This article was written by our friend at The Awakened Centurion.
The main scope of this article is to demonstrate that race-mixing is a type of fornication according to the Bible and, perhaps the worst of all types. Also, this article will demonstrate that those who initiated the acts of fornication that later plagued Adamic society were none other than the fallen angels themselves.
We know in Christian Identity that Yahweh, the God of the Bible, only created one race of men, the race of Adam. All the other races of so-called “men” are not sons of the Most High, but bastards and children of fornication. We believe that the fallen angels not only committed fornication by taking wives for themselves from among the daughters of Adam, but they also miscegenated with animals, creating all sort of abominations and monsters as products of their sin. The Book of Enoch confirms our view.
We also believe that the non-white (non-Adamic) races are products of such cross-breeding between fallen angels and animals. Their antropomorphism or human-like features are characteristics which they inherited from the fallen angels. Therefore, they may seem to be “human”, like us, because their progenitors, the fallen angels, had human-like features. That doesn’t mean the non-white races are human.
Certain non-whites have obtained even more obvious human-like features through the process of race-mixing between whites and non-whites. That is why we have so many Asians and mulattoes who resemble us so much and may even appear to be physically attractive and related to us in so many ways. They are still bastards, nonetheless. Such specimens are often encountered among the most famous of celebrities and quite frequently the establishment promotes them as “examples” to be followed by the masses of deceived white people, who are so easily tricked by such cheap propaganda that makes them think that the beasts of the musical industry are “good people” for donating money for various noble causes and for performing acts of charity.
Now, let us see what the Bible says about the origins of bastards:
“1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” (Genesis 6.1-4, KJV)
THERE WERE GIANTS IN THE EARTH IN THOSE DAYS
Concerning this passage from Genesis 6, which is the main biblical passage describing the events that will be discussed throughout this article, I highly recommend that the reader take some time to at least browse through, if not fully read, the following article by William Finck:
The Problem With Genesis 6:1-4
William’s article basically explains that the phrase “sons of God” isn’t the most appropriate one to use to make reference to those who committed fornication and took the daughters of men as their wives. “Sons of God” gives the reader the impression that those who committed the sin which determined God to bring the Great Flood were a certain category of men, distinct from other men, and not fallen angels, as Identity Christians believe and as the Book of Enoch clearly states.
Since Adam himself was called a “son of God” at Luke 3.38 (and he certainly was one), then we could interpret the phrase “sons of God” from Genesis 6.2 as referring to certain members of the race of Adam. But we must ask ourselves, then: if those who committed the sin were Adamites and they took wives from among the daughters of men (who were also Adamic), then what sin did they commit? What was the sin that angered God all about?
The Apostle Jude, in his one short epistle compares the sin of the angels which “kept not their first estate” to the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, and that sin is fornication, according to Jude. While sodomy (homosexuality) certainly is an abominable sin, Yahweh God had not given a law to Adamkind prohibiting that sin and announcing punishment against those who commit it. As the Apostle Paul wrote, “until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.” (Romans 5.13, KJV)
But since the sin of Genesis 6.2 and the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah were both punished by Yahweh God with exceeding wrath, it is obvious that both the antediluvian Adamites and the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were transgressing a commandment that had already been given to Adamkind. That commandment could only be in reference to race-mixing and it is none other than the commandment God gave to Adam in the Garden of Eden: “And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” (Genesis 2.16-17, KJV)
THE PEOPLE OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH WERE RACE-MIXERS
We all understand that actual trees and their fruit do not hold knowledge concerning good and evil. The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil could only be a race of hominids, the fallen angels themselves and their spawn. This perfectly explains how a “serpent” could speak to Eve and also deceive and seduce her into violating God’s commandment.
The Apostle Paul expressed his fear that the minds of the Christians might be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ, in a process similar to the one by which the Serpent used his subtility to beguile Eve and cause her to sin. (II Corinthians 11.3)
If we take a look into Strong’s Concordance to check the meaning of the Hebrew word used in Genesis for the ‘Serpent’, we find the following:
“The KJV translates Strong’s H5172 in the following manner: enchantment (4x), divine (2x), enchanter (1x), indeed (1x), certainly (1x), learn by experience (1x), diligently observe (1x).
נָחַשׁ nâchash, naw-khash’; a primitive root; properly, to hiss, i.e. whisper a (magic) spell; generally, to prognosticate:—× certainly, divine, enchanter, (use) × enchantment, learn by experience, × indeed, diligently observe.”
It should be obvious to any sincere reader that we are not dealing with either a viper or a cobra here. ‘Nachash’ refers to a magician, a deceiver, an enchanter, one who practices divination. Yes, we are dealing with a hominid, one that can talk, deceive and seduce. We are dealing with a son of the race of the fallen angels.
NACHASH WAS NOT A TALKING SNAKE, BUT A MEMBER OF THE RACE OF THE FALLEN ANGELS
The fact that Adam and Eves made aprons (Genesis 3.7) to cover their genitals as soon as they had sinned makes it clear that they were ashamed of their sin and the sin was sexual in nature. No, the aprons were not meant to serve as clothing, but merely to cover their genitals. For this reason, when God summoned Adam, the latter replied: “And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.” (Genesis 3.10, KJV) So Adam was still ashamed for being mostly naked, in spite of having covered his genitals with aprons.
By now, it should be clear the sin of Adam and Eve, the sin of the antediluvian Adamites and the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah were one and the same: fornication/race-mixing.
While the Book of Genesis (or the copies/manuscripts that are available to us) sort of obfuscates this truth, the Book of Enoch leaves no room for doubt and interpretation. The “sons of God” who took wives from among the daughters of men were in fact the fallen angels who had rebelled against the Creator. The passage from Genesis 6 should more appropriately refer to them as “sons of heaven”.
If the “sons of God” of Genesis 6 were merely Adamic men who took Adamic women as their wives, then what sin did they commit? Didn’t God command Adam to “be fruitful and multiply”?
I once read a crazy explanation the author of which used it in a desperate attempt to conceal the fact that the “sons of God” were the fallen angels. According to that nonsensical theory, the “sons of God” were just men who were more “spiritual” or “godly” in character, while the “men” and “daughters of men” were a more fleshly or carnal category of Adamic people. This is not mere speculation, it is a deliberate attempt to distort the truth of the Scriptures for the sake of defending universