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.

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.

Jeremiah on the Fixity of Race

Jeremiah on the Fixity of Race

Thomas Allen

Jeremiah 13:22–24 (emphasis added):

22 And if thou say in thine heart, Wherefore come these things upon me? For the greatness of thine iniquity are thy skirts discovered, and thy heels made bare.

23 Can the Ethiopian [Cushite] change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

24 Therefore will I scatter them as the stubble that passeth away by the wind of the wilderness.

The implication is that an Ethiopian cannot change his racial characteristics, and a leopard cannot change its spots. Jeremiah is using irony to show that the people whom he is addressing have become so accustomed to practicing evil that they cannot and do not want to change their ways and do good. They are as fixed in their evil ways as an Ethiopian is in his racial attributes, and a leopard is in its spots. The chance of them becoming good is on the same level as the chance of an Ethiopian, i.e., a Melanochroi, changing his biological racial characteristics, which is never. If the racial traits of a Melanochroi can change, then Jeremiah’s analogy fails. Moreover, a leopard can change its spots. Consequently, Jeremiah has declared that the biological attributes of the races, or more accurately, species, of humans are immutable.

The attributes of a species are fixed; they are not fluid and do not change over time.  According to Jeremiah, the biological races of humans, as opposed to cultural and ethnic races, are fixed, and, therefore, they should be considered species. Thus, several extant species of humans exist: Aryan (Homo albus), Turanian (H. luridus ), Negro (H. niger), Melanochroi (H. brunus), Indo-Australian (H. australis), and Khoisan (H. khoisanii).  Lumpers have mistakenly grouped all of these species into a single species, contrary to Jeremiah. (Whom do you believe? Jeremiah, whom God inspired, or modern-day lumpers and Darwinists.) Also, several species of humans are extinct; they include Neanderthal (H. neandertalensis), Homo erectus, giants (H. gigantus), e.g., Nephelium and kindred people mentioned in the Bible, Denisovan man (H. denisova), and Florisbad man (H. heidelbergensis).

(According to Darwinism, species are fluid; they are not fixed. Over time, one species can change into another species. Jeremiah’s analogy, which requires that the characteristics of the various human races, or more correctly species, be immutable, is incompatible with Darwinism. Moreover, under Darwinism, a leopard can change its spots.)

Appendix 1. Melanochroi.

The King James Version and many other translations translate the word “Cushite,” which is a literal translation, as “Ethiopian.” Others use “Cushite.” Regardless of which word is used, both are referring to a Melanochroi. A few erroneously translate it as “a black man, “a black Moor,” or “an African.”

Melanochroi are predominately found in Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, coastal Iran, southern Iraq, the Arabian Peninsula, Egypt, Ethiopia, Somalia, Sudan, Libya south of Tripolitania and Cyrenaica, Chad, Niger, Mali, Mauritania, Algeria south of the Atlas Mountains, and central and southern Morocco.

Appendix 2. The Superiority of Hybrid Theory.

Some people argue in favor of interracial breeding using the “superiority of hybrid theory,” i.e., the superiority of mixed-racial people. Thus, the offspring of parents of different races is superior to the parent races in most, if not all, aspects — intelligence, beauty, strength, health, character, temperament, personality, etc. Even if true, which it is not, the advantages of hybrids are lost in the next generation. The offspring of hybrids are inferior not only to the hybrid parents but also to the parent races of the hybrids. For this reason, hybrids are not bred.

The notion of the superiority of hybrids comes from agriculture. People who promote this theory observe that some crosses of chicken breeds result in superior egg layers. However, if these hybrids are bred, their offspring are inferior to the hybrids and the original parent breeds. Likewise, with hybrid seeds, which result in some superior traits, such as disease resistance and yield, their descendants are not planted because they produce plants inferior to the hybrids and the parents of the hybrids. Furthermore, the proponents of this theory overlook two things. First, many hybrids are discarded before a hybrid with desirable traits is found. Second, unlike human hybrids, which are developed by random breeding, selective breeding develops livestock and seed hybrids. Consequently, the superiority of hybrid theory is highly flawed.

The proof that the superiority of hybrid theory is invalid is Kamala Harris. She is a hybrid — a cross between a Melanochroi (an Asian Indian) and a Negro (a Caribbean Black). Obviously, she is inferior to the average Negro and the average Melanochroi.

Copyright © 2024 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.

   

Some Comments on Race and Ethnicity

Some Comments on Race and Ethnicity 

Thomas Allen

 

Discussed below are the difference between race and ethnicity, the invalidity of genetic testing for racial and ethnic ancestry, Yankees and Northerners, and albusphobes.

Race and Ethnicity

Human races are species and, therefore, are biologically and genetically like any other species. A racial type is like a variety or subspecies. An ethnic group is a cultural subdivision of a human race. For example, Melanochroi (Homo brunus) is a species of man. Among its varieties are Saharan-Hamite, Eastern-Hamite, Egyptian, Oriental, Dravidians, and Indo-Iranian. Its ethnicities include the Fellata, Ethiopian, Fellahin, Bedouin, Tamil, and Baluchi.

A major difference between race and ethnicity is its life. With a few exceptions, a race lasts forever after God creates it if Revelation is given a broad interpretation. According to Revelations 7:9, a great multitude out of every nation, of all tribes, peoples, and tongues stand before the throne of God and before the Lamb, Jesus. Unless all these nations, tribes, and peoples are of the same race (species of man), then all extant races should have representatives in the kingdom to come. (Some species of man have become extinct, such as Neanderthal and the giants like the Nephilim. Whether any of them are in heaven is unknown. However, if the Universalists are correct, they along with all other humans will be there.)

On the other hand, ethnicities are transitory. They are born and later die, at least on earth, although they may survive for thousands of years. Nevertheless, Revelations shows that many ethnicities (nations, tribes, and peoples) will last forever.

Ethnic and Racial Ancestry

Various companies promote discovering one’s ethnic (Pole, Japanese, Zulu, Tuaregs, etc.) and racial (Aryan, Melanochroi, Turanian, Negro, Indo-Australian, and Khoisan) makeup. This is done by comparing a person’s genetic sample to genetic samples of various ethnic and racial groups.

For this comparison to be valid, a person’s genetic sample has to be compared with a standard. Furthermore, the standard has to be pure with no admixtures from any other ethnic or racial group. Thus, for validity, a pure and unpolluted gene pool is needed for Poles, Japanese, Zulu, Tuaregs, and each of the hundreds of other ethnic groups.

On the other hand, we are told that no pure ethnicities or races exist. Everyone is a mongrel. All ethnicities and races are mixtures of each other. If true, then discovering one’s ethnic and racial ancestry by genetics is a hoax and a waste of resources.

Yankee and Northerner

Most Whites in the United States who originate outside the South fall into two groups: the Yankee and the Northerner. Yankees are Whites who fit the description given in “The Puritan Yankee,” “The Yankee,” and “Cusson’s Description of the Yankee” all by Thomas Allen. Whites originating outside the South who do not fit the description of the Yankee are Northerners. (During Lincoln’s War, many Northerners were called “Copperheads.”) Like Southerners who are not scalawags, Northerners are deplorables. Although inferior in number, Yankees are superior in power and influence. Unfortunately, many Northerners follow the lead of the Yankees, which results in confounding the two because it makes these Northerners almost indistinguishable from the Yankees. Consequently, Yankees and Northerners are often confused and used as synonyms.

Albusphobes

Albusphobia is an intense aversion for the Homo albus species of humans, i.e., an intense aversion for the Aryan or White race. Luciferians, self-hating H. albus, and racial nihilists are the three major types of Whites who are albusphobes. Luciferians are mostly found in the ruling elite and their underlings. They seek to offer the H. albus species to Lucifer, their master, because it is the species created in the image of God. Self-hating H. albus (self-hating Whites) hate their species so much that they seek its annihilation. Many progressives and liberals and some libertarians are self-hating H. albus. The largest group is the racial nihilist. Racial nihilists are indifferent to the existence of all human species, especially H. albus. They do not consider any human species worth preserving, especially H. albus. Most Whites are, or at least act like, racial nihilists.

Many nonwhites are albusphobes. A few nonwhites are Luciferians. Some are racial nihilists. Others are so albusphobic that they are willing to sacrifice their own species to genocide H. albus. However, many nonwhites are not albusphobic per se; they merely seek to preserve and promote their own species. Most nonwhite albusphobes are averse to the H. albus species but not to the extent of scarifying their own species to genocide H. albus. This group desires and seeks the death of H. albus without sacrificing themselves.

Because White albusphobes have united with nonwhite albusphobes to genocide H. albus, H. albus is doomed to extinction. Only if Whites begin loving their own species as much as nonwhites love theirs and began promoting the preservation of H. albus, can H. albus be saved from extinction.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

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.

Cush and Ethiopia

Cush and Ethiopia

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: Footnotes in the original are omitted. The footnotes contain the King James Version of the scripture being discussed.]

    There is good evidence that “Cush” or Kûwsh, son of Ham, is not synonymous with the region south of Egypt, biblical African Ethiopia. In the Scriptures, it is seldom, if ever, used as a synonym for biblical African Ethiopia. This is especially true for Genesis 2:13, 10:6ff; Numbers 12:1; 2 Samuel 18:21; 2 Chronicles 14:8ff, 21:16; Psalm 87:4; Isaiah 11:11, 20:3, 43:3, 45:14; Ezekiel 28:10; and Habakkuk 3:7.
    Most, if not all, biblical dictionaries identify Cush with Ethiopia, a region south of Egypt. However, most mention the existence of an Arabian Cush. The biblical African Ethiopia stretched from Aswan in present-day Egypt through northern and eastern present-day Sudan into northern present-day Ethiopia. It was the region between the junction of the Blue and White Nile to the First Cataract, the location of present-day Aswan and biblical Syene.
    In the Septuagint and Vulgate, “Cush” is usually translated “Ethiopia.” In the King James Version, Kûwsh is translated “Cush” eight times and “Ethiopia” nineteen times. Kûwshîy (“Cushite”) is translated “Ethiopian” eight times and “Ethiopians” twelve times. Many other translation follow the King James Version. The Hebrew words should have been consistently and correctly translated “Cush” or “Cushite.” Such translation would have avoided the confusion of identifying Cush with modern-day Ethiopia, Nubia, or biblical African Ethiopia.
    Most often, Cush refers to a people or region in Arabia instead of the region in Africa south of Egypt. As noted above, a number of Scriptural passages support this conclusion. Some of them are reviewed below.
    First, Moses married a Cushite woman (Numbers 12:1) of Midian (Exodus 2:16,21; 3:1). Midian is in northwest Arabia and eastern Sinai. Zipporah is the only wife of Moses mentioned in the Pentateuch. Did Moses travel to the Upper Nile to Nubia or Abyssinia to find his wife or did he take a wife in eastern Sinai or northwest Arabia? The latter. (Some commentators claim that Zipporah is not the Cushite woman. Their argument is based on rejecting Midian as part of Cush. However, if Cush was Arabia, as most Scriptures referring to Cush imply, instead of Abyssinia or Nubia, then this claim loses its weight.) Cushites include Midianites and other Arabic people. In Habakkuk 3:7 Cushan is mentioned in parallel with Midian identifying two names for the same region. (In Hebrew “cushan” (kûwshân) is believe to be derived from “cush”(kûwsh).  Hence, “cushan” is another name for “cush.”) In Judges 1:16, Moses’ father-in-law is called a Kenite. The Midianites, Kenites, and Cushites referred to in these passages are all the same people.
    Second, in Ezekiel 29:10, God says that He will make Mizraim (or Egypt) a land of desolation from the tower of Syene (Seveneh) to the borders of Cush. Syene was Aswan near the Nile’s first cataract on the border of Egypt and Nubia (Ethiopia). If Cush is synonymous with Ethiopia, then the passage reads, “from Ethiopia to Ethiopia,” which is nonsensical. However, from Syene to Cush beyond the Isthmus of Suez gives the passage sense. Cush refers to Egypt’s eastern border, not its southern border. Hence, Cush refers to Arabia or a region of Arabia.
