The Arab Question, Part 1

The Arab Question, Part 1

Here I am going to present what I think is a very important concept for all Identity Christians to understand, but sadly it is still something which many Identity Christians do not yet comprehend. But even with that, there are several other and unrelated reasons why I am presenting this topic at this particular time.

Most importantly, there are still many Identity Christians who show undue sympathy for Arabs. This has long been a problem, and often because the nature of Arabs and Arab history and origins are grossly misunderstood and there have been a lot of false claims concerning Arabs. The most outstanding example of such false claims in Christian Identity literature which I can recall is in a series of papers titled Star Wars, by Nord Davis. Davis died in 1997. Some of Davis’ papers, including this one, can still be found at the Israel Elect website and elsewhere.

While I now own and manage Israel Elect, I do not agree with everything posted there. However the original intent of the website was to catalog everything Christian Identity, and when I took over ownership of the site I promised to keep it intact, which I have done, and I have not added anything new, except a few notices and referrals to Christogenea. I have also redirected some article links to corresponding material at Christogenea, but only because Christogenea websites use much newer technology that offer readers options that are not found at Israel Elect. This was done in order to increase reader retention and encourage them to examine our Christian Identity literature and beliefs more closely.

Returning our attention to Nord Davis, he was an active Identity “pastor”, writer and activist from the 1960’s until his death in the late 1990’s. Of those whom knew him personally, he certainly has detractors, among which is an acquaintance of ours, a long-time Identity Christian adherent and Congressional candidate, Rick Tyler. But for my part, I can only judge Davis by what he actually wrote, and not from any personal knowledge of him. Often while I was in prison, in my early days of study, friends had sent me copies of his so-called “Northpoint Teams” newsletter. According to Tyler, who apparently did know Davis personally, “Northpoint Teams” was an organization which had only existed in Davis’ imagination and in his newsletters. That assertion does not surprise me, and I am not speaking on behalf of Rick Tyler, but he has posted this in an article on his own website.

In his writings, Davis insisted that his readers should have alliances with and affinities for the Arab people, because the Arabs were eternal foes of the Jews, and because they were descended from Ishmael, a claim which is often made by Arabs themselves, and just as often by Jews on behalf of Arabs. However the claim is not true. It is only true that some Arabs are in part descended from Ishmael, which is evident in the history of the Nabataeans, but that they are also all mixed with Canaanites and the other aliens of Scripture, and with negros and other races, as is evident throughout the entire body of Arab history, whereby there is no Arab population that can properly even be called a nation. But Davis’ views were popular among many other Christian Identity pastors and writers of the time, and in whole or in part were accepted and shared by men whom I did know, such James Wickstrom, Eli James, and others that would probably not be recognized here, such as my old friend Ralph Daigle.

It is natural for us to have empathy for human suffering, and none of us should ever relish in unnecessary or gratuitous inflictions of suffering. However misguided empathy is also a historical problem among our people, and the negative consequences which it has caused our race are a frequent subject of our Scriptures. In truth, the Arabs have forever been in league with the Jews, and for many centuries the Jews have used the Arab races as cannon fodder in their wars against Christendom, for which reason certain Jews had also contrived the so-called religion known as Mohammedanism, or Islam, in the first place. The Jews have used the Turks in that same manner, and they also, in spite of their apparent origin in Central Asia, had accepted Islam at a very early time. That was not a coincidence. Identity Christians should have no open displays of empathy or support for either Arab or Turk, or, for that matter, for anyone of any other race.

But another reason why I am presenting this particular article at this time, is because some of my detractors are now spreading the rumor that I am a plagiarist. Evidently all of my work is only plagiarism of Clifton Emahiser, or Bertrand Comparet, as I have heard as recently as the past two weeks. If anyone actually examined my writing and compared it to others before me, I am confident that they would not be able to find even one instance of plagiarism on my part. Every writer of history or interpreter of Scripture can only cite the works of others who wrote before him, and the effective scholar should draw from as many sources as possible to create the narrative which upholds whatever it is that he is attempting to describe or to prove.

So yesterday I made a brief comparison of some of my citations in comparison with citations found in the writing of Bertrand Comparet. Doing that, I found that the Greek geographer and historian Strabo of Cappadocia is only mentioned twice in the papers I have posted from Bertrand Comparet, but he is cited in 128 articles at Christogenea. Likewise, Diodorus Siculus was mentioned only twice by Comparet, in the sermons we have posted, while he is cited in 82 articles at Christogenea. Herodotus was cited 5 times by Comparet, but in 109 articles at Christogenea. So far as I can tell, in my writing to date I have cited Homer in 72 articles, Hesiod in 29, Euripides in 50, Aeschylus in 25, Livy in 28, either Pliny, elder or younger, in 21, Thucydides in 18, and there are others such as Xenophon, Pindar, Callimachus, Apollodorus, Catullus, Theognis, Polybius and Procopius, whom I have cited, and out of all of these Comparet only mentions Homer and Pliny on a couple of occasions.

Out of all of these ancient classical writers, Clifton had only read Herodotus, and only Herodotus is found in his library, so far as I remember. Since his approach to understanding Scripture was quite different than my own, the types of content found in his library are also vastly different from my own. Clifton drew mostly from commentaries and references, although I can attest that he read them exhaustively, while I have drawn mostly from original historical sources, and have also read nearly every ancient book or author which I have cited in its entirety.

If I had to credit only one individual for what had inspired me to take the path that I chose for my Christian Identity studies back in 1997, it is E. Raymond Capt, although to some degree I could also probably credit Robert Balacius. After a year or so of study, I decided I was no longer going to read any Identity material, and only made an exception for Clifton and occasionally a few others, such as Richard Kelly Hoskins. At that time, I had read only two of Capt’s books, which are The Abrahamic Covenant and Missing Links Discovered in Assyrian Tablets. From Balacius, I had only read his Uncovering the Mysteries of Your Hidden Inheritance. Both of these men cited more of the ancient historians than Comparet had cited, and their quotations from classical histories were what interested me most. So I decided that I was only going to read the classical histories, and determined that, in addition to a closer study of the Scriptures, they would either make or break my belief in this Christian Identity message. So I took the few books I had, scribbled out a bibliography, and I was on my way.

But what is my point in all this? First, if anyone wants to call me a plagiarist, I challenge them to show me what I have plagiarized. Clifton worked with me right up until his passing last July, and he did not think I was a plagiarist. I host Robert Balacius’ websites today, and I seriously doubt that he would ever accuse me of plagiarism. The copyrights to E. Raymond Capt’s works are closely guarded by Artisan Publishers, and the owner of that company, Lynn Hoffman, is familiar with Christogenea. I am certain I would have heard from his lawyers by now if I have been plagiarizing Capt. All of the text of practically everything I have ever written is found at Christogenea, at no charge whatsoever – even the contents of the books which I sell are freely available online. So if I am a plagiarist, it should be easy enough to prove.

Generally, according to Dictionary.com, plagiarism is “an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author.” But this I have never done. Without boasting, I can honestly state that I have written more original material made freely available than any other Christian Identity writer has ever written. Perhaps Robert Balacius, who is quite prolific and who has written around sixty books or booklets, may have more written material than I have, but that is arguable, and difficult to compare. Not that I am trying to compete with Robert. While the vast majority of my writing is freely available on the internet, it is not yet published in book form. Much of it may never be published in book form.

Slander, or attacks on a personal level, are often used as a diversion so that people forget the real issues for a dispute. It is easy to slander. It is much more difficult to dig to the root of an issue, and determine whether it is true. Men who have made themselves my enemies, Eli James, Michael Brandenburg, Ryan Brennan, have done so because they have a personal agenda. They really hate me because I would not tolerate their love for non-Whites, or I would not tolerate their having gone down the path of the occult, and therefore I rejected them by rejecting their heresies. Tolerance of other races leads to idolatry, which is the lesson of the Old Testament. Prosperity Gospel is idolatry shrouded in Christian language. Identity Christians who accept any of the people who promote these ideas share in their sin, as Paul described the responsibility borne by those who accept sinners in Romans chapter 1.

