Barbarian Brits

As much as the Judeao-Christian and Graeco-Roman elites wish to take credit for seeding the world and giving us western civilization, it was the descendants of the ancient Barbarian Brits who brought us out of Dark Age religious slavery and their DNA, at that time, was almost 100% recognizable from that of their Judaeo-Christian, Graeco-Roman masters.

Because the pre-Roman inhabitants of Britain had no written language, wore trousers, were loud and ferocious, drank to excess and painted their gigantic bodies in blue wode which, with their white faces and red hair probably made them look as bad as they smelled, they were considered barbarians.

The history, culture and way of life of the ancient Britons are known only through recent archaeological finds and these -- along with recent DNA studies -- repudiate completely long-held beliefs put forward by those in the past with a vested interest in maintaining their supposed ethnic or religious superiority over other cultures.

Ancient texts ascribing the origin of the Britons to mythical figures such as the biblical Noah from Syria or Aneus from Troy are very romantic, but they served only the enslaving Judaeo-Christian or Graeco-Roman elites which ruled the world at the time and have no basis whatsoever in truth.

Let's face it, Abraham's legacy in all of his religions is one of enslavement, and every scientific advance made since we came out of the Dark Ages has freed us, one chain at a time, from the ignorance and religious superstition the elites have used for thousands of years to keep us enslaved.

If Noak's flood subsided 833 years before the foundation of Troy and 2317 years before the birth of Christ, then who was responsible for building the Castlerigg Stone Circle in Cumbria, the chambered tomb at Pentre Ifan in Dyfed and the passage grave at Bryn Celli Ddu in Anglesey -- all of which are archaeologically dated c.3000-2500 BCE. Undoubtedly, a sophisticated culture existed in Britain long before Noah or Troy existed and one day science may prove that all of the ancient civilizations were actually founded by migrating Europeans, possibly Brits!

Moreover, recent analysis of the mitochondrial DNA of modern European populations has changed forever the belief that ancient Britons -- or any other ancient European tribe -- being ethnically diverse.Rather than being annihilated by successive invasions and mass immigration waves --particularly during the Roman occupation which brought Middle Eastern, African and Asian DNA into the mix --the ancient Britons still exist in modern European populations which are over 80% descended in the female line from the same European stock.

And, the same is true for the male Y-Chromosome in European populations because even President Thomas Jefferson, from British stock,was found to be in the rare haplogroup K2, only one K being found among 1772 British men tested. Therefore,the vast majority of the Britons are most definitely not descended from the Judaeo-Christian people of the Levant, and are unlikely to have much Graeco-Roman DNA in them either because the ancient Greeks and Romans were originally descended from the ancient ancestors of the Judaeo-Christian people of the Levant and North African areas.

So, when we talk about ancient Britons as distinct from ancient Goths or Gauls, we are really talking about Europeans who happened to develop differently because they lived on an island which had become separated from Europe about 8,500 years ago following the end of the ice age when the rising sea levels caused by the melting glaciers flooded the land bridge that had previously allowed free movement of people from one part of Europe to another.

Cut off from their continental kinsmen -- until boats brought them back together -- the ancient Britons had to survive on what land and resources they had. From hunter-gatherers, roaming across Europe, moving to the warmer south for the winter and the cooler north for the summer, they were forced to stay in one particular area.

Animals, too, had to adapt to an island environment, but did not fare as well as the ancient Britons. The larger of the animals were hunted out of existence, leaving only smaller animals such as elk, deer, boar as the staple diet. Different hunting techniques had to be developed, different tools had to be used to catch smaller animals, and by around 4,500 BC farming of both crops and domestic animals had developed to provide reliable food sources fora population increase that had caused the Britons to spread and reach the far north of Scotland.

So, because of their island isolation, the ancient Britons necessarily had to develop differently from their continental kinsmen, and the first trait to go was a nomadic hunter-gathering existence.They became permanent occupiers of land and developed food management skills, farming and husbandry, far in advance of other tribes around the world.

Also, in an oral culure rich in ballads and bards, a craft culture rich in beautiful designs and a religious culture rich in mystery and magic as well as diabolical deeds --- the development of writing was obviously deemed superfluous.

By the time the land bridge had been replaced by boat links, allowing the easy flow of people, trade, ideas and technologies to and from the continent, land ownership had developed a special significance for the British. They were fiercely territorial, and with this came constant warfare between the British tribes, requiring kings to lead them -- and understandably all Britons had a healthy suspicion of newcomers (and still do) -- but this lack of cohesion ultimately led to their slavery under the Romans and the foreign priests who followed them.

Wave after wave of foreign immigrants, preachers and armies have arrived on Britain's shores over the centuries, but if 80% of Britons are descended in the female line from the same European Eve --and if only one in 1,772 British men (like Thomas Jefferson) descended from an African or Middle Eastern Adam --then the Brits today are a lot more homogeneous than they think they are.

god's chosen people, the jews

Accepted by all religions is the fact that the first humans created had no religion, and as such any godly plans for humanity were meant for a unified family, not just limited to a chosen few.

Abraham's revolutionary notion of monotheism, a belief in one God, meant that God was not just a God of the Israelites but of all people. God revealed to Abraham that his people were to be messengers chosen to bring universal moral instructions to all humanity, not just the Jews.

The Torah was the revelation and the Mitzvot are the divine commandments defining a godly life, and God chose the landless and powerless Jews as messengers because humans would be free to accept or reject the message on its merits. It was a message delivered without political and economic coercion (unlike Christianity after the Roman Emperor Constantine embraced it).

In return for fulfilling their divine mission, God promised his chosen people that he would make them a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.

However, most Talmudic Rabbis do not interpret 'a kingdom of priests' as having universal implications. They believe that the covenant given by God not only provided the core religious content of the message the Jewish people were to convey to humanity but also a separate and distinct content designed to force Jews to maintain a separate culture. Being chosen to convey the message implied, to them, a superior position.

By superiority, the Talmudic Rabbis meant that Jews as a separate people were to be a 'light' unto the other nations. In offering the message, they cannot mandate its acceptance. Those who accepted the message choose to become chosen.

The Talmudic Rabbis saw the Jewish mission to convey the message of God, not to convert everyone to Judaism. They did not call for the annihilation of gentile or non-Jewish religions. They saw salvation as dependent on moral behavior not on accepting Judaism, and accepted that the righteous of all faiths have an equal chance to be saved.

In this sense, the Talmudic Rabbis maintained a separate 'superiority'. They were into delivering the message to all but most certainly did not believe in wholesale conversions.

However, in the early days of Judaism missionary activity was necessary for the growth of this revolutionary notion of monotheism to take place. In his journey from Haran to Canaan Abraham made many converts. In Deuteronomy 32:10, Abraham is described as so successful a missionary that God became known as King of the earth as well as King of heaven.

However, the word 'convert' is used loosely when referring to Abraham's missionary zeal. The formal notion of religious conversion did not emerge until much later in history. Abraham invited non-Israelites to join the Israelites, as did Isaac and Jacob.

By the time of Moses, the Torah was being expounded in seventy languages, and it provides numerous injunctions to the Jewish people to welcome strangers. It is believed, too, that God exiled Jews from their homeland for only one reason, to increase the number of converts!

Conversions came about through synagogues inviting guests and visitors -- there were thousands of houses of instruction in all towns serving as learning centers for gentiles; Jews were exhorted to personally approach potential converts; gentiles living among Jewish people were invited to assimilate; abandoned gentile children were adopted; and many gentiles converted to Judaism through marriage with a Jew.

The Jewish mission of conversion was also codified in laws. It is not clear when these legal rules developed, but they most certainly existed after the destruction of the Second Temple when there was a need for clear religious rules to maintain the Jewish identity. So, from 400- 500 AD the existence of these laws indicates that converts were allowed, welcomed and had specific rites to undergo in their conversion.

As expected, conversions were increased during important periods of Jewish history. The Jews grew from 150,000 in 586 BC to more than eight million by the first century of the common era and, only in the case of the conversion of the Idumaeans and the Ituraeans, was force used in an uncharacteristic manner.

