TRACING OUR ANCESTORS #12
Continued from previous page:
BLUE-EYED BRITISH
Strabo also tells us that the British merchants of his time
navigated the Seine and the Rhine, and brought shiploads of
cattle, corn, iron, hides, and other produce, exchanging them for
brass, ivory, amber ornaments, and vessels of glass. Such is the
testimony of a recognized Greek contemporary. Let us now quote
the epigram that the Roman poet Martial wrote to the British
princess Gladys, daughter of Caradoc, the British king, after he
was treacherously captured and taken to Rome as a prisoner.
Gladys was adopted by the Emperor Claudius, who gave her the
name of Claudia. The epigram reads:
"Claudia! Rose of the blue-eyed Britons!
Capturer of hearts!
How is it thou'rt such a Latin person?
Such graceful form? It makes believe thou'rt Roman!
Thou'rt fit to be Italian or Athenian maid."
Claudia became the wife of the Roman Senator, Rufus Pudens,
half-brother of St.Paul (Refer to Romans 16:13). This pair became
close Christian friends of St.Paul and entertained him in their
home when he came to Rome in 58 AD.
THE ANCIENT BRITISH FAR FROM SAVAGES
There is no evidence whatsoever to support the myth that the
pre-Roman British were savages or barbarians. It all depends upon
what people mean by barbarians. To the Greeks and Romans all
outside nations were barbarians; yet if popular amusements be
taken as a test, who could equal the Romans themselves for savage
lust and blood-thirstiness as witnessed in the butcheries of the
Roman Colosseum, where thousands of people, Christians and
prisoners of war, were thrown to wild beasts to feast the eyes of
Roman youths and maidens. Those were the "cultured" Romans of the
"Classical Age," of which our educators rave. No evidence like
that can ever be brought against the ancient British. England,
the mother of liberty, never saw, any barbarities until the Roman
persecutions against the early British Christians under
Diocletian, about 300 A.D., when about ten thousand British
Christians, including several bishops, died for their faith in
Jesus Christ. Yes, that was three hundred years before the Roman
Church ever set foot on British soil. Another myth that is being
propagated by our Christian authors and teachers, or rather being
repeated by them in ignorance of the true facts, is that St.
Augustine in 596 A.D. brought the Christian religion to Britain.
This is contrary to all ancient authorities and even to the
authorities of the Roman Church itself. (Read again the
inscription in the vestry of the Church of St.Peter-Upon-
Cornhill). With Augustine's coming to Britain began that age-long
strugggle of the British Church versus the Roman, and the British
Church has never been able to free itself from Roman influence to
this day.
Morgan says "In all the solid essentials of humanity our
British ancestors will compare to great advantage with the best
eras of Greece or Rome. In war the Briton, after the Julian
invasions, walked the streets of Rome the only freeman in Europe,
pointed at as the exception to the world:
"Invictus Romano Marte Britannus."
(The Briton unconquered by the Roman Wars).
Caesar in his writings describes the people of Britain
generally as civilized. He tells us that they were
agriculturists, living under kings of whom there were no less
than four in Kent alone; and that the people of Kent, the only
people he passed among, were civilized people, and that their
customs were much the same as those of the Gauls; that is to say,
the people were civilized and richly and luxuriously clothed. He
tells us that Britain "is well peopled and has plenty of
buildings, much of the fashion of the Gauls, they have infinite
store of cattle, make use of gold money and iron rings which pass
by weight, the midland countries produce some tin, and those
nearer the sea iron."
Many early British coins have been discovered in France and
Belgium, attesting to pre-Roman international trade. It was only
the uncivilized people of the interior, which Caesar called
"interiores" and who were, as Waddell has shown, non-Aryan
aborigines, in regard to whom he says that they stained their
skins blue and "they seldom troubled themselves with agriculture,
living on milk and flesh and are clad with skins." (Refer to
Caesar's De Bello Callico).