But this evening, what is more important is this: that Clifton Emahiser was an inspiration to me in several different ways, and while he was my mentor, that was a reciprocal relationship as he was also my colleague. For the final nine years of my time in prison, Clifton and I were in constant correspondence, and always exchanging ideas and teaching or advising one another. That is how our relationship developed, that was how it persisted after I was released from prison, and that relationship was maintained until his dying days. Perhaps, as we discuss the Arab question from Clifton’s papers this evening, some light may also be shed on that aspect of our relationship. Perhaps also, one day I will be able to publish many of our letters, as I had saved quite a few over the years. But Clifton, whether I ever may have borrowed any of his ideas or not, would never have accused me of plagiarism. He invited me to expand upon and critique his work, he very much enjoyed the occasions when I did that, and I will continue to do that in his honor, but never for his denigration, so long as I can produce anything here at Christogenea.

So now we shall present and critique Clifton Emahiser’s September, 2006 paper:

ARABS, FRIEND OR FOE? by Clifton Emahiser

Clifton published this paper and distributed it to his mailing list just over two years before I was released from prison, so I don’t think anyone can claim that I plagiarized the credit he gave me when he wrote it.

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

If memory serves me correctly, one of the people I wrote this to was Eli James, who had initiated correspondence with me in April of that same year. In due time, it became evident that Eli never accepted this lesson, as he had reverted back to citing the writings of Nord Davis in reference to Arabs and other races after our split in early 2011.

Now Clifton cites this letter he references, saying:

I will dispense with the usual quotation marks as Bill writes the following:

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

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

Even though I had only been familiar with Christian Identity for about 9 years at this time, and I had been in prison throughout that entire period, I was already well familiar, through Clifton but also through several others, of at least most of the divisions and sects which are found among Identity Christians. But the ones which I addressed were always in relation to topics which I found to be of paramount importance, and the most important of those was the subject of race in Scripture.

It was nearly three years before this, in late 2003, that I had written to Dave Barley on this same topic. That letter and the subsequent exchange was published as one paper by Clifton under the title William Finck Challenges Dave Barley Concerning Arabs and Universalism(and Other Sins) and published at Israel Elect website a short time later. To Dave Barley’s credit, he has now recanted his former universalism, and has come to a better understanding of the role of race in Scripture.

Clifton continues with my letter:

We in Kingdom Israel Identity, the true two-seedline adherents and not the spurious blind universalist types, know that the jews are evil, and are indeed the children of the devil. It matters not how many of them live or die in Palestine! We know that the so-called Israeli state was founded upon treachery, and in doing so millions of arabs were displaced from lands occupied by them for nearly 1400 years, and indeed some of their ancestors (those who were absorbed into Islam, raped, or otherwise captured and forced to convert) lived there much longer than that. Yet we must not forget that very thing, that the arab had taken that same land from White Christian Romans and Greeks (and others) who inhabited it up until the Islamic conquests.

The recognition of injustices and misguided or misplaced empathy for the victims of injustice are two separate issues. The letter continues:

More importantly, the arabs are NOT our friends. Neither can they ever be. The very word “arab” is a Hebrew word which denotes a person of mongrel descent (see Strong’s #’s 6148, 6150, 6151 and 6154), and so therefore they are not ever pleasing to Yahweh! Furthermore, an examination into the very being of the arabs reveals that they too have the blood of the serpent, through the Kenites and Canaanites, the Moabites and Ammonites, running through their veins! The arabs, while not masquerading as Israel, still pretend to be holy and noble under pretense of certain Old Testament commandments borrowed into their ‘Koran’, and are still just as much the children of the serpent as the jews are!

The word Arab in relation to the indigenous people east of the Jordan or to the south and the ancient lands of the Biblical Edomites and Ishmaelites first appeared in literature in the Old Testament Kingdom period. It is found in 1 Kings chapter 10, 2 Chronicles chapter 9, Isaiah 21, Jeremiah 25 and Ezekiel 27. The name persisted throughout the second temple period, and into the writings of Flavius Josephus. The Romans called the land Arabia Felix, or Blessed Arabia, portraying a land which was more fertile and richer in resources than we know today.

It seems to be a general opinion of mainstream academics that Arabia was called such because the sun set in the west, over the Mediterranean, so the east was the direction from which evening comes. The word ‘ereb meaning to grow dark, it was also used to describe evening. However in the morning the sun rises in the east, so that theory makes little sense. It is my opinion that the land was called Arabia because over time, the tribes which had dwelt there had all become mixed one with another, and that includes tribes of the Shemites descended from Joktan and Peleg, and the Midianites, Moabites, Ammonites and others, as well as many of the Canaanites, Edomites and other races. By the dawn of the Hellenistic period, many of these tribal names which are found mentioned in the area in Scripture had disappeared, but that does not mean that the people themselves had disappeared. Having mingled together, they became known collectively as Arabs. Then mixing with other races, they grew dark, which is primarily what the verb form of the word means.

Clifton continues with my letter:

What’s happening in Palestine today is only Satan’s little sideshow. A great distraction which has all the eyes of the world fixed upon it, which is at least the perception which the jew-controlled media of the West likes to present.

Convincing us that everyone cares about their artificial “Israel”, they only promote their own sense of importance to others.

In the 7th century the arab Moors poured into once-White Iberia, occupying at one point the southern two-thirds of the peninsula. For that reason, unto this very day most of the inhabitants of Spain and Portugal resemble arabs, for that is what they are. It was the jews who invited the arabs into Iberia! Martin Luther wrote about it. When the mongols invaded eastern Europe, the jew merchants opened the gates of the cities to them. Luther wrote about that too. Today, many of the mongol descendants in southern Russia, and Iran, neighboring states, and the Middle East, are found practicing Islam.

When I said Russia here, more accurately I may have said USSR, not really referring to Russia proper.

Later, in the 16th century, Jews were threatening Spain with a Turkic invasion in retaliation for the Inquisition. Of course, to this very day the Jews continue to use the Islamic Arab hordes as a weapon in the destruction of Christendom, but now they are doing it with completely different tactics.

Again, Clifton continues citing my letter:

After the conquest of Iberia, the arabs advanced toward France, and they were turned back after a great effort by Charles Martel in 732 AD at Tours. This is one of the most important events in our history. Had the Moors been successful, we would all be riding carpets today and praying to a rock hidden under cover in the Arabian desert. We would also all look like the Sicilians. The Moors conquered formerly White Sicily, and held that and large portions of southern Italy for up to 200 years, until their rule was ended by Danes and Franks, and for that reason today most of the Italians, especially of the south, resemble arabs, for that is what they are.

Of course I do understand that there are many White Italians, and I know many Italians who I certainly esteem to be White. But at least most of the White Italians are found in the North. I often use Sicily as an example of what happened to much of Southern Europe during the Muslim conquests, and some of my listeners may think I am being unfair. But admittedly I have never been there, and I receive mixed reports concerning the nature of the people of Sicily to this very day. I can only say that generally, I would not consider the typical Sicilian that I met as a young man in the neighborhoods in and around New York to be White. Most of them seemed to be crypto-Jewish or Arab-looking mobsters.

I have also known several Sicilians in my own lifetime, like the New Jersey mobster Tino Fiumara, who vehemently denied being White in spite of his fair skin. When Tino was called “white” by negros, something which I witnessed first-hand in prison, he was actually insulted. But in spite of Tino’s attitude, and outside of the New York City area, I have more recently seen a few examples of fair-haired and fair-skinned Sicilians who appear to be White. Perhaps it would be more fair to pick on Portugal or Greece as an example of an eradicated and formerly White nation of Europe, than to choose Sicily, however there are always going to be exceptions to every example.

Clifton continues with my letter:

From the 12th century AD, the Islamic arab turks (‘arab’ meaning ‘mixed’) conquered and absorbed the Greek Byzantine lands, putting many Christians to the sword and raping women and children. They subdued large parts of the once all-White Balkans, and made it as far as Vienna in Austria, where their sieges failed. The muslim turks, truly an ‘arab’ race, held all of Greece until 1825, and for that reason today we have muslims in the Balkans, and many – if not most – of the Greeks today look just like arabs, because that is what they are. The Ottoman turks besieged Vienna in 1529, and again as recently as 1683. Had they been successful, we’d all be wearing kufi hats today, and grousing about the liberals who’d want to do away with our daughters’ burkhas. We would also all look like today’s Sicilians! That, to jews and arabs alike, would be heaven. For the arabs and the turks, along with the mongols, were certainly the flood spewed from the serpent’s mouth in Satan’s attempt to destroy Israel (Rev. 12:15)!

While the arabs and turks were a significant fulfillment of that prophecy, the flood is still coming, and other groups may also be added to the list. Now continuing with Clifton’s conclusion of my letter:

So how do we repay the valor of our French and German ancestors who repelled the arab invaders at Tours and Vienna? Look at France and Germany now! At the beckoning of the jews, we have let arab and turk take our countries freely! Europe is being overrun with arabs! There will be a price to pay for letting this happen! This is the real battle. We must fight for the hearts and minds of Yahweh’s true Israel people, and not be distracted by Satan’s deceptive sideshow in the Middle East. If satan fights against satan, how can his house stand? If they all destroy each other, good for them! We must only concern ourselves with our own kindred, and beware of both jews and arabs.

Bear in mind that this was 2006, and the process which is described here is much more advanced now, thirteen years later. So Clifton finishes my letter:

Concerning this, I wrote a pamphlet which Clifton shall distribute this coming week, called The Immigration Problem And Biblical Prophecy. I hope you find it to be of use. [End of William Finck’s letter to myself.]

The essay which I mentioned here has long been available as a podcast at Christogenea and it has now had in excess of 65,000 downloads. Writing that essay in 2006, I never dreamed for a second that it would reach so many people. Of course, here Clifton was citing a copy of a letter which I had at first sent to others, so he left that last line which he really did not have to include. But doing that he did me a favor, providing me with a record of when I first wrote that paper, something which I may have been unsure about in the past. Somewhere in my prison papers, there are small notebooks containing brief accounts of what I did each day, and one day I pray that I will also be able to sort through them.

My scoffers may claim that I am plagiarizing Emahiser, but very often in his writings, Clifton was citing things which I had written to him, which he always admitted doing whenever he did make such a citation. In the early years he only referred to me as “a proofreader”. But that is not plagiarism, it is cooperation, and Clifton and I purposely worked together in that manner hoping that we were working for the common good of all Identity Christians. If my detractors really ever actually read or listened to Clifton, they may realize how closely we worked together in that fashion, for nearly nineteen years. But my critics really do not trigger me, I only enjoy mocking them whenever they deserve to be mocked, which, in my humble opinion, actually happens quite often.

Now Clifton continues his essay by elaborating upon a few of the things which I had said in my letter.

THE WORD “ARAB” IN SCRIPTURE

The term “arab” in the Strong’s Concordance is [listed at] #’s 6154 and 6151. Strong’s defines # 6154 as: “... ‘êreb, ay´-reb; or ... ‘ereb (1 Kings 10:15), (with the article prefix), eh´-reb; from 6148; the web (or transverse threads of cloth); also a mixture, (or mongrel race): Arabia, mingled people, mixed (multitude), woof.” Strong’s defines # 6151 as: “... ‘arab (Chald.), ar-ab´; corresponding to 6148; to commingle:– mingle (self), mix.” The root of this verb in Strong’s is [listed at] # 6150, and is defined: “... ârab, aw-rab´; a primitive root [rather identical with 6148 through the idea of covering with texture]: to grow dusky at sundown:– be darkened, (toward) evening.”

In the Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon under # 6154, one is directed to see the root (under #’s 6148-49) No. I. i., which in turn says… : “… (1) to mingle oneself … (2) … to intermingle ... to enter into marriage ... Ezra 9:2 ...” Then under # 6151, it says: “... to mix, to mingle ... Daniel 2:43.”

Clifton may not have noticed it, and perhaps I may have proofread this better, because here where Gesenius defines the verb ‘ereb in part as “to enter into marriage”, citing Ezra 9:2, he is being deceptive, whether or not his deception is purposeful. Back then, in 2006, I could not check the entire Gesenius definition, but now I can. The only time this word ‘ereb is used in relation to marriage is where it is used in relation to a mingled marriage, to the marriage of Israelites with those of other races, which is the very context of Ezra 9:2. This and related words are also translated as mingled in Scripture, referring to people of diverse tribes, in Psalm 106:35, Jeremiah 25:20, 24, 50:37, Ezekiel 30:5 and Daniel 2:43. Most notably, it is also the “mixed multitude” of Exodus 12:38 and Nehemiah 13:3 which states “Now it came to pass, when they had heard the law, that they separated from Israel all the mixed multitude.”

Continuing with Clifton, he will mention and cite those passages and a few others:

The New Brown – Driver – Briggs – Gesenius Hebrew And English Lexicon says the following on # 6154: “... mixture, mixed company;– heterogeneous body [meaning people of another race - WRF] attached to a people; to Israel Exod. 12:38 ... Neh. 13:3 ... Jer. 25:20 ... Jer. 50:37 ... Jer. 25:24 ... 1 Ki. 10:15 ... 2 Chr. 9:14 ... Ezek. 30:5 ...” [Clifton responds to the definition:] Before we go any farther, we should read these passages mentioned first by Gesenius’ and then those by Brown – Driver – Briggs – Gesenius.

But before we do so, it would also be well to define the word “heterogeneous” as used by the latter: (1) different in kind; unlike; incongruous. (2) composed of parts of different kinds; having widely dissimilar elements or constituents.

The word literally means of another race or kind. Clifton continues:

Ezra 9:2: “For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass.”

So ‘ereb in that context doesn’t mean to marry, as Gesenius claimed, but to race-mix.

Daniel 2:43: “And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.” [emphasis in these 10 passages mine]

Exodus. 12:38: “And a mixed multitude went up also with them; and flocks, and herds, even very much cattle.” [mixed = arab]

Nehemiah 13:3: “Now it came to pass, when they had heard the law, that they separated from Israel all the mixed multitude.” [ditto]

Jeremiah 25:20: “And all the mingled people, and all the kings of the land of Uz, and all the kings of the land of the Philistines, and Ashkelon, and Azzah, and Ekron, and the remnant of Ashdod.” [more mixed people]

Jeremiah 50:37: “A sword is upon their horses, and upon their chariots, and upon all the mingled people that are in the midst of her; and they shall become as women: a sword is upon her treasures; and they shall be robbed.”

Jeremiah 25:24: “And all the kings of Arabia, and all the kings of the mingled people that dwell in the desert ...” [mingled = arabs]

This seems to have been a Hebrew parallelism.

1 Kings 10:15: “Beside that he had of the merchantmen, and of the traffick of the spice merchants, and of all the kings of Arabia, and of the governors of the country.” [Arabia = mixed]

2 Chr. 9:14: “Beside that which chapmen and merchants brought. And all the kings of Arabia and governors of the country brought gold and silver to Solomon.” [ditto]

Ezekiel 30:5: “Ethiopia, and Libya, and Lydia, and all the mingled people, and Chub, and the men of the land that is in league, shall fall with them by the sword.” [mingled = arabs]

Another word that has connotations to the idea of something mixed is the term “Belial”. Of the variant meanings for the word # 1100, “Belial”, Strong’s Concordance with # 1098 indicates something “mixed”. [“Belial” = arab = mingled]

The word “Belial” in the Strong’s Concordance is # 1100. Strong’s defines it as: “... belîya‘al ... from 1097 and 3276; without profit, worthlessness; (often in connection with 376, 802, 1121 etc.):– Belial, evil, naughty, ungodly (men), wicked.” Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon has it in part: “without ... benefit, ... unprofitableness, worthlessness, what is useless of no fruit ... useless, of no profit, little worth ... (1) wickedness vileness ... a wicked man ... a wicked woman ... an evil wicked thing ... (2) destruction ...”

I would contend that belial can refer to something mixed because something mixed was considered worthless. A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of Yahweh. In that manner Clifton continues with another definition:

The word # 1098 in the Strong’s Concordance is defined as: “... belîyl, bel-eel´; from 1101, mixed, i.e. (specifically) feed (for cattle):– corn, fodder, provender.”

Clifton did not offer the definition for the root of belial, # 1097, which the Enhanced Strong’s Concordance defines primarily as failure, but the original Strong’s as nothing or destruction. The law forbidding mingled seed of any sort, the result of mingled seed certainly is failure, so the word was applied to mingled seed in that sense. Now Clifton returns to further discuss the original word in question here, which is ‘ereb:

It should be noted that the Hebrew (‘ereb) has three different meanings, and once we comprehend their meanings, we then discover how they are related. As we see with the Hebrew definition for # 6150 above, it describes the gradual darkening of the day as the sun progresses toward sundown. It also has the Hebrew meaning of the darkening of the skin color as a person of mixed race, or as they would say in South Africa, “colored”. This meaning is assigned the Swanson # 6846, and Swanson refers us to 1 Kings 10:15; [and] Jeremiah 25:20, 24. [These verses (having been) previously quoted here.]

Unfortunately I could not find a dictionary by anyone named Swanson in Clifton’s library, although a third of it remains in cartons and awaiting new shelf space here at our new home. Continuing with Clifton:

Anyone who has ever observed an Arab has to admit that he is not as light as a Caucasian nor as dark as a Negroid, though some are close to either. This is the similarity of the meanings: that “evening” is not as light as “high-noon” nor as dark as “night”.

From the 1980 Collier’s Encyclopedia, volume 2, page 398, under the topic “Arabs”, we read the following: “The people of the Arab world have no single origin. Although Arab culture was associated in early times with the Arabian Peninsula, over the centuries many different peoples have become Arabized through adoption of the Arabic language and other features of Arab culture. For nearly all Arabization was through Islam, the major religion of the Arab world. The Arabs are as diverse physically as they are in ethnic origin. There is no Arab ‘racial type.’ Some Arabs do fit the stereotyped picture, lean and ‘hawk-nosed,’ with darkish skin and black hair, but these features are in no sense typical. Negroid Arabs are similar in appearance to sub-Saharan Africans, and light-skinned Arabs are physically indistinguishable from most Europeans.” [emphasis mine]

I must note, that most of the Arab world was originally White, as two thousand years ago even the Canaanites and Edomites were apparently white. But through Islam and the slave trade, which has been ongoing for centuries longer than most people in the West may perceive, Arabs freely interbred with Negros or other races, and over time that has produced many Negroid Arabs and many others who are one variety of dark or another. Now Clifton cites another article from the same source:

Again from the 1980 Collier’s Encyclopedia, volume 13, page 310, under the topic “Islam”, we read the following:

“... The term Islam refers not only to the religion but also to the entire body of believers and the countries they live in. Among the predominantly Muslim nations of the modern world are Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Mauritania, Chad, Egypt, the Sudan, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the other states of the Arabian peninsula, Turkey, Albania, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, and Indonesia. Large Muslim communities exist in Lebanon, Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, China, India, and the Philippines. There is hardly a region that does not have a Muslim community.

“The youngest of the world’s great religions, Islam developed in Arabia, in an area that was one of the most significant melting-pots revealed by history, and the great religious enthusiasm of the peoples living there was thereby diffused and given a universal character ...” [emphasis mine]

Clifton only wants to stress the fact that ancient Arabia was a “melting pot”, and that this is commonly acknowledged even by mainstream academic sources such as Collier’s Encyclopedia. So he continues:

Again from the 1980 Collier’s Encyclopedia, volume 13, under the topic “Islam”, and the sub-topic “Central Beliefs”, of which there are five that are termed “affirmations”, central to basic Moslem doctrine. The “fifth affirmation” is of utmost interest to us here and reads as follows on page 311:

“Fifth, the community of believers includes all who reverence Allah, His Prophet, Book, and the Day of Judgment. This is the celebrated brotherhood of Islam in which all barriers of race, color, tongue, and status are broken.” [emphasis mine]

Only a Jew, a 6th century Jew, could have written those words into a so-called “holy” book. I myself have read significant portions of the Koran, and as far as ancient texts go, it is a pitiful joke. It claims to accept Christ while mocking Christ, and making a mockery of the patriarchs and the apostles, and it presents legal arguments which justify perversion that are very much along the same lines as those found in the Mishnah, in the legal texts of the Talmud. I am convinced by the book itself, that it was written by Jews. Now Clifton draws near the end of his paper, under the subtitle:

CONCLUSION

I hope the reader is beginning to see what kind of a war we are in, and it’s not a very pretty picture. Our White Israelite people simply cannot take sides with either the satanic-jews or the satanic-arabs. Simply put, we are at war with the entire third world conglomeration of people; we have no friends, nor should we have! The bottom line is: they’re all satanic! If we absorb them, then we will also become satanic! Yes, genetically satanic! Is that the kind of grandchildren you want? There are already an awful lot of White people who have satanic grandchildren! If you want to avoid such a situation, avoid all universalist, one seedline and no-devil so-called pastors at all costs. Will this process of miscegenation never ever stop that has been going on for thousands of years, of which the arabs are a prime example?

