The Fellowship of the Children of Adam



The Caucasian Origins of Ancient Cultures

From the ancient cradle of civilization in Mesopotamia, to the influential artists of the Renaissance and the formation of global empires- truly no other group has achieved the same level of triumph that we have.

The purpose then of this work is to highlight the very first civilized branch(that is the people of the Middle East and Northeast Africa, sometimes called the Mediterranean or Eastern branch) as well as other populations that due to various factors, have lost most of their identity over a period of many years, being now a mingled people. I will use evidence from history, linguistics and the Bible to prove this. The most significant and recent of this mixing occurred after the seventh century AD but it often happened in antiquity as well. I also stand by everything I write; it can be easily verified, I will leave very little up to interpretation and will attempt to keep my opinions out of it as much as possible.I aim to provide well agreed upon facts, theories that can be proven.

As for myself and my identity, I am simply a white Christian man trying to settle some common misconceptions about the past I feel have grown too popular. I was inspired by nobody in particular, rather I obtained an interest in history and theology from an early age. I do not hate any group of people, rather I believe we should all live in peace, separated as our Creator intended.

Although this work is from a Christian perspective and I use the Bible for a lot of proof, I hope this appeals to non-believers as well. I hope whoever reads this will find it informative and easy to understand, I certainly tried my best.

The Bible

I begin with the Bible for two reasons- because it is indeed the foundation of our history (being practiced by one branch of our race before spreading) and because it is subject to endless counts of slander and lies. Anyone claiming the Bible is written about non-whites is simply misguided. From common sense it stands to reason that people whom have offered very little to civilization, could not possibly have created the most influential and read work in history.

How are Bible characters described?

To start, we shall examine the obvious and apparent proof of the whiteness of the people of the Bible. The description attributed to both David and Solomon is the word “ruddy” or in Hebrew, “adom” or “admoniy meaning reddish complexion or red hair, in this case, a blush in the face (i.e. a white person).

My beloved is white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousand.

Song of Solomon 5:10 (KJV)

And he sent, and brought him in. Now he was ruddy, and withal of a beautiful countenance, and goodly to look to. And the Lord said, Arise, anoint him: for this is he.

1 Samuel 16:12 (KJV)

Clearly the writers and those involved with the Bible considered themselves white, as their skin was even light enough to show the reddish glow that appears in many people of our race. The bride mentioned in the Song of Solomon laments the state of her skin because it was tanned from working in the fields, a task given to her as punishment (we can see this theme reflected in ancient art too, except it is usually the man who is tanned from being outside and the woman who is fair from being inside and shielding her skin).

Another good proof of their race comes from 1 Maccabees, the following quote is also confirmed by 2 Maccabees and Roman era Judean historian Josephus:

Areus king of the Lacedemonians to Onias the high priest, greeting: It is found in writing, that

the Lacedemonians and Jews are brethren, and that they are of the stock of Abraham

1 Maccabees 12:20-21 (KJV)

Regardless of whether this is true or not (Javan or Greece is thought to have descended from Japeth while Abraham comes from Shem, however some speculate the Dorian Greeks share partial ancestry with the people of Dor in the Levant, it is possible these Semitic speakers settled in Sparta and adopted the local ways), it proves the Judeans considered the Spartans to be related and the Spartans were of course white Europeans. One should examine the colours of the Alexander sarcophagus to see what the ancient Greeks looked like (white reddish skin). Likewise the Greek Septuagint version of Esther has the queen blushing and losing her colour (i.e. turning pale) when fainting, and in the same way, the high priest's face (in 2 Maccabees) changes color when he gets angry. It is also worth noting Paul the apostle is described in extra biblical sources as having a face "red as a pomegranate".

Modern Middle Easterners are dark

In the seventh century AD, a man from southern Arabia named Mohammed would start his own religion of Islam and his people would go on to conquer virtually all of Arabia, North Africa, the Levant, Persia, Anatolia and Mesopotamia, even into Spain. All of these areas (except for Spain) remain largely Muslim today, while the population of these areas have all been Arabized to one degree or another- this process includes changing their genetic makeup. In the Bible Arabia is often mentioned as a general area (in the New Testament it refers to the northern Roman area of Arabia), while the Hebrew word “ereb” means mixed company. Clearly the ancients knew that Arabia, particularly further south, became a mix of peoples. But of whom? It is true that the Arabic language is part of the Semitic group; however this is because of the nature of Arabia being home to many nomads and travelers. It is clear that some group of Semites brought their language there and mixed with whatever dark population was there (which later on included many Negro slaves).

Later, the Turks (a group originally from central Asia) would move into Muslim lands and conquer them, making large inroads into Europe. These Turks spread and mixed many of the genes of these peoples and spread the Muslim religion without regard for the race of its practitioners. When you consider the fact a few hundred years of the Spanish empire was enough to totally change the Oriental population of the Americas into that of a mixed “meztizo” race, it is easy to see how 1400 years transformed the now Muslim world.

The Mongolians would also depopulate many of these areas. Now not all of the Middle East and surrounding areas have been mixed. Indeed it is easy to point out people such as Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad and his wife who are more or less white, or wrestler Sami Zayn, having retained their original genes and/or that of the white populations who may have mixed with them such as the Byzantines/Crusaders (however I believe more of the former would be apparent, as will be discussed later). Formerly Arab controlled areas of Europe like Portugal, Spain, Sicily, Serbia, Malta and Greece (among others) may have a few people with a small amount of Arab, Negro and Gypsy mixture but they largely resisted Islamization and expelled many Muslims, so I consider our brothers in these places to be of the Mediterranean branch of the white race, mostly unmixed.

Adam and the Flood

In order to consolidate my ideas and science, I have embraced the theories of pre-Adamic man and that of the localized to flood. To start, I believe that the two creation narratives in Genesis correspond to two separate events- creation (which occurred over a period much longer than seven days) and the giving of the Adamic spirit of civilization to a man created special. The fruit represents knowledge of both good and evil as well as familiarity with the outside world and how to be self sufficient instead of relying on God’s care. This also explains where Cain wandered to and found his wife. So the initial creation created man- some of which were white, and the second story created a higher being who was also white. Alternatively the Garden of Eden narrative may be taken symbolically by some, but given the descent of Adam and others is mentioned later, they must have existed.

Eventually the offspring of Adam along with whatever other whites were in the area birthed Noah who would be known as the last pre-flood patriarch. In Noah’s time, people (with their newfound knowledge) would become wicked prompting God to start over with one righteous man. However this did not encompass the entire earth- only the first civilized area in the Middle East where people had the ability to consciously understand evil. This is backed up linguistically as well, the word commonly translated to earth “eretz” in Hebrew is also translated as “land”, “country”, etc. numerous times throughout the Bible and the same is true of its Greek equivalent. Even Peter refers to this event as resetting the “world” or in Greek “kosmos”, meaning population or world in a literal or figurative sense. The fertile crescent in the Middle East WAS the world at that time because it contained the ones who first developed into something higher. Besides, it stands to reason that Noah would not be able to wrangle millions of species of animals that were present at the time- whatever period during or after pre-history it was, even if they came to him. There is also little proof of a worldwide flood and its effects would have been devastating. Instead, it makes sense that Noah instead rounded up all the animals in the area that were important for civilization. Of course Noah could have just moved, but it is impossible for us to understand God’s methods. What is understandable is that the flood was restricted to a basin in Mesopotamia and this flood is mentioned in other literature of the period such as the stories of Gilgamesh.

Race mixing in the Bible

Throughout the Bible there are countless examples of prohibitions against religion mixing- that is if other (whites) wanted to mix with the Israelites, they must be converted to their religion. When the Israelites returned from captivity, they had to leave behind their foreign wives and children. Why couldn't they just convert them? It's because they were mongrels, and the nations listed (the ones they mixed with) had become mongrelized too (Egypt for example had many Nubians among them by this time). However I would like to focus on a more explicit command, coming from the mouth of Tobit who gives advice to his son, Tobias:

Beware my son, of fornication; above all choose your wife from the race of your ancestors. Do not take a foreign wife who is not of your father’s tribe…

Tobit 4:12 (NEB)

Clearly anyone can see this is just good advice and that people are better off with their own kind. He would go on to state all of his ancestors from the beginning married their kindred. Also note he uses the Greek word "porneia" to describe race mixing, and this same term is used (and condemned) in the New Testament. Now some would object to this passage, claiming it was added later to some manuscripts. This is because the Vulgate (and all versions based on it) does not contain this line, while Greek manuscripts either have this line or do not. In the first case, it is clear Jerome used corrupted texts to translate from, and writers such as Eusebius can attest to the changes certain people were making to the Bible at the time. As for the Greek versions that do not have it, I believe it was removed for one reason or another, and to prove this one only has to read further- the angel Raphael actually references this line later on in Tobit, and this part appears in the same Greek text that does not have the above quotation, which proves it was removed! Besides, the oldest complete texts we have of Tobit include this passage, so it is part of the Bible.. This brings us to our next point: Moses.

For too long people have accused Moses of marrying a black woman, which comes from a very poor understanding of the Bible and ancient history. Many believe Moses had two wives- a Midianite named Zipporah and an unnamed Cushite (incorrectly called Ethiopian in some translations) woman. Later on in the Bible, Moses is chastised for marrying a Cushite until God puts an end to it. People use this as evidence for race mixing, as Cush is an area that contained black people. However this doesn’t mean he married one, quite the opposite in fact. First, Moses is never described as having two wives, so the Midianite and Cushite must be one and the same. Cush refers to two or three areas- it is a place in Mesopotamia as Genesis states, it is an area in relation to Midian (near Sinai) as stated in Habbakuk, and finally the upper Nile region which contained a MIX of white and black people, as the King of Aksum and Sicilian writer Diodorus, among many others, can confirm. So clearly she was from the second Cush (Cushan) and even if it were one of the other two, there is no evidence she was black, because she simply was not.

What other accusations are lobbed at us? Simeon Niger, a minor character and teacher from the New Testament is said to be black. This is also untrue. Plenty of white people have the last name “Black” indeed many romance speakers have the last name “Negri” or “Negro” (including white Roman emperor Pescennius Niger, allegedly named after his tanned neck) it likely has nothing to do with their race (calling Negroes black wasn’t even something that was often done back then). Undoubtedly Niger was his nickname or something like that, or else Luke would have written “aithiops” or whatever. Even if he was tan for example, it proves that he was certainly darker than everyone else thus confirming their whiteness, yet still there is no evidence of him being a Negro or other type of brown, at worst his skin pigmentation was slightly swarthier than others. The Ethiopian eunuch is another one (who is often labelled as a homosexual as well by the same agitators who promote race mixing), simply put he was an Israelite in the service of a Cushite queen and not black, as we know Ethiopia (as they called multiple places) was not totally black or white. Others like the Queen of Sheba aren’t even worth talking about at length- there is no proof they weren’t anything other than white, as it is thought some Semites even settled in the south of Arabia. There was no mixing involved in this story.

Jews and Judaism

Any discussion of the Jews is often dismissed as “anti-semitism”, a term that doesn’t even make sense. Semite usually refers to a descendant of Shem, one of Noah’s sons, but in more correct usage it refers to a language branch of the Afro-Asiatic family. So applying this term to only the Jews is silly and often used merely to silence people. So who are the Jews? In one sense they are practitioners of the Jewish Talmudic religion (not to be confused with the true Israelite/Judean religion of which Christianity is the successor of) but also their own ethnic group, or more accurately multiple ethnic groups- Ashkenazi, Sephardi and Mizrachi. Of these groups there has been so much mixing that none can be considered the same as the Israelites of the Bible and many of these groups originate from people who converted to Judaism at a much later time. To begin with, the Hasmonean Kingdom (established after the Maccabean revolt) existed in the second century BC. The leaders, including John Hycranus, took over many of the surrounding nations and converted them to Judaism- these groups included the Edomites. So even by the time of Christ there was a diverse but still mostly Caucasoid population of Judea (the Roman province also encompassed neighbouring areas). I believe most of them mixed with the populations in the countries they fled to after the diaspora following the second temple, these are the Sephardi. The ones who stayed in the Middle East and became Arabized are the Mizrachi. Finally, the Ashkenazi come from the central European and Caucus populations that converted, including the Khazarian empire. It’s also worth noting the word “Jew” does not appear in the Bible, the word used always translates to “Judean” or “Judahite”.