(What many to not know is the fact that the North American Indian
lived in B.C. Britain before moving on to what we call the New
World, where some of their people were already living - Keith
Hunt).
TWICE THE BRITISH FORCES DEFEATED
THE GREAT JULIAS CAESAR
A mob of untrained savages could not have held their ground
against the Roman legions under Caesar himself, as the records of
Caesar's two failures to invade Britain bear witness. On the 5th
of August, 55 B.C., the Roman fleet with Caesar in command
crossed the channel from Whitsand near Calais. Cassibellanus,
with 4000 war-chariots opposed him. Caesar himself says: "The
legionary soldiers were not a fit match for such an enemy," and
"the enemy's horse and war-chariots ... inspired terror into the
cavalry."
"Nennius (the king's brother) attacked the 10th Legion. Caesar
was assailed by Nennius in person. The sword of the great Roman
buried itself in the shield of the British prince, and before he
could extricate it, the tide of battle separated the combatants,
leaving the weapon a trophy to be long afterwards exhibited to
the inhabitants of Caer Troia. Nennius died from the effect of
the wound inflicted by the famous 'Mors Crocea' and was burred on
the Bryn Gwyn (Tower Hill). Androgeus, or Avarwy, Lludd's elder
son, had made a secret treaty, undertaking to open the gates of
London to Caesar. The plot, however, was unsuccessful. This act
of treachery procured for him among the mass of the people the
opprobrious name of 'Mandubrad,' the Black Traitor, perpetuated
in Caesar's Commentaries, in the form of Manubratius. This man
was consigned to eternal infamy in the Triads of his country as
the first of the 'three capital traitors of the island of
Britain.' Avarwy and many of his partisans took refuge from the
storm of national execration on board the Roman fleet and
returned to Rome with Caesar after his fifty-five days campaign.
The Black Traitor, Avarwy, died prior to the assassination of
Caesar in Rome." - Gordon.
Spenser in his "Faerie Queene," Book II, Canto 10, gives an
account of Avarwy's treacherous deed, from which has been coined
our English word "avarice." Caesar's first campaign lasted
fifty-five days, during which time he failed to advance beyond
seven miles from the place of landing.
"The second expedition embarked in above a thousand ships, and
carrying the army which afterwards completed the conquest of the
world on the fields of Pharsalia and Munda, set sail from
Whitsand May 10, B.C.54. The campaign lasted until September 10,
when peace was concluded at Gwerddlan (Verulam, or St.Albans),
the furthest point (70 miles) from the coast Caesar had been able
to attain. The conditions are not particularized in either the
Triads or the Commentaries. Hostages and a tribute are mentioned
by Caesar, but it is certain from numerous passages in the
Augustan authors that no Briton of eminence left the island a
hostage or a prisoner. On the conclusion of the treaty, Caesar
moved from Verulam to London, where he was entertained at the
Bryn Gwyn (white mount) by Cassibelanus, the British pendragon,
or military dictator, with a magnificence which appears to have
found great favour in the eyes of the ancient Bards, who record
it with great exactness. Leaving not a Roman soldier behind,
Caesar embarked his forces at Rutupium, at ten at night, and
arrived at Whitsand d by daybreak the next morning, September 26,
B.C. 54." - Morgan.
So much for the history of England, from 1100 B.C. to the
beginning of the Christian Era. We can safely call it "history,"
for it can be verified from various sources which are all in
agreement. It is as reliable as Greek history of the same period,
and Egyptian history; yet that British history is unknown to our
present generation. They are not interested in it. They would
rather ridicule the heritage that is theirs. Well may the unknown
English poet write:
"When a land rejects her legends, Sees but falsehoods in the
past; And its people view their Sires in the light of fools and
liars, 'Tis a sign of its decline, And its glories cannot last.
Branches that but blight their roots, Yield no sap for lasting
fruits." - R.C.G.
(Such is not the same today as finally the Anglo-Saxon English
have in the last half of the 20th century, admitted that the
recorded ancient history of the Welsh is accurate - Keith Hunt)
There is a voluminous literature in existence which
indicates that up to the end of the Eighteenth Century the
scholars of Britain knew that their people descended from the
seagoing Hebrew-Phoenicians and from the Anglo-Saxons, who came
from the shores of the Summerland on the Black Sea. But since the
beginning of the Nineteenth Cenutry the trend of thought of
British and Continental scholars has been permeated by an
attitude of critical scepticism towards their descent and towards
Scripture. This attitude had its origin with Voltaire, Thomas
Paine, and the German school of higher critics. The founders of
that school were the Grimm Brothers, and Eichhorn, and Ewald. The
Grimm brothers were the authors of several works on German
mythology and of the famous fairy tales that have delighted the
hearts of millions of children for a hundred years. They
collected those stories from the ancient legends of Britain, of
the Teutons, and of Greece and Rome. A few of them they could
trace to Scripture, but as they were unable to establish their
real meaning and origin they concluded that all of those legends
were only myths and fairy tales. The many works of Eichhorn and
Ewald and their manners show a prodigious amount of textual
analysis of Scripture; each sentence, each word and jot and
tittle is carefully examined and discussed with a critical eye
and mind, but after everything has been studied and all is said
and done, what is the sum total of their achievements?
All that the critics have accomplished we may say is that
they have torn down the structure of the Old Testament. They have
carefully weighed each brick and tested each timber, but not one
of the learned professors has been able to replace what they have
destroyed, nor put anything better in its place. Like a group of
students of anatomy, they have dissected a body, but they have
never discovered the life nor the soul that animated that body.
Each of the scholars has added his criticism to that of his
predecessors; very often one questions another's conclusion, but
they all agree that the Bible needs criticising. It is a strange
fact that most people believe only what they want to believe, as
for instance the finding of a handful of fossils is hailed as the
dis-covery of a new "missing link," and "scientists" at once set
to work to "reconstruct" from those bones the creature or the man
to whom they belonged, even to the color of his hair and eyes.
But that is what modern thinkers want to believe: they would
rather be the sons of apes than the sons of God any time. Their
chief aim seems to be to elevate man and belittle God.
A study of any one of the commentaries by Bible critics
leaves the student in doubt as to whether he knows more about the
subject after he has studied the book than before; and the only
benefit he derived from it, if he takes it seriously, is that his
faith in the Old Bible has been destroyed, that is, if he had any
until then. The Genesis account of the Creation, the Fall of Man,
and the Deluge the critics compare with those of the Chaldean,
Egyptian, and Greek traditions and conclude that all of them, and
in fact everything "prehistoric," are legends and fairy tales,
even the promise and coming of a Messiah. However, it is strange,
after all, that all the learned Bible critics from Spinoza until
the present day have labored under the delusion that the Old
Testament belongs to the Jews; and despite all their knowledge of
Hebrew and their textual criticism they have never discovered
that the Old Covenants were not made with the Jews but with
Israel, the Covenant Race, the race that still bears its ancient
Hebrew-Phoenician name, Brith-ish. Need we wonder then that we
don't know where we are going, when we don't even know where we
came from.
It is of utmost significance that Germany today should go
back to her ancient mythology, but unfortunately she does not
understand how that mythology originated. If she knew, and if the
British and our own people could see their origin through the
mists of antiquity hanging over Avebury and Stonehenge, and their
ancient Barat names, then they would better understand their
noble heritage and their destiny. A great awakening is in store
for our people, but, alas, also a great shaking.
(The awakening has come in the last 50 years of the 20th century.
All British historians now admit the greatness and splendor and
might, of the ancient British, preserved in the annals of Welsh
history, and so the Welsh have capitalized on the fact as seen in
their little tourist novelty shops scattered over their hills and
valleys, which I have spent inside of a many an hour, in years gone
by. The shaking of the land of British Israel is yet to come,
when we near the last years of this present age, as explained by
all the prophets of old, and expounded for you on this Website -
Keith Hunt)
.......................
To be continued
|
