Identifying the Biblical “Beast of the Field”, Part 7

Christogenea is reader supported. If you find value in our work, please help to keep it going! See our Contact Page for more information or DONATE HERE!

  • Christogenea Internet Radio
CHR20181109-BeastField07.mp3 — Downloaded 73574 times


As long as eighteen centuries ago, certain men who were highly influenced by Jews as well as by pagan Greek philosophies had become Christians, and began writing voluminous works, many of which have been preserved to our time, although no one can claim with any great degree of confidence hat they are without corruption as we have them today. A couple of the more notable of these men are Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria. We mention these two here as examples. While it is always beneficial to see how some early Christians understood the faith of Christ, we must understand their writings in the context in which they were made, and can never accept them as replacements for Scripture in the formulation of Christian doctrine. They were never even universally recognized or disseminated for that purpose in their own time, and they were often disagreed with by other early Christian writers. But in these aspects, they were not alone: Tertullian, Irenaeus and others also shared this same plight, and deservedly so. There was no commonly accepted doctrine among the Christian assemblies until it was forced, for political expediency, beginning in the early 4th century at Nicaea and culminating with the decrees of Justinian establishing the Papacy as we know it in the 6th century, which elevated the bishop of Rome to primacy, and the bishop of Constantinople to the second place among all the bishops of the empire. Five hundred years later, the bishop of Constantinople led the first Protestant uprising against the Papacy, forming the separate Orthodox Church.

Justin Martyr was a Platonist, and influences from Plato are evident throughout his writings. He labored to label Plato and Socrates as pre-Christ or unknowing Christians because they espoused certain common concepts. But in his surviving writings, Justin did not cite Paul of Tarsus, and seems not to have even known of Paul, although he made some statements which were similar to some of those expressed by Paul. There are many errant claims based on Justin's evident ignorance of Paul, but the rational explanation for this is found in Scripture, in the Book of Acts. The apostle James told Paul “Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Judaeans there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Judaeans which are among the Nations to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.” In chapter 22 of the Book of Acts, at verses 21 and 22, it is also clear that the Judaeans despised Paul for taking the Gospel of Christ abroad to the nations, which in Paul’s own words were later described as the scattered tribes of ancient Israel. The Judaizers had won over the Christians of Judaea at an early time, and later sects in Judaea, such as the Ebionites, continued to reject Paul on that basis. Justin, being a native Samaritan who also learned Christianity from contemporary Judaeans, must have also been influenced thusly.

Clement of Alexandria was a Gnostic. He was filled with the influences of the “wisdom of this world” found in the pagan and mystic philosophies which the apostles of Christ had clearly rejected, and he sought to put a Christian facade on those philosophies. He knew of and cited Paul’s epistles, but his was a different attitude entirely. He sought to repackage Christianity in a way to make it appealing to his fellow Gnostics, so he mixed those pagan philosophies and Jewish elements into his teachings. In my opinion, Philo of Alexandria, a Judaean, was an example of a proto-Gnostic, and Clement had as much or more in common with Philo than he had with Paul of Tarsus or with Yahshua (Jesus) Christ.

To these men, who were already convinced that the promises and covenants were exclusive to Jews, Christianity was therefore a universal religion, and they preached universalism and replacement theology. However Paul of Tarsus, right to the end of his ministry, taught that the promises in Christ were made to the twelve tribes of Israel, and to the nations which are descended from the seed of Abraham through Jacob, those same tribes. Both James and Peter supported these teachings, but they are not repeated by any early Christian writer from the second century. So it can indeed be demonstrated that Christianity was corrupted from its original intents and purpose at an early time, by men who were very much influenced by the Jews.

These are the sort of men whose writings the later organized Church had chosen to preserve. However, as we have demonstrated here in other places, at least some Christians did follow the original Christianity of the apostles, such as those who had produced the Book of Odes which is found in the Codex Alexandrinus. We did a commentary here last December on the Christian Identity Liturgy in the Book of Odes. For these reasons and others, we choose to understand Christianity not from early so-called “Church Fathers” or from any late Church tradition, but from the apostles themselves and from the prophets and historical writings which preceded them.

I recently saw some of my Orthodox critics in a conversation make the claim that Paul of Tarsus upheld Orthodox Church tradition in 2 Thessalonians chapter 2 where he admonished his readers to “stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” The claim is patently absurd. Paul of Tarsus was not a Platonist or a follower of Aristotle, as many of the so-called “Church Fathers” were steeped in Plato or Aristotle. Paul of Tarsus did not set up an Orthodox Priesthood, which rather suddenly appears in Christian writings in the early 4th century. Paul of Tarsus did not promote the making of prayers to so-called saints, but rather he taught that the saints were Christians in general, and that they should all pray to God. Paul of Tarsus certainly did not support the adoration of icons, which are truly graven images and which many early Christian writers clearly despised. In Ephesians chapter 6, and in Philippians chapter 1, Paul encouraged Christians to pray for the saints, but never to any saints. The traditions which Paul upheld were those found in Scripture, and not in any pagan practices or philosophies. The traditions of the modern Orthodox Church are actually, for the most part, pagan in nature, among which are priests and icons and prayers made to men.

This same group of my Orthodox critics have now accused me of “rewriting prophecy” and of rewriting scripture to suit my own whims, particularly in Paul’s epistle to the Galatians. Of course, nothing can be further from the truth. They assail my Christogenea New Testament translation on the basis of their own church doctrine, having confidence in the false premise that their doctrine is correct, and they do not address it on the basis of the word meanings and grammar of the original Koine Greek language. If, apart from any doctrine, my translation can be proven to have transgressed the bounds of acceptable interpretation then I would repent. But if not, then they must concede that it is acceptable, and discuss the reasoning behind my interpretation without their ad hominem insults and reliance on their own traditions, which are indeed only traditions of men.

This they cannot do. They are brainwashed with replacement theology – a theology which did not belong to the apostles of Christ, but which developed after the persecutions of the true Apostolic Church which took place throughout the end of the first and the beginning of the second centuries. This period is called the “age of shadows” by Jesse Hurlbut in his Story of the Christian Church, a time in which no teachings or accounts survive from any of the immediate successors of Paul of Tarsus. Instead, in the Judaized Christianity of Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria, replacement theology began to develop, and words such as seed, son, father, house, and inheritance, among others, were assigned philosophical meanings wherever they appeared in the writings of the New Testament, meanings which were not the intention of the original authors.

Replacement theology and the universal interpretation of Christianity which it necessitates have very successfully served the purposes of the Jews. Is it not Jews who have promoted among non-Jews both egalitarianism and the imagined universal brotherhood of man? Is it not Jews who, on this same basis, insist upon equality and so-called civil rights for all races, and the destruction of borders, racial homogeneity, and national identity? It certainly is Jews who have promoted these things, and this is also what was introduced to the Judaized churches that first formed the organized so-called Christian religion, a religion which – whether Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox – was never truly Christian because it denies and perverts so many plain statements by Yahshua Christ and His prophets and apostles.

The New Covenant was made exclusively with the House of Israel and the House of Judah, which are genetic entities. Paul expressed the fact that the hope of Christ was for the twelve tribes of Israel, which are genetic entities. If the Jew were to subvert Christianity, he would subvert it with universalism in order to eventually destroy our White Adamic race, and that is exactly the plan he has followed for millennia and to this very day, where it is finally coming to fruition. But originally, Christianity was not universal.

The word Orthodox does not appear in Scripture. The word Catholic does not appear in Scripture. The application of those words after the 4th century is not even the same as how they were originally used by the early Christians writers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries. The universal churches have served the purpose of the Jews with their egalitarianism and false concepts of racial equality for many centuries.

Reconstruction is a Jewish program which began long before the 19th century, and the Christian churches which survived the persecutions of three centuries were already Judaized in many of their doctrines and in stark contrast to the teachings of the original apostles. The entire Bible is a story of reconstruction. Yahweh God is a racist who demands that men preserve the integrity of His Creation, but the devil wants to elevate beasts into the position of men so that he can promote miscegenation and the corruption of God’s Creation. Anyone who embraces those organized churches which support these age-old Jewish objectives are victims of this satanic program of reconstruction. If we are going to survive as a distinct race, we must repudiate this program in its entirety.

We must be radicals, returning to the root of our faith and our existence. The true meaning of the word radical is apparent in the fields of linguistics and mathematics. In language studies it means denoting or relating to the roots of a word, or to its most basic meaning, and in math it means relating to or forming the root of a number or quantity. As Christians of White European heritage, our root is Christ. He came only for the “lost sheep of the House of Israel”, and if we are not those people, then He is a liar, and Paul of Tarsus was wrong. But if we are those people, we have an obligation to obedience to God and to remain a separate and distinct people.

With this, we shall present:

Identifying the Biblical “Beast of the Field”, Part 7

The primary objective of this series of essays by Clifton Emahiser has been to demonstrate that none of the Hebrew words used in Scripture to describe animals are technical terms describing other races of presumed people, or hominids, as two-legged creatures are often called. So while Hebrew terms such as chay or behemah can be used to describe people, and are indeed used for that purpose on some occasions, they are not technical labels for any sort of people, and through them alone we have no reason to believe that any races of people were intended by the descriptions of the creation of animals in the accounts of Genesis.

Rather, after making his proof of that assertion, Clifton went on to discuss how in the earliest times, other races of people, those who were on the fringes of society or even outside of the general habitation of the early White race, were described as satyrs, devils, or tailless apes. Then in the most recent part of the series, in Part 6, Clifton returned to his earlier subject in order to discuss the origin of the heresy that Yahweh created all races of men, as it is expressed in some circles of Christian Identity. It was Pastor Allen Campbell of Belfast who Clifton first cited as having errantly claimed that the Hebrew term chay was a technical term for a Negro, but then a friend and reader pointed out to him that Campbell most likely got his errant information from Nord Davis, who made the same statements which Campbell had made over ten years earlier. Obviously, Campbell never fact-checked the statements made by Davis before incorporating them into his own sermons, and now many other so-called pastors and presumed teachers just as blindly follow Campbell’s adopted mistakes.

Now Clifton will summarize some of this and more in his own words, and add more proof of his basic assertions, as we present the final part of this series:


By Clifton A. Emahiser

In part #’s 1 through 6 of this series, I have addressed the many errors in identifying who are “the beast of the field”. With this paper, I will review some of the main points we have discovered concerning this Biblical expression, from various sources. In paper # 3, I gave evidence from Adam Clarke’s Bible Commentary, volume 1 of 6, pages 47-50 under “Notes On Chapter III”, and especially on the terms “nachash” and “beast” at Genesis 3:1 that the “devil” and the “ape” have the same name! Also that “Satan” is equivalent to “orangutan”. Clarke went to great lengths to try to make sense out of this passage, even going to the Arabic, as many Hebrew scholars do, when needing to understand a critical root word.

Actually the word comparisons Clifton transmitted here from Adam Clarke are from Arabic, but the strong possibility is that they predate the Arabic language, which itself was derived from Aramaic and other related languages. Clarke resorted to Arabic simply because our Hebrew lexicon is not complete, being limited to the terms found in the Hebrew Old Testament, which can hardly reflect the entire Hebrew language. So Clifton continues:

Summing up Clarke’s findings on this subject it boils down to: “We have seen… khanas, akhnas, and khanoos, signify a creature of the ape or satyrus kind. We have seen that the meaning of the root is, he lay hid, seduced, slunk away, &c.; and that khanas means the devil, as the inspirer of evil, and seducer from God and truth. See Golius and Wilmet. It therefore appears to me that a creature of the ape or ouran outang (orangutan) kind is here intended; ... Is it not strange that the devil and the ape should have the same name, derived from the same root, and that root so very similar to the word in the text [meaning the Hebrew nachash - WRF]?

Then I went on in part # 3 to show how Clarke was in agreement with the Dead Sea Scrolls! From the book, The Dead Sea Scrolls, A New Translation by Michael Wise, Martin Abegg Jr. and Edward Cook, ©1996, on page 247, a translation of 1Q23, fragments 1 + 6: “1 [... two hundred] 2 donkeys, two hundred asses, two hund[red ... rams of the] 3 flock, two hundred goats, two hundred [... beast of the] 4 field from every animal, from every [bird ...] 5 [...] for miscegenation [...]”. [underlining mine]

The point which Clifton is trying to make is this: If in the earliest legends outside of the Bible, the races of presumed people who are on the fringes of or outside of White society are described as devils, apes, or satyrs, people which are part animal and part human, and if some of the earliest Hebrew literature, even if it is apocryphal literature, informs us that the so-called fallen angels had committed miscegenation of this sort in their rebellion against God, then the myths and traditions certainly are related, and in this the origin of the non-White races is made evident, since they certainly are not explained in the Bible itself. In many places, especially in the New Testament, the Scriptures agree even if they do not describe it explicitly. So Clifton continues:

These fragments are from the oldest known manuscripts of The Book Of Giants reputedly written by Enoch whom we are told “... walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.”, (Genesis 5:24).

Here a lot of people may protest, that there is no proof that the Enoch literature was actually written by Enoch. However the apostle Jude cited writing from Enoch, a line found in that same literature, and therefore the disciple of Christ Himself esteemed what he was citing to have been from the patriarch Enoch. Many of the other concepts Jude expresses in the body of that short epistle are also similar to the writings of Enoch. So there must have been a legitimate work of Enoch that was known to the apostles, and that is most likely represented by the portions of Enoch found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are native to the same nation and time of the apostles. Therefore this evidence cannot be lightly dismissed. Continuing with Clifton:

Also in part # 3 in this series, I presented further evidence that Adam Clarke is not the only one to declare that satyr means “ape”. From A Greek-English Lexicon by Liddell & Scott, page 1232, on the Greek equivalent to the Hebrew word “satyr” we find the following definition: “ὁνοκένταυρα, ἡ, or ὁνοκένταυρος, ὁ, a kind of tailless ape, Ael. NA 17.9. 2. a kind of demon haunting wild places, LXX Is. 13:22, 34:11, 14.” Notice especially Isaiah 34:14! What better description could be given of a negroid than a “tailless ape”?

I don’t want to leave the impression that I believe or promote the premise that it was a negroid who seduced Eve in the 3rd chapter of Genesis, as that is also a mistaken presumption. At Genesis 3:1, the “beast” is Strong’s # 2416, “chay”, whereas, when a person of a nonwhite race is meant [in Scripture], it is # 929 “bhemah” as an idiom.

Here Clifton is not saying that the serpent was one such beast, or that the serpent is being compared to negros, but only that the serpent is indeed being compared to animals in general. So he continues:

One good example of four-footed/quadrupeds, [Strong’s] # 929, “bhemah” being IDIOMATIC for the nonwhite races is found at Leviticus 20:15-16: “15 And if a man lie with a beast 929, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast 929. 16 And if a woman approach unto any beast 929, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast 929: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” [Clifton exclaims:] Four-footed/ quadrupeds have sex standing upright on their feet!

As I have said where Clifton cited this passage earlier, it certainly can refer to any sort of beast, whether it has two or four legs, however non-Adamic so-called people certainly fall into that category. The word lie is only a euphemism for sexual relations in this instance, so the position of the act really does not matter. Returning to Clifton:

In part #4 of this series I cited the 1894, 9th ed. of the Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. 21, pp. 336-337 under the topic Satyr where they stated in part, “... In the earlier Greek art they appear as old and ugly, much like wild apes ...”.

Later Greek art idealized the satyr to be beautiful and attractive, very much like negroes were once depicted as ugly or unseemly in Western art, and are now depicted as angels of light in Jewish media. Returning to Clifton:

Another witness is from the World Scope Encyclopedia, vol. 10 under the topic “Satyrs” and states in part: “... The satyr of Praxiteles at Athens is a famous specimen of Greek sculpture. Pliny used the word to indicate a kind of ape.” Pliny was well learned in Natural History (i,e., zoology).

The satyr of Praxiteles was depicted as an attractive young man, but Pliny certainly seemed to be much more sensible and realistic. Continuing with Clifton:

Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary by Youngblood, Bruce & Harrison, page 59, under “Animals Of The Bible, Ape”, says in part: “... Some commentaries suggest that Isaiah’s reference to ‘satyrs’ who ‘dance’ and ‘cry to [their] fellow[s]’ (Isa. 13:21; 34:14, KJV; wild goats, NIV) would fit the dogfaced baboon honored by the Egyptians.”

Where Clifton first made this citation, we stated that “The comparison of the ‘dog-faced baboon’ to the Negro certainly cannot be overlooked. The later Egyptians, at least those of the post-Nubian period of the 25th Dynasty, believed this creature to be the inventor of writing and the scribe of the gods.” There we cited an article for a Dog-Faced Baboon amulet from the 26th Dynasty which is found at the The British Museum. Continuing again with Clifton:

There are two Hebrew words translated as “devils” in the Old Testament, and they are Strong’s #’s 8163 & 7700:

“8163 ... sâ‘îyr, saw-eer´; or ... sâ‘îr, saw-eer´; from 8175; shaggy; as noun, a he-goat; by analogy, a fawn:– devil, goat, hairy, kid, rough, satyr.”

“7700 ... shêd, shade; from 7736; a dæmon (as malignant):– devil.”

This later word is probably the origin of our English words shade and shadow. One definition for shade given by the Merriam-Webster dictionary is “a disembodied spirit, ghost…” Clifton continues:

Inasmuch as #7700 is from #7736 and that the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, by R. Laird Harris gives a better definition, I will cite him: “Undoubtedly Hebrew šēdis to be connected with the Babylonian word shêdu, a demon either good or evil. In pagan religions the line between gods and demons is not a constant one. There are demons who are beneficent and gods who are malicious. Generally speaking though, a demon was conceived as being less powerful than a god. In Mesopotamian thought the shêduwas a supernatural protective power for whose presence the gods were invoked. Specifically, the function of shêdumay have been to represent the vitality of the individual, his sexual potency….” Like the rock concerts of today, I would suggest that the motive back then for worshipping false gods was for “sexual potency”.

As I explained in Broken Cisterns, and as Clifton has probably also mentioned frequently, the pagan religions were premised upon fertility and sexual acts performed in rituals. Marriages at altars were originally sexual unions conducted in pagan temples, and many people take the same license today at rock concerts, in bars, and in other godless venues. Clifton now cites some of the passages which mention devils:

At Leviticus 17:7, #8163 [satyr] is translated as “devils”: “And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto devils 8163, after whom they have gone a whoring. This shall be a statute for ever unto them throughout their generations.”

At 2 Chronicles 11:15, #8163 [satyr] is translated as “devils”: “... for Jeroboam and his sons had cast them off from executing the priest’s office unto Yahweh: 15 And he ordained him priests for the high places, and for the devils 8163, and for the calves which he had made.”

At Genesis 27:11, #8163 [satyr] is translated as “hairy” man: “And Jacob said to Rebekah his mother, Behold, Esau my brother is a hairy 8163 man, and I am a smooth man.”

At Genesis 27:23, #8163 [satyr] is translated as “hairy” man: “And he [Isaac] discerned him not, because his hands were hairy 8163, as his brother Esau’s hands: so he blessed him.”

Here it must be stated, that not every occurrence of the word from which we have satyr, which is Strong’s # 8163, refers to a devil. Strong’s original definition for this word is “from 8175; shaggy; as a noun, a he-goat…” The word is derived by Strong from a similar-sounding verb which means to storm. We would instead derive it from the noun for hair, which is also similarly spelled and found at Strong #’s 8177 and 8181. The quality that the words have in common is roughness, and the word from which Mount Seir is named is also in the group, at Strong’s # 8165. Many words in this group are spelled alike, and often only distinguished by the added vowel pointing of the Masoretic rabbis, so they are really not different words at all. So satyr primarily refers to a rough creature, and for that reason it was used of both goats and devils, which is often clear from the context, but also of rough or hairy men. In my opinion, the name of the Latin storm god, Saturn, was also derived from these same words. This word which Clifton is illustrating, Strong’s # 8163, appears in the King James Version of Esau as hairy twice in Genesis chapter 27, where other occurrences of the word hairy, for example of Esau again in Genesis chapter 25 and of Elijah the prophet in 2 Kings chapter 1, are from Strong’s # 8181, one of the words which means hair. Clifton continues with his list, again referring to satyrs, or devils:

At Isaiah 13:21, #8163 [satyr] is translated as “satyrs”: “But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs 8163 shall dance there.”

At Isaiah 34:14, #8163 [satyr] is translated as “satyr”: “The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the satyr 8163 shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest.”