So widespread was Jewish missionary activity that Greek, Roman, and Christian authors wrote disparagingly about it. In Rome, for example, Tacitus, a rhetorical historian, Cicero, a lawyer, and Juvenal, a satirist, are bitter and serious about denouncing Jewish proselytizing activities, and Horace makes fun of them.

The most famous Christian comment came from Matthew 23:15 in which competition for converts became nasty: "Alas for you scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over sea and land to make a single proselyte and anyone who becomes one you make twice as fit for hell as you are."

By the onset of the Christian era, 10% of the Roman Empire was Jewish and had the Romans and Jews not fought -- the Romans destroying the Temple in 70 AD, crushing the Bar Kochba rebellion in 135 AD and ultimately expelling the Jews from Jerusalem -- the Jews would have succeeded in winning more converts than the Christians and history would have followed a different path.

While Jewish conversion efforts continued, the stateless and powerless Jews dispersed throughout the Roman Empire and beyond were heavily restricted by Roman, and later Christian and Muslim laws regarding proselytism.

In 131 AD, Hadrian prohibited circumcision and public instruction in the Jewish religion. In 198 and 199 the Emperor Severus passed laws forbidding gentiles from embracing Judaism, and in 335 Constantine re-enacted Hadrian's law, forbidding Jews to circumcise non-Jewish slaves.

Cumulatively, these restrictions not only reversed the general Jewish attitude toward welcoming converts but also produced deep psychological change in the Jewish psyche.

From Constantine's time onwards -- when Christianity became the state religion -- many Jews would have converted to Christianity and those who remained faithful to Judaism became insular and messianic -- waiting for a messiah to raise them from a miserable existence made more miserable by the triumphant Christians accusing the Jews of Deicide -- killing Jesus -- and setting them up for mockery and persecution.

The Christians who laid the basis of early western civilization were mostly converted Jews and, in taking over the Jewish mission to welcome converts, they transformed its meaning.

Salvation was no longer dependent on moral behavior but on accepting Christ. The faiths of others were belittled, eternal rewards were promised for converting and eternal damnation was threatened for refusing to convert. Bribery, threats, and ultimately violence and murder were used to expand the Christian faith. However, Christians did make it easier for pagans to convert by relaxing the Jewish need for male circumcision and the obligation to obey Jewish law.

Persecution and fear led, over time, to the transformation of the Jewish understanding of its mission. Spreading God's word came to be seen as being against Jewish law.

slavery and civilization

All civilizations, including modern Western civilization, were based upon slave labor, and there is plenty of evidence to support the view that without slavery of one sort or another no great civilization could have existed - or can continue to exist.

While many factors determine the fall of civilizations, it is interesting to note that the British Empire - the bastion of Western civilization - crumbled in 1947 just over a hundred years after abolishing slavery in all British dominions in 1807 and in all British colonies in 1833.

Slavery, of course, persisted in the USA until the Civil War of 1865, but there are those who claim that it persists in the guise of slave wages and illegal immigrant workers - the existence of both type of 'slaves' being responsible for its present global power.

The Russian civilization - dating back to 950 AD - overthrew slavery and monarchy in the revolution of 1917, but it, too, crumbled in 1989 as a result of the grinding poverty and wage slavery imposed upon the proletariats by their so-called egalitarian masters.

The Chinese civilization - dating back to 589 AD and related to the former Sinic civilization - overthrew in 1853 the hated Manchu rulers who forced all adult males to shave their heads or lose them, and then it went through a hundred years of internal strife and foreign invasion before the communists took over in 1949 and instituted a social system similar to that of Russia's which turned out to have a similar result.

The Japanese civilization - dating back to 645 AD and also related to the former Sinic civilization - relied heavily on immigrant 'slave' labor until it was forced to reinvent itself after its humiliating defeat in World War II.

The Hindu civilization - dating back to 810 AD - continues to be based on a rigid caste system which, in effect, is slavery of a lower caste by a higher caste but nobody openly admits it. As such, Indian civilization - based upon the premise that no civilization can exist without slave labor - is likely to continue forever!

The only existing civilization that continues with blatant slavery - sanctioned or not - is the Islamic civilization dating back to 1320 AD.

In that many workers in western style countries earn barely enough to sustain themselves, it can be argued that they are not much better off than the slaves of yesteryear and probably worse off because many slave-holders treated their slaves kindly, sometimes as part of the family. In fact, modern employers gain a lot more profit out of their 'wage slaves' than they did out of those they once shackled, so the whole notion of 'freedom' is spurious.

As the world at the start of the 21st century heads towards a clash of civilizations - namely the Islamic civilization and what remains of Western civilization - it is likely that unless the populations of western countries become more willing 'slaves' of the ruling classes, working for less reward and offering up their lives in the same manner that Islamic populations do, the freedoms afforded by Western civilization will be its ultimate downfall.

resurrecting ancient civilizations

Of the ancient civilizations that were overpowered by another civilization, it can be argued that those remaining in a unique geographic area, with a unique ethnicity, language and social structure - such as the Eskimo civilization of 1100BC-1850BC - can once again become a separate and unique civilization by gaining independence and eschewing the values of the civilization that overpowered it.

If civilization is a stage in the evolution of society, then reverting to a former stage does not negate viability and may, in fact, protect that society from extinction.

India, for instance, was once part of the British Empire and in all practical purposes for the period of occupation it adopted the values of its western conqueror. With independence, it successfully regained its separate and unique status as a civilization - as if the British had never been there!

An interesting scenario for the future of mankind would be the resurgence not only of all of the ancient civilizations but all of the ancient cultures, too. That the American Indians and the Australian Aborigines are asserting the uniqueness of their race and culture is something to be applauded.

If western civilization can put heritage orders on structural, environmental and animal treasures - and spend millions to preserve them - then it is only good sense that distinctive peoples should be given the same rights.

are civilizations built or destroyed by religion?

Unlike later civilizations, such as the Orthodox Christian and the Islamic civilizations which were built upon exclusive religions - as indeed was Western civilization - the earliest civilizations appear to have had no religion upon which they were built. On the contrary, organized religion - or a particular belief system - appeared to develop from the process of civilization.

Religion, however, played a devastating part in destroying thriving civilizations. The Eskimo, Polynesian and Andean civilizations were totally destroyed by Christian invaders not very long ago during the 18th and 19th centuries.

Very few past civilizations died out 'naturally' by an environmental disaster or an epidemic that was not caused or introduced by outsiders. Most were destroyed by military force or by ideological brainwashing - supplanting a new religion upon an old one - and sometimes great expanses of time passed by before a new civilization emerges from the ashes of the old.

For instance, between the fall of the Hellenic Roman Empire in 378AD and the rise of a Christian Western Civilization in 675AD, the European tribes spent almost 300 years in transition - between Paganism and Christianity.

At the time, of course, nobody realized that they were in transition! Life went on as usual. Historians in the year 2200, living in a totally new type of civilization, may look back and agree that 1914 marked the end of Western civilization, and Christianity, meaning that at present we are in transition and have been since the end of WWI.

Very few people living in today's Western civilization have first hand experience of the type of security, certainty, racial superiority and purpose that existed prior to the first great war of 1914-1918. It barely existed in the 1920s and 1930s and finally ended, ignominiously, in 1945.

In the 19th century, it was widely believed by all nations that there was nothing beyond the capabilities of the white western Christian world. The British Empire reigned supreme and was almost invincible, in the same manner as the old Roman Empire in its pre-Christian era and the new American giant that took over from Britain after 1945.

Those who were living in Europe between the two wars relate amazing stories showing how most of the old ideals that set western civilization apart from other civilizations started to change so dramatically after 1945 that it was like living in a new world.

The new ideals that replaced the old ideals - the new 'religions' of communism and multi-culturalism - seemed to create more problems than solutions, indicating that western civilization - currently led by America - has both a short-term as well as a long-term future.

The new western civilization is being overpowered by a force that is not so much attacking it from without but undermining it from within. The ideological belief that any one civilization can rule the world - and the way to achieve that aim is by integrating all races and cultures under one religion or political or economic system - is an arrogant denial of individual and social uniqueness and freedoms as well as a denial of historical precedents.