Aryan as a Racial Name

Aryan as a Racial Name

Thomas Allen

Although many people objected to using “Aryan” as the name for the White race  (or more correctly, the White species, Homo albus), it is an appropriate term. Caucasian, which is commonly used for the White race, suffers a major problem. It covers both White Caucasians, who should be called “Aryans,” and Brown Caucasians, who should be called Melanochroi (H. brunus).  Thus, “Caucasian” generally includes many people, such as the inhabitants of India and Ethiopia, who do not properly belong to the White race. (They are part of the Melanochroic species.) Similarly, “European” also suffers from problems and is even more misleading and confusing when used to refer to people in the Middle East and northern Africa who are White Caucasians. 

A major objection to using “Aryan” is that it is a name for a language group, a subclass of the Indo-European language family. This argument is fallacious, and those who use it are inconsistent. Many racial types have the same name as the language that they speak. Examples of language names used as names of races or racial types are Celt, Semitic, Berber, Tungus, Chinese, Turk, Mongolian, Malay, Polynesian, Lapp, Eskimo, Bantu, Hamite, Arab, Khoisan, and Melanesian. 

Nearly all people identified as Aryan speak an Indo-European language, which in former times was referred to as Aryan. (The notable exceptions are the Basques, Finns, Hungarians, Southern Mediterraneans of North Africa, and various peoples of the Caucasus and Middle East.) Except for Melanochroic Indians and various peoples who have acquired Aryan languages in recent centuries from Aryan imperialism, Aryan languages are spoken only by Aryans. Another advantage of using “Aryan” as the name for the White race (H. albus) is that no nationality or geographical area is known by this name. Thus, the use of this name prevents confusion with a particular nationality or geographical area. These facts make “Aryan” preferable to “Caucasian” as a name for this species. (A minor disadvantage to using Aryan is that some people limit it strictly to Nordics or Alpines. Also, Aryan was the name of an ancient but now extinct tribe that invaded India several thousand years ago.) “Aryan” was commonly used in the nineteenth century and into the early twentieth century as a racial name. Further, the word rolls off the tongue better than other names for this species. For these reasons, among others, “Aryan” is the preferable name for the White race (species), although the primary reason is to prevent confusion with what “Caucasian” has come to represent.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More anthropology articles.

Before and After

Before and After

Thomas Allen

Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment made fundamental changes to the United States and the Constitution of 1788. Although they did not alter the words of the Constitution that existed in 1860, the Constitution that was ratified in 1788, they changed their meanings. Moreover, the Fourteenth Amendment destroyed the fundamental principles on which the Constitution was based. Furthermore, it was illegally and unlawfully ratified (see “Addendum to ‘For Whom Is the Constitution Written?’” by Thomas Allen).

Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment slew the Tenth Amendment. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court will occasionally resurrect it to give “we the people” of the States the illusion that they still have rights.

Before Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, the States were independent, sovereign republics.[1] After Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, the States lost their independence, sovereignty, and republican form of government and became little more than administrative districts in a consolidated national empire. (For the difference between Lincoln’s Constitution and the Constitution of 1788, see “What Is Your View of the US Constitution?” by Thomas Allen.)

Before 1860, most people who preferred a national empire to a federation of republics considered the United States as a federation of States and the federal government as having limited powers.

Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment demolished the Jeffersonian tradition of States’ rights by which the people of the States were the masters rather than the servants of the federal government. Afterwards, the federal government became the master of all, and the people, other than the oligarchs, were reduced to servants, even slaves, of the ruling elite.

Before Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, most people viewed the Constitution as restraining the federal government and not the people. Even people who wanted little or no restraint saw the Constitution limiting their lust for power, which is why they had Lincoln and the Republicans change it. Afterwards, it no longer restrained the federal government; they gave it almost unlimited powers. 

Before Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, people became citizens of the United States by being citizens of a State. Afterwards, people were citizens of a State by being citizens of the United States. (Moreover, the United States ceased to be referred to in the plural [are] and became referred to in the singular [is].) Thus, citizenship was changed. Additionally, before, only Whites were citizens. Although a State could grant Indians and Blacks certain privileges of citizenship, they were not and could not be citizens. They were aliens.

Before Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, sovereignty resided in “we the people” of each State. Afterwards, sovereignty resided in the oligarchs who controlled the federal government. Thus, the location of sovereignty was changed.

Before Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, the country was monoracial. The founding fathers said so (for proof, see “The Constitution of 1788 Was Only for White People” by Thomas Allen; also see “For Whom Is the Constitution Written?” and “Addendum to ‘For Whom Is the Constitution Written?’” by Thomas Allen). Afterwards, it was multiracial.

As a result of the Fourteenth Amendment, the descendants of the people who built this country, i.e., Whites, Aryans, are being genocided. In 1950, 89 percent of the population was White; by 2020, only 61 percent were White.

Between Monroe and Lincoln, many of the presidents and other political leaders favored a consociated national empire and, with one exception, would not have objected to what Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment did to the country. That exception was the Fourteenth Amendment turning the United States into a multiracial country. After Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, all presidents, except for Cleveland, supported a consolidated national empire, where the States were no longer independent republics but were districts of the empire. Moreover, before World War II, nearly all would have objected to the Fourteenth Amendment turning the United States into a multiracial country.

Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Thus, if right to vote for judicial officers of a State is denied to any eligible voter (male citizens 21 years old and older at that time), the number of Representatives in the House of Representatives shall be reduced in the proportion to the number of male citizens denied the vote to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. Only in 21 States do the voters elect all judges. In the other States, the Supreme Court and most appellate court judges are appointed or selected by the legislature. Therefore, only the 21 States where all judges are elected should have representation in the House of Representatives.

Endnote

1. Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment voided the first part of Article IV, Section 2, which guarantees States a republican form of government. Only a sovereign can have a republican form of government; only a sovereign can be a republic. Therefore, a State must be sovereign to have a republican government. As a sovereign, a State, i.e., “we the people” of that State, has the right to decide if an act of the federal government is Constitutional. If a State finds that an act of the federal government is unconstitutional, it may nullify that act and prevent its enforcement in that State. Moreover, it may withdraw from the compact, i.e., secede. However, Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment stripped the States of their sovereignty, and, consequently, they denied the States the right to have a republican form of government. (See “Returning Republican Governments to the States” by Thomas Allen.)

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Beware of the Satanic Dream of Nimrod

Beware of the Satanic Dream of Nimrod

Thomas Allen

[Editor's note: This article was submitted in 1988 to the "Southern National Newsletter" of the Southern National Party.]

One of the greatest threats that faces the Caucasian-white (Aryan) Christian today is his ignorance of the dream of Nimrod. This ignorance has brought the South to the verge of destruction that it faces today.

The dream of Nimrod[1] is a universal brotherhood of man with its concomitant one-world government, economy, culture, religion, and race. The dream of Nimrod is the universal one-world state with its socialist economy and totalitarian government. (Whether this government is democratic, aristocratic, oligarchic, or autocratic in form matters little. By the nature of its objective, universal brotherhood, it would have to be totalitarian.) The society of Nimrod would have one culture, language, religion, and race. The difference among men could not be tolerated.

If you hear someone advocating or exalting a political system that consolidates and concentrates political power in the hands of the majority (democracy), which is often erroneously and euphemistically called the people, a particular class or faction (aristocracy), a small group (oligarchy), a particular religious order or sect (ecclesiarchy), or an individual (autocracy or monarchy), beware. You may be listening to someone possessed by the dream of Nimrod.

If you hear someone advocating or exalting communism, socialism, fascism, mercantilism, protectionism, welfare statism, or any other economic system where political power is used to transfer wealth from one group to another, beware. You may be listening to someone possessed by the dream of Nimrod.

If you hear someone advocating or exalting a social system that accepts racial integration, miscegenation, homosexualism, adultery, fornication, licentiousness, debauchery, governmental indoctrination of children (public education), human sacrifice (abortion and euthanasia), and other forms of moral degeneracy, beware. You may be listening to someone possessed by the dream of Nimrod.

If you hear someone advocating or exalting humanity while belittling the spiritual or advocating or exalting atheism, agnosticism, Gnosticism, animism, naturalism, Marxism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Calvinism, Unitarian Universalism, Quakerism, and other forms of secular humanism, paganism, pseudo-religion, or universal religion, beware. You may be listening to someone possessed by the dream of Nimrod.

That a person advocates one or more of the aforementioned positions does not necessarily mean that he is possessed by the dream of Nimrod. Nevertheless, the more consistent a person is in advocating these positions, the more likely that he is possessed. If a person advocates a political, economic, social, or religious system that resembles Nimrod’s, i.e., systems that concentrate and consolidate power and create uniformity, he is most likely possessed by the dream of Nimrod.

Most of today’s political, business, labor, social, and religious leaders, however, are possessed by the dream of Nimrod. They seek a satanic universal state with its one-world socialistic economy and government and its satanic society and culture of debauchery and licentiousness. They seek to destroy the Heavenly Father and His Christ.

The South is one of the few strongholds[2] of Caucasian-white [Aryan] Christians remaining in the world today. For this reason, those possessed by the satanic dream of Nimrod are diligently working to destroy the South. Only a free and independent confederation of free and independent Southern States can, with God’s help, save the South from the demonic dream of Nimrod. Only then will the Southern States be able to drive these modern-day Nimrods from among them. Only then will the Southern States be able to defend themselves from the dream of Nimrod and those possessed by his dream. Only then will the people of the South be able to live free and enjoy the liberties that God intended them to have. They would then become a beacon guiding their Caucasian-white [Aryan] brethren in Europe, the Soviet Empire, and the remainder of the Americas to throw off their oppressors.

Endnotes

1. Nimrod was the architect of the Tower of Babel. His goal was to rule the world and all mankind. Before God intervened, Nimrod was well on his way to establishing a universal state with one government, religion, culture, language, and race.

2. South Africa, especially the Afrikaner, is perhaps the only other stronghold of any significance remaining. This is why the world powers are trying to destroy South Africa with a race war and turn it into a Soviet colony. Unfortunately for the South African Whites, their “leaders” betrayed them. Now, the Afrikaner faces genocide as thorough as the genocide of the Indian tribes in the Americas, many of whom are now extinct. [Note: This article was written before the Afrikaners and other White South Africans were betrayed by their "leaders," who surrendered almost unconditionally to African Negroes.]

Copyright © 1988, 2025 by Thomas C. Allen.

More political articles.

Only One Race: The Human Race

Only One Race: The Human Race

Thomas Allen

The notion that only one race, i.e., the human race, exists is globalist propaganda — be it from the Catholic Church of years gone by, which many gullible or ignorant Protestants still believe, or today’s globalist elite. It meshes seamlessly into their nightmare of a one-world state with its one-world government and one-world religion. To achieve this globalist goal, humanity must be homogenized into a monochromatic, mongrel man with as little individual distinction as possible. 

Proponents of “only one race, the human race, exists,” which is also known as the “unity of man doctrine,” are, in essence, calling Martin Luther King a liar. King’s agenda was based on the existence of multiple human races. Fervently, he advocated giving Negroes special privileges. If the Negro race does not exist, it cannot receive special privileges. The existence of the Negro race with special privileges necessitated the existence of other races. (For more on King, go to https://tcallenco.weebly.com/social-issues.html.)

Adherents of “only one race, the human race, exists” assert that all the races (or people groups, as many prefer) came into being following the Tower of Babel dispersal.  Only two actions could have caused the formation of the human races: the miraculous or the natural. The miraculous requires God to create the races. Although Acts 17:26b supports the miraculous approach, they reject it. The natural requires Darwinian principles, i.e., evolution, although they reject evolution.  (See “Jeremiah on the Fixity of Race” and “Analysis of ‘How did all the different “races” arise (from Noah’s family?’” by Thomas Allen.) Curiously, these adherents deny the existence of the various human races while describing how they came to be and acknowledging that various races or people groups have recognizable features.

Most likely, adherents of “only one race, the human race, exists” reject the miraculous approach because it interferes with their unity of man doctrine. If God created the human races, then obviously, He would want them preserved. Consequently, they would have to support policies that protected them: segregation and separation. However, their unity of man doctrine requires, even demands, integration, miscegenation, and amalgamation: policies that destroy them. Thus, they promote the demise of the races that God created.

Often, proponents of “only one race, the human race, exists,” like to ask people who reject their doctrine of the unity of man, “Is there a superior race?” or similar questions. (If races do not exist, a superior race cannot exist.) They seem to expect as a response, “Yes, the White or Aryan race,” or words to that effect. They do not expect or accept any person, especially a White, to identify the superiority of another race.

For example, in general, Negroes are superior to Whites as boxers. They have the innate advantage of thicker skulls and, therefore, can better withstand blows to the head. Also, they have longer arms and can, thus, hit a White target before a White gets close enough to hit them.

Another example is that Blacks in general are superior to other races at playing basketball. The dominance of Black players in the National Basketball Association proves this superiority. Approximately 72 percent of NBA players are Black. Likewise, since this example conflicts with their doctrine of the unity of man, they also reject it.

One more example that the proponents of “only one race, the human race, exists,” reject is the superiority of Blacks over Whites in surviving and reproducing in the lower latitudes. Because their pigmented skin prevents ultraviolet light from destroying vitamin B-12, which is necessary for reproduction, Blacks are superior to Whites in surviving and reproducing in low latitudes. Nevertheless, these proponents must likewise find this example unacceptable because it also conflicts with their doctrine of the unity of man.

Adherents of “only one race, the human race, exists” are also proponents of the races-are-social-construct school. To any extent that distinguishable features of various people groups (races) exist, they are social constructs. They certainly are not biological.

As shown above, adherents of “only one race, the human race, exists” reject everything, including all facts, that contradict or interfere with their doctrine of the unity of man. 

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Analysis of “How did all the different ‘races’ arise (from Noah’s family)?”

Analysis of “How did all the different ‘races’ arise (from Noah’s family)?”

Thomas Allen

The following is an analysis of “How did all the different ‘races’ arise (from Noah’s family)?”, chapter 18. Unfortunately, I do not know who the author is or the title of the book from which this chapter comes.

The author is a racial nihilist who preaches the new morality and has no qualms about sacrificing the races on the altar of humanity. Although he claims to be a creationist, he is really a creationist evolutionist. Like orthodox creationists, he is a monogenist and claims that all humans come from a common origin, Adam and Eve, and, consequently, rejects polygenism, i.e., the various human races are descended from a different set of parents. Like all monogenist creationists, he resorts to using evolutionary principles to prove his theory, and, thus, he is really a creationist evolutionist. (For the difference between monogenism and polygenism, see Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis by Thomas Coley Allen; also, see Adam to Abraham: The Early History of Man by Thomas Coley Allen.)

Moreover, the author rejects the term “race” and prefers to use the term “people group”; most orthodox evolutionists prefer “geographical population.” Species is a more accurate term (see Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis by Thomas Coley Allen). Whether the Negro is called a people group, a geographical population, or a race is irrelevant. The essences and traits of the Negro do not change regardless of the name.

The author claims that “all humans descended from Noah and his wife, his three sons and their wives, and before that from Adam and Eve” (p. 223). He is wrong. Since the Nephilim existed before and after the Noachian Flood, they could not be descendants of Noah. (Their existence before and after the Flood proves that the Flood was not global.) No indication is given in the Bible of Noah taking them on the ark; on the contrary, the Bible indicates that they were not on the ark since God sent the Flood to destroy them. The Nephilim were of the giant people group, Homo gigantus.

To support his claim to a common origin of all humans, he uses the evolutionary principle of the Mitochondrial Eve, which claims “to show that all people today trace back to a single mother” (p. 224 fn). His main disagreement with most orthodox evolutionists is the rate of mutation of mitochondrial DNA. He has the mutation occurring at a much higher rate than orthodox evolutionists originally thought. However, more recent studies show that the mutation rate is high enough to place it in the biblical time frame. On the other hand, he and other creationist evolutionists reject mutations as proof of evolution because most mutations are degenerative, and the remaining mutations are neutral. What never occurs to him is that God may have used a common mitochondrial DNA for all people groups instead of giving each people group a different mitochondrial DNA. Or he gave the original parents of each people group the mitochondrial DNA that the people groups have today.

Unlike orthodox evolutionists, who believe that the various people groups evolved over tens of thousands of years, creationist evolutionists like this author believe that they evolved (or developed as they prefer to say) over a few generations. If the creationist evolutionists are correct, then the North American Indians, White Europeans, and Black Africans should be virtually indistinguishable in the United States since they have been living in the same environment and, to some extent, interbreeding, for 400 years, which is about 10 to 13 generations. Yet, after 10 to 13 generations, these people groups are still distinguishable.

The author notes that all human people groups can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Although true, it does not prove that all humans are the same species (see “Christians and Creationism” by Thomas Allen). Also, he notes that the DNA differences of the various people groups are slight. Thus, he rejects the notion that God would use mostly the same DNA in His creation of the various human species. (Evidence shows that the genetic difference between a male and female human is one gene.)

As do nearly all creationist evolutionists, the author has a fixation on skin color that exceeds that of any stereotypical racist. Except for distinguishing between Aryans and Melanochroi, skin color is of secondary importance in distinguishing one people group from another. An albino Turanian (East Asians, Southeast Asians, and Turks) can be easily distinguished from an albino Negro (sub-Saharan Africans). (For more on skin color, see “Skin Color” by Thomas Allen.)

The author adheres to the young earth (God created the earth about 6000 to 8000 years ago) global flood model (the Noachian Flood occurred about 4400 years ago), although God’s geology refutes such a model (see “Geology Disproves a Global Flood 5200 Years Ago and a Young Earth” by Thomas Allen).

According to the author, Adam and Eve were mongrels and possessed all the genetic material necessary to form all the extant and extinct people groups (the identities of the extant and extinct people groups are given below). Yet, the Bible describes Adam as White (Aryan) — see “What Race Was Adam?” by Thomas Allen. Since Eve was made from Adam, she would also have been an Aryan. Moreover, God forbids mongrels in His assembly (see “Commentary on Deuteronomy 23:2” by Thomas Allen).

A characteristic of mongrels is that they do not breed true. As the author notes, the descendants of mongrel humans can range from extreme dark to extreme light and can have all sorts of mixtures of racial attributes. Yet, today’s people groups breed true. Their offspring possess the same racial attributes and traits as their parents. (The author describes Adam and Eve as looking like Melanochroi. However, as the author notes, they would have had to be mongrels if they possessed all the genes of today’s people groups.)

Also, according to the author, Noah and his sons and their wives were mongrels. Since all the people spoke the same language and lived in the same area, they would have continued to interbreed — mongrels producing mongrels. Yet, the Bible says nothing about the skin color of the people who built the Tower of Babel.

Like all creationist evolutionists, the author asserts that the various people groups resulted from the confusion of languages while the people were building the Tower of Babel — thus, proving that God is a segregationist (see “Does God Abhor or Approve Miscegenation?” by Thomas Allen). Amazingly, all the people of the people group that possessed the traits and attributes of the Negro (Black, Homo niger) spoke the identical language and, consequently, segregated and separated themselves from the other extant people groups (Turanians [Mongolians, H. luridus], Aryan (Whites, White Caucasians, H. albus), Melanochroi [Brown Caucasians, H. brunus], Indo-Australian (Australian aborigines, H. australis), and Khoisan [Hottentots, H. khoisanii] and the extinct people groups (Neanderthal [H. neandertalensis], H. erectus, giants [H. gigantus], Denisovan man [H. denisova], and Florisbad man [H. heidelbergensis]). Likewise, each of these people groups coincidentally spoke the same language and consequently segregated and separated themselves from all other people groups. Such segregation and separation of human people groups should prove to creationist evolutionists like this author that God wants the people groups to be separated and not to integrate and amalgamate. But, sadly, it does not.

Furthermore, the way that the author describes the formation of the people groups following the confusion of languages seems to conflict with “the Hardy-Weinburg theorem, which states that genetic diversity cannot be bred out, i.e., the population will not grow more nearly uniform over successive generations. A group that separates from one race will not acquire the characteristics of another race. It will not lose its racial characteristics. At most, various racial characteristics will occur with a different frequency in the new group than occurred in the parent group. According to the great anthropologist Carlton Coon, ‘selection alone cannot produce changes of race or species; new genes must appear from which the selection can be made.’ One race of man cannot produce another race of man without the introduction of new genes. Genetic mutation is required to produce a new race.”[1] Thus, a mongrel people group will always produce mongrels even if divided into small separate people groups. For a people group, e.g., the Negro, to be formed from a mongrelized people group, a beneficial genetic mutation must occur. Creationist evolutionists reject the notion of beneficial genetic mutation.

According to the author, the evolutionary principle of natural selection produced the people groups of today after they left Babel. Oddly, natural selection seems to have stopped forming people groups millennia ago. The lack of new people groups being formed over the last thousand years is strange since as the author states, only a few generations are needed to change one people group into another people group, that is to have a new people group spin off an existing people group. Yet, for thousands of years, no new people group has been formed although some have become extinct.

Perhaps the author and other creationist evolutionists err because they reject the Biblical principle of “kind after its kind.” He asserts that a mongrel people group can produce different kinds (Negro people group, Turanian people group, etc.)

Also, like other creationist evolutionists, the author rejects the notion of immutable people groups. Consequently, he disagrees with Jeremiah, who declared that people groups are immutable (see “Jeremiah on the Fixity of Race” by Thomas Allen). Like orthodox evolutionists, the author believes that people groups are mutable and that a large people group can change into several different smaller people groups.

He describes natural selection leading to lighter-skinned people inhabiting higher latitudes and darker-skinned people inhabiting lower latitudes. However, he identifies some exceptions, such as Eskimos and Pygmies. Apparently, it does not occur to him that genetics determines people groups and not the environment.

The author concludes by stating that a large interbreeding people group of mongrels at Babel became the extant people groups of the Negro, Turanian, Aryan, Melanochroi, Indo-Australian, and Khoisan and the extinct people groups of the Neanderthal, Homo erectus, giant, Denisovan man, and Florisbad man within a few generations after the confusion of languages. Natural selection instead of God formed these people groups. Furthermore, no new genetic material was needed to form these people groups. Whatever gene mutations that did occur had a degenerative effect.

Then, he states that (1) if God did not create the world in six literal 24-hour days, (2) if all humans are not descendants of Adam and Eve through Noah and his sons and their wives, (3) and if the Noachian Flood was not global, then the remainder of the Bible is not trustworthy. (For arguments to the contrary, see Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis by Thomas Coley Allen; also, see Adam to Abraham: The Early History of Man by Thomas Coley Allen.) Yet, I would be surprised if he believes the geocentric flat earth model although the Bible clearly describes the earth as flat and geocentric (see “A Response to ‘What’s Wrong with Progressive Creation?’) According to his logic, if the earth is spherical and the solar system is heliocentric, then the Bible is untrustworthy.

Also, he claims, “One of the biggest justifications for racial discrimination in modern times is the belief that people groups have evolved separately.” (P. 235.) Yet, people discriminated against other people groups and even within their own people group millennia before the theory of evolution came into being. Could racial discrimination result from people obeying God’s law not to produce mongrels (see “Does God Abhor or Approve Miscegenation?” by Thomas Allen)? 

Further, he cites Acts 17:26, but like all creationist evolutionists, he focuses on the first part of the verse. The first part reads, “And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth.” Thus, since the verse says that God made of one blood all humans, all humans descended from a common pair, Adam and Eve. Whatever “blood” means in this passage, it does not mean that all people have the same blood. A person’s people group can be determined with a high degree of accuracy from his blood (see “Of One Blood” by Thomas Allen.)

He ignores the implications of the second part of the verse because it leads to the notion that God created the various people groups (species of humans) at different times and at different locations. The second part reads, “and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.”

Moreover, the author errs when he claims that Rahab the Canaanite was an ancestor of Jesus (see “Rahab” by Thomas Allen). Also, he errs when he claims that Ruth, an ancestor of Jesus, was a Moabite. Being a pious man, Boaz would have followed the law, which prohibited marrying Moabites (Deuteronomy 23:3), and would not have married Ruth if she were a Moabite. He knew that she was an Israelite. 

Then, he asserts that God discourages (forbids) interfaith marriages but does not forbid interracial marriages. The stories of Dinah and Ezra requiring the Israelite men to send their foreign (strange) wives and children away refute this assertion.

To marry Dinah, the Hivites converted to her religion. Nevertheless, her brothers killed them — not because of their religion as they were of the same religion as Dinah, but because of their people group, which differed from hers.

Ezra’s separation was based on people groups and not on religion. The Israelite men had ceased following the Israelite religion, or else they would not have married strange women. They expelled their strange wives and children regardless of whether they followed the Israelite religion. The division was based on people groups instead of religion.

(For more on Ruth, Diana, Ezra, and similar stories, see “A Response to Bibleinfo's Justification of Miscegenation,” “Does God Abhor or Approve Miscegenation?,” and “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation” by Thomas Allen.)

Like all creationist evolutionists, the author resorts to evolutionary principles to support his explanation of the origins of the human races or people groups, which is his preferred terminology. Natural selection is the primary evolutionary principle that he uses. Also, when he can use genetic mutations to his advantage, he uses them. Otherwise, he rejects mutations because they are usually degenerative or, at best, neutral. However, while claiming that he is a creationist, he refuses to give God credit for creating the various human races (people groups).

The author abandons the basic principles of zoology in classifying man. To support his dogma, he must abandon these zoological principles and adopt new methodologies. Thus, he rejects the principle of Straus-Durckheim: “In treating this subject [human races or people groups], as it ought to be, simply as a question of pure zoology, and upon applying to it the same principles as to the determination of other species of animals belonging to one genus, one arrives, in fact, at really recognizing many very distinct human species. . . .”[2]

Endnotes

1. Thomas Coley Allen, False Biblical Teachings on the Origins of the Races and Interracial Marriages (TC Allen Company, Franklinton, North Carolina, 2001), p. 7.

2. J. C. Nott and George R. Gliddon, Indigenous Races of the Earth; or New Chapters of Ethnological Inquiry (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: J. B. Lippincott & Co., 1857) p. 613.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

A Letter: Christian Zionism

A Letter: Christian Zionism

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The following is a letter written in 2003 to Mr. Rick Wiles, American Freedom Net, Inc., about one of his radio programs where he negatively discussed British or Anglo Identity organizations. Identity folks believed that the ten lost tribes of Israel migrated to and settled in northwest Europe, primarily the British Isles.]

    I agree with you that the same people who control the U.S. government probably control many (perhaps most) of the Identity organizations — the Globalists, Elite, Establishment, Illuminati, Illuminists, etc. The Globalists also control most, if not all, mainline orthodox denominations, organizations, and churches. The mainline denominations are far larger and have much more wealth, power, and influence than the Identity crowd. So, you would get more bang for your minute by vehemently attacking the mainline churches instead of the small almost insignificant Identity crowd.
    The Christian Zionist are a much greater threat to our few remaining freedoms than the Identity crowd. Like the mainline denominations, Christian Zionists far outnumber and have much more wealth, power, and influence than the Identity folks. Furthermore, most of the Christian Zionist organizations are probably fronts for the Mossad or at least controlled by the Mossad, which, like the CIA, is merely a tool of the Globalists.
    Christian Zionists live under the delusion that today’s Jews are God’s chosen people (I always thought Christians were God’s chosen people). They seem willing to defend Israel to the last American. Many even want to rebuild the temple and reinstate the old sacrificial system — both of which God destroyed. (Is not this apostasy?) Christian Zionists are guilty of the same heresy of which you accuse the Identity crowd. The only difference between them is that Christian Zionists have substituted today’s Jews for the Identity’s Northwest Europeans.
    Based on my anti-Zionist comments, I am anti-Semitic. To add to my anti-Semitic commentary, Jewish influence in this country far exceeds their numbers — and if you deny that, you are a liar, and if you admit it you are an anti-Semite. But, then, I am in good company, for Jesus was one of the greatest anti-Semites. He harshly criticized the Jewish leaders of his day. To criticize Jews, especially Jewish leaders as a group, is by definition anti-Semitism.
    Furthermore, I am a racist and a segregationist. Again I stand in good company, for God is a racist and a segregationist.
    To prove that I am a racist, I contend that Negroes (Blacks) are superior to Aryans (Whites) at reproducing at low latitudes. Why? Because dark skin retards ultraviolet light from destroying vitamin B-12, which is essential for reproduction. To proclaim one race is superior to another race in at least one trait is by definition racism.
    To prove that God is a racist and segregationist, He told the Israelites after they left Egypt that he had separated them from other people (Lev. 20:26), which makes Him a segregationist. He told them that He put a difference between them and the Egyptians (Ex. 11:7), which makes Him a racist. Moreover, He created the races.
    Furthermore, God disdains interracial marriage and breeding so much that in Dt. 23:2 He proclaimed that “no half-breed may be admitted to the assembly of Yahweh” (The New Jerusalem Bible). The KJV uses the word “bastard” instead of “half-breed.” However, it uses “bastard” in the sense of “spurious” and “mongrel,” not in the sense of “being born out of wedlock.” (Jephthah was born of a prostitute and out of wedlock. Since he is among the list of heroes in chapter 11 of Hebrews, he is part of God’s congregation.)
    Apparently, you contend that all the races of men descended from Adam. If you believe that, then you are an EVOLUTIONIST. You have accepted the basic premise of evolution: “like beget unlike.” You reject the Biblical principle of “after his kind” or “like beget like.”
    As I reject evolution, I must accept that Adam was the father of only one race. According to his name and the descriptions given to his descendants (they were ruddy and fair: 1 Sam. 16:12, 17:47; 2 Sam. 13:1; Gen. 12:11, 14; 24:16, 26:7; Lam. 4:7), I must conclude that he was the father of the Aryan race.
    God created each race at a different time (“having determined their appointed seasons”) and place (“[having determined] the bounds of their habitation”) — Acts 17:26. To condone interracial marriages and interracial sexual relations is to condone breeding out of existence the races that God created, which is genocide.
    As for Hitler, he was an occultist, whom the Globalists, among whom were Jewish bankers, brought to power to aid them in bringing about a world war. He was also a great benefactor to the Zionists. Zionism would not have advanced nearly as far as it has without him.
    Beyond their advocation of violence with which I disagree, the Identity crowd does have some flawed teachings. The evidence refutes that salvation is available only to Aryans. (Not all Identity folks claim that only Aryans are saved.) Many of them blame all of the world’s problems on Jews. Jews are guilty of causing much of the world’s problems and of pushing the New World Order with its one-world totalitarian government and one-world Pantheistic religion. However, far more non-Jews are involved. (Most Jews are like most Freemasons, and most Democrats and Republicans, for that matter. They do not have a clue about what is going on. They are puppets being used by the New World Order puppeteers and do not even know it.)
    Although some Identity folks claim that Satan is the literal genetic father of today’s Jews, many (perhaps most) Identity folks reject this doctrine. (There is no fundamental difference in this doctrine and the orthodox doctrine that the “sons of God” who married the “daughters of man” in Genesis 6 were fallen angels. Both claim that spiritual beings can interbreed with man. [As a side note, is not it strange that the Nephilim, whom the KJV calls giants, who were supposed to be the product of this unholy union and were supposedly destroyed by the Noahic Flood, were in Palestine at the time of the Israelite invasion?])
    I am not convinced that the Northwest Europeans are the lost tribes of Israel. The lost tribes were submerged into a much larger Aryan population, most of whom now live in Europe. However, I suspect that more chromosomes of the lost tribes are in Europeans than are in today’s Jews. (Most of today’s Jews, the Ashkenazim, are descendants of Turks of the Turanian race and Armenians [and Alpines] of the Aryan race and their hybrids. A small number, the Sephardim, are descendants of the Idumeans, who were mostly of the Melanochroic race and Melanochroic-Aryan hybrids.)
    If you want to learn more about race and the true Biblical view on race mixing, you may purchase my books [Adam to Abraham: The Early History of Mankind; Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis; Integration Is Genocide; and False Biblical Teachings on the Origins of Races and Interracial Marriages] in which I explain them in some detail. Enclosed is my book list. [Editor’s note: Not unsurprisingly, he never bought a book.]

Copyright © 2003, 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen

More religious articles.

Nonphysical Racial Differences

 Nonphysical Racial Differences

Thomas Allen

In Making Sense of Race (2020), Edward Dutton presents some interesting information. Dutton shows that the differences in the races of humans go far beyond skin color and external features. Some of this information follows. This information is not grouped by type but is presented in the order that it appears in the book.

Diabetes. Turanians (East Asians) are more likely to have diabetes than other races (p. 10).

Prostate Cancer. Negroes are more prone to prostate cancer than other races (p. 10).

Donated Organs. A recipient of a donated organ is less likely to reject the organ if it comes from a person of the same race (p. 10).

Reaction Time. Negroes have the slowest reaction time, and Turanians (East Asians) have the fastest (p. 12).

Schizophrenia and Post-traumatic Stress. Negroes are more likely to suffer from schizophrenia and post-traumatic stress than are Turanians (East Asians) (p. 12).

Classroom Behavior. In the classroom, Negroes are the worst behaved, and Turanians (Asians) are the best behaved (p. 12).

Anxiety and Suicide. Turanians (East Asians) suffer from anxiety more than do Negroes and are more likely to suicide themselves than are Negroes (p. 13).

Influenza. Indo-Australians and Turanians are more likely to contract influenza than are Aryans and Negroes (p. 93).

Some More Racial Comparisons. The following is a comparison of averages of three races: Aryans, Turanians, and Negroes. This information is from a table on pages 105–107. Not included here are the numerical measurements in the table.

– Aryans have the largest brain, and Negroes, the smallest.

– Turanians have the largest endocrinal volume, and Negroes, the smallest.

– Turanians have the largest external head measurements, and Negroes have the smallest.

– Turanians have the most cortical neurons, and Negroes, the least.

– Turanians have the highest cranial capacity, and Negroes, the least.

– Turanians have the highest IQ, and Negroes, the lowest.

– Based on the number of times that all 21 accepted measures of civilization have been independently achieved, Aryans have four achievements, Turanians have one, and Negroes have zero.

– All the top 40 most important scientists between 800 BC and 1950 AD are Aryans.

– Of the scientists in the Dictionary of Scientific Biography, 98 percent are Aryans and 2 percent are Turanians; zero are Negroes.

– Adolescent female Negroes have the fastest skeleton development, and Turanians, the slowest.

– Negro babies began walking earlier than Aryan and Turanian babies.

– Negroes develop permanent teeth the earliest while Turanians are the last to develop permanent teeth.

– Negro women have their first pregnancy at a younger age than do Aryans and Turanians with Turanians last.

– A larger percentage of Turanians develop senility than do Negroes and Aryans with Aryans having the lowest percentage.

– Turanians have the longest life span and Negroes, the shortest.

– Negroes have the largest percentage of psychopathic personalities, and Turanians, the lowest.

– Turanians have the highest percentage of stable marriages, and Negroes, the lowest.

– Turanians are the most law-abiding, and Negroes, the least.

– Negroes have the highest rate of twins, and Turanians, the lowest.

– Negro males have the largest penises, and Turanian males, the smallest.

– A larger percentage of Negroes have AIDS than Aryans and Turanians, who have the lowest percentage.

Mental Instability. Turanians are higher in mental instability than are Aryans (p. 110).

Stereotypes. “75 percent of racial stereotypes have been found to be at least partially accurate and 50 percent completely accurate” (p. 161).

IQ. The average IQ of Aryans is 100. For, Turanians, the average IQ ranges from 85 (Pacific Islanders) to 105 (Northeast Asians). Negroes have an average IQ of 70, and Melanochroi have an average IQ of 84. Indo-Australians have an average IQ of 64 while Khoisans have an average IQ of 54. (p. 167.)

Personality. Hereditability (genes) accounts for 50 to 66 percent of a person’s personality (pp. 184-185).

Hybrids. Mixed-race people have a greater chance of suffering from mental illness, especially depression, which is significantly genetic in origin (p. 242).

Religion. Religiousness (the strength and rootedness of belief and collective practice) is about 40 percent genetic (p. 260). About religion, Dutton writes:

In Western societies, those who collectively worship a moral god are more likely to be married, less likely to be divorced, are more likely to have children, and more likely to have larger numbers of children. They have lower rates of physical and mental illness, live longer, are more likely to get over serious illnesses, and have lower morbidity. . . . [A]theism, and other deviations from traditional religious belief in modern populations, can be reasonably understood, therefore, as a mutation — and a harmful mutation at that. In line with this, atheism is associated with other markers of mutation such as autism, poor physical health, poor mental health, and being physically asymmetrical. Atheism may be associated with certain examples of deviant sexuality, something that would tend to reduce individual fitness (p. 262). 

Schizophrenia. Negroes are more prone to schizophrenia than are Aryans (p. 283).

Temporal Lobe Epilepsy. Negroes are twice as likely as Aryans to suffer from temporal lobe epilepsy (p. 284).

Skeleton. A person’s race can be identified solely from his skeleton with 80-percent accuracy (pp. 329-330).

Taste Sensitivity. Negroes have higher taste sensitivity than do Aryans and Melanochroi (p. 332). 

Ear Wax. Races differ in the smell and consistency of their ear wax. Turanians (East Asians) have white, dry, flaky ear wax that has only a slight odor. Aryans and Negroes have yellow, wet ear wax with a pungent odor although the ear wax of Negroes is darker, closer to orange, and has a stronger odor (p 333).

Sleep. Races differ in how they sleep. When they sleep, Aryans move more than Negroes. Aryans are three times more likely to have restless leg syndrome (legs shake during sleep) than Negroes (p. 335). The sleep quality of Negroes is far more variable than that of Aryans. Thus, Negroes develop fewer memories, especially fewer long-term memories than Aryans (p. 336).

Dreams. Negroes are more likely to have lucid dreams, i.e., are aware that they are dreaming, than are Aryans. Turanians (East Asians) are less likely than Negroes or Aryans to experience lucid dreams (p.337).

Dutton’s Making Sense of Race is an excellent book that is worth reading. It offers far more interesting information than is mentioned above.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More anthropology articles.

People of the Indian Subcontinent

People of the Indian Subcontinent

Thomas Allen

   The Indian subcontinent is a crossroad where four races, or perhaps more correctly, species, of humans meet. Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka (Ceylon) comprise the Indian subcontinent. The four species of humans living on the Indian subcontinent are the Melanochroi (Homo brunus), Aryan (Homo albus), Indo-Australian (Homo australis), and Turanian (Homo luridus).

   The Melanochroi is the predominant species and consists of two racial types: the Dravidian and Indo-Iranian. Dravidians are predominately found in southern India and Sri Lanka. They are a principal type in much of southern India. Included among the Dravidians are the Brahuis of Baluchistan, Kanarese, Coorgs (Kodagu), Gonds, Kanaras, Khonds, Malayalis, Marathi, Nilgiris, Tamils, Telugus, Todas, and Tulus. Indo-Iranians (also called Aryo-Dravidians) are predominately found in southern Pakistan, northern India, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka and are the principal type in these regions. Include among the Indo-Iranians are the Baluchi, Bengali, Dehwars, Gujarati, and Sinhalese.
    The Indo-Afghan (also called Indo-Aryan) is the primary racial type of Aryans found on the India subcontinent. They are predominately found in northwest India and northern Pakistan. They are a principal type in the Punjab and western Kashmir. Included among the Indo-Afghans are the Jats, Kashmiri, Punjabi, Pathans, and Sikhs.
    The Pre-Dravidian is the racial type of the Indo-Australian found on the India subcontinent. Pre-Dravidians are found predominately in India with lesser numbers in Sri Lanka. Included among the Pre-Dravidians are the Veddas of Sri Lanka; Bhils, Gondi, and Khonds (Kandhas) of north and central India; Bihors, Kolarians (Ho, Munda, Santals), and Oraons (Kurukhs) of Chota Nagpur; Badagas, Paniyas (Paniyans), Kadars (Kadirs), Uralis, Irulas, and Kurumbas of southern India.
    The primary racial type of the Turanian found on the Indian subcontinent is the Paraoean. Paraoeans are predominately found in Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim, Manipur, the New Frontier Agency. Included among the Paraoeans are the Burushaski, Lahulis, Manchatis, and Kanawris, all living west of Nepal; the Dotials, Magars, Gurungs, Tamangs (Murmi), Tharus, Rais, and Limbus of Nepal; the Lepchas of Sikkim; the Totos of West Bengal; the Newars of the Katmandu Valley; the Bodo of West Bengal and Assam; and the Nagas.
    The following two tables describe the two racial types of Melanochroi and the racial types of Aryans, Indo-Australians, and Turanians found on the Indian subcontinent. The numeric skin color is from von Luschan's Hautfarbentafel scale used to measure skin color.

Table 1

Table 2

    As shown above, four species of humans live on the Indian subcontinent. They are the Melanochroi (Homo brunus), Aryan (Homo albus), Indo-Australian (Homo australis), and Turanian (Homo luridus). These four species subdivide into five racial types: Dravidian and Indo-Iranian of the Melanochroi, Indo-Afghan of the Aryans, Pre-Dravidian of the Indo-Australians, and the Paraoean of the Turanians.

References
Allen, Thomas Coley. Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis. Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Company, 1999.

Comas, Juan. Manual of Physical Anthropology. English edition. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1960.

Coon, Carleton S. and Edward E. Hunt, Jr. The Living Races of Man. New York, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1965.

Deniker, J. The Races of Man: An Outline of Anthropology and Ethnography. London, England: Walter Scott, Limited, 1900.

Dixon, Roland B. The Racial History of Man. New York: New York: Charles Scriber’s Sons, 1923.

Haddon, A. C. The Races of Man and Their Distribution. New York, New York: The Macmillian Company, 1925.

Keane, A. H. Ethnology. Cambridge, England: The University Press, 1896.

Kroeber, A. L. Anthropology Today: An Encyclopedic Inventory. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1953.

Peschel, Oscar. The Races of Man, and Their Geographical Distribution. New York, New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1885.

Risley, Herbert. The People of India. 2nd edition. Editor W. Crooke. Subhash Marg, Delhi: Oriental Books Reprint Corp., 1969.

Taylor, Griffith. Environment, Race, and Migration. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1937.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen

More articles on anthropology.

   

Questions on Israel Identity

Questions on Israel Identity

Thomas Allen

The following looks at the responses of an Israel Identity advocate to three questions. He identifies the United States as Ephraim (presumably, he believes that most Americans are descendants of Ephraim or at least the Israelite tribe named after him). However, he admits that he is not conducting a class. (Israel Identity, also called British-Israelism, Christian Identity, and Kingdom Identity, claims that the lost tribes of Israel became the Germanic and Celtic tribes that invaded Europe and settled in Western Europe.)

The questions and responses on Israel Identity are in the appendix below. Basically, his answers claim that genetics are irrelevant.

The first question notes that Ephraim and Manasseh had an Egyptian mother, and, therefore, they were not pure Israelites. He responds that the mother’s race and ethnicity, i.e., her genetics, are irrelevant. He uses Ruth, David’s great-grandmother, as an example. As do most people, he claims that Ruth was a Moabite. She was not; she was an Israelite (see “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation” by Thomas Allen).

Moreover, according to him, a person can become an Israelite by adoption. Thus, a Negro, Turanian, or Melanochroi can become an Israelite, who were originally Aryan (White), merely by adoption. Accordingly, a Turanian Korean can become an Aryan Israelite by adoption and, presumably, can intermarry with the Aryans without violating God’s law prohibiting miscegenation — how absurd (see “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation” and “One Thing Your Pastor Will Not Tell You”). (Does this Israel Identity person believe that God forbids miscegenation?)

Following his reasoning, if the Ephraimites had migrated to Ethiopia instead of Europe and settled among the Melanochroic Gallas where they are absorbed into the Gallas or the Gallas are absorbed into them through interracial marriage, then, according to this Israel Identity person, the offspring of the male Ephraimites are also Ephraimites because the mother’s genetics do not matter. Furthermore, the offspring of these Galla-Ephraimite-mixed males would also be Ephraimites, and likewise all the following generations. Additionally, the Ephraimites could have adopted all the Galla males, and, thereby, making all the Gallas Ephraimites. After many generations when all the Ephraimite chromosomes, except perhaps the male Y chromosome, have been bred out of this gene pool, these people would still be true Ephraimites. Consequently, what was once an Aryan people is now a Melanochroic people. (Is it possible that the Ephraimites in the United States are not from Europe but are from Ethiopia and Somalia?)

The second question inquires about distinguishing Israelites from non-Israelites. Since he cannot make such a distinction, he gives a hazy answer. However, he seems sure that he is an Israelite of the tribe of Ephraim. How does he know for sure? According to him, only God can tell an Israelite from a non-Israelite. However, this does not help the Israel Identity people. They place great importance, not only on distinguishing between an Israelite and a non-Israelite, but they also place great importance on identifying the tribes of the Israelite. (I have yet found an Israelite Identity person who can distinguish a real Israelite from a mixed Israelite from a non-Israelite White based solely on physical features.)

The third question asks about what happened to the people of the land to which the Israelites migrated. He answers that the Israelites absorbed them and, by that, amalgamated the two people into one people. (This answer applies to the European migration and not to the Palestinian migration. When the Israelites entered Palestine, the Promised Land, they either killed or expelled most of the inhabitants.) Thus, that any pure Israelite exists today is highly unlikely. So, why this concern about identifying the Israelites, even down to the tribe, when they may no longer exist?

To summarize his responses, genetics do not matter. Yet, identifying Israelites, even down to the tribe, is of great importance, even if today’s Israelites have few if any genetic connection with the Israelites that entered the Promised Land. Accordingly, Israelites can be of any race — at least that is what this Israel Identity person implies.

Appendix
Questions
First, Ephraim and Manasseh were not pure Israelites because their mother was an Egyptian.

Second, you are telling me that if we lined up a thousand Whites who are the same size, age, dress, etc., and you know nothing about them except what you see, you can tell me which ones are descended from which tribe of Israel and which ones are not Israelites.

Third, what happened to all the White people who inhabited Europe before the Israelites arrived?

Response
First, the male line is always what determines tribe. A Moabite was King David's great grandmother but no one would accuse him of not being a fully Jewish Israelite. And Jesus is considered a Jew even though His literal male line is pure Divinity, not Jewish. He was adopted by a Jewish father, Joseph. (His mother was a Levite, not a Jew.) Not only were Ephraim & Manasseh fathered by Joseph but were also adopted directly by Jacob, doubling the lineage.

Second, I am not saying that at all but nations have characteristics that define them as a people otherwise there wouldn't be nations. We're seeing the polarization now between the true Americans (both physical and spiritual) and the pagan parasites. That separation will continue until the parasites are purged by God Himself.

