitiligo. The most absurd part of this belief is the notion that a contagious disease spawned a race.

The hyperdepigmented state of Europoids is in no way contagious and has definitive genetic causes. If it was contagious we would see the results today wherever White people dwell among dark races. Skin colour is but one characteristic that defines the Europoid race but more important is our distinctive Caucasoid skeletal structure which certainly cannot be the product of some contagion.

There are a number of prophecies concerning Israel which Bantus and other Negroes fail to fulfil, but which are all fulfilled in the nations of Christian Europe.

The real Israelites have been dispersed to the North and the West, Tarshish (Tartessus, Iberia), Lud (Lydia, Anatolia), Persia, Meshech (Moscow, Russia), Tubal (Tobolsk, Russia), Greece, Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia and Bythinia: Isaiah 49.1 & 12, 66.19, Jeremiah 3.18, 31:8, 1 Peter 1.1.

None of these lands has ever been settled by Negroes, but all are lands where great nations of Europe such as Trojans, Danaans, Dorians, Scythians and Kimmerians arrived in history and later dwelt.

The Israelites are comprised of mighty nations, having command of the waters, coasts and vast lands and possessing the gates of their enemies: Genesis 22.17, 24.60, 49.25, Numbers 24.7, Deuteronomy 33.13 & 19, Psalm 89.25.

Negroes have true dominion over nothing, their lands having all been colonized by European nations who could at any time reclaim rule over them. They have no power over any of their historical enemies.

The true Israelites are a company or commonwealth of nations: Genesis 35.11, 48.19, Ephesians 2.12.

The Negroes have never had any concept of national unity much less a commonwealth or confederacy of any sort. Rather they consist of a mass of perpetually conflicting tribes typically led by warlords.

The Israelites are the custodians of God’s word: Psalm 147.19-20; Isaiah 59.21.

The Negroes of course have never been keepers of Scripture, a legacy only attributable to Christian Europe. No Negroe tribe has ever even established any form of written language without foreign influence, a point we will revisit later.

True Israel would colonize and spread abroad: Genesis 28.14, Deuteronomy 33.17, Psalm 2.8, Isaiah 26.15, 27.6, 54.2-3, Zechariah 10.8-9.

Of course no Negroe tribe or nation has ever undertaken colonialism or spread beyond their continent of their own volition.

There are cultural traits exhibited by the Israelites in Scripture which are utterly alien to Niger-Congo cultures, and which one might say are quite beyond the reach of such a people. The Israelites were a highly literate people who pioneered a new writing system (“Phoenician”/paleo-Hebrew) and spread it around the Mediterranean Basin.

‘The Israelite Origins of Europa: the Phoenicians in the West’

https://acompanyofnations.wordpress.com/2019/01/27/the-israelite-origins-of-europa-the-phoenicians-in-the-west/

‘The Linguistic Developments of the Shemites, Hebrews and Israelites’

https://acompanyofnations.wordpress.com/2019/01/27/the-linguistic-developments-of-the-shemites-hebrews-and-israelites/

In contrast Niger-Congo tribes (the ethno-linguistic group to which Bantus belong) never established a written language of their own. Colonists, slaves and missionaries have intruduced Latin and Arabic scripts to them but they were never taken up widely once these people left them to their own devices.

The Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan languages are distinct from both Afro-Asiatic and Indo-European languages which were the two main linguistic groups to which belong the tongues of the Genesis 10 Adamic nations. Not one nation mentioned in Scripture spoke a Niger-Congo or Nilo-Saharan language and all spoke either Afro-Asiatic, Indo-European or isolate languages. The Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan languages have no affinity with the languages of Scripture such as Hebrew, Syriac or Greek.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Niger-Congo-languages

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Afro-Asiatic-languages

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Nilo-Saharan-languages

The Niger-Congo peoples have never built a two-story building, seaworthy watercraft or even a wheel. They certainly could not produce wagons, ships, walled cities, bronze and iron weapons and tools or other impliments used and manufactured by the Israelites in Scripture. They also have not domesticated any animals for themselves as did the Israelites who used camels, oxen, donkeys and other animals for labour and transport. Had the Israelites been Congoids they would have been reliant on mud huts, primitive weaponry and the strength of their backs for shelter, protection, labour and transport.

https://christogenea.org/podcasts/scientific-view-negro-age-political-correctness-part-1

The Israelites were a predominantly agrarian people reliant on herds, flocks and crops for their livelihood. As we see today in sub-Saharan Africa, Congoids are not capable farmers or herdsmen. Rather they sit atop the lush soil of Africa but starve to death without the aid of other nations. When Congoids have expelled on occasion White colonists who introduced farming to them they have failed to maintain the farms left behind. Then in the following years we find them complaining of starvation and scarcity of food as seen in Zimbabwe, Rhodesia and all of South Africa.

Even if we imagine that Congoids could function as herdsmen they could not have fully enjoyed the fruits of such labours. It is evident throughout Scripture that raw milk was a staple of the diets of Scriptural patriarchs (Genesis 18.8, 49.12, Deuteronomy 32.13-14, Song of Solomon 5.1, Isaiah 7.22, et al.). Lactose tolerance emerged about 7,500 years ago and today the ability to digest lactose is highly concentrated in Europeans.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090827202513.htm

The “Black Hebrew Israelites” theories are reliant on the erroneous assumption that the Afro-Asiatic Caucasoid peoples of North Africa and the Horn of Africa were actually Congoid peoples. Many look at the average Ethiopian, or select tribes of Ethiopia and see that they have dark brown or black skin and often have nappy hair. Some tribes in Ethiopia are in fact negroes (hereafter Congoids, the appropriate racial classification) but these are not autocthonous nor are they the majority. These Congoid populations in the Horn of Africa descend from more recent Nilotic and Bantu migrations alien to ancient Ethiopia. 

The fact is, that the racial archetype of Ethiopia (Aethiopid) a subtype of the Caucasoid race and not the Congoid race! Aethiopids are a Mediterranid stabilized with a Congoid element with other Caucasoid influences in certain Aethiopic subtypes.

Aethiopid male example.

Aethiopids are medium to long headed with large heads whereas Congoids have small broad heads. Aethiopids have no protrusion of the jaw as do Congoids and they typically have lighter skin and often straight or wavy hair. They have limbs of typical Caucasoid proportions which lack the extra length of the Congoid’s limbs. They are by no means Congoid either in their morphology or craniometry. In layman’s terms they appear as if the skin of a Negroe was draped over the flesh and bone of a Caucasian.

https://www.theapricity.com/snpa/chapter-XI8.htm

Aethiopid female example.

The Rwandan genocide was motivated by the racial differences between the Aethiopic Tutsis and the predominantly Congoid Hutus. The Tutsis are sometimes called “the Jews of Africa” and may descend partially from Edomite Jews dispersed to Africa following the Judaean wars. Clearly there is no kinship felt between Aethiopids and Congoids in Africa. Not only do Aethiopic tribes regard themselves as distinct from Nilotes and Bantus but the nearby Arabs likewise distinguish the Aethiopic tribes from their Negroe neighbours.

Aethiopic male example.

I would now like to now quote Diodorus Siculus from his Library of Histories regarding the Ethiopians. After describing the civilised Ethiopians Diodorus Siculus goes on to describe in contrast the primitive hominids dwelling in Ethiopia and nearby regions.

“1 But there are also a great many other tribes of the Ethiopians, some of them dwelling in the land lying on both banks of the Nile and on the islands in the river, others inhabiting the neighbouring country of Arabia, and still others residing in the interior of Libya. 2 The majority of them, and especially those who dwell along the river, are black in colour and have flat noses and woolly hair. As for their spirit they are entirely savage and display the nature of a wild beast, not so much, however, in their temper as in their ways of living; for they are squalid all over their bodies, they keep their nails very long like the wild beasts, and are as far removed as possible from human kindness to one another; 3 and speaking as they do with a shrill voice and cultivating none of the practices of civilized life as these are found among the rest of mankind, they present a striking contrast when considered in the light of our own customs.”
-Library of History, 3.8.1

Photograph of a couple from upper Congo, Central Africa – bearing facial scarification and sharpened upper teeth and filed bottom teeth. Date:

When describing the civilized Ethiopians Diodorus makes no mention of their physical characteristics, but when he mentions the savages the first things he notes are their black skin, flat noses and wooly hair. I think that if Diodorus had observed these physical traits among the civilized Ethiopians, he would not have made specific note of them among the savage Ethiopians.

The civilized Ethiopians were probably rooted in the classic gracile Mediterranean stock that Diodorus was most likely already familiar with, and which is manifest in part among the most deeply rooted bloodlines of modern Ethiopia.

In the 4th-century AD a remnant of the Kushites continued to be perceived as distinct from the black tribes of the region. A 4th century victory stela commemorating the Axumite king Ezana contains inscriptions describing separate racial groups dwelling in ancient Nubia. The Ezana Stele names the Kasu (Kushites) and Red Noba who are both believed by scholars to have been Cushitic speakers related to the Egyptians. These are contrasted with the Black Noba population that was instead related to Nilotes and who likely spoke an Eastern Sudanic dialect. Here is a notable excerpt from the Ezana Stele:

“Through the might of the Lord of All I took the field against the Noba when the people of Noba revolted, when they boasted and “He will not cross over the Takkaze,” said the Noba, when they did violence to the peoples Mangurto and Hasa and Barya, and the Black Noba waged war on the Red Noba and a second and a third time broke their oath and without consideration slew their neighbors and plundered our envoys and messengers whom I had sent to interrogate them, robbing them of their possessions and seizing their lances.”

In biblical times Ethiopia is one of the first Adamic nations to be lost to miscegenation.

“For I am the Lord thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour: I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee.”
-Isaiah 43.3

Aethiopid female example.

It seems God placed these Hamites between Israel and the non-Adamic sub-Saharan Congoid tribes who had begun to assault Northern Africa and the Horn of Africa. Note that Ethiopia and Egypt exist as nations (in the deracinated modern sense), but that God no longer counts them among the nations because they are all demonic hybrids today.

‘Fornication, Adultery and Idolatry: a Biblical Case Against Miscegenation’

https://acompanyofnations.wordpress.com/2019/03/06/fornication-adultery-and-idolatry-a-biblical-case-against-miscegenation/

The word Ethiopia itself is of interest. It is commonly thought to come from two Greek components. Aitho (to scorch) and ops (the face). Pure-blooded congoids do not commonly suffer greatly from sunburn, and it would seem that aithiops must describe a sunburn or tan. The component aithos itself may be taken to mean “shining” and if we take aithiops to mean “shining face”, then neither can this describe a Congoid, whose face absorbs light rather than reflecting it.

Aethiopid male example.

I believe that in light of this evidence the Scriptural narrative and Christian Identity position concerning the Ethiopia of Africa is wholly validated. In Ethiopia we see a land founded by White Hamites (in my opinion the Mediterranean race).

Ham had no promise of enduring posterity as Shem does through Israel, and today the Mediterranean race is found bred into adjacent races, whether Nordids in Western Europe or Congoids in the Horn of Africa. Every land where we today see Caucasoids (be they Aethiopids, Arabids or Turanids et al.) was once a domain belonging to the Adamic race, and Ethiopia is no exception.

‘Concerning the Ancient Aethiops’

https://acompanyofnations.wordpress.com/2019/01/28/concerning-the-ancient-aethiops/

Yuya.

Of course Negroes are even more foreign to Egypt than Ethiopia, and the Negro has always been an alien minority since they first arrived on Egypt. Never at any point in history has the general populace of Egypt been anything other than Caucasoid.

Relief of Egyptian men baking bread.

This is true whether we speak of the original Hamitic Mizraites, the Shemitic aristocracracy of the time of the Hebrews in Egypt (who we know to have been Europoids of haplogroup R1b) or its later, Ptolemic Greek, Arabic or other assorted more recent occupants.

https://christogenea.org/essays/race-genesis-10

https://www.igenea.com/en/tutankhamun

Ramesses II.

“Black Hebrew Israelites” like to point out that Jesus’ family fled into Egypt to hide from Herod and that St. Paul was mistaken once for an Egyptian. They then assert that this means Jesus’ family and St. Paul were Congoids who blended in among the alleged Congoid populace of Egypt. This is absurd for a number of reasons.

Relief of Egyptian men making bricks.

Firstly the family of Christ was not persued into Egypt by Herod and so would not necessarily have needed to blend in at all. Of course Egypt has never been populated by a predominantly Congoid population, and at the time of Christ it was in fact a Roman province steeped in Ptolemic Greek culture. Anyone from anywhere in the Roman Empire could’ve fit in somewhere in 1st century Egypt, and a Congoid would have stood out from the populace more than a Europoid.

Relief depicting an Egyptian couple.

It has been proven by archaeogenetics that the ancient Egyptians had less sub-Saharan admixture than even the modern Caucasoid inhabitants. Along with Ethiopia and Sheba, Egypt was given over to mongrelization as explained in Isaiah 43.3. Today Egypt remains technically almost exclusively Caucasoid and not Congoid and in antiquity this was all the more true.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694

Nefertiti

It is clear from the art of the Egyptians throughout the ages that the general populace of Egypt was always of Caucasoid stock with varying degrees of mongrelization while the only representions of Congoids depict slaves and foreigners.

https://christogenea.org/gallery/white-ancient-egypt

Thutmose III

A favoured talking point of “Black Hebrew Israelites” is that they suffered slavery and they relate this to the curses of Deuteronomy, but they only show the depth of their victim mentality and their ignorance of the suffering of others. The Barbary slave trade captured thousands of White Europeans along the coasts and from the islands of Europe and took them to their ports throughout the Mediterranean. The very word slave comes from the Slavs of Europe who were long subjected to slavery, a portion of whom surely sprang from the Israelites of the Assyrian captivity.

Of course Deuteronomy 28 does not refer to literal slavery or a literal return to Egypt but rather Egypt represents bondage. Today the Israelite nations of Christendom suffer in bondage to foreign peoples and corrupt governments who enforce upon us mass immigration at our expense. Our nations are all in debt to the powers of usury so that we can afford to fund the invasions of our own nations by illegal immigrants from Mexico and hostile “refugees” from the Middle East and North Africa. It is White Christendom which suffers the curses of Deuteronomy 28 and the Negroes are among the aliens involved in its fulfillment.

https://christogenea.org/essays/immigration-problem-and-biblical-prophecy

Many “Black Hebrew Israelites” claim that African Americans are truly native to the Americas and that they are related to the Amerindians. Aside from the absurdity of that notion from a historical perspective there is also no genetic or anthropological evidence for this claim. The native Americans preceding recorded migrations from the Old World were all of Mongoloid, Australoid or Caucasoid stock and extremely genetically distant from Congoids.

The real reasons the “Black Hebrew Israelites” accept native Americans as kin is in reality quite base: they want to fornicate with Amerindians and mestizos. Their ideas of race are very loose and they typically accept any degree of miscegenation on the maternal side. Thus they feel free to miscegenate as their kind is wont to do.

Something else is at work here. Many prominent figures in the “Black Hebrew Israelites” are of partial Latino heritage or other mysterious but obvious non-black heritage. Of course many Latinos are of Edomite Jewish “converso” descent and this acceptance of Latinos among “Black Hebrew Israelites” is a means for Edomite Jews to head or influence the movement.

https://emahiser.christogenea.org/mexicans-traced-cain-son-satan

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/29/us/hispanics-uncovering-roots-as-inquisitions-hidden-jews.html

The “Black Hebrew Israelites” like to draw attention to Jewish-African ties. They think somehow this validates their claims, but when one realizes that the Jews of today are Edomites by birth, this can only be seen as discrediting the “Black Hebrew Israelites”.

‘The Satanic Origins of the Edomite Jews’

https://acompanyofnations.wordpress.com/2019/01/27/the-satanic-origins-of-the-edomite-jews/

The Jew owned media has no qualms whatsoever with any non-White race claiming Israelite heritage and have produced many mainstream documentaries investigating the matter of the lost tribes. These documentaries consider just about every racial group but White Europeans as the Edomite Jews thrive on confusion and deceit.

The profound Edomite Jewish influence on “Black Hebrew Israelites” is quite visible in many of their customs. They often wear modern Jewish accessories like yarmulkes and “star of David” pendants (the star of Rephan or “seal of Solomon”, a Jewish occult symbol) and they often reference rabbinical literature.

The “Black Hebrew Israelites” should be seen for what they are; a conglomerate of anti-Christ imposters who desperately covet Jacob’s inheritance. An alliance of Edomite Jews and their mixed-race lackeys to undermine Christendom and further hide the truth of our Christian Israelite Identity.

Advertisements