The first passage of Isaiah which Clifton mentions here is an oracle against Babylon, and the second against the land of Edom. We would think that all of the so-called people dwelling in those places today are satyrs, or devils, and thus the prophecy is fulfilled. The Hebrew term which the King James Version renders as “screech owl” in the second passage is lilith, which in later Judaean and Jewish lore is a female demon. Interestingly again, the owl was the symbol of Ishtar, who was often depicted by the Babylonians as standing with owls, and was taken later by the Ionian Greeks as the symbol of Athena, and then the symbol for Athens, where in the 5th century BC it was used on the coins which the city had minted. Continuing with Clifton’s citations:

At Deuteronomy 32:17, #7700 [shed] is translated as “devils”: “They sacrificed unto devils 7700, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not.”

At Psalm 106:37, #7700 [shed] is translated as “devils”: “36 And they served their idols: which were a snare unto them. 37 Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils 7700.”

Surely Paul had these eight passages in mind when he wrote the following at 1 Corinthians 10:20: “But I say, that the things which the [lost Israelite] nations sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.”

In Colossians chapter 2 Paul connects this pagan worship to the “worshiping of angels”, ostensibly, to the fallen angels who were the source of the world’s false religions. The connections are also made by the pagans themselves, in surviving Akkadian, Babylonian and Greek literature. An over-arching theme of Old Testament Scripture is that the acceptance of these rough beasts from the margins of society leads to idolatry and the worship of their false gods, and ultimately also to miscegenation. Now Clifton is going to discuss the ultimate consequences of that idolatry in summary with what he has presented throughout this series:

Today, we as Israel, are worshiping devils as we did in Biblical times, and these devils are surely “tailless apes”! The altars where we worship them are the television sets throughout our homes, and other places, and the devils are the tailless-apes running up and down the various football fields, basketball courts or [in] other sporting endeavors. Not sports only, but this also includes almost every kind of production broadcast on television today! It seems that it is impossible to have any sort of entertainment without having a tailless-ape in it!

The circumstances today prove our interpretation of the Bible to be consistent, and therefore correct, beyond all reasonable doubt. As we see the Jewish-dominated media and entertainment industry promote every non-White beast along with open borders and endless immigration, we should understand that this is Satan gathering the nations against our Adamic race in the last days, that this is the serpent which releases a flood in its final attempt to destroy the woman of the Revelation, who represents the true people of God. Today, if one even distinguishes differences among the races, one is demonized by these same demons! But it was not always that way, as Clifton proceeds to explain:

But it wasn’t always this way in America, as back in 1880, a professor of geology and paleontology at the University of Michigan by the name of Alexander Winchell wrote a book titled PreAdamites. I will quote him from pages 68 to 73 in a chapter titled “Principal Types Of Mankind”:

“Among black-skinned peoples we recognize no less than four races. Besides their black or very dark skins, they all have narrow heads (dolichocephalous – a term which means having long heads; but they are only relatively long because so thin) and projecting (prognathous) jaws. They possess long thigh bones, and sometimes, also, long arms. The shanks are lean, the pelvis is obliquely set, and the secondary sexual characters are deficient. The Negro race is further distinguished by short, crisped hair, each fibre of which is flattened like the fibre of wool. The beard is almost wanting, the lips are thick and prominent, the mouth often enormously large, the forehead retreating and the nose flattened. The skin is thick and velvety, and emits an exhalation of a pungent, unpleasant and characteristic odor. Most Negroes also have meagre thighs, calfless legs, elongated heels and archless feet. The home of the Negro is all Africa from the southern border of the Sahara to the country of the Hottentots and Bushmen – except some portions on the extreme east, and a belt along the tenth parallel of latitude north, extending from near the west coast nearly to the center of the continent, which regions have fallen into the possession of hybrid Hamites interspersed with fewer hybrid Semites.”

These would be considered Arabs, wandering Sabeans, Lubim, Ethiopians and Egyptians and others who had mixed with negros at an early time. Arab traders were bringing negros as far east as China, Malaysia and the Philippines long before Europeans reached those areas in the colonial period. Continuing with Clifton’s citation of Winchell:

“The Bantu family of Negroes occupies the known portion of South Africa from the parallel of 20° south to that of 5° north. The eastern tribes include the people of Zanzibar, and the Mozambique nations from the coast to lake Nyassa. The Betshuans are farther inland, and the Kaffir tribes belong to the east. The west coast Bantus include the Bunda nations, the Ovambo, the Ba-nguela (Bengals - WRF) and the A-ngola (Angolans - WRF). A second division embraces the Congoes, and a third, in the northwest, includes the tribes of the Gaboon and the Cameroon mountains.

“The Soudan [Sudan - WRF] family of Negroes stretches from the Atlantic coast to the valley of the upper Nile, occupying all the space between the Desert and the Bantus except the belt held by the Fulbe, who will be mentioned presently. Among them we find, in the west, tribes speaking the dialects of Joruba and Dahomey, those on the Gold Coast, and the Ashantees, Fantees and Mandingoes. Between the Gambia and the Senegal live the Joloffers, ‘the finest of the Negro races.’ Between the Niger and Bournou is spoken the Hausa language, known to Herodotus. The tribes of Bournou and those speaking the Téda stretch farther eastward, to the border of the Libyan Desert. The lowest of all Negro tribes are found in the region of the White (or western) Nile. Here are the Shillook and Dinka tribes, which, in physical characters, also closely resemble the Fundi Negroes of the Blue (or eastern) Nile. The latter founded the kingdom of Sennaar. They have very long crimped hair, a skin possessing a strong odor, and a color ‘varying from brown to blue-black, with the exception of the hand and the sole of the foot, which are of a flesh-red color. The finger nails are also of an agate-brown. The lips are fleshy, but not intumescent [swollen - WRF]; the nose straight or slightly aquiline, as among many Negroes of southern and western Africa.’ It is extremely probable that the Fundi are of mixed race.

“In the district of the Niger, stretching along the tenth parallel of latitude, are found the Fulbe or Fulah, a peculiar people who have sometimes been described as a red race. By surrounding nations they are called Peuls, Foulahe, Fellani, Fellatahs and Foulan. They have a reddish, yellowish or brownish color, and oval face, a long and somewhat arched nose, teeth vertical, lips somewhat thin, figure slim and tall. The hair is black, glossy, long, and reaching to the shoulders. They are shepherds and nomads, and in religion, professors of Islam. They are said by Barth to have come from the east at a remote period. According to other authorities they are known to have reached this region from the north. Friedrich Müller, who places them in ethnic association with the Nuba, refers them collectively to the northeast. In any event, they are not an African type, and cannot be cited as proof of the diversification of the Negro race. Features, language, religion amid traditions point them out as a hybridized colony of Hamites from Barbary. The Nuba are probably hybridized Hamites from the east coast. On all the borders of these nations is noticed a blending with the Negro type.

The records of ancient Egypt indicate a mixing of Egyptians with Nubians nearly as long ago as the time of Abraham, and Egyptian pharaohs kept harems of Nubian women in the south. Again continuing with Winchell:

“The other black race of Africa is that of the Hottentots and Bushmen. They occupy the southern parts of the continent. The common characters of these two families are the tufted matting of the hair of the head, a scantiness of hair upon other parts of the body, moderate prognathism, laterally projecting cheekbones, full lips and a narrow opening of the eyes.

“The Hottentot family, styled by themselves Koi-Koin, speak a language of great ethnological interest, since, according to Moffat, Lepsius, Pruner Bey, Max Müller, Whitney and Bleek, it presents some resemblance to the language of ancient Egypt. Though other philological authorities dissent from this view, the existence of an opinion of this kind, so well indorsed, proves that the Koi•Koin are in possession of a language which has reached a remarkable development. Whether these people are descendants, with more or less extraneous mixture, from the ancient Egyptians, or have lived in communication with them, or some other civilized people, are questions which naturally arise for discussion. It is not impossible that even so rude a people as the Koi-Koin should have created a language as complex and polished as that which they employ; though it seems more probable that they present to-day the mere ruins of a former better condition, or the reminiscences of ancient contact with a higher race.

“The Bushman family (called also Bojesman, from Boschjes-man of the Dutch) are of smaller stature. Their complexion is of a leathery-yellow or brown color, and the skin becomes greatly wrinkled at an early age. The women possess an enormous development of fat upon the haunches, which is known as steatopygy, and also a character which Cuvier styles ‘la particularité la plus remarquable de son organization,’ [the most remarkable feature of its organization,] the so-called ‘apron,’ or enormous development of the nymphae [the inner folds of skin of the vagina - WRF], together with some other sexual peculiarities. The two sexes, beyond these particulars, have but feeble secondary characters for their distinction.”

Since Winchell discussed those negros dwelling along the banks of the Nile River with which the ancient Greeks had some contact, here I will cite Diodorus Siculus’ opinion of these same beasts, from his Library of History, Book 3, which was first published some time around 36 BC. After describing the cultured people of Ethiopia, who were originally not black and who had many things in common with the rest of the civilized world, Diodorus says:

"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)

Now Clifton responds to Winchell’s description of the negros and offers a further citation:

While I don’t rate him 100%, here again is an excerpt from Alexander Winchell’s book titled PreAdamites. I will quote him from pages 156-157, chapter 11, titled “Race Distinctions”:

“That the Brown races constituted wide-spread populations in Asia and Europe at the time of the dispersion of the posterity of Noah, seems to be a conclusion established beyond reasonable cavil [petty objections - WRF]. I anticipate that the judgment of anthropologists will yet pronounce them preadamites. The four Black races must be regarded as prenoachites, on the strength of all the evidence which concerns the epoch of the Brown races, together with the added evidence which I shall offer that they are even descended from preadamites.

Being a studied paleontologist, Professor Winchell understood that the nations of Genesis chapter 10 were all White, and that the Adam of the Bible was certainly White, and also that in the Bible are found only the origins of the White race. For this same reason, before I knew that Winchell even existed, when I first began to write my own concise articles on ancient history and Scripture, I began with The Race of Genesis 10, to show it was all White. As we shall discuss briefly, Winchell’s work was rejected by the religionists of his day, and our view is rejected by religionists today, as the universal Roman and Eastern Orthodox churches have always taken for granted, and have even forced the opinion, that all men are alike and all were described in the Adam of the Genesis creation. But to the contrary, all of the Genesis 10 nations can indeed be identified in ancient history and archaeology, and they were all White, in spite of what the mainstream denominations and modern so-called Bible scholars claim. The idea that many different races all came from the three sons of Noah is not only quite childish and contrary to Nature, but it is also contrary to Scripture and to the God of Nature. Continuing once again with Winchell:

“When we contemplate the Black races in their general expression, they appear to be strongly isolated from the rest of mankind. In their anatomical, physiological and psychic characteristics, we can barely say that a deep-laid basis of human sympathy and likeness exists between them and us [exactly what Diodorus Siculus had said about them - WRF]; but this is so covered up by the more obtrusive details of their being and life, that the first impression remains ineradicable, that these are creatures which are practically strange to our tastes, our modes of thought and our very natures. I shall claim for these races all the characteristics, rights and responsibilities which pertain to humanity; but I will not affect to ignore the ethnic chasm which splits them from the mass of [White - CAE] Noachite humanity. Withdrawn in their color, features and relative intelligence, they are similarly withdrawn in their geographical positions. Shut up for countless ages within the bosoms of vast and impenetrable continents, it seems as if Nature, conscious of their irremediable estrangement, had contented herself to herd them in regions where they would never mingle in the stir and strife of social and national struggles. When we consider what mankind has achieved, these humble races never enter our thoughts. They have written no history; they have achieved no results for history to record. Their thousands of years outlived are silent, and dark and blank; not an echo of a former generation comes down to our apprehension. If we learn aught of their past, it is through the studies of the White race. If we unravel the mystery of their migrations, their affinities, or their origin, it is by studying their zoological characters and their fossil remains, as we investigate the natural history of the horse or the pig. For all which they have achieved, this planet would have remained in the wildness and raggedness of Nature. All which they have accomplished would have left our continents in the condition in which they were the home of the Brontotherium [which is a sort of rhinocerus now extinct - WRF], the Sivatherium [which is a sort of giraffe now extinct - WRF] or Coryphodon [which is perhaps a sort of hippopotamus now extinct - WRF] of middle and earlier Tertiary time. The breach which separates brutishness, indolence, inertia and stupidity from the indomitable energy; the flashing intellect, and the heaven-reaching aspirations which have made our planet the abode of civilization, art and science, is a breach which reaches back more than a few centuries, more than a few generations, and must find its origin deep in the ages, and in the early divarication [or spreading - WRF] of courses of events which have emerged in our own times. In short, these races were preadamic.”

Now Clifton responds with another statement, a citation made by Winchell:

At the bottom of page 157, Winchell quotes a brief comment by Theodore Parker thusly:

“The following is Theodore Parker’s estimate of the relative importance of the Caucasian race: ‘The Caucasian differs from all other races: he is humane, he is civilized, and progresses. He conquers with his head as well as with his hand. It is intellect, after all, that conquers, not the strength of man’s arm. The Caucasian has been often master of the other races – never their slave. He has carried his religion to other races, but never taken theirs. In history, all religions are of Caucasian origin. All the great limited forms of monarchies are Caucasian. Republics are Caucasian. All the great sciences are of Caucasian origin; all inventions are Caucasian; literature and romance come from the same stock; all the great poets are of Caucasian origin, – Moses, Luther, Jesus Christ, Zoroaster, Buddha, Pythagoras were Caucasian. No other race can bring up to memory such celebrated names as the Caucasian race. ... To the Caucasian belong the Arabian [sic pre-Arabic Ishmaelites & Joktanites - CAE] Persian, Hebrew, Egyptian; and all the European nations are descendants of the Caucasian race’.”

Of course, even the so-called “fallen angels” must have originally been Caucasian, in the sense in which Winchell and Parker used the term.

So we see that Alexander Winchell shared at least many of our own views on race and Scripture, as long ago as 1875. Winchell was apparently a polymath who had graduated from Wesleyan University in Connecticut in 1847, and had his first jobs teaching at seminaries in New Jersey, New York and Alabama. He then went on to a position of professor of physics and civil engineering at the University of Michigan in 1854. Later he became professor of geology and paleontology at that same school. For 12 years he also served as the State Geologist of Michigan. In 1872 he became Chancellor of Syracuse University in New York, but had to resign two years later, after financial problems caused by the depression of 1873. Working as professor of geology and zoology at Vanderbilt University in 1875, he had to resign in 1878 after controversy following the publication of his book, Adamites and Preadamites: or, a Popular Discussion, which turned out to be not so popular after all. He was, however, able to return to the University of Michigan, and his former position of professor of geology and paleontology. The full title of the book which Clifton cites here is Preadamites or a Demonstration of the Existence of Men Before Adam; Together with a Study of Their Condition, Antiquity, Racial Affinities, and Progressive Dispersion Over the Earth. In its fourth edition it was published in 1888 in Chicago by S.C. Griggs and Company, and simultaneously in London by Trubner & Company. Once upon a time, a man could still have a career even if he spoke truthfully about history, religion, society and race.

Clifton now responds to Winchell, with what would turn out to be his final remarks in this series of papers:

You will notice that I added Ishmael and Joktan in brackets as they were White Adamites. It was only later that Ishmael and Joktan arabized their bloodlines by mixing with the non-Adamic peoples. [And first with the Canaanites, who had mixed with both Kenites and Rephaim. - WRF] You will also notice that Theodore Parker spoke of Zoroaster, Buddha, and Pythagoras as being White, and, yes it is true! Parker also spoke of Confucius being a Chinese philosopher, but I would rather believe that Confucius was a Chinese-jew! There are Chinese-jews, but the main object of this series of papers is to correctly identify [the meaning] of the Biblical idiom, “the beast of the field”.

The purpose of Clifton’s series of papers was multi-faceted. First, he wanted to demonstrate that the phrase “beast of the field” was not a technical term for non-White races, but generally referred to mere animals, and in his earlier portions he accomplished that. Then he wanted to show that the terms for beast were sometimes used idiomatically to refer to the non-Adamic races, and he also accomplished that. With this in mind, we see that the Bible does not necessarily describe the creation of non-White races, but instead, for want of better terms, sometimes certain supposed people are considered to be beasts, where the terms for beast are used idiomatically, as pejoratives, in the same manner in which many other terms for animals are also sometimes applied to people in Scripture. Finally, Clifton sought to demonstrate that there were so-called people from outside of the Adamic society who were in ancient times considered hybrids of animal and human, and likened to tailless apes, devils and satyrs. We would assert that this is also how we must view the non-White races of today, because that is how they were viewed by our most ancient ancestors.

Even Rudyard Kipling, in his famous 1899 poem The White Man’s Burden, appropriately viewed the races of Asia as “half devil and half child”, and astutely predicted that the non-Whites which the White man was attempting to civilize would ultimately despise and rise up against him, undoing all of the civilization that the White man had created. We see that process happening today before our very eyes, and the Jew celebrates our undoing.

As Yahshua Christ explains, in the end the sheep are separated from the goats as a shepherd normally distinguishes the different species of animals: on sight. All of the sheep enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, and all of the goats are cast into the “fire prepared for the devil and his angels”. Without a doubt, their ultimate fate indicates the source of their primordial origin.

With this, early Christian writer Justin Martyr agreed, but it is not something which is found in the Greek philosophy that he also followed. This is evident in the Second Apology of Justin:

Chapter V.—How the Angels Transgressed.

But if this idea take possession of some one, that if we acknowledge God as our helper, we should not, as we say, be oppressed and persecuted by the wicked; this, too, I will solve. God, when He had made the whole world, and subjected things earthly to man, and arranged the heavenly elements for the increase of fruits and rotation of the seasons, and appointed this divine law – for these things also He evidently made for man – committed the care of men and of all things under heaven to angels whom He appointed over them. But the angels transgressed this appointment, and were captivated by love of women, and begat children who are those that are called demons; and besides, they afterwards subdued the human race to themselves, partly by magical writings, and partly by fears and the punishments they occasioned, and partly by teaching them to offer sacrifices, and incense, and libations, of which things they stood in need after they were enslaved by lustful passions; and among men they sowed murders, wars, adulteries, intemperate deeds, and all wickedness. Whence also the poets and mythologists, not knowing that it was the angels and those demons who had been begotten by them that did these things to men, and women, and cities, and nations, which they related, [the poets] ascribed them to god himself, and to those who were accounted to be his very offspring, and to the offspring of those who were called his brother), Neptune and Pluto, and to the children again of these their offspring. For whatever name each of the angels had given to himself and his children, by that name they called them.

Here it is evident that to Justin, demons are men born among us who were the result of the unions between women and the so-called “fallen angels”, but there is more. From The Dialogue of Justin, Philosopher and Martyr, with Trypho, a Jew, from Chapter 4 which was titled The Soul of Itself Cannot See God:

[Trypho:] “‘And what do those suffer who are judged to be unworthy of this spectacle? ’said he.

[Justin:] “‘They are imprisoned in the bodies of certain wild beasts, and this is their punishment.’

[Trypho:] “‘Do they know, then, that it is for this reason they are in such forms, and that they have committed some sin? ’

[Justin:] “‘I do not think so.’

[Trypho:] “‘Then these reap no advantage from their punishment, as it seems: moreover, I would say that they are not punished unless they are conscious of the punishment.’

[Justin:] “‘No indeed.’

[Trypho:] “‘Therefore souls neither see God nor transmigrate into other bodies; for they would know that so they are punished, and they would be afraid to commit even the most trivial sin afterwards. But that they can perceive that God exists, and that righteousness and piety are honourable, I also quite agree with you, ’said he.

[Justin:] “‘You are right,’ I replied.

So, according to Justin Martyr, not only are demons people, but evil spirits are locked in the bodies of wild beasts, who are also evidently people, as the apostles Peter and Jude both described those infiltrators among us as “natural brute beasts”. With this aspect of Justin’s teachings, which is certainly Christian and Biblical, we wholeheartedly agree. However the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Church, which claim to be founded on the so-called Church Fathers, did not at all follow any of the early church fathers, so they imagine that beasts can be people, and then they attempt to make Christians out of devils, contrary to the teachings of Christ. Even before they started, the “Catholic” and “Orthodox” churches were cucked by the Jews, by Satan himself.

CHR20181109-BeastField07.odt — Downloaded 419 times
CHR20181109-BeastField07.mp4 — Downloaded 2036 times