Certainly the people of the Bible have long disappeared. The so called “lost tribes” are called that for a reason- they are simply gone. James opens his epistle mentioning these tribes having been scattered abroad; yet he is writing about Christ in Greek so perhaps many of them must have been absorbed into other nations. Remember the pre-captivity population wasn’t that large to begin with so it stands to reason that they vanished. Also, if one looks at the modern European Jew and observes that he usually passes for white, then either the ancient “Jews” were white as well or ancient populations have changed dramatically, the latter point of course confirms my beliefs when I state what happened to the people in the ancient Middle East and how their genetic changed.

The purpose of this essay is not to explain theology or state my opinions but I think it is important to share my take on the Jews. I believe them to be outside of God’s kingdom as any other person rejecting Jesus- the New Testament makes it incredibly obvious. God’s chosen people are the Christians, previously He chose a people to bring about the bloodline of Christ who would then spread the word of YHWH to all of His Adamic nations. I am also against Zionism and intervening in the Middle East.


Finally, all Christians must acknowledge, at the very least, the separation of races as illustrated in BOTH the Old and New Testaments:

The Lord said, If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then

nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their

language so they will not understand each other.  So the Lord scattered them from there over

all the earth, and they stopped building the city.

Genesis 11:6-8 (NIV)


From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked

out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands.

Acts 17:27 (NIV)


The Middle and Near East

With the Biblical evidence out of the way, we can move on to other sources and proofs that confirm the white origins of the ancients.


The Afro-Asiatic languages encompass the Semitic languages of the Middle East along with Egyptian and Berber languages of North Africa. Similar to the Indo-European theory, these speakers may have been one group that settled in multiple places where their languages diverged, and they either combined with the local population or somehow lived separate/outbred/eliminated the others, I believe they mixed (the prior populations were white anyway, with the exception of those who moved south of the Nile and into Arabia).


Phoenicia was a confederation of maritime city states located just north of Israel in the Levant area of the Mediterranean. The Phoenician people were highly influential when it came to trade, and they spread their culture far and wide. The best and most important accomplishment was their alphabet, which evolved from Egyptian hieroglyphics and later evolved into every western alphabet currently in use (the Hebrews of the Bible used their script before switching to the Aramaic writing system, itself also derived from the Phoenician). Their other major claim to fame was founding a colony in North Africa named Carthage (“Qart-hadast” in their native Semitic tongue, meaning “new city”). This colony controlled vast amounts of land in Europe as well, eventually clashing with the Roman Republic in three major wars; the second of which featured Hannibal (a name meaning “Ba’al is gracious”) almost defeat the Romans, in a conflict that would go down as one of the most famous in history. Appropriately, Afro-centrists love to Claim Hannibal was a Negro despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately the lies claiming that the Carthaginians were black have seeped into the mainstream, whereas anyone educated in the study of ancient peoples knows that they were Caucasian.

The Phoenicians were Semitic cousins to the Israelites (of which we know are white) so it is clear that Hannibal and his kin were not black, and they certainly were not Arab because the ancient Phoenicians were around hundreds of years before the Arab Muslims began conquering and migrating into North Africa and the Levant area. From Phoenician art, it is easy to see they depicted themselves as Caucasian- one only has to look at Carthaginian coins or the famed bust of Hannibal to see this. Additional descriptions and pieces of artwork show the exact same thing, for example Phoenician women are described in the Odyssey as being tall and beautiful.