    Third, in Genesis 10:7-8, lists the descendants of Cush: Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, Sabtechah, Sheba, Dedan, and Nimrod. Nimrod is associated with Mesopotamia. The remainder are associated with the Arabian Peninsula. However, Seba appears to have crossed over to Africa and settled along the coast of present-day Ethiopia and Djibouti.
    Fourth, in Genesis 2:13, before the Noachian Flood, Cush was identified with Mesopotamia. This identification assumes that Eden was in or near Mesopotamia. However, because “Cush” is translated “Ethiopia,” some place Eden in present-day Ethiopia. Thus, the four rivers flowing from Eden are the White Nile, The Blue Nile, the Atbara, and the Tekezé (Takkaze). More likely, Eden was where the Pamir Plateau of Central Asia is now with the four rivers being the Indus, the Jaxartes (Syr Darya), the Oxus (Amu Darya), and the Tarim (see Allen’s Adam to Abraham for a more detailed discussion). This would place the original Cush in Central Asia. In any event, it is not in Africa where the King James version places it. However, if the Noachian Flood was global, trying to locate Eden based on post-Flood geography is ridiculous. After the Flood washed away all land and covered much of the planet with sedimentary deposits, which in some place is more than a mile thick, the geography before the Flood bears no resemblance to the geography after it.
    Fifth, the description given in Isaiah 11:11 indicates that Cush is Arabia. This verse names countries to which the Jews were dispersed during the Exile. Pathros was part of Egypt (Ezekiel 29:4). Hamath was north of Phoenicia. Elam and Shinar bordered the Persian Gulf. Islands of the sea were the islands of Greece and the Mediterranean. Cush must have represented Arabia and not some country 1500 miles away. If Cush is Arabia, then the countries named circumscribe Judea. That Jews were dispersed to nearby Arabia, part of which was under the rule of Babylon, is highly probable and likely. That Jews were dispersed to a far away country beyond the southern border of Egypt and beyond Babylon’s rule is highly improbable and unlikely. Furthermore, if Cush here is not equivalent to Arabia, then this immense peninsula, which was very familiar — much more so than Ethiopia — to the Judeans, would be omitted from the list of countries around Judea. (The King James Version got this one right.) Moreover, the Jews were recalled from the regions in which the remnant remained. However, at that time, the Jews had never colonized Ethiopia and were never carried there in their captivity.
    Sixth, according to 2 Chronicles 14:13, the Cushites (or Ethiopians) fled to Gerar, which is located in southern Palestine in the foothills of Judean mountains in southern Philistia; it was between the Kingdom of Judea and the wilderness of Shur and Paran. Hence, it is the extreme northwest of Cush (Arabia) to which Zerah fled. Thus, the battle was in northwest Arabia. Zerah was probably a powerful chieftain coming out of Arabia instead of a Nubian from south of Egypt.
    Seventh, in 2 Chronicles 21:16, the Arabs are described as being near, living near, or located by the Cushites (or Ethiopians in most translations). In this verse, Cushites must be in Arabia instead of Africa. Arabs at this time were much nearer Arabia than Africa.
    Eighth, in Psalm 87:4, the Psalmist names Rahab (or Egypt), Babylon, Philistia, Tyre, and Ethiopia (Cush). This verse describes the countries encompassing Zion or Judea: Rahab to the south and southwest, Philistia to the west, Tyre to the northwest and north, Babylon to the north and east, Cush to the southeast and south. Here Cush must refer to Arabia, not Africa, to complete the encompassing.
    Several verses are occasionally cited to prove that Ethiopia (Cush) was south of Egypt and, therefore, Ethiopians were Negroes. These verses include 2 Kings 19:9; 2 Chronicles 14:9-14; Isaiah 20:3-5, 43:3, 45:14; Jeremiah 13:23, 46:9; and Ezekiel 30:5, 38:2-6. A few of these are discussed below.
    First, Jeremiah 13:23 is used to prove that Ethiopians were Negroes; thus, Ethiopia would then be in Africa south of Egypt. This verse does not identify the race of the Ethiopians and, therefore, does not prove that Ethiopians were Negroes (they were Melanochroi regardless of their location in Nubia and Abyssinia or Arabia). However, this verse does imply the immutability of the races, species, of humans.
    Second, in 2 Kings 19:9, Tirhakah, king of Ethiopia (Cush) was more likely an Arab than an African. The king of Assyria observed Tirhakah advancing toward Hezekiah. The Assyrian king’s ambassador advised Hezekiah that Tirhakah would not save Judea from the Assyrians. Was it more likely that the Assyrians learned of an African army before Hezekiah, whose kingdom was contiguous Africa? Or, was it more likely that the Assyrians would have notice an army coming out of Arabia before Hezekiah did? One point in favor of Tirhakah coming from Africa instead of Arabia is that African Ethiopians had recently gained control of Egypt.
    Third, excluding Magog, which is unidentifiable, although some believe it is Russia, the nations described in Ezekiel 38:2-6 are in or around Assyria if Cush is understood to mean Arabia instead of the region south of Egypt and Libya is not the region west of Egypt. The King James Version translates bow as Libya. Most other translations translates bow as “Put” (In Genesis 10:6 and 1 Chronicles 1:8, the King James Version translates bow as Phut, and elsewhere it translates it as “Libya” or “Libyans.”) Although the location of Put or Phut is disputed, most place it in Africa. It is most commonly identified with Libya. It is also identified as east Africa bordering the Red Sea, i.e., from Upper Egypt to Somaliland. Based on the assumption that Cush is the region south of Egypt, Put has been identified with Punt, present-day Somaliland. If Cush is in Arabia and Lud refers to the Lydians in northeast Egypt (see the discussion on Lud below), then Put would be to the east of Egypt. “According to Glaser the name [Put] first referred to E. Arabia, was then transferred to the S. Arabian incense coast, and was eventually applied to the African coast of Somaliland” (Davis p, 504).
    Fourth, Ezekiel 30:5 mentions Cush (Ethiopia, KJV) together with Put (Libya, KJV), Lud (Lydia, KJV), and Chub. Chub or Cub is probably Lub or Lubim. Like Lub, Cub is generally identified as Lybia. Likewise, Lud or Ludim is often identified as Libya. However, some identify Lud with the Lydians who came from Lydia in Asia Minor and settled in northeast Egypt. Others identify Lud with a Berber tribe, a tribe in Cyrenaica, or Ionian and Carian mercenaries. Another possibility is mercenaries from Lydia in Asia Minor. In any event, Lubim were mercenaries, who were famous as archers. Nevertheless, the connection of the countries mentioned in Ezekiel 30:5 implies a geographical proximity. However, the proximity may be to the east of Egypt as well as to the south of Egypt. Arabia is a better choice because the Cushites are known to have settle in Arabia. However, that the Cushites or any other Hamites settle south of Egypt is doubtful.
    When the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek, the Septuagint translation, the translators translated “Cush” as “Ethiopia.” It is this maltranslation that has led to confusion of the Arabs with Nubians and the Arabian Peninsula with the Upper Nile.
    In Greek “Ethiopian” means “scorched-face” or “burned-face.” Hence, “Ethiopian” is a dark-complexioned person, such as a suntanned Arab. It was applied to the inhabitants of Arabia and northwest India. Herodotus described Asiatic Ethiopians in the army of Xerxes, who were different from the African Ethiopians. Only later, after 525 B. C., did the Greeks become aware of the Nubians, who were Melanochroi, and true Negroes south of Egypt. Over time “Ethiopian” became reserved only for these people.
    In summary “Cush” refers to Arabia in its widest sense and Arabian tribes, who are mostly a dark-complexion, Melanochroi, in chapter ten of Genesis. With perhaps the exception of a few passages in the later books of the Bible where geographical precision is sacrificed for poetry, “Cush” means Arabia not Abyssinia or Nubia. Where it may refer to an African people, it refers to Nubians and true Ethiopians, neither of whom are Negroes, but who are Melanochroi. It never includes any of the Negro races.

References
Allen, Thomas Coley. Adam to Abraham: The Early History of Man. Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Company, 1998.

Allen, Thomas Coley. Integration Is Genocide. Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Company, 1997.

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

Douglas, J.D. et al., editors. The New Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids: Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962.

Fausset, A.R. Fausset’s Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1949.

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

Miller, Madeleine S. and J. Lane Miller. Harper’s Bible Dictionary. 6th ed. New York, New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1959.

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

Winchell, Alexander. 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. Fourth Edition. Chicago, Illinois: S.C. Griggs and Company, 1888.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

The Conservative Threat to the White Race

The Conservative Threat to the White Race

Thomas Allen

    Perhaps, the greatest threat that the White race faces today is the so-called White conservative spokesmen and leaders because their attack is unsuspected. They are Trojan horses.
    With rare exception, conservative leaders promote, or at least accept without protest, conditions that will genocide the White race. Sadly, most do not even know that which they condone leads to genocide. However, their ignorance does not lessen the genocide; most likely, it makes it more certain. Unfortunately, even if they know, most probably would not object to these conditions.
    Moreover, these conservative leaders do not even realize that the Black race and what little remains of the American Indian will be destroyed with the genocide of the White race. Blacks and other non-Whites are the tools of genocide. This is especially true since many of these conservatives do not oppose flooding the country with Indians and mestizos from Latin America and Melanochroi and Turanians from Asia, who are also being used to genocide the White race.
    A major cause of this problem is that most conservative live in fear of the “R” word — “racist” — although they are by definition racist (all Whites are racist by definition). They need to get over this fear. With more than 280 definitions, “racist” has become a meaningless word whose sole purpose is to smear the person against whom it is hurled.
    Furthermore, many conservatives have fallen in love with “diversity,” so much so, that distinguishing their worship of diversity from that of a liberal is often difficult. However, few acknowledge that integration and amalgamation destroy diversity. Real diversity can only be achieved with segregation and separation. Unfortunately, most of the conservatives who oppose diversity want to replace it with amalgamation, the melting pot. Amalgamation is nothing more than racial suicide, i.e., genocide.
    Another cause is that most conservatives do not know what a nation is. They believe that a nation can be multiracial and multiethnic. However, they confuse “nation” (a people) with “territory” (a country).  A nation or nationality is a people of the same biological race (species) who have a common origin, culture, language, and history and who have common traditions and customs. A country can be multiracial, multiethnic, and multicultural, but a nation cannot. When in their praise of nationalism, they imply or even state that a nation can be multiracial, they are covertly supporting genocide.
    Also, many conservatives show an inability to distinguish between a biological race and ethnicity or between a biological race and a nation. For example, Danes are an ethnicity and a nation of the White or Aryan race, while Zulus are an ethnicity and a nation of the Black or Negro race within the country of South Africa. Both Poles and Portuguese are ethnicities and nations of the Aryan race. Catalans and Basques are ethnicities of the Aryan race who live in the multiethnic country of Spain.
    What is the genocide that these conservative leaders condone? It is amalgamation through miscegenation. When two or more races interbreed, they are destroyed, which is genocide, i.e., the systematic annihilation of a race.
    Besides the fear of being smeared as “racist,” another reason that these conservatives fail to condemn miscegenation as genocide is ignorance. Most fail to realize that interracial mating is genocide because it is subtle and slow. This is ignorance that kills.
    Regrettably, others promote this genocide for the nefarious reason that they are agents of the ruling elite, who seek to annihilate the White race for satanic reasons (it is the race created in the image of God).
    These conservative leaders and spokesmen are much more dangerous to the White race than liberals. Their conservative followers know the hatred of liberals for Whites and their desire to destroy them. However, because of the conservative credentials of these conservative leaders, their followers give less attention to, or even ignore, the hostilities that these conservative leaders have toward the White race. Often, these leaders conceal their animus by praising Whites, expressing a desire to preserve or protect Whites, and protesting discrimination against Whites.
    Beware, if a conservative leader or spokesman (1) continuously or vigorously insists that he is not a racist, (2) praises Martin Luther King, (3) believes that a nation can be multiracial, (4) responds to racial diversity with amalgamation, which he calls assimilation, i.e., the “melting pot” principle, (5) does not object to interracial marriages, (6) gives the impression that the Black man is the same as the White man except that his skin contains more melanin and his hair is curlier,  (7) claims there is only one race: the human race, and (8) objects to aliens illegally entering the country, but expresses no concern about non-Whites entering if they do it legally, he may be an agent of the ruling elite, a coward, or an ignoramus. In any event, conservatives who value the White race need to jettison these traitorous conservative leaders. Such conservatives apparently place little or no value on the White race, the White gene pool. Any person who does not advocate the preservation of his own race and nation (ethnicity) — his gene pool — is a traitor to his people.

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.