Here is a problem which I continually face, and which recently caused me some trouble in social media once again. A certain clown named Mark Bridgford, who is a fornicator, who has an alien stepson and a Converso-Portuguese girlfriend, both of them clearly non-White, clearly arabs, has been accepted into many Christian Identity groups and circles. So when he contended with me and I called him out for his fornication, now he trolls me relentlessly. Now, evidently because of his common hatred for me, he has been accepted by Michael Brandenburg, Ryan Brennan, Sonny Eanes, and others of my adversaries. But when are Identity Christians going to be willing to stand on principle? They certainly do not have to love me. But they should love Yahweh our God and His law. The lack of principles among many people claiming to be Christian Identity but really only fooling themselves is rather astonishing. The label “CI” all too often really only stands for “Compromise Identity”, and so long as we compromise, Yahweh our God will not show us His favor. Now Clifton continues on another note:

Another people descended from the arabs are the mexicans. They are a result of the Spanish explorers who had arabs and jews among them, and they still speak Spanish today. Again from the 1980 Collier’s Encyclopedia, volume 16, page 80, under the topic “Mexico”, and the sub-topic “Ethnic Origins and Language” we read the following:

“An estimated 300,000 Spaniards entered Mexico during the three centuries of colonial rule. They mixed with the Indians, producing the mestizo element which today predominates in the Mexican population. Most of the Negroes, estimated at less than 200,000, who were brought during the colonial period to work in the mines and on the plantations have been absorbed into the population.” [Now Clifton responds:] This same article points out that there were “more than 700 tribal groups” and “100 different languages” among the Mexican-Indian element alone. Remember, the Hebrew word (‘ereb) means “mingled”.

Again, from the 1980 Collier’s Encyclopedia, volume 17, page 80, under the topic “Muslims”, and the sub-topic “The Ommiad Caliphate of Spain”, we read the following:

“... So many native Christians adopted Islam and intermarried with the conquerors that the original Muslim stock was thoroughly blended with the local peoples ...” [So Clifton correctly concludes:] Therefore, we don’t have to guess as to the general makeup of the 300,000 Spaniards who blended with the mexican-indians. All one need do is brush up on his history.

Every White Israelite today should realize that the tenets of Islam have not changed in the slightest, as each arab devotee thereto thinks in the back his mind, “White European, you either convert to Islam or you die!” A muslim doctor anyone?

This is why so many muslims in Europe regularly rape White women, either to force them to convert, or to create a generation of mixed-race children who identify as arabs and convert voluntarily. When we accept these presumed “people”, we also accept the ages-old satanic agenda which produced mixed races in the first place.

When I was a child, I was an avid reader, and I especially loved dictionaries and encyclopedias. I remember reading the definition for Mexico, and the dictionary that we had at our house said it came from the Spanish term mestizo, which referred to someone of mixed race, and especially mixed Spaniard and Indian races. Now I cannot find a dictionary which gives that origin for the word, so either they have all been sanitized, or my memory is faulty. But a large number of Mexicans still being classified even in most mainstream sources as racial mestizos today, I do not know how the connection between the words could possibly be denied.

But the bottom line is this: Neither Arabs, nor Mexicans, nor any other mixed-race or non-White groups should ever be candidates for our friendship. Identity Christians do not need friends of the non-world. Rather, they will never prevail until they seek to be friends with their God, who commands that they reject the world. Having Yahweh the God of Israel on one’s side, one is assured victory over all of the enemy, with a majority of One. We cannot have Yahweh on our side, while we side with bastards. If we side with bastards, then it is fully evident that we do not accept the Word of our God.

Clifton has several subsequent papers on this same subject, which we hope to present here in due time.