DNA evidence supports my claim as well:

Ancient DNA study finds Phoenician from Carthage had European ancestry.

University of Otago, New Zealand


The Ancient land of Mesopotamia consisted of many city-states situated in between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers (a location mentioned in Genesis as close to the Garden of Eden, as well as Abraham’s homeland). This area is part of a larger location known as the “fertile crescent”, but Mesopotamia itself is called the “cradle of civilization”. Unlike other unified countries, the history of this region is much more complicated, with various states and rulers rising and falling and conquering others. The languages used in this area are generally Semitic (Sumerian being the exception, as it is a language isolate unrelated to any others) and they used a cuneiform writing system, which would spread to Persia and other areas before being replaced by offshoots of the Phoenician alphabet. Being adjacent to the Indo-European homeland and in between the white civilizations of Persia and the Levant, it is only logical for these people to be Caucasian too. Many of their ancient statues depict themselves with blue eyes. One may look at the modern populations of some Caucasus regions to get a feel of what the ancient populations looked like, specifically those who were not taken over by the Muslims or were only ruled for a small amount of time.


The ancient Persians spoke an Indo-European language related to Latin, Greek, Gaelic and German. The Alexander sarcophagus depicts Persians fighting Greeks; both groups have light brown and red hair and ruddy white skin. Greek writer Xenophon confirms this, mentioning their white skin untouched by the sun due to their habit of wearing long clothes. It is also worth noting whites made it even further east, as the term “Indo-European” implies, an Aryan group settled in what is now India. These two places are where Alexander the Great and his men found their wives, they were of the same race.

Anatolia/Asia Minor

Groups inhabiting the area like the Anatolian Hittites (Hattusa) and Lydians both spoke Indo-European languages. Whatever population was there before them, whether they mixed with them, died off or migrated- where also white and are related to old populations all across Europe (including the Etruscans). This is in addition to the many Greek cities in the eastern part of the state. One can look at the modern nation of Turkey and find a surprisingly high number of people who appear to be Caucasian, though most are mixed with the Arabs and Central Asians who invaded and created the Islamic melting pot the country is today. Also there were many expulsions, massacres and genocides of this area in particular, all of which contributed to population changes (for example, Constantinople was severely depopulated and many people were made slaves and/or raped after the Turks conquered the city).

North Africa


The peoples of Egypt represent the southernmost extent of our race and thus appear to be slightly darker than the populations north of them, this fact is attested to in Greek writing. Their art is the most telling; they coloured themselves red most of the time, sometimes depicting themselves to be lighter. They drew Asiatics (Middle Eastern people) and Lybians (North Africans) as lighter than themselves as well. The most detailed Egyptian art comes from the so called Fayum portraits. Anyone can examine these and see in detail what they looked like, of course these paintings come from the Roman era when Egypt was already overrun by various types of foreigners, some non-white (Nubians and Arabs had been wandering into Egypt for a long time and eventually assimilated) but it still gives us a good indication of their heritage. The women depicted in these portraits are totally white whereas the men are depicted as white-slightly dark (or reddish, like the soil), no doubt due to the fact that they were tanned. We see this motif in Etruscan, Greek and Roman art too, notably in the staring couple fresco of Pompeii. Logically the men would be tanned from being outside whereas the women stayed indoors often and covered themselves. Since the Fayum portraits were mostly of the upper class, it becomes clear why the women had such fair skin. The famous Christ icon from Sinai shows himself with very light skin, brunette hair and brown eyes, as was typical for ancient eastern populations (although this painting may have been produced in Constantinople the Byzantines certainly knew what Judeans looked like).

The mummy of Pharaoh Ramesses II, famous for his campaigns against the Hittites (Hattusa), Lybians and Nubians, proves he had red hair and fair skin. Other scientific evidence supports this:

King Tut’s DNA Was Western European

iGENEA DNA lab, Switzerland

In addition to Egyptian art which shows the differences between races, Egyptian writing also states this fact. Nubians at one point were banned from entering Egypt unless they were enslaved.

People in the Bible, who we know were white, had no problem mixing with Egyptians, granted they worshipped YHWH. As we also know, the ancient Israelites did not approve of race mixing, so they obviously considered the Egyptians to be white and indeed Genesis lists them as a nation descended from Noah, and the Egyptian language is part of the large Afro-Asiatic grouping along with Hebrew. Moses and other Biblical characters spent time in Egypt and blended in with the population.

Other Countries in North Africa

As previously mentioned, the Egyptians depicted their western neighbours with white skin. One many look at some of the Berber populations of North African nations and see some white features that survived the Arab invasions. These people once represented the westernmost extent of our race, and due to its location far away from Arabia, the browning was not as severe as it was in the immediate Middle East, but still enough that modern North Africans should be considered mixed. Look at early photos of French-Algerian Berber speaking footballer Zinedine Zidane, he would not be out of place in southern Europe.


Septimius Severus and Caracalla

These two men were Roman emperors in the second and third centuries. Septimius’ portrait depicts him as a darker man with a light wife and children- of course this is used by slanderers to try and claim the Romans were mixed race. Actually there was some truth in this statement, but not in the way they claim. The portrait can be explained by the husband being tanned, as we see in numerous other ancient paintings. Septimius was actually a white North African and his wife was a Syrian, but not a native one; Julia Domna was actually of Arab descent (“Donma” comes from an old Arabic word meaning “black”). This would explain Caracalla, their son, whose bust appears somewhat similar in appearance to very light modern Middle Easterners (but as Julia was from Roman Arabia in the north, she wasn’t dark to begin with anyway and indeed Caracalla’s bust could pass for Italian). Caracalla also extended Roman citizenship to all people in the empire. My point is, he definitely was not half black or anything, but his appearance may be credited to his mother’s north Arabian descent.


Many claim it is impossible for Semitic speakers to be white. I have already refuted this, but for reference sake, many places in Europe do not speak an Indo-European language. These include Finland, Hungary and the Basque region of Spain- yet would anyone call these peoples non-Caucasian? Also, English and Swedish people both speak a Germanic language, are they the same people? No, because old English came to Britain via a later migration, these people did add their ancestry to the British gene pool but did not completely replace the Celts living there. Are French and Romanian people the same, as both speak a Latin language? The Sumerians didn’t speak a Semitic language either. Some use the Tower of Babel narrative to explain this, while others present a link between Indo-European languages and Afro-Asiatic languages.

White Middle Eastern People are Roman, Greek, etc.

While it is true that Romans and other whites took over the territories in the Middle East and North Africa, and they left many soldiers behind, there was not a large scale mixing on par with that of the Arabs. This is obvious for many reasons, the time they controlled these areas was only a few hundred years, and with such a large area, they weren’t really able to impose their language and culture as much as the Muslims did (Latin derived languages existed only in Europe prior to Columbus, and even then Britain and the Balkans never adopted them). Besides, most of the peoples of the Roman Empire could be considered white to begin with, so mixing between them would not have been out of place. Also consider the Crusaders were only there for 200 years, vs. 1400 years for the Arabs.

Other groups like Alexander’s Macedonians and the Crusaders briefly left their genetic imprint but again it was quite minimal compared to the Arabs who have overrun these areas for 1400 years.

There is no Jew or Greek

Judeans and Greeks are both white Adamic people. This passage refers to beliefs, anyway- specifically that of the two earliest Christian groups (converts from Greece and Israelites who accepted Christ).



-The King James Bible (The Authorized Version)

-New International Version of the Bible

-The New English Bible

-University of Otago via


Please note I am not discussing or endorsing any English Bible translations, I used a variety of them for this very reason. Looking at Strong’s Concordance, which I do endorse, you can see the meanings are true to their original languages.

I did not intend this paper to be full of sources, much of the info contained comes from years of research and I only used a few quotations just to help illustrate my points. That was not the point of this writing, it was meant as a quick and easy introduction into the topic. Any research done by the reader will confirm what I have written anyway.