Third, the same thing that happened to people who inhabited the areas where the original tribes took over. And no nation is ever completely homogeneous, least of all Ephraim. In fact, one of Ephraim's identifying hallmarks is all the foreigners he invites in that sap his strength and overwhelm him. No nation ever did that before the American "melting pot".

Study Ephraim and ask Jesus to teach. There is lots of material out there. I am just pointing at a line of study, not conducting the class.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

For more religious articles.

Balaam and the Doctrine of Balaam

Balaam and the Doctrine of Balaam

Thomas Allen

Balaam (d.c. 1459–1452 B.C.), son of Beor, lived in Pethor. He was an enchanter, a soothsayer, whom the Spirit of Yahweh touched. Chapters 22 through 24 of Numbers presents the story of Balaam.

The Story
Balak, King of Moab, summoned Balaam, who had come under the power of Yahweh, to come and curse the Israelites with his demonic magical powers. Balak promised to reward Balaam, if he cursed the Israelites. The Israelites had just defeated the Amorites, and Balak feared them.

Initially, Balaam told Balak that Yahweh had forbidden him to comply with Balak’s request. Again, Balak implored Balaam to come and curse the Israelites. This time God allowed him to go, but he had to deliver only the message that God gave him. Balaam went. However, instead of cursing the Israelites as Balak wanted, Balaam blessed them — foreshadowing their strength, the beauty and fruitfulness of their land, and their victories. Three times Balak sought Balaam’s curse; three times Balaam blessed the Israelites. Further, he foretold that Moab, Edom, Amalak, and Kail would become part of the Israelite empire. Later the Israelites slew Balaam in a battle with the Midianites (Numbers 31:8).

Needless to say, the blessings did not please Balak. He became angry with Balaam, ordered him to leave, and gave him no payment.

Later, Balaam went to the Midianites and delivered them a plan to defeat the Israelites with the fornication of miscegenation. Midianite women, who were Melanochroi or possibly Melanochroi-Aryan hybrids, seduced the Aryan Israelite men and corrupted them. (Corruption through miscegenation and interracial mating became known as the “Doctrine of Balaam.”) As a result of the sin of interracial mating, which led to idolatry, God delivered a heavy judgment on the Israelites.

Besides the “Doctrine of Balaam,” Balaam is also known for the “Way of Balaam” and the “Error of Balaam. “Balaam is a type of mercenary prophet, ambitious to exploit his gift financially” (Unger, p. 133) — hence, the Way of Balaam in 2 Peter 2:15. Also, Balaam blunders “in reasoning that God of necessity must curse the nation Israel because of its sins” (Unger, p. 133) — hence, the Error of Balaam in Jude 11. Fausset identifies the Error of Balaam as running greedily for a reward. Kennedy argues that the Way of Balaam and the Error of Balaam are synonymous with the Doctrine of Balaam, i.e., teaching fornication via interracial mating.

Apparent Contradiction

Numbers Chapter 22 – 20 And God came unto Balaam at night, and said unto him, If the men are come to call thee, rise up, go with them; but only the word which I speak unto thee, that shalt thou do. 21 And Balaam rose up in the morning, and saddled his ass, and went with the princes of Moab. 22 And God’s anger was kindled because he went; and the angel of Jehovah placed himself in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him.

In verse 20, God tells Balaam to go with the men. In verse 22, God is angry with Balaam for going with the men as God had told him to do. Why?

Fausset opines that Balaam did not wait for the men to come and call. He writes “Certainly ‘God’s anger was kindled because he went’; for his going was in spite of the former plain prohibition; and the second voice was a permission giving him up in judicial anger to his own perversity (comp. 1 Kings xxii. 15), a permission too resting on the condition, which B[alaam] did not wait for, ‘if the men come to call thee’” (Fausset, p. 71, col. 3).

Clarke agrees with Fausset. In his eagerness, Balaam went to meet the messengers of Balak instead of waiting for them to come to him as God had directed. Because Balaam went without the messengers calling him, God became angry with him.

Smick opines that God became angry with Balaam because of his motive. Balaam went to receive the reward that Balak had promised instead of going to declare Yahweh’s message.

Longacre and Wade claim that the apparent contradiction occurs because verses 20 and 22 come from different sources. Verses 20 and 21 are from the Northern Israel narrative (E), which refers to the Deity as Elohim (God). Verse 22 comes from the Judahite narrative (J), which refers to the Deity as Yahweh (Jehovah or Lord in most English translations).

The Doctrine of Balaam

Revelation 2:14: But I have a few things against thee [the church of Pergamum], because thou hast there some that hold the teaching [doctrine] of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumbling block [sin] before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit fornication.

Fornication is any type of illicit sexual act. It means more than extra-marital sex. It means any proscribed sexual act, which includes interracial sex and mating. For example, homosexual acts are illicit sex and, therefore, fornication. Homosexual acts do not cease to be fornication if they take place within a marriage. Likewise, with interracial sexual acts, they do not cease to be fornication if they take place inside a marriage. Just as the Scriptures do not recognize same-sex marriages, they do not recognize interracial marriages. The fornication that Balaam taught was interracial sexual acts and miscegenation.

Additionally, the Doctrine of Balaam teaches the brotherhood of man and that only one race exists: the human race. Consequently, it promotes integration and interracial mating.

The open borders policy of the United States and nearly all other (formerly) predominantly White countries with their unlimited, unrestricted third world immigration greatly facilitates the Doctrine of Balaam. Most likely, that is why the Luciferian leaders of the West promote open borders. They seek to genocide the race created in God’s image: the Adamite, the Aryan, the White race. With nonwhites flooding these countries, can miscegenation be far behind? Interracial rape is now common in Western Europe. It has been common in the United States for decades.

The Doctrine of Balaam has become the controlling doctrine of the (former) White world. So far, for the most part, the other races have not fallen victims to the Doctrine of Balaam. Most African countries, especially those controlled by Negroes, seek to drive Aryans and even Melanochroi from their midst. The Turanian countries of Asia severely restrict immigration. Thus, the Doctrine of Balaam is primarily a White man’s disease and sin.

Interracial mating leads to hybridization. Total hybridization extinguishes the races that God created. God hates hybrid humans so much that He forbids a mixed bred person (mongrel, “bastard” in the King James) from entering His assembly (congregation) — Deuteronomy 23:2 (“No half-bred [mongrel] may be admitted to the assembly of the Yahweh; not even his descendants to the tenth generation may be admitted to the Assembly of Yahweh” – NJB.) According to Ezra, if people are in an interracial relationship, they must separate, and if married, divorce. (The only act for which Jesus approves of divorce is fornication [Matthew 19:9]).

Any clergyman who does not teach about the sin advocated by the Doctrine of Baal, interracial mating and marriages, is failing his flock — especially in this age of forced integration and the flooding of the (formerly) White world with nonwhites. Any clergyman who accedes to the Doctrine of Baal or worse teaches it, is a disciple of the Devil. He deliberately leads his flock astray.

References
Allen, Thomas Coley. False Biblical Teachings on the Origins of the Races and Interracial Marriages. Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Company, 2001.

Clarke, W.K. Lowther, editor. Concise Bible Commentary. New York, New York: MacMillan Publishing, 1953.

Davis, John D. The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible. Revised and rewritten by Henry Snyder Gehman. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Westminster Press, 1944.

De Witt, Adam. “Be Ye Not Unequally Yoked Together Through Deceptive Love.”

Douglas, J.D., editor. The Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962.

Jacobus, Melancthon W., Edward E. Nourse, and Andrew C. Zenos, editors. A New Standard Dictionary. New York, New York: Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1926.

Kennedy, Arnold. “Balaam’s Doctrine –What Is It?”

Longacre, Lidsay B. “Number.” The Abingdon Bible Commentary. Editors Frederick C. Eiselen and Downey. New York, New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1929.

Peloubet, F.N. Treasury of Biblical Information. 1913.

Smick Elmer, “Numbers.” The Wycliffe Bible Commentary. Editors Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison. Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1962.

Tenney, Merrill C., editor. The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing Company, 1967.

Unger, Merrill F., Unger’s Bible Dictionary. 3rd ed. (Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1960).

Wade, G.W. “Numbers” A Commentary on the Bible. Editor Arthur S. Peake. New York, New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, n.d.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Fundamental Christians and Evolution

Fundamental Christians and Evolution

Thomas Allen

Fundamental Christians attack evolution, Darwinism, as a false science. Then, with a few exceptions, these same fundamental Christians resort to Darwinism to explain the origins of the species (races) of man.

With rare exceptions, fundamental Christians are Darwinists, evolutionists. All have the various races descending from Adam and Eve. Since nearly all fundamental Christians believe that the Noachian Flood was global and killed all mankind except Noah, his wife, his sons, and their wives, they believe that the species of man descended from Noah through his sons and their wives.

Consequently, like the Christian evolutionists, they ignore the biblical principle of according to its kind or after its kind, i.e., like begets like —at least so far as humans are concerned. Many believe in the fixity of every species except the human species. They reject Jeremiah’s teaching and believe that an Ethiopian can change his skin. Jeremiah declared the immutability of the races (species) of man when he said, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?” (Jeremiah 13:23a). The implication is no. Thus, Jeremiah testifies that fundamental Christians err when they maintain that all the species of man descended from Adam and Eve or from Noah through his sons and their wives.

According to the typical fundamental Christian, all the species of man descended from Noah’s sons and their wives. Nearly all of them hold that Noah’s sons were of the same race as Noah and his wife. Most seem to agree that Noah, his wife, and his sons were Aryans (Whites); nevertheless, whatever their race is, it is irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion.

However, some fundamental Christians teach that Noah’s sons’ wives were of different races than their husbands. Many believe that Shem’s wife was an Aryan  (Homo albus) and Japheth’s wife was probably Aryan, although a few believe that she was a Turanian (Homo luridus). Most of this school contend that Ham’s wife was a Negro (Homo niger). Since the great sin that brought about the Noachian Flood was miscegenation (v. People of the Flood by Thomas Coley Allen, 2008), that Noah’s sons’ wives were of different races than their husbands is highly unlikely. However, if Noah’s daughters-in-law were of different races, then their races had to evolve sometime between Adam and Noah.

Most fundamental Christians believe that Noah, his wife, and his sons and their wives were of the same race. The typical fundamental Christian believes that the Aryan and probably Turanian came from Japheth. From Shem came the Hebrews, who are Aryans, and the true Arabs, who are Melanochroi (Homo brunus). The Negro came from Ham. Fundamental Christians are fuzzy about the origin of the Melanochroi — probably because nearly all of them fail to recognize this species. Usually, they lump the Melanochroi of Africa with the Negro. They lump the Melanochroi of the Middle East with either Shem, i.e. the Aryans, or the Negro of Africa. About the Melanochroi of India, nearly all of them are silent. As for the Khoisan (Homo khoisanii) and Indo-Australian (Homo australis) species, they usually lump them with the Negro.

Thus, fundamental Christians have a multitude of evolutionary occurrences. If Noah’s family are Negroes, then Ham’s family has bred true, if the Khoisans, Indo-Australians, and Melanochroi usually lumped with the Negro are ignored. Japheth’s descendants evolved into two species: the Aryan and the Turanian. Shem’s descendants also evolved into two species: the Aryan and Melanochroi.

However, if Noah’s family are Aryans, some of the descendants of Shem and Japheth have bred true; others have not. Ham’s descendants have not bred true; they have evolved into the Negro and probably the Khoisan and the Indo-Australian. Some of Japheth’s descendants have bred true as Aryans while others evolved into Turanians. Likewise, some of Shem’s descendants have bred true as Aryans while others evolved into Melanochroi. Why some of Japheth’s and Shem’s descendants remained Aryans and others evolved into other species is not explained.

If the fundamental Christians are correct about the origins of the species (races) of man, only a few generations are needed for one species to evolve into another species. If they are correct, why have no new species of man evolved in the last few centuries? Sufficient time has passed for new species to appear in the last thousand years, but they have not. Why have they not? Fundamental Christians do not explain. If the fundamental Christians are correct, new species (races) should be appearing frequently. (Racial crossing results in racial mongrels, hybrids, and not in new races.)

While fundamental Christians deplore evolution, they resort to it when it is needed to support their doctrine — although most would deny using evolutionary principles. Some may haggle over details, such as, they believe in microevolution, but reject macroevolution. (The difference between the two is the starting point and the time required for one species to change into another species. Microevolution usually starts at the family or genus level and requires only a few generations for one species to change into another species. Macroevolution starts with the first single-cell living entity and requires many generations for one species to change into another species. Both deny the immutability of a species, i.e., according to its kind or after its kind — like begets like. Consequently, they call Jeremiah a liar.) Thus, the fundamental Christian’s disagreement with the orthodox evolutionist is not one of principle, but the starting point and the time involved for a species to change to another species.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Economic Advantage

Economic Advantage

Thomas Allen

One argument that libertarians and other proponents of free trade use is economic advantage. That is, if country A excels in producing agricultural products and country B excels in producing agricultural implements, A benefits from trading its agricultural products for country B’s agricultural implements instead of manufacturing them itself — and vice versa.

For example, the South excelled in producing cotton and tobacco. Great Britain excelled in manufacturing fabric, tools, and other manufactured products. So, the South traded its agricultural products for British manufactured goods and vice versa. For that reason, the North imposed protective tariffs on manufactured products to give itself an economic advantage over Great Britain.

However, few libertarians and other proponents of economic advantage see any advantage of one race or culture over another. To them, all cultures and, especially, races are equal. If they acknowledge that races and cultures cause economic advantage, then they would have to advocate policies to protect and preserve racial and cultural differences and, consequently, racial and cultural advantages. To keep the advantages of different races and cultures from disappearing, they would have to promote segregation and separation, which is highly politically incorrect.

Libertarians and other proponents of free trade either ignore or fail to realize the importance of race and culture. Race determines culture, and culture determines economic advantage.

Although the natural resources of a country are important, race and culture are more important. They decide if anything is done with them and what is done with them. Africa is a prime example of race and culture determining economic advantage. Great mineral treasures and agricultural potential lie in Sub-Sahara Africa. From their creation, Negroes and Khoisans have inhabited this region. Yet, they did little to develop it. Until the Aryan settlers arrived, the Negro’s most important export was slaves — first to the Melanochroi and then to the Aryans of Europe and later New England. Aryans developed Africa’s mineral resources and agricultural potential.

An example of cultural impact on economic advantage occurred in Europe during the Middle Ages. The Church prohibited the charging of interest on loans. So, if a clergyman, king, nobleman, or merchant needed to borrow money, they had to borrow from the Jews, who were not covered under the Church’s anti-usury edict. Thus, culture gave Jews an economic advantage in lending and later banking.

To retain and maintain economic advantage, racial and cultural advantages, i.e., differences, have to be protected and preserved because economic advantage grows out of racial and cultural advantages. To retain and maintain cultural advantage, races have to be protected and preserved because culture grows out of race. (Race precedes culture and, therefore, makes a culture.) Segregation and separation are the only sure way to preserve and protect the races, and, thus, they are the only ways to maintain economic advantage. Goods and services can cross borders without people (immigrants) crossing borders freely — especially, immigrants of different races and alien cultures.

Contrary to what libertarians and other proponents of free trade may believe, racial and cultural diversity and, therefore, advantages and differences are at least as important as, if not more important than, economic advantage. All are necessary for the well-being of mankind. Economic advantage depends heavily on culture, and culture is the product of race. Therefore, if economic advantage is to be retained and maintained, the races have to be protected and preserved. Only segregation and separation can protect and preserve them, and, by that, retain and maintain economic advantage.

Copyright © 2019, by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on economics.