The above article is interesting for a number of reasons. Most people in the West (both religious and irreligious) are generally unaware that the Roman and Protestant Churches – aligning themselves fully with Western imperialism – conspired to transform the ‘Black Madonna’ (i.e. Mary mother of Christ) into a ‘White’ Western (or ‘Northern’) European-looking woman, and in so doing, turned a ‘Black’ Jesus into a ‘White’ Jesus. Old iconic statues depicting the ‘blackness’ of Christ and family were smashed and replaced over the last 1500 years with the ‘new’ official ethnicity. What was the point of this ecclesiastical plastic surgery? The simple answer is the church’s pursuance of a ‘pure’ racial ideology that linked the Western European ethnicity to what was perceived as a successful colonial expansion, whereby the European church brought ‘civilisation’ and a bible at the end of a gun, to all those unfortunate ‘non-Whites’ who happened to be born outside of Europe and into non-Christian civilisations. This activity intensified with the Industrial Revolution in the UK (beginning in the 18th century), where European colonial expansion and ‘White’ Christianity became implicitly linked with the effectiveness of modern weaponry and technology. It is no exaggeration to state that European colonial expansion has killed millions – and this does not include the Christian massacres of Muslims during the Crusades, or the Catholic murder of 5 million Cathars in France, etc.
In 2015, British academics and Israeli archaeologists combined their efforts to assess the likely ethnicity of the man known as Jesus Christ – the apparent founder of Christianity. What is bizarre about this episode is that it has absolutely no academic merit whatsoever. Determining a person’s ethnicity from a DNA sample, or reconstructing a face from a badly damaged body, is perfectly possible and lies within the realm of hard science, but simply ‘making-up facts’ has nothing to do with science, and should not be taken as science. The elephant in the room, or should I say the elephant ‘missing’ from the room, is the fact that according to the Christians, there is no body of Jesus Christ to prove he existed, because he rose up into the air after his resurrection. This means there is no material evidence within the Christian church to prove Jesus physically existed. Logic would dictate that no objective contextual mentions of a historical Jesus (outside the bible), and no physical evidence of his existence, would suggest that he did not exist. A spanner in the works of this Christian message is the fact that the Muslim religion claims that Jesus is buried in what is today Pakistan. There is a tomb, and within this tomb is man described as being ‘Jesus Christ’ (Yeshua Bin Yoseph). If this correct, it would suggest Jesus Christ existed, but did not die on the cross and was not miraculously resurrected after death. In other words, the Roman Catholic Church ‘invented’ a theology around Jesus Christ that is not true (either spiritually or physically).
When I was in Greece, I was shown icons of Christ where he is depicted as brown-skinned, with black, curly hair and a beard. I would say he was ‘Black’. The problem with the Israeli imput, is that the Zionist State is inherently ‘racist’ in its attitude to archaeology, and is continuously fabricating a past history for Israel in Palestine that simply does not exist. Israel does this to justify its colonial occupation of Palestine, and the Zionist generated genocide of the Palestinian people. White, racist, secular Jews have led an imperial invasion of Palestine since 1947 (aided by the UK decades before), and now continuously supported by an equally racist USA. Israel reduces everything to modern, racist stereotypes that suit the current Zionist propaganda requirements. There is absolutely no reason to assume that Jesus (if he ever existed) looked anything like a particular ethnic group that lived in Palestine thousands of years ago, in what happens to be the modern Zionist State of Israel. Occupying someone else’s land does not mean that history is automatically re-written. I suspect that as Jesus apparently spoke Syriac-Aramaic, his physical appearance would appear anywhere within a general and broad phenotype typical for the area during the time he lived. What we can say with certainty is that Jesus was not a Semite as imagined by (racist) modern Zionist Jews, and British academics who should know better.