https://nitter.net/backyardbound1/status/1741656028347826242
Best friends with American Jesus, the super tall white guy with long hair.
egyptian people should be allowed to kill anyone who makes up shit about the pyramids at this point.
There’s a reason Klan leadership pivoted into writing esoteric and supernatural “nonfiction” a couple decades back. That shit is insidious.
Inca? White. Africans? White. Chinese Dynasty? White.
All societies have been white. POC were made up in 2016 to fool you.
No they existed, but in the good old days we called them slaves and they listened
why are crackers this ignorant? they probably heard this from some chud youtuber and just believe it at face value, repeat it ad nauseam, and never investigate further
I've tried to explain to my lib friends that psuedo history isn't "harmless fun" like they say it is, but they just can't see the very direct connection between "Europeans are a superior race who come from Atlantis" and nazi shit. I wish I lived in that nice little bubble they do, where the ills of the world don't directly affect them and get to be just another spectacle. Caring about things is exhausting.
Listen, here me out, everyone in anime is white, right? So that means white people have Naruto powers.
Checkmate.
it means that Japan is western, just like Latinx America
Abrahamic Jehovah: red/brown colored skin (like a jasper and a sardine stone), glowing red-hot like heated iron, 'wooly' white hair
whites: this is literally me
God (besides Jesus, subsequently) gets a physical description in the Bible?
in some versions i guess, for example in revelations 4:3 'And he who sat there had the appearance of jasper and carnelian, and around the throne was a rainbow that had the appearance of an emerald.' according to https://www.openbible.info/topics/gods_appearance
I wouldn't take the book of Revelations as being representative of anything shared in the 'Abrahamic' religions, or even Christianity, much less a description of God.
I've never heard of this site before so I'm not sure how credible it is, but quite a few of the verses in this list have absolutely nothing to do with describing God's "physical" appearance, especially in context, so I also wouldn't put too much trust into their claim.
Truth is there is no real Biblical basis for such description, even including any of Jesus if I recall correctly.
Also, the term Jehovah was just kinda made up in Germany. That name also doesn't exist Biblically.
They appeared to use the NIV translation, which you may object to but is also easily one of the most common versions. The original King James Version reads very similarly, as does the NKJV.
There are definitely multiple descriptions of Jesus (you can see people mention them in the dumb "Was Jesus white?" arguments), and here is a collection of relevant passages.
Jehovah is just a lightly Germanicized version of Yahweh, look at the consonants: J [which is pronounced as an English Y]; H; V [can be either a V or an F in English phonetics, probably a V here]; H, like Yahweh being YHWH. Jesus isn't what Jesus was actually named (it was Yeshua), these are just things that happen in translation.
I do agree that the description is probably being applied to Christ, though. Not that Revelations would give a historically accurate view, but theologically Revelations is canonical so a Christian is in no standing to deny it.
They appeared to use the NIV translation, which you may object to but is also easily one of the most common versions. The original King James Version reads very similarly, as does the NKJV.
Yeah, I didn't object to the translation used. I studied Ancient Greek so I can and have read the Bible as well as other Ancient Greek philosophy texts in their original language, so please believe me I'm really just treating this as a discussion of ancient literature. No different to LotR or GoT lore. And while I prefer the NRSV despite it having translation issues as well, the NIV wasn't used by that site. It used and only used the ESV, which is common among hardline Right-wing Christian fundamentalist evangelicals, and was another reason red flags went up for that site. That being said, their translation of that specific verse is almost identical to the NRSV, since the ESV is based off the RSV, so there isn't really an issue on that point.
There are definitely multiple descriptions of Jesus (you can see people mention them in the dumb "Was Jesus white?" arguments), and here is a collection of relevant passages.
Thanks for linking that! I read it and it comes from a Catholic source, so take that how you will, but it itself says at the start that
There is no physical description of Christ in any of the Gospels or New Testament letters.
The rest is either admission that people choose to imagine Jesus however they like or using Jewish scripture (written hundreds or thousands of years before the alleged person of Jesus existed) to guess how Jesus might have looked due to retrospective 'prophecy'. It also cites a Letter and the Shroud of Turin, both questionable in authenticity, and then ends with the use of the noble science of phrenology to suggest Jesus was a genius because he was big brained. Not saying people don't use these as bases for descriptions, they definitely do, because then we do have Nazis making false claims about White Jesus but the Bible itself has no direct or clear physical descriptions of Jesus. Best guess is Jesus probably looked like one of the many Palestinians being genocided at the moment.
Jehovah is just a lightly Germanicized version of Yahweh, look at the consonants: J [which is pronounced as an English Y]; H; V [can be either a V or an F in English phonetics, probably a V here]; H, like Yahweh being YHWH. Jesus isn't what Jesus was actually named (it was Yeshua), these are just things that happen in translation.
Yup, that is true.
I do agree that the description is probably being applied to Christ, though. Not that Revelations would give a historically accurate view, but theologically Revelations is canonical so a Christian is in no standing to deny it.
That's cool if you read that as being Jesus, I'm not really contesting that and I have no issue with it. The text itself isn't clear so there's no way of knowing for sure what is being referred to there. It's open to interpretation. And, that's true, Revelations is canon but it was unpopular or rejected even when it became canon and continued to be questioned and was even rejected by Martin Luther thousands of years later in his Preface. Whether a Christian has standing to deny it is a theological question and I don't have authority to answer it but I think there is good precedent for it, and from a purely critical perspective there's no reason one book written by one guy that has no relation to any other texts should necessarily be considered a foundational text to the religion. My point was just that taking Revelations at face value, given the above, to make the claim that it speaks for the Abrahamic religions as such on the subject of God's appearance is not accurate, academically nor theologically.
i literally provided a description froma version of the bible, dont pretend like your favorite interpretation of an appearanceless god is the only interpretation that exists. i was using jehovah ironically as an english pronunciation of YHWH or whatever the sky wizard OCs name is supposed to 'ackshually' be. i dont 'put too much trust' in anyones claims about bronze age war deities, because i dont believe in them, stone age religions are much cooler and we all know Manicheanism is the One True Religion anyway
I'm not pretending my favorite interpretation is the only one that exists? I never said that and I'm very open to discussing different interpretations. But taking Revelations at face value as an authority on anything isn't very well supported academically or theologically either and that site's list of verses didn't even match the alleged theme so I was kinda doubting its credibility. It's even open to interpretation whether that verse is referring to God or someone/thing else. Just saying, Revelations sucks. Its 'interpretation' of God's appearance in those verses, if we assume it's God, literally doesn't exist anywhere else in the Bible, which is a significant point because it is not a view shared with either Judaism or Islam, nor even within Christianity generally. So, it's just one book's interpretation and one which was unpopular. I don't think that justifies extrapolating it to make a claim about the "Abrahamic" God's appearance.
Anyway, not trying to argue with you or rehash the classic internet religion debate, and I'm sorry if it came off as an attack but you mentioned a description of God's alleged appearance in "Abrahamic" religions, in what I know was a joke, but then someoned asked about its validity Biblically and then you responded with something not quite accurate Biblically speaking so I just wanted to add a point of clarification. Maybe it would've just been better to respond to GarbageShoot but just thought it would be good to keep the thread linear.
further excerpts which attribute features of appearance to god:
Exodus 33:18-22
And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory.
19 And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.
20 And he said, Thou canst not see my FACE: for there shall no man see me, and live.
21 And the Lord said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:
22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
23 And I will take away את my hand, and you shall see my BACK PARTS: but my FACE shall not be seen.
Daniel 7:9
9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of Days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.
Revelation 4:2-3
2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.
3 And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald.
Genesis 1:26
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.
26 And above the dome over their heads there was something like a throne, in appearance like sapphire,[e] and seated above the likeness of the throne was something that seemed like a human form. 27 Upward from what appeared like the loins I saw something like gleaming amber, something that looked like fire enclosed all around, and downward from what looked like the loins I saw something that looked like fire, and there was a splendor all around. 28 Like the bow in a cloud on a rainy day, such was the appearance of the splendor all around. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezek.+1-3%3B+8%3A1%E2%80%933%3B+10&version=NRSVUE
'not quite accurate' lmfaoooo its literally from the bible, its literally as accurate as anything else from the bible
Whatever, dude. You're either not getting or just ignoring my point. You don't have to believe in the Bible nor am I proselytizing to you absolutely anything, in fact I agree the Bible is wildly contradictory, but we can always learn to be more accurate and knowledgable when we do speak on any subject.
Okay, I think from this that you're just not getting my point, which is fine, and I'm sorry again if I am writing any of this in an argumentative way because I'm sincerely not trying to attack you or argue and get heated. I think we agree on some things, I just think if you ask Muslims or Jews, even Christians, if that description in Revelations matches how they view God the answer will probably be No.
But, anyway, I'm respectfully not going to continue this discussion on your other points because this probably isn't the appropriate place for it in the first place nor do I think it's going to de-escalate by going further. I was just putting that out there for others' edification but I'm still happy to continue the conversation with you elsewhere if you'd like.
the source for this information is something made up on the spot in 1912 by some cracker with no job named "Benhuxley Goodsworth"
refuses to allow genetic testing of early emperors
shows a picture of a fucking taklamakan mummy. mmmm yes so prehistoric China had a claim in modern Xinjiang then?
genetic testing is just elevated phrenology anyway, all it actually tells you is what groups/modern people are related to a particular corpse, or group of corpses. it can help identify some movements of people but provides zero insight into the culture or language or social status of the people. there is no white people gene, we don't actually know how mummies looked or skulls looked in life.
also there aren't any verified early emperor burials what the fuck are they talking about. the ban was on all kinds of archaeological corpses because westoids kept fucking stealing samples to do phrenology with
but like the second one has to be bait what self-respecting white supremacist wouldn't say something like the coliseum and just claim it's more impressive than the pyramids?????
Genghis Khan? White.
Xerxes? White.
Jesus? White
Mohammed? White.
Sargon of Akkad? White.
The entire population of Australopithecus? Believe it or not, white.
Sargon of Akkad? White.
I mean there's some
Anglo Island dipshit using his name so, two Pinocchios for this line.
Also British, a right bastard, and a culture thief. But I'm repeating myself
Genghis Khan? White
23 minutes of hardcore debunking on that claim (which i know was a bit but it's cool historiography)
literally finding it funny that ghengis khan looks pretty much exactly what wed expect him to look like based off what we can observe of typical modern mongolian men but you have to actually convince some shitass white dudes that this obvious thing is true and real
Jenkins Hanz is definitely a white guy, I don't know what y'all are talking about
They'll look at the first fish to crawl onto land and go "oh him? He's white"
Like anyone even seriously proposing that theory today? Those are PDX forum morons just take the Secret History telling us he was a redhead and then go straight for their "everyone was a Tocharian" usual nonsense.
racists always be. but i really like that guy, mans so good. a video that could've been 30 seconds of "no" is a detailed study of all available sources extremely proving the obvious beyond any shadow of doubt. i appreciate.
tocharians are a real bullshit thing named after a pretty discrete area in the tarim basin but some 19th century euro guy who associated them with references to tokharistan (several hundred kms south and over a mountain range) has stuck in the nomenclature without any academic support for it
ayo hol up you tellin me Kayden Lieblowiczski built the pyramids an' stuff?
Atlantians were proto whites/proto Faustians. I'm assuming that's what Spengler says in Early Days of World History
It's more complicated than that. European cultures begin as an alchemical merging of Atlantean and Turanian elements.
Turanian? I would've thought Nemedian or Poitainian over them. Aquilonian even.
Turanian? I would've thought Nemedian or Poitainian over them. Aquilonian even.
what do any of these words mean
I don't want to go down a white supremacist Google hole, which I fully expect to happen if I just search them blindly
could someone who is a little more online please tell me wtf any of those proper nouns mean?
what do any of these words mean
Conan universe setting from this essay. Though contrary to what you might expect, it served (especially outside anglo world) to ridicule those XIX century chud myths by turning them into full fiction. Like i never meet anyone seriously proposing bullshit like hyperborea, atlantis and antediluvian world seriously since everyone know its from book about Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Turanian
my best guess on this is that they're substituting "aryan" for turanian to avoid the nazi-coding. Turan is an iranian term for east-of-iran based on a legendary figure. as indo-iranian(aryan) split into iranian and indo-aryan in the general area of Turan i suppose the nazis probably think there was a central-asian atlantis of white people over there or something
the other two terms first results are from conan the barbarian lmao
Turan exist in Conan setting too as state similar to Ottoman Empire mixed with old Turk Khaganate.
there's like nothing alike between the ashina and osmanuglu but it's funny an early 20th century person tried to relate them, lmao
He didn't really put any thought in it since iirc something like one story happens there for a brief time, it's mostly aesthetic torn between "ancient nomadic people" and "mysterious oriental empire"
And you don't even need to go to early XX cetury person, for some reason i see every now and then in the internet people entartaining panturkic ideas who also do this, but in all seriousness.
thank you, that was sadly illuminating
seems like all the weird, vaguely shitty dudes I knew in my 20s all somehow banded together to form an openly shitty, truly reprehensible club
i'm probably giving them too much credit based on the conan references in the other terms, lol. a guy makes some dumb books that reference quack historiography and a few decades later a handful of nazis think its gospel lmao
I recognize some from Robert E. Howard's Conan stories. He drew inspiration for the fictional setting from the popular pseudo-history of the antediluvian world (before the biblical flood) which included ideas about Atlantis with helping of race science.
I'm guessing white supremacist are taking long forgotten fake history from like the 20's at face value
I've often wondered how all of this nonsense could work when it is all inherently contradictory, now I know. They just have a conversation where they use fancy words to sound smart without knowing what any of these words mean.
Parrots are better for conversation than these bozos. At least a parrot can be nice and direct and isn't deeply insecure about their intelligence and making it everyone else's problem.
There’s also a thing where a bunch of new age authors will quote each other circularly and begin to talk with one another, so you can find a “consensus” by sticking to certain corners of new age thought. Everyone being obsessed with Atlanteans as a secret precursor to modern civilization is actually a good example of this. There are also a lot of cryptofash along the writers for that genre, so there’s an interest convergence driven by the fascist agenda. The pyramids being built by white people is a good example of that one.
Between the time when the oceans drank Atlantis and the rise of the sons of Arius, there was an age undreamed of. Unto this Conan, destined to bear the jeweled crown of Aquilonia upon a troubled brow. It is I, his chronicler, who alone can tell you of this saga. Let me tell you of the days of high adventure
Atlantians were proto whites/proto Faustians
Were they sunk due to a deal with the devil? What the fuck is a "Faustian"?
Which as we know has a longstanding partnership with the Christian devil
Were they sunk due to a deal with the devil?
they were sunk because white people couldn't swim
Yakub updated them later
I mean, on the one hand i couldn’t care less about imperial bloodlines. Its all a bunch of made up bullshit. Why not test them?
On the other hand, idgaf about China not allowing testing, either. They’re Chinas mummies or corpses or bodies or whatever. They can do whatever they want with their silly imperial nonsense ideas.
Test them. Or dont. what the fuck does it actually matter to anyone?
I mean, on the one hand i couldn’t care less about imperial bloodlines.
No, no, no. Hear me out. Consider a subpopulation of people that exist in a tiny private city, never leave the house, demand everyone wait on them hand-and-foot like gods, and then repeatedly get rolled by "primitive" neighbors every time they want to do some light imperialism on their borders.
Test them. Or dont.
"You won't let us test your emperors!" is the thin edge of the pseudo-science gobblegock edge, wherein some whiny cranks at The University of Jesus Iowa with PhDs in Time Cube Maths send threatening letters to the local Chinese consulate demanding first class tickets to the Beijing Museum Of Fake Science to debunk claims made about how many angels can dance on the end of a pin.
Its just another Alex Jones "We Have The Documents" rant.
White Nation of Islam guy who believes Yakub was actually white and invented white people out of love
I'd call white people "orcs" but they'd take it as a compliment.
: "Why thank you, we are a proud warrior race after all."
I'd call them 'elves' but they'd probably take that as an even bigger compliment.
Doesn't Israel just not allow DNA heritage testing at all? Why is this specifically beyond the pale?
Because they might discover that a good chunk of Palestinians are descendants of people who were there before the diaspora every happened.
(I meant why would the Chinese Emperor's bodies not being allowed to be tested be proof of China's perfidy while Israel's one goes unexamined?)
I mean, I don't even know if this is true in either case anyway, but yeah, when an ally does it, it's great, when China does it, it's proof they're an evil regime.
When you sprinkle a bit of great man theory on top of your racism:
« The emperor was white for real! What? What do you mean the emperor didn’t build the entire Chinese civilization all by himself? He was the emperor I tell you THE EMPEROR! »