Talmudic Historical Paradigms vs. Biblical and Historical Reality

by Sloan Sutherland

Racially aware White folks need to put out of their heads a few demonstrably false notions: the notions that “Indo-European”=Japhetic=White and that “Afro-Asiatic”=Shemitic or Hamitic=non-White. These are jewish concepts derived directly from the Talmudic concept of Noah having an interracial family. The Edomite-Canaanite jews are the source of the idea that Shem, Ham and Japheth were of different races, and this Talmudic concept is the source of most modern associations of the Noahitic patriarchs with specific non-White races.

What the biblical record itself claims about the race of Genesis 10 is very different from ideas about it prevalent in popular culture. There are (to the extent of my knowledge) only 5 linguistically “Indo-European” nations mentioned directly in the Bible and acknowledged by mainstream biblical scholars: the Lydians, the Persians, the Ionians, the Medes, and the Hittites.

So who does the Bible say these “Indo-European” nations descended from? The Lydians were descended from Lud, a Shemite. The Persians were descended from Elam, a Shemite. Only the Medes and Ionians were Japhetic. The Hittites were originally descended from the Shemite Heth, but, as the Bible records, his line mixed with the mongrel tribes of the Canaanites. All depictions of these “Indo-European” Hittites prove that they were non-Whites of a similar racial stock to todays jews, turks and arabs with large drooping hooked noses, prognathic jaws and sharply slanted eyes. In fact the Hittites are known ancestors of many Turkic peoples who bear their likeness, including the Khazars who represent a significant portion of the ancestry of the nefarious and infamous Ashkenazi jews.

So half of the White “Indo-European” tribes mentioned in the Bible, (Lydians (Lud) and Persians (Elam)), were, according to the biblical record, (the very source for the names of these Noahitic patriarchs) Shemites! Not Japhethites! And to further contradict mainstream perceptions among WNs, one of these “Indo-European” peoples was non-White according to both the biblical record, and their own depictions of their race in art.

Every pedigreed descendant of Shem, Ham or Japheth was White. Yes Japheth was the first Adamic branch to grow out into Europe, but contrary to common perception, most modern Whites are Shemites. The only significant population of pure-blooded Japhethites today are among the Slavs (Sarmatians). The Celts (Cimmerians and Phoenicians) and Germans (Scythians) are in fact Shemites via Abraham, Isaac and Jacob-Israel.

How is it that in the field of linguistics there is so little attention paid to the alphabets in which the languages are written? Linguists obsess over the phonetic similarities that link the “Indo-European” family of languages, but disregard almost entirely the fact that all European languages have used Shemitic alphabets since the earliest civilizations such as the Greeks and Phoenicians set foot in Europe. Our own English alphabet stems from the same Phoenician root. Little do most know that the Phoenician alphabet from which ours is derived is virtually interlegible with, and indistinguishable from, palaeo-Hebrew, the language of the Old Testament. And who speaks the most archaic “Indo-European” languages today? The mongrels of India who still use Sanskrit!

Notice the similarities between Hebrew and Greek & Latin.

“.. .the Indo-European or Aryan family … embraces seven groups of tongues [now ten or more, the grouping as also the naming being somewhat unstable] known as the Indian or Sanskrit, the Persian or Zend, the Greek, the Italian, the Celtic, the Slavonic, and the Teutonic or Germanic. . . . All these languages have one common system of inflection, and in various respects strikingly resemble each other. They are the descendants of one common speech spoken by a single race of men untold centuries before the dawn of history” (A Latin Grammar, by Albert Harkness, page 374). -Source

Language Studies

How did it come about that we alleged “Indo-Europeans”, todays White race, came to use Shemitic alphabets and adopt many Shemitic words while the non-Whites of India still use Sanskrit, the most archaic and pure “Indo-European” language and alphabet still in use? Could it be that the bulk of todays Whites were not originally linguistically or culturally “Indo-European”, but actually Shemitic? While I cannot here give a full accounting of the proof of this residing in Assyrian tablets, Persian inscriptions and Greek classics, I will suffice here to say that a thorough investigation of the history of the Scythians, Cimmerians, Parthians and related “Indo-European” tribes reveals this to be the case. When the northern house of Israel went into the Assyrian captivity they were placed among the Medes and Persians as a buffer population on the fringes of the Assyrian empire where they would have, by necessity, adopted the Indo-Iranic lingua franca of these Medo-Persian territories. Still their Shemitic alphabet followed them in the form of their runes which are known to derive from the Phoenician alphabet used by the common folk of the house of Israel.

Any serious students of any discipline of anthropology, history, linguistics, or genetics, need to rethink many ideas about language, culture, and race as they relate to the historical record. To view history accurately from a racial perspective it needs to taken into account that A. linguistic groups are not racial groups, B. the modern racial/genetic genetic makeup of geographical entities do not accurately represent the ancient racial/genetic makeup of their populations in antiquity, C. that the racial makeup of the world has changed drastically since the dawn of modern White civilization in Mesopotamia and the Mediterranean basin broadly, and D. that the jewish paradigm of race in relation to biblical heritage is utterly false.

If we fail to transcend these limitations placed on our understanding of our race’s history by an academic sphere in denial of the truth of race, we will forever remain in ignorance of our most ancient roots.

Some readers will here recall the reply of Thamus to Theuth in the Platonic myth (in the Phaedrus,274-5), which I render as follows: “When Thamus was king of all Upper Egypt, . . . there came to him Theuth, the inventor of letters,. . .and said: ‘This art, O King, will make the Egyptians wiser and improve their memories; for it has been found to be a recipe both for memory and for wisdom.’ ‘Most ingenious Theuth,’replied Thamus, ‘one man can invent arts, but [only] another can judge whether they are to be baneful or beneficial to the user. Now you are the father of letters and, from predisposition, say the opposite of what you should; for this art will put forgetfulness in the souls of the learners through disuse of the memory inasmuch as they will trust to external records, nudges from others, and will not of themselves keep their memories alert from within. Wherefore, you have found a recipe, not for memory, but for prompting. You give your disciples the semblance of wisdom but not the reality; and they, having become great but undisciplined readers, will seem wonderfully wise, but will be, for the most part, lacking in judgment and tiresome to be with because of their learned pretensions.'”


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *