WHO ARE THE JEWS and Were Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Israel), Jews? – Genesis 38: Royal Judahites and The Canaanite Jews – Parts 1 & 2

It has been quite a while since I wrote an article in this series, so it could be classified as a work long overdue, still, better late than never, eh? So, due to its ‘lateness’ I will cut straight to the quick with a question:

Judahites or, better, Royal Judahites and The Canaanite Jews, who are these two groups or races of people and, especially, who are these Judahites? I have never heard of such a name I hear you say.

Well I must agree it’s seldom mentioned and that’s because the use of the relatively modern word ‘Jew’ (used in England in a London play called “The Rivals” for the first time in the 18th century) has swamped and smothered out The Truth of who the Judahites were and are. This means, that in a poorly informed Bible intellectual’s or theologian’s eyes, anyone born of Judah is automatically deemed to be a Jew, but is it correct to do this? NO!!! Likewise, if we were to refer to Judah’s brothers and half-brothers as Simeonites, Levites, Gadites and Ephraimites i.e. those descended from Simeon, Levi, Gad and Ephraim no one would bat an eyelid or be the least bit surprised. So how has this strange, deceptive, but simple genealogical error or oversight taken place? All will be revealed.

Furthermore, some would say, because of the parentage involved here i.e. the parentage of The Patriarch Judah, that both groups were always going to be Jews. Now on the surface that sounds straight forward enough, doesn’t it? Well yes, but then we know that life is never that straight forward, is it? It certainly wasn’t straight forward in Old Testament times and it’s certainly not straight forward in our ‘wondrous’ high tech modern times either. (Please note, all twelve sons of Jacob/Israel were Patriarchs, not just Judah)

Acts 7:8 (KJV) And He gave him the covenant of circumcision: and so Abraham begat Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat The Twelve Patriarchs. (Emphasis mine)

As I stated in my earlier articles in this series, i.e. if all peoples descended from Judah are carrying a derivation of his name, wouldn’t it be reasonable to expect that they would all be called Jews? Well, yes you would think so, but at the same time you would be very wrong. Confused? Don’t worry, just read on.

If you have read my other articles in this series entitled: “Were Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Jews?” You will know that the carriers of the genealogical seed line after Noah changed from the male side or male line to the female side or line and this continued until Jesse, King David’s father when it returned to the male side. This changeover came with Abraham and Sarah (Sarai). It was Sarah’s line to Isaac that was all important here, even more so than Abraham’s side.

We then have Isaac’s wife Rebekah with her influence over the choosing of Jacob over Esau. We then have Rachel’s influence with her being the wife that Jacob/Israel loved and, therefore, with regards to the birthright blessings passing on to Joseph, not Reuben the eldest. Joseph was the favoured son that Jacob/Israel loved more than any of his other sons.

Moreover, the female side of things again features big time in this story of the Royal Judahites and Canaanite Jews and the women characters play the far more significant role than the Patriarch Judah himself.

Abraham first had offspring from Hagar, an Egyptian, (Sarah’s handmaid) who bore him Ishmael. Ishmael was the forefather of all the Arab tribes and nations. After Sarah’s death Abraham took Keturah to wife and she bore him numerous children and from her, came amongst others, the Midianites. Now, the thing is, it was Isaac only, who inherited the racial and birthright blessings from Abraham through Sarah – neither Ishmael or any of Abraham’s other offspring through Keturah inherited the True Abrahamic racial line. Yes they were of Abraham’s loins but they did not count as inheritors. All they received was a few gifts, then Abraham sent them away from Isaac to the east.

The Arabs live to the east of Israel to this day and I do not mean the Israelis (Canaanite Jews) in the unlawful State of Israel, when mentioning this. The Arabs live in the Middle East or Near East and who is it that calls that part of the world ‘The Middle East’? Why, it’s Isaac’s sons (The Anglo-Saxons), or Isaac’s descendants in the West i.e. England, her Anglo-Saxon Commonwealth and Anglo-Saxon USA that call it by that name. Israel lives in the west and Ishmael lives in the east.

Genesis 25:5-6 (KJV) And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac. 6 But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country. (Emphasis mine)

Moving on, we then get Isaac and Rebekah who pass the birthright on to Jacob rather than Esau his brother, and this, after much collusion and subterfuge by Rebekah, making sure that Jacob inherited and Esau did not. Here again we can see the female influence coming strongly to bear on this situation. Spiritually, Jacob was Rebekah’s son, for Isaac wanted to bless Esau, not Jacob, so he had to be fooled into thinking he was blessing Esau.

Now, with Jacob and Rachel, the female influence is less prominent, it’s more subtle, because there were three other wives in Jacob’s life. However, Rachel was the wife whom Jacob loved, so it was Joseph, who was Rachel’s elder son that Jacob favoured. In turn, it was Joseph’s two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, who inherited the Birthright blessings whilst Joseph’s eleven brothers were each granted a much smaller inheritance. In a sense, although blessed, they drew the short straws by comparison to what Ephraim and Manasseh inherited. The only exception amongst the eleven brothers, to this lesser inheritance, was Judah and this is where the story becomes a little more complicated, for Judah’s inheritance included the Sceptre with Royalty and Sovereignty over Israel.

If we now turn to Genesis 38 we can take up the story line in detail, and be prepared, for there is a whole load of shenanigans going on in this chapter. As is often the case with these things, we find very important pivotal people making catastrophic mistakes. In Genesis 35:22 we read of Reuben, Jacob’s eldest son, who defiled his father’s bed by sleeping with Bilhah, one of his wives, and thereby losing his birthright inheritance. This is one of the reasons why Joseph inherited and you can read the story of that in Genesis 48.

Now with Judah, like Reuben, it was a case of him not being able to keep his trousers (pants) on when a certain Adullamite’s daughter, a Canaanitess came into his life. This unceremonious and illicit unzipping of his apparel would be the cause of massive amounts of trouble and suffering to all of Jacob’s/Israel’s descendants, as a result. That means big trouble to The House of Israel and to Judah’s Royal offspring the Judahites – The House of Judah, in the future. Let me make it clear, this was an error, on Judah’s part, of cataclysmic proportions and yet at the same time all part of what had to occur in order for prophesy to be fulfilled and for Yashua Messiah to come as planned to redeem The House of Israel and The House of Judah, not to mention the rest of mankind. OK, so here we go, Genesis 38:

Genesis 38:1 (KJV) And it came to pass at that time, that Judah went down from his brethren, and turned in to a certain Adullamite, whose name was Hirah. (Emphasis mine)

As we open up the story line we immediately have some strange turns of phrase here in the KJV. Judah ‘went down’ from his brothers. What does this mean? It means he fell from grace, and from Strong’s Concordance we get:

Went down – H3381 – yârad – yaw-rad’ – A primitive root; to descend (literally to go downwards; or conventionally to a lower region, as the shore, a boundary, the enemy, etc.; or figuratively to fall); causatively to bring down (in all the above applications): – X abundantly, bring down, carry down, cast down, (cause to) come (-ing) down, fall (down), get down, go (-ing) down (-ward), hang down, X indeed, let down, light (down), put down (off), (cause to, let) run down, sink, subdue, take down.

Not only did he leave the fellowship of the Abrahamic family, he also fell in Adamic fashion and lowered his standards by befriending and living with people who were aliens to him and thereby racially beneath him. Hirah was an Adullamite (Canaanite) herdsman and an employee of Judah, and God strictly forbade members of Jacob’s family to associate, via close intimate ties, with other tribes, especially Canaanites. This action on Judah’s part was an act of gross disobedience and rebelliousness. Why did he do it and did he do it in ignorance? I don’t think so.

We must not forget that it was his idea to sell his half brother, Joseph, into captivity and involuntary servitude. Did he have this evil deed on his conscience and feel the need to get away from his family and, in particular, from his father Jacob who grieved continually the loss of the son he loved? We do not know for sure, but it could certainly have been an issue. What we do know is that we can never truly run away from our difficulties when those difficulties reside within us, as was the case with Judah and his treacherous behaviour regarding his half brother Joseph.

Moving on, notice the next weird turn of phrase: “he ‘turned in to’ a certain Adullamite”. Again, what does this mean? It means he deliberately turned away from the right path – he knew what he was doing. Once more from Strong’s Concordance:

Turned in – H5186 – nâṭâh – naw-taw’ – A primitive root; to stretch or spread out; by implication to bend away (including moral deflection); used in a great variety of applications: – + afternoon, apply, bow (down, -ing), carry aside, decline, deliver, extend, go down, be gone, incline, intend, lay, let down, offer, outstretched, overthrown, pervert, pitch, prolong, put away, shew, spread (out), stretch (forth, out), take (aside), turn (aside, away), wrest, cause to yield.

Here we read to ‘spread or stretch out’ i.e. to go out of our way to accommodate; to ‘bend away’ it says. So he made deliberate distorted overtures, almost deferential overtures, to these Canaanite foreigners in order to be accepted into their community. Moreover, having done this, his disobedience and rebelliousness increases and his behaviour deteriorates further:

Genesis 38:2 (KJV) And Judah saw there a daughter of a certain Canaanite, whose name was (Bath)-Shuah; and he took her, and went in unto her. (Brackets and emphasis mine)

Here we can plainly see that after only three generations the very covenant agreement that God made with, and required of Abraham’s and Sarah’s seed, is broken. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had faithfully followed Yashua Messiah’s (The LORD’s) instructions and married women of their own race, tribe or clan and kept the seed line racially pure and intact, only for this man Judah to undo it all. The consequential evil fallout from this man’s actions cannot be measured in terms of the English language. There are not words descriptive enough to describe the horror, pain and suffering that would be caused to, and/or inflicted upon, Jacob/Israel’s descendants, in the future, because of this man’s evil deeds, not least to and by his own offspring, Er and Onan. However, these deeds had to take place in order for prophesy to be fulfilled. OK, so Judah takes a foreign, alien Canaanitess for his wife and the wretched union is consummated.

Genesis 38:3-5 (KJV) And she (Bathshuah) conceived, and bare a son; and he called his name Er. 4 And she conceived again, and bare a son; and she called his name Onan. 5 And she yet again conceived, and bare a son; and called his name Shelah: and he was at Chezib, when she bare him. (Brackets and emphasis mine)

Right, we can see now that three sons come from this illicit and evil union: Er, Onan and Shelah, but notice, a very slight, but very significant change takes place here, a change in authority. Er is named by Judah, but the next two offspring are named by Judah’s Canaanitess wife. This tells us that Judah’s authority has been usurped within this relationship and the women, Bathshuah and her mother (the original mother-in-law from hell LOL) are now in control. So let’s see what happens next?

Genesis 38:6-10 (KJV) And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, whose name was Tamar. 7 And Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him. 8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother’s wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. 9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. 10 And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

So what do we have going on here? Quite a lot is the answer. In verse six Judah shows signs of repentance. How do we know that? Why, through the choice of Tamar as a wife for his son Er. This was no minor decision, because Judah took the trouble to travel in order to find Tamar. How do we know this when there is no mention of Tamar’s tribal identity within the pages of the Holy Scriptures? Enter once more the Book of Jasher which also helped me in identifying Noah’s wife, Naamah. In the Book of Jasher chapter 45 verse 23 we read:

Jasher 45:23 And in those days Judah, went to the house of Shem and took Tamar the daughter of Elam, the son of Shem, for a wife for his first born, Er.

So, here again, we can plainly see that Tamar is from Shem, so is no Canaanitess and this can only mean one thing; Judah had realised the mistake he had made and sought, to the best of his ability, to rectify and make amends for his seriously bad conduct. Apart from that, what else was special about Tamar? Her name was special and from Strong’s Concordance we get the Hebrew pronunciation ‘Taw Mawr’ which means ‘erect’; ‘palm tree’; ‘upright’. This was a very special lady indeed and as the story line unfolds we shall see.

Continuing with the verses written above, we then see that Er was a bad lot, so bad, in fact, that Yashua Messiah (The LORD) had to take his life, but what was his sin, because yet again the KJV is silent about the details? Once more we return to the Book of Jasher for the evidence:

Jasher 45:24 And Er came to his wife Tamar, and she became his wife, and when he came to her he outwardly destroyed his seed, and his work was evil in the sight of the Lord, and the Lord slew him.

So here we can see Er loses his life for his evil act, but why did he behave in this way? What’s going on here and where did this particular type of evil rebelliousness come from? I mention this because, as it turns out, through the revelations of the Book of Jasher, we have the eldest son behaving in exactly the same way as the younger son – as revealed in the Holy Scriptures? Did this idea come from these young men themselves? I don’t think so. Who put them up to this? We can only guess it was their mother, their grandmother or both of them. Why? Why, because they didn’t want Judah’s family line offspring, they wanted these boys married off to Canaanite women.

However, Judah instructs his second son Onan to take Tamar as his wife, as this was the Hebrew custom. We need to take note here, too, that again, we can see Judah returning to the customs of his family, but he does have a big problem on his hands. These so called sons of his are not of his blood line. Remember, at this moment in history, the female carries the blood line with, and after, Noah. These sons are of the blood line of their Canaanite mother Bathshua. In turn, this meant that Judah, in trying to correct these sons of his, was the equivalent of someone trying to correct the Devil himself, for these young men were of the Devil’s seed from Cain to Canaan post-flood. As we can see Onan, like his older brother, is rebellious and refuses to consummate the union with Tamar by spilling his sperm on the ground. Now here I will digress on one very important point:

This Onan topic, otherwise known as ‘Onanism’ in Cainite-Judeo-Christian religious circles (don’t they just love their ‘isms’?) raises all kinds of non-issues within the Cainite-Judeo-Christian Religion i.e. the subject of masturbation and whether or not it’s a sin. Now, as far as I know, the Holy Scriptures are silent on this subject, apart from this assumed example in Genesis 38. The thing is, is this verse, as with the verse in the Book of Jasher, about masturbation, or something else entirely? Let’s read it carefully so that we fully understand what’s going on. I will rewrite the Genesis verse here:

Genesis 38:9 (KJV) And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. (Italics and emphasis mine)

“Onan went in unto his brother’s wife!!” This means that both sons penetrated her and then withdrew in order to spill their seed (sperm) – the practice of withdrawal; one of the oldest forms of contraception known to mankind. No masturbation occurred at all – period.

OK, having sorted out the nonexistent issue of ‘Onanism’ and Yashua Messiah (The LORD) having sorted out Onan, I will now move on to verse 11:

Genesis 38:11 (KJV) Then said Judah to Tamar his daughter in law, Remain a widow at thy father’s house, till Shelah my son be grown: for he said, Lest peradventure he die also, as his brethren did. And Tamar went and dwelt in her father’s house.

Now what have we got going on here, because by modern standards this whole arrangement sounds totally ludicrous and preposterous? The poor girl now had to wait umpteen years for the little brat to be old enough to bed her. Still, at least the poor girl could return home to her family. This, though, is only a brief interlude, for our heroine is about to embark upon a life threatening mission:

Genesis 38:12-14 (KJV) And in process of time the daughter of Shuah (i.e. Bathshua), Judah’s wife died; and Judah was comforted, and went up unto his sheep shearers to Timnath, he and his friend Hirah the Adullamite. 13 And it was told Tamar, saying, Behold thy father-in-law goeth up to Timnath to shear his sheep. 14 And she put her widow’s garments off from her, and covered her with a vail, and wrapped herself, and sat in an open place, which is by the way to Timnath; for she saw that Shelah was grown, and she was not given unto him to wife.

So here we can see Judah has lost his Canaanite Adullamite Mrs and goes up to meet his old buddy Hirah to be comforted and no doubt with the help of a few beers with all the lads, as you do. Whilst this is going on, Tamar takes the initiative and dresses herself up as a whore pick up and waits by the roadside for her man to pass by. Here, too, I must state quite clearly that this episode is falsely portrayed as an act of incest by many in the Cainite-Judeo-Christian Religion (mainstream Christianity) and it is not, for Tamar’s union with Judah’s two sons was never consummated due to their both practicing withdrawal. This means that at this point Tamar always was, and still is, at this moment in time, a free agent. She was also a widow and therefore free to remarry.

OK, that’s about it for part one and I will continue the story line in part two – so please stay with it.

WHO WERE THE JEWS and Were Abraham Isaac and Jacob (Israel) Jews? Genesis 38 – Royal Judahites and the Canaanite Jews – Part 2 of 2

Picking straight up with the story we now have Judah coming down the road having been ‘comforted’ by his old pal Hirah, the Adullamite Canaanite, and he sees Tamar dressed as a prostitute by the way side and thinks to himself: “‘Cor! She looks a bit tasty” and before you can say ‘Jack Robinson’ old Judah is there like a flash clamouring after her ‘services’, but this is where he, unbeknownst to him, meets his match, for Tamar’s bargaining and negotiating skills, added to which, her knowledge of The Law, are all second to none:

Genesis 38:15-19 (KJV) When Judah saw her, he thought her to be an harlot; because she had covered her face. 16 And he turned unto her by the way, and said, Go to, I pray thee, let me come in unto thee; (for he knew not that she was his daughter-in-law.) And she said, What wilt thou give me, that thou mayest come in unto me? 17 And he said, I will send thee a kid from the flock. And she said, Wilt thou give me a pledge, till thou send it? 18 And he said, What pledge shall I give thee? And she said, Thy signet, and thy bracelets, and thy staff that is in thine hand. And he gave it her, and came in unto her, and she conceived by him. 19 And she arose, and went away, and laid by her vail from her, and put on the garments of her widowhood.

It is crucial, too, that we understand what has taken place here, apart from a sexual union. Judah gives Tamar all his Royal Insignia – the signet, the bracelets and the staff. In effect he surrenders his Royal Birthright Inheritance to her for sex. This is high powered symbolism!! This means the royal line will come from Tamar’s womb including, most importantly, Yashua Messiah (the Lord Jesus Christ). This story also reveals to us the fact that Yashua Messiah (the Lord Jesus Christ) was not a Jew (a Canaanite Jew) but a Royal Judahite, and I will expound on this later.

We also need to understand that everything Tamar did here was highly honourable and in accordance with the Law of God, as it stood in those days via the Abraham, Isaac and Jacob covenants and interpretation through their example. The Law always stood; Moses only wrote it down later for the Israelites’ benefit. I will therefore repeat, this means that Tamar was in honour and Judah was in dishonour for not keeping his pledge to Tamar regarding the pledge of Shelah his third son from the Canaanitess Bathshuah:

Genesis 38:20-23 (KJV) And Judah sent the kid by the hand of his friend the Adullamite, to receive his pledge from the woman’s hand: but he found her not. 21 Then he asked the men of that place, saying, Where is the harlot, that was openly by the way side? And they said, There was no harlot in this place. 22 And he returned to Judah, and said, I cannot find her; and also the men of the place said, that there was no harlot in this place. 23 And Judah said, Let her take it to her, lest we be shamed: behold, I sent this kid, and thou hast not found her.

Here in these verses we can see how troubled Judah becomes when he cannot find the woman he bedded and the issue has now become one of honour and/or dishonour with potential disgrace and shame for him within the community at large, for the whole business is now out in the public.

Genesis 38:24-26 (KJV) And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying, Tamar thy daughter-in-law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. 25 When she was brought forth, she sent to her father-in-law, saying, By the man, whose these are, am I with child: and she said, Discern, I pray thee, whose are these, the signet, and bracelets, and staff. 26 And Judah acknowledged them, and said, She hath been more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah my son. And he knew her again no more. (Emphasis mine)

In these verses we can now see how dangerous a mission it had been for Tamar to undertake, unless she had indemnified herself. As we can see, had she not been as wise as a serpent and as harmless as a dove, she could quite easily have lost her life over this escapade. As it turns out Judah has to acknowledge that his daughter-in-law has been more righteous and honourable than he. He, in turn, does the honourable thing and commends her for her righteous behaviour and has no more intimate relations with her. This, though, is not the end of the story, for it is only just beginning:

Genesis 38:27-30 (KJV) And it came to pass in the time of her travail, that, behold, twins were in her womb. 28 And it came to pass, when she travailed, that the one put out his hand: and the midwife took and bound upon his hand a scarlet thread, saying, This came out first. 29 And it came to pass, as he drew back his hand, that, behold, his brother came out: and she said, How hast thou broken forth? this breach be upon thee: therefore his name was called Pharez. 30 And afterward came out his brother, that had the scarlet thread upon his hand: and his name was called Zarah.

Here from these verses we can see that twins are the fruits of Tamar’s womb – Royal Judahite Fruits no less, and in the shape of two sons Pharez and Zarah. This, too, is where we need to bring Shelah back into this story in order to understand that we have returned, yet again, back to the scenario of the two seeds.

This story is just as it was with Eve, after her and Adam’s fall in the Garden of Eden. We had two seeds there, and we have the same two seeds here: 1) The son of man from Adam, via Seth, via Noah, via Shem, via Eber (Heber from whom we get the name and language Hebrew), via Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and then Judah/Tamar and: 2) the other seed from the Devil, via Eve, via Cain, via Ham/Naamah (post flood), via Canaan and via Judah’s Canaanitess wife, the daughter of Shua, with the remaining Canaanite son, Shelah, and from Shelah we get the Jews or, more accurately, the Canaanite Jews. From here on, though, I am going to concentrate on Shelah’s offspring, the Canaanite Jews and will come back to Tamar’s twins, the Judahites, later.

I will now jump ahead approximately 1700 years into the future to the time of Yashua Messiah (the Lord Jesus Christ) where He is confronted by Shelah’s descendants in John:

John 8:38-41 (KJV) I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. 39 They answered and said unto Him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children (seed), ye would do the works of Abraham. 40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you The Truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. 41 Ye do the deeds of your father. (Brackets mine)

First of all, we can see how Yashua Messiah (the Lord Jesus Christ) is setting the foundation for this conversation. He is telling them that He speaks for The Father and they speak for their father – two fathers means two seeds. They then declare, erroneously, that Abraham is their father, and this is where it is crucial that we remember that the dynastic line of the Patriarchs was carried by the female side. Yes they were from Judah’s (Abraham’s) loins but, Shelah was a Canaanite, first and foremost, from his Canaanitess mother, even though Judah was his father. Judah’s Royal line, the inherited line, was carried by Tamar’s children, the twins, Pharez and Zarah.

This means that Abraham is not the father of these first century Pharisees but, rather, Canaan who was descended from Cain (the Devil’s seed) via Naamah, Noah’s wife. The Lord then confirms this with His retort:

“If you were Abraham’s children you would do the works of Abraham, but you don’t, you do the works of your father”

Let’s be clear, these inhabitants of Judea are not Royal Judahites they are Canaanites calling themselves Jews or Judeans. Notice, too, that they want to kill the Lord just as their forefather Cain had killed Abel – their spirit was the same. To sum up, all the Lord is doing here is spelling out their genealogical background and, of course, this is information they would have preferred not to be reminded of. They then confirm it by saying:

John 8:41-44 (KJV) Then said they to Him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. 42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but He sent me. 43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. 44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Then they go on the defensive by declaring that they are not born of fornication – which is a lie. Moreover, what fornication could they be alluding to? Well, we know don’t we? It was that fornication that took place in the Garden of Eden between Eve and their father the Devil. They then try to reassert that God is their father and Yashua Messiah rebuts them once more by saying that if God were their father they would love Him, The One who came from The Father. Yashua Messiah then confirms in no uncertain terms that they are OF their father – the Devil.

We must understand that there are no ‘if’s’ or ‘buts’ about this reality, they are the Devil’s seed – The Tares. Yashua Messiah again firms it up by saying that their father was a murderer from the beginning which is yet another proof that their father was Cain. Notice, that there was no truth in him either – a liar through and through. OK, that’s enough about them, but what became of Judah’s true heirs Pharez and Zarah? Well, we know about one of the twins, for he is mentioned at least twice in the Holy Scriptures:

Matthew 1:3 (KJV) And Judas (Judah) begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram. (Brackets mine)

Luke 3:33 (KJV) Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,

Here we can see the proof of The Royal Line from Judah through Pharez (Phares) to Yashua Messiah (the Lord Jesus Christ), but what of the other twin, Zarah, what happened to him, for we must not forget that he was of the same royal line as his brother? Well, as far the Biblical account goes, this descendant of Abraham through Jacob and Judah seems to vanish from the face of the earth, but did he? No, of course not, but he does vanish from the scene of the Biblical account and the Holy Land and from the geographical area that perhaps would have kept him in the focus of the Bible authors and writers.

OK, so where did he go? He went traveling is the simple answer to that and his travels took him as far as Ireland where his descendants made their home. It was here that they waited; waited for what I hear you say? They waited for the breach to be healed. What breach? The breach that occurred at the time of the birth of the twins as recorded in Genesis 38!!

Gen 38:29 And it came to pass, as he drew back his hand, that, behold, his brother came out: and she said, How hast thou broken forth? this breach be upon thee: therefore his name was called Pharez. 30 And afterward came out his brother, that had the scarlet thread upon his hand: and his name was called Zarah.

So when was this breach healed? At the time of the prophet Jeremiah’s arrival in Ireland with the princesses from the House of Judah which had gone into captivity in Babylon circa 585 BC. Jeremiah escaped with the princesses via Egypt and Spain and then to Ireland. One of these princesses, TeaTephi, a descendant of Pharez, married a descendant of Zarah and the breach was healed. True Judahite Royalty, too, was now planted in the British Isles. Even today Northern Irish (Royal Judahites) people keep a reminder of this incredible event on their national flag with the red hand representing the scarlet thread tied to Zarah’s hand.

To sum up, we can now see that Yashua Messiah (the Lord Jesus Christ) was not a Jew but, rather, a Royal Judahite and we can also see that Canaanite Jews are nothing to do with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, nor are they anything to with Judah, their father, anymore than the Ishmaelites are anything to do with Abraham, for neither of these groups inherited anything of substance from Abraham including especially the bloodline. Everything went to Isaac via Sarah, to Jacob/Israel, to Joseph, to Ephraim and Manasseh, with the Royal Sceptre going to Judah/Tamar and, in turn, the twins.

If we read Romans 9:6-13 we will find Paul confirming this reality when he states “For they are not all of Israel (Jacob) which are of Israel (Jacob)” (brackets mine). This is telling us that Judah’s birthright seed went to Pharez and Zarah and not to his Canaanite son Shelah, even though he was from Judah’s loins. The same rule applied to Esau/Edom (The Turks) and to Ishmael (The Arabs). As you can see this article has only skimmed the surface of this huge topic and I will endeavour to explain more about our ancestors in future articles, so watch this space

166 thoughts on “WHO ARE THE JEWS and Were Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Israel), Jews? – Genesis 38: Royal Judahites and The Canaanite Jews – Parts 1 & 2

  1. Very enlightening with ‘detective’-like thoroughness. Please, if you have any follow-on articles on this subject, provide a link. Thanks, and YHWH’s rich Blessings.

    • Hi Hal,

      Thanks for the encouraging comment.

      However, this page blog is all I am active with at the moment and I am producing new articles all the time and adding pages, so it’s just a matter of paying the site a visit from time to time to see what’s new.

      Regards

      Brother Charles

  2. Well, I cannot see why the devil, if as you suggest dating from the tree of knowledge, it be his intention to pollute the royal linage, (mankind) with his own evil seed. Why then didn’t the Canaanites (with Satan’s) purpose embrace the idea that Judah’s Canaanite son’s to impregnate Tamar?
    Seems their plans backfired somewhat, in that an heir came through in spite of it all.
    Or for that matter if Judah changed his mind and wanted a royal heir then why didn’t he arrange to marry Tamar himself? Second wives didn’t appear to be an issue in those days.
    And wasn’t Noah’s the last of the royals (pure seed) from Seth, and yet his wife was a Canaanite, as were Noah’s son’s wives, all Canaanite’s. All mixed seed from that point on?
    But for Judah, Canaanites women became a big deal breaker. Why? Did not the seed of all these men supposed lead all the way through to Yahsuah, then Christendom would have use believe Joseph’s sperm wasn’t even required, and that it’s suddenly OK?
    I anticipate you tender Miriam carried the seed, poor Joseph, I feel for him using his linage then being made redundant.
    And what sort of parent would knowingly put his children in the garden where there was a serpent? or worse a fornicator? Wouldn’t any parent that did such be charged with neglect? Then punish the kids, and all their descendants, first by kicking them out of the garden, and not allowed back in, and the kids also are sentenced to death as a result, and then He lets the snake (evil fornicator, lair, murderer) live, and live in every generation ever since?
    You know what I’d have done, before putting the kids in the garden, grab a shovel dispatched the snake, period.

    Aside form the above I really am enjoying reading your understanding, I’m absolutely riveted.
    The sexual relations incident I have always entertain, (better than an apple) but never have I read such a convincing account as yours. Good work.

    • Hello Dan,

      One or three points you’re missing in your comment – the first and foremost being: Yashua Messiah was The Lamb slain from BEFORE the foundation of the world. This means sin HAD to enter into the creation or into the world and did so with The Serpent creature who was made evil by God and who tempted Adam and Eve.

      You said: “Why then didn’t the Canaanites (with Satan’s) purpose embrace the idea that Judah’s Canaanite son’s to impregnate Tamar?”

      You have missed two things here: 1) Canaanites being racists hate Israelites hence Er and Onan practised withdrawal as they did not want to produce offspring via Tamar who was of Abrahamic blood. 2) Judah then forgot to give his third son Shelah to Tamar as her husband. Shelah, no doubt under guidance from his Canaanite mother, then married another Canaanite – from Shelah stem the Canaanite Jews.

      Noah’s wife was a Cainite, not a Canaanite. Her son Canaan via her son Ham was the first Canaanite. We do not know the race of Noah’s daughter’s-in-law. Noah’s bloodline was carried by all three sons, but Shem was the favoured son being the forefather of Abraham. The mixed seed entered through Canaan – Cain’s blood.

      Miriam’s bloodline was more or less the same as Joseph’s. Joseph’s role was crucial in looking after his wife and children, Yashua Messiah was the first born of five in all, I believe – that’s without checking.

      Re The Garden, God’s ways are not our ways and EVERYTHING is to His Glory. The Potter can do what He likes with the lump of clay, He can make a beautiful vase with it or a piss pot or spittoon!!

      You said: “You know what I’d have done, before putting the kids in the garden, grab a shovel dispatched the snake, period.”

      That would have been the easy and lazy way and not much Glory for God if He had done that. Plus He doesn’t want clones and zombies, He loves variety in character and uniqueness in people.

      Thanks for your comment

  3. Great article. You made the bloodlines very clear, however, I am not quite clear on Canaan’s bloodline. I am only left to assume that Canaan’s bloodline came from his Mother? Which means Ham’s wife was decendant of Cain? Wouldn’t that defeat God’s purpose of the flood to start anew? Also, I know that the word Jew is a very complex word due to many factors…Shelah with Cain’s bloodline, Edomites with Cain’s bloodline who converted to Judaism (Canaanite religion anyway) by John Hyrcanus and all the converted Japhethites to Ashkanazi Jews amongst other converts. Is there any way to know who the real Judahites are?

    • Hi Donna and thank you for your comment.

      Canaan’s bloodline came through incest via Ham with his mother Naamah (Noah’s wife) who was the sister of Tubal-Cain. However it was only Noah’s blood that counted in Shem, Ham and Japheth not Naamah’s blood. Noah carried the Adamic bloodline which he gave to his three sons – the fathers of mankind.

      We then read that Ham saw his father’s nakedness which means this:

      Leviticus 18:8 (KJV) The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s nakedness.

      Leviticus 20:11 (KJV) And the man that lieth with his father’s wife hath uncovered his father’s nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

      Ham slept with his mother whilst Noah was drunk. Then afterwards Shem and Japheth walking backward covered their parents nakedness with a large blanket.

      Naamah then gives birth to Canaan whom Noah curses because Canaan has rekindled Cain’s bloodline on the earth – Canaan was the first hu-man.

      ‘Hu’ from the Hebrew/British Gaelic and Old English tongues means ‘Serpent’, so a hu-man is a Serpent man not a MAN and a MAN is not a hu-man. Hu-man kind is not mankind.

      Jews are Hamitic Canaanites through Judah and the Adullamites daughter Bathshuah. Adullamites were Canaanites. This is how we know that Jews are the Serpent Seed from the Garden via Canaan post-flood.

      Esau married Canaanite women too and produced the Edomites. This is why Rebeka deceived Isaac into blessing Jacob because she didn’t want Esau’s Canaanite offspring blessed. It was then arranged that Jacob should marry Laban’s daughters Leah and Rachel. Laban was Rebeka’s brother so Jacob married his cousins.

      Yes going back to Esau his descendants the Edomites (The Turks and Khazars converted to Judaism = religious Jews not racial Jews.)

      The Kurds are most likely descendants of Abraham and Keturah – Abraham’s third wife after Sarah died.

      Here are the ‘Lost’ Tribes or The Twelve Tribes of Israel:

      (Joseph) Ephraim = Anglo-Saxon England (The Saacae or Saaka – Isaac’s sons = Saxons) and Her Anglo-Saxon Commonwealth – Australia, Canada, NZ and S Africa (Now stolen).

      (Joseph) Manasseh = Anglo-Saxon USA (The Saacae – Isaac’s sons)

      Simeon = Scotland (The Scythians) and Scottish descendants everywhere.

      Levi = Wales, (The Druids = descendants of The Levitical Priesthood with many butchered by the Romans in 46 AD) Cornwall and The Walloons of Belgium and Welsh descendants everywhere.

      Judah (The Jutes) (Royalty to Yashua Messiah, King David and British Royalty) = Northern Ireland and Scotland and some still dispersed in Western Europe with some in Germany.

      Benjamin = Norway, Iceland and Denmark.

      Dan = (The Tuatha de Danaan) Southern Ireland and Irish descendants everywhere.

      Reuben = Northern Gallic France and Gallic French descendants everywhere.

      Zebulon pronounced Zeebulon – a haven for ships = Holland (the Zuider Zee) and Dutch descendants everywhere.

      Gad = Flanders (modern Belgium).

      Issachar = Switzerland.

      Naphtali = Finland.

      Asher = Sweden and Swedish descendants everywhere.

      13 tribes listed in all due to Joseph’s two sons Ephraim & Manasseh both inheriting.

      • So the modern Jews (or descendants of the tribes of Israel, however you want to put it) all ended up in Europe and became Europeans? I’m confused and how that would come about.

      • Not Jews, modern Jews are Hamitic Canaanites, not Semitic Israelites.

        The Israelites migrated from the lands of the Medes and Parthians south of the Caucasus Mountains where the Assyrians (Germans) placed them after taking them captive between the years 740-725 BC. By 400 AD they had arrived in Britain after the Romans had left.

  4. Pingback: BREXIT PARTY! | Exposing End Times Dissos and Disinformation

  5. Hi Charles, thought you might get a kick out of this?

    “… but there are Jews hereabouts, in Rozhdestvenshkeya, they play cymbals and fiddles, you can send for them even now…”
    Dostoevsky. The Brothers Karamazov. p 415

  6. Charles,

    on a different note, the word “Jew” first appears in the KJV in the book of Kings. I understand it to be a colloquial for the House of Judah post Solomon, which would have been easier than saying “those Judahites, Benjaminites and Levites…” This seems to me pretty obvious, yet for some odd reason it seems many people are backward engineering the word “Jew” from today’s perspective and somehow decide that these people are a different race as if they weren’t Israelites.

    Is the KJV erroneous in its use of the word; have you uncovered any source material that would prove corrupt translation?

  7. Wow. They’ve already banned the video on the Paris Commune I sent you last week! I’ve attempted to answer my last question to you by reading your article again (doh!) and so Edom = Turks and Khazars, and the Ashkenazi is just camouflage, as the Jews are Hamitic Canaanites no yes?

      • Ha! Ditto. I found a great one, total USA, old boys out the back in their sheds building engines all day long. Classic.

        In other news I’m stuck on something I wanted to ask your opinion on. It’s recent history but what do you make of this? Thoughts appreciated.
        http://reformation.org/adolf-hitler.html

      • I don’t buy into it at all and he was decorated twice for bravery in WW1 and gassed hence that unusual gravelly voice he used so effectively when orating. How does any of that square with draft dodging? He also imprisoned the Rothschilds and took over their Reichsbank. Not the behaviour of a loving family member, eh?

        If there was anything going on it was between him and The Vatican and he was just another Holy Roman Emperor, like Charlemagne and Napoleon before him.

        Looks like the Jews have been busy with their lies.

  8. So, can we narrow down the WW2 Jew assets to Churchill, Stalin & Co and the financiers as the principle architects of bringing about the conflagration then? I suppose this would square more with why the endless vilification of Hitler today and also because he was a national socialist as opposed to international communist?

    • Roosevelt was equally involved, if not more so, he being an outright Bolshevik Jew Marxist and the driving force behind manipulating Poland into provoking Hitler into aggression. However Churchill’s band of criminals played their part:

      “Atrocity propaganda is how we won the war. And we’re only really beginning with it now! We will continue this atrocity propaganda, we will escalate it until nobody will accept even a good word from the Germans, until all the sympathy they may still have abroad will have been destroyed and they themselves will be so confused that they will no longer know what they are doing. Once that has been achieved, once they begin to run down their own country and their own people, not reluctantly but with eagerness to please the victors, only then will our victory be complete. It will never be final. Re-education needs careful tending, like an English lawn. Even one moment of negligence, and the weeds crop up again – those indestructible weeds of historical truth.”

      — Sefton Delmer (Jew?) (1904-1979), former British Chief of ‘Black propaganda’: 1945 conversation with the German professor of International Law, Dr. Friedrich Grimm.

      I will check out the link you posted in your other comment, only I am not a fan of Bill Finck.

      • Thanks Charles.

        I’ve stumbled upon your comments at FJT on Bitchute. You’re still on Disqus heh?

        Somewhere in one of those threads I happened upon Greatest Story Never Told. Very well done, and cleans up so many lies. I noticed that quote you’ve put above early on. Definitely have agreed with D Irving for some time Churchill was a warmonger scoundrel (Jewish mom too?).

        What a century of absolute lies. Obviously they haven’t stopped with the atrocity propaganda.

        I’m not sure who Finck is but if he is the fellow behind the devil has children link I sent you, I can’t say I was overly compelled by his site (but the picture was priceless). It seems to me he is mangling and compounding lies related to this period of time and continuing to paint Hitler in the lie light.

      • Oh yes Satan and his offspring have been lying to us for 6,000 years.

        Finck is the creature behind Christogenea.

        FJT? I post dozens of comments on Disqus, so you’ll have to refresh my memory.

      • Regardless the Finck guy, picture says a thousand words heh?

        Have you ever read Mein Kampf?

      • Yes they are very ugly people, both inside and out.

        Yes I have read Mein Kampf until I found myself disagreeing with some of his ideas and then I stopped reading it, but then he was only a fallen man, like the rest of us. If I remember correctly it was his views on the German aristocracy that I did not like and strangely enough it was that issue that cost him dearly in his military campaigns, for he never won them over = the curse of socialism.

      • OK. I’m not familiar with his views in the German aristocracy. Thanks for the update.

      • Yes they always viewed him as an upstart with little or no respect for him at all. This was probably because he did not continue and maintain the institution of German monarchy if only as a figure head. Which a wiser man would have done. Just guessing.

      • Well, Albert Camus does a nice work of tracing Hitler and Stalin (and other Communists) from the French Revolution in his book “The Rebel”. National Socialism seems to be a hybrid philosophy of a post-Christian nature that still includes references to God, but is essentially based on the germanic philosophies that are alive and well today in the EU and Green movement. Thus ditching the monarchy would have been a necessary act as Hitler was ultimately the Messiah of his own religion.

      • That’s a pretty good summary. Hitler was just another Napoleon in many ways – a Holy Roman Emperor.

        And yes German National Socialism was a philosophy, not a heartless political dogma like Communism.

        The EU may have started out like that, but the Communists took it over in 1989 when the Berlin Wall came down. In effect Moscow moved to Brussels.

      • Then Washington, London, Paris, Ottawa and the halls of academia and Hollywood LOL!

      • London was well and truly Jewified in 1815 and I suppose you could say Washington fell totally with the election of FDR who was an outright Bolshevik, along with his heinously ugly wife.

        Don’t forget that without Jew money power in London, New York and Washington the Russian Revolution invasion would never have taken place.

      • I think Hitler understood that only too well. One of the many reasons he is continually vilified, when arguably Churchill was much more a butcher, war monger and war criminal.

      • Churchill’s agenda was to destroy Hitler’s Nationalist Germany at all cost and with the deaths of as many Germans as possible, on behalf of The Rothschilds. That’s it.

      • Yes she is pretty ugggly – was Roosevelt himself a WASP though?

      • Interesting how Hitler and Mussolini both believed their ‘workers’ would identify with their nationality before ‘workers’ of another country and now the commies have managed to create a global identification of LBGT culture that crosses national borders with ease.

      • Well, it’s likely to get a lot worse in the meantime LOL!

      • Charles, if Esau took a Canaanite wife, and Judah also, why are the descendants of Esau Turks & Khazars, but of Judah are Canaanite Jews? Aren’t they all functionally descendants of Canaan?

      • Because the warrior Esau was dominant within his Canaanite relationships – he had to be, whereas Judah was a wimp in his Canaanite relationship with Bathshuah who ruled the roost. Tamar’s seed was the escape route.

        Esau had no escape route for he gave away his birthright for a bowl of soup so he had to assert himself over his Canaanite women or lose his identity as a tribe/clan/nation. However, he could never undo his race mixing error making the Turkic peoples non-Semitic/Abrahamic.

      • I’m not sure what you mean by escape route? Aren’t we really just tracing out DNA and bloodlines?

        I get what you are saying about Esau being a warrior and not losing identity, but he mated with a Canaanite. That the Shelahites were to foist and preserve their own hatred of Judah with their own doppelgänger identity I also understand. Yet, both groups are of semite/canaanite lineage, so why is one more “evil” per se than the other? Satan spawn is satan spawn no yes?

      • Escape route = an honourable future for his seed through Tamar. Esau had no such privilege because he rejected his birthright, Judah did not, as the birthright went to Joseph, not Judah, and Judah had no say in that nor did his behaviour seem to have any bearing on Jacob’s decision. However, the Royal line had to be preserved through Judah.

        Of course both lines are of Canaanite seed, and both evil, but Esau’s descendants never intentionally set out to usurp Israelite identity, whereas Shelah’s descendants did. Esau wanted his own dynasty and achieved that.

        This is why this erroneous teaching of ‘Edomite Jews’ is so heinous – it’s a lie.

      • So, Esau achieves a sultanate (kingdom), and the Jews hate monarchy because they will never be on the throne and it is a dead giveaway to their bogus claim on lineage. Interesting.

        You wrote:
        “= an honourable future for his seed…Esau had no such privilege because he rejected his birthright, Judah did not, as the birthright went to Joseph, not Judah, and Judah had no say in that nor did his behaviour seem to have any bearing on Jacob’s decision. However, the Royal line had to be preserved through Judah.”

        I’m following you on:
        “Esau had no such privilege because he rejected his birthright, Judah did not and the Royal line had to be preserved through Judah.”

        However, this isn’t clear to me:
        “as the birthright went to Joseph, not Judah, and Judah had no say in that nor did his behaviour seem to have any bearing on Jacob’s decision.”

        Birthright = blessings of Joseph Ephraim & Manasseh = covenant people, and royal line = royal line?

        Judah has privilege of royal line but no covenant people?

      • Judah’s descendants are still covenant people through Tamar, but not Bathshuah’s descendants. The Royal Sceptre is a different and separate covenant.

        The Empire, commonly known as The British Empire, was really The English (Ephraimite) Empire. The Scots and the others went along for the ride and for the spoils. Strange how they now want their independence now that the Empire is dead – typical treacherous Simeon.

      • So it is the Judahite line moving around that accounts for the stone moving to Ireland, then Scotland, then England and now…

      • Charles, in somewhat related historical explorations, have you ever looked much into the Romanov dynasty and their lineage?

      • I haven’t, but I have had a gut feeling for a long time that they are descended from the Roman Caesars and that the western Russians are the modern day Romans.

      • Interesting. I suppose their dual headed eagle heraldry might reveal a few things heh? If they are modern day Romans does that make them hittites?

      • Possible and no the Italians are the Hittites. Italians are Canaanite Babylonians, not Romans. By 400 AC Roman numbers were greatly reduced and their army was mostly made up of non Roman slaves.

      • Aye,

        Was the bonny young Elizabeth crowned over it then or no?

      • Politically a fraud, but not racially a fraud. She obviously was not the apple of God’s eye and that’s probably because she was indoctrinated from the age of 12 by Sir Henry Marten, the Fabian Marxist Headmaster of Eton College.

        The whole of our ‘elite’ are Cultural Jew Marxist in their thinking = all multiculti diversity luvvies to a man/woman – 100% mentally sick and degenerate.

      • Ahhhhh,

        That’s the fellow I was looking for! This growth of the Marxist weed in the Ephraimite garden…

        Indeed, rather than succumb to Satan and ask for redemption they just succumb.

        Wow on that info. Gracias. I knew there was something going on but didn’t know any names, just London School of Economics (Mick Jagger). Eton heh? Who knew? LOL!!!

      • Well her father King George VI MUST have known and, of course, given it his blessings. This all fits in with the removal of King Edward VIII as king – a great admirer of Herr Hitler. In contrast King George VI sucked up to the Bolshevik Marxist turd Roosevelt.

      • Indeed.

        Now, you say removal as opposed to abdication?

      • Simpson the hermaphrodite (today known as transgenders) was an agent used to appeal to and satisfy Edward’s sexual weaknesses – some might say perversions. Because she/he was a divorcee this was used as an excuse by the then Archbishop of Canterbury to pressure Edward to abdicate by refusing to marry them. He then had to choose between the throne and marriage to his weirdo partner.

      • All part of the distraction shit show. They’re taking your mind off of something more important. If this was real they would hush it up like the REAL paedophile rings – Savile and those linked with him in the BBC, Westminster and Cliff Richard etc. etc..

      • So, what is Andrew doing with Epstein? You reckon Epstein is a tip of an iceberg not the main but a distraction?

      • Whoever or whatever they release to the public as knowledge or information is done for a reason and that reason is for (((their))) benefit, not ours. It’s always done to hide something else or distract our attention away from something bigger they are doing in the background. Plus this case has the added bonus of slinging mud at royalty, which (((they))) always love doing.

      • Not sure. I just had a wee poke around for more dirt on Mr Eton College, er Queen’s private tutor and found that. Not sure who Albert Burgee is? Hasn’t posted anything in a while, so maybe he is in a dungeon cell somewhere now?

      • Albert Burgess was/is a retired part time police constable who originally exposed Marten as the Fabian Marxist who indoctrinated Elizabeth Windsor when she was 12 years of age. He was also a British Constitutional expert – very knowledgeable on that subject.

        He was getting on a bit and very over weight and breathless in his delivery, the last video of his that I saw, so he may have passed away.

      • PS More Dostoevsky for you:

        “And we all realised as soon as he came in today that he was not a man of our kind. Not because he came with his hair curled by a hairdresser, not because he was in a hurry to show off his intelligence, but because he’s a stool pigeon and a speculator, because he’s a Jew and a mountebank, and it shows.” Crime & Punishment p203

      • Aye. I am aware of his “race”. I find it interesting such a site exists.

        Additionally I stumbled upon this. I thought you might enjoy? If you recall The Last White Man videos that were obliterated off YT, I found some of his material on BitChute channel White Power and in the comment section if I’m not mistaken he was known as Vertigo Politics. I chased that up and wound up here with various links:

        https://zigforums.com/thread/12473780/politics/vertigo-politix-archive.html

      • Yes, unfortunately, he is a Papist or has leanings in that direction and regularly uses the slogan ‘Deus Vult’ plus the Queen of Heaven Madonna and child iconography. Possibly a Jesuit.

        Take care out there.

        PS still working on the Lord Halifax/Churchill stuff.

      • Charles, I wasn’t sure why you were suggesting to be careful out there with these Deus Vult people. Then yesterday I stumbled on Bishop William Richardson. First I watched an interview where he refuted the holocaust (for which he was later sent to the rack LOL). Then I watched a few minutes of him going through history. Wow! Talk about messed up! Now I think I understand why so few people know their real history – the Vatican does everything it can, even siding with Jews to conceal it and promote their own fake nonsense. Had to shut that off fast, the vibes coming off the guy were dark as! Evil I tell you!!

        PS Stumbled upon this and thought you might enjoy a bit of Ephraim & Manasseh?

      • Nebuchadnezzar’s Image:

        Daniel 2:41-43 (MCV) And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters’ clay, (The Jews) and part of iron, (Rome) the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, (Rome) forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay. (The Jews) 42 And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, (Rome) and part of clay, (The Jews) so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken. 43 And whereas thou sawest iron (Rome) mixed with miry clay, (The Jews) they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron (Rome) is not mixed (cannot in Truth be mixed) with clay. (The Jews) = an unholy satanic alliance.

        PS A great video – film footage I have never seen before.

      • Glad you enjoyed it. It is great footage. It almost makes me cry for something I never experienced but happened not too long before I was born. Elizabeth, Deifenbaker, Eisenhower, Nixon, all that seeming strength and competence and then bam! The 60s get going and it’s all over. Funny how the Queen seems so lost. Sad too, that if it weren’t for the internet this footage would be lost to time for there is no outlet for it in Canada despite being funded by the taxpayer. What a messed up scene Canada has become.

      • She was 100% Marxist indoctrinated – hence she looks lost. Strange as it may seem, but Nixon was probably the most honourable one there:

        “The Jews are all through government, and we have got to get in those areas. The government is full of Jews, second, most Jews are disloyal. You can’t trust the bastards. They turn on you.”

        President Richard M. Nixon, Nixon Tapes, July 3rd 1971.

      • The Nixon stuff does not surprise me. And he did win the largest majority in the history of the US in ’72 (if I’m not mistaken) – what that says about what Americans once understood is hard to know but his reputation is in the gutter now.

        As for Elizabeth, how do you reckon she has been guided? As in, to believe she can be a Marxist and a Christian at the same time? Or that her lineage is real but Christ is just a moralistic story and not real?

      • Probably through fear = not wanting to end up in a cellar, with all her family, like her Russian relatives, partly a matter of survival I would suggest. No doubt her father was also a great influence, who also liked the Marxist FDR.

      • It said so in the photo caption. Not that I would know, they all look a bit alike those medals and ribbons and shiny bits.
        Currently reading “Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War” by Patrick J. Buchanan. Interesting to say the least, and covering some of this ground. You may enjoy it if you’re looking for something to occupy a spare moment? I feel now that one could make a great parody of the Beatles “Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band” with “Winston Churchill’s Pyscho Killers Club”. Catchy heh? Quite worrying that the current bottle washer stand-in at PM not only can’t get his hair combed or his tailoring sorted but that he is a YUGE Churchill fan! I don’t know whether to laugh or cry, BUT finished the second more careful read of the OT yesterday and opened up Matthew 1:1 this morning for a mindblower – straight into the chronology!

      • Bog Brush Bozo Boris as I affectionately know him.

        Best to cry IMHO, as your laughter may be misinterpreted and especially as they were/are both Jews and as subversive as each other.

      • Didn’t know that. Well, 3 strikes you’re out.

        First up, here’s a video that features new Papal intrigues:

        Second, without getting into details some of Matthew 5 leaves me a bit frustrated all this love thine enemy business. Care to shed any light on those teachings?

      • Ah those wonderful Beatitudes, as they are commonly known! Now there’s a $64 trillion dollar question!! And to be perfectly honest they leave me wondering and guessing. I have waited patiently on The Lord for over thirty seven years for a full explanation and I am still waiting.

      • Some of them, such as pray in your closet make perfect sense. Upon second read I suppose the answer for 5:44 is 5:45 that the Father has created all good and evil for his pleasure and reason. It is quite challenging sometimes though isn’t it???? Just want to start swinging! LOL

      • Very challenging! Always remember that He taught and preached whilst still under The Law, so the first question we must ask is whether or not it was an Old Covenant sermon or a New Covenant sermon.

        E.g. The so called ‘Lord’s Prayer’ is definitely Old Covenant.

      • Hmm. Interesting. I suppose one day an acorn will fall on my head! At what point is the truth the truth whether old or new covenant?

      • It’s amazing how NT reads now after 2 good reads of OT.

      • Thanks. Long overdue. At this point it is so much easier to see it is not down to me at all but what I have been led through to understanding. Some time ago you mentioned something about people being under Satan’s orders, and I demurred. Now, the anvil has fallen on my head and of course that is the only thing that explains it all isn’t it?

      • So it begins…

        Serpent man parades his big phallus as the UN calls for the new economic order to replace Bretton Woods:

      • Revelation 20:7-9 (KJV) And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, 8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea 9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. 

      • Chuckle, chuckle, I had the same thought watching their heads turn as the car drove past.

      • I was searching Hitler quotes and found this and thought of you…
        “everything about the behaviour of American society reveals that it’s half Judaised, and the other half negrified. How can one expect a State like that to hold together?”

      • Very true and as we see today with it being on the verge of collapse. With the victory over Germany came the beginnings of our national demise – both Britain and America.

      • Well, if you’ve got time I think you’d appreciate Buchanan’s book, not that it is going to ultimately change anything I suppose, but it was such a solid excoriation of Churchill with so many notes and choice quotes, including from Hitler. Those in particular made me realise why it has been so crucial to bury Mein Kampfe because despite it’s oddities and errors it is still filled with some good basic what’s really going on 101 as I’ve stumbled upon here (I know you’re not too keen on this dude and I get why but there are some choice little lines from the Adolf):

      • Buchanan is controlled opposition 100% – a shill of shills so sift carefully what that illegitimate says.

        As far as Finck (Christogenea) is concerned he’s a stiff necked arrogant Kraut who teaches the doctrines of devils – more or less total error.

      • I’m not really concerned about Finck just the fact that some of Hitler’s quotes are pretty insightful.

        Would not have put Buchanan in the CO pile so that comes as a surprise, but his book is an excellent tour of what a loon Churchill was and how WW1 & 2 destroyed the empire.

      • I have recently gone head to head with Finck exposing him for the fraud that he is and he didn’t like hearing a few home truths. He is one stiff necked rebellious so and so, with his partial flood crap and negroes coming from the beasts of the earth garbage. I might do an article exposing the illegitimate along with Weisman whom they plagiarise.

        Buchanan is a half-truth teller and never points his finger in the right direction. If he does it’s always ZIONISTS and not THE TRIBE. He also accepts the political status quo and delusionally thinks there’s remedy via the ballot box, or at least he used to – I have not read him for ages. Weber at The IHR regularly posts his stuff.

        If you want to copy a paste a few Hitler quotes then feel free.

        PS I have been getting a lot of hits/views from Australia lately – is that you? In particular he/she has been viewing the Ananias and Sapphira article.

      • Not me, but keep me posted. I was intending to inquire if any Aussies were checking your blog as it might make for a place to say hello to perhaps another who has been called to repentance.

        If you write the article on the Finck, I’ll have a read. I’m sure you’ll tear him a new one! However, as with so many of these people, I’ve come to the conclusion that they are all under a heavy delusion and will remain so. I get what you’re saying about PB. I don’t follow him, but this book jumped out at me so I thought “I’ve always known about him and read a few bits, I think I’ll check it” From my point of view he laid out these fantastic quotes that when viewed through the right eyes led to the obvious conclusions, though I agree he, like many will never get the Tribe thing and does not dare to step over a line for fear of reprisal. Maybe one day he’ll shit or bust? Or, perhaps he isn’t being called? Yet, primarily for many the book would be such a basic wake up to the propaganda around WW1 & 2 it would possibly make for a great starting point.

        Great point about the ballot box. Most will never reach that conclusion either I imagine.

        PS is the Ananias and Sapphira article new? I’m not familiar with it.

        Oh, I find it so beautiful that having just read Matthew after 2 rounds of OT understanding what I’ve come to understand, and it all just fits. There is nothing you are making up and all your language is the language of Christ. For example 27 & 28 lays out the 2 different sabbaths. No big scene. Just all there in black and white and yet nobody can see. Lost in delusion. Then the end of 28 just reads like such obvious graffiti – why on earth would Christ have said that about baptism? It is so out of place, such an obvious religious insert or signature – totally out of nowhere, erroneous

      • As long as you’re not in Perth and he or she in Brisbane, eh? LOL. Australia is nearly as big as USA is it not? At this moment in time he or she has not left a comment. Here’s hoping and praying.

        I am researching Weisman as well, so will expose both of ’em, as I am sure Finck plagiarises Weisman.

        Yes Buchanan has his moments and then withdraws like a scared tortoise back into his mainstream media whore shell.

        Strong delusion is right, along with blindness and being totally deaf.

        Glad to have the confirmation of your thorough findings. Thanks for that.

        Ananias and Sapphira – How Can We Know This Is a Fake Story?
        https://isthefathercallingyoutohisson.wordpress.com/2016/04/28/ananias-and-sapphira-how-we-can-know-this-is-a-false-or-a-fake-story/

      • Thanks for the link.

        Nice new header. Alas the LORD hath given and the LORD taketh away. I’ve been watching all this stuff in Australia, Canada, Britain, & The USA and the Marxists are just thronging on getting more insane by the day. Well, I’ll just get back to Luke I suppose, and make some popcorn!

        BTW conversation with the wife has begun, not much to relate at this point but, that I think things will get interesting soon enough.

      • Glad to hear conversation with your wife has begun. I will be praying for you both.

        Not sure I follow re the LORD giveth, unless you mean Britain’s (Israel’s) past greatness.

        I find the ‘news’ very painful to watch even the alternative stuff gets repetitive and boring, all I get from it is high blood pressure.

      • Yes, I mean the past greatness.
        I agree. Not much to do but turn it off.

        Re: the conversation depending on what happens, if I need to keep on looking elsewhere, I’ve had a thought about approaching a Presbyterian. They believe in Grace through faith no/yes? I thought it might be worth a shot to ask for grace through baptism? Regarding whomever does the baptism who is qualified to do it? Do they have to believe, or have been called or baptised themselves or could I find a multi-occasion celebrant?

      • Are there any Pentecostal churches in Oz? Especially Pentecostal Oneness groups as they are Unitarian, that is monotheist, and Baptise, so they must Baptise into Jesus Christ’s name alone – no trinity.

        As long as they’re a believer and declare Jesus Christ as Lord – The Lord can use anyone, as long as they are agreeable to your instructions.

      • “they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men:” Wow, Yet another telling straight up.

      • Hi Charles,

        Just had a look at RI now that summer is over and they are back at it. I found this article from Mike Walsh, and also if you scroll to the comments you will see the 2nd main comment from Alexsi Jaakkola. 2 replies in is Fr. John+ I’m not sure if you’ve ever come across this fellow nor if this is your bag (fisher of men) but his comment struck me as at least a fellow with a half a clue so I thought I would let you know of this.
        https://russia-insider.com/en/media-criticism/war-against-white-people-full-swing-europe-and-us/ri27551

      • He must be a Papist if he calls himself ‘father’ John. Yes, many Papists are sort of awake, but they’re still hooked on their satanic cult at the end of the day. Many, ludicrously, think it can be reformed.

        He’s got some things right so here’s hoping he dumps his counterfeit church.

        PS I am banned at Russian Insider.

      • Ha! Why?

        Hmm, let me guess, the Jew gatekeepers have shooed you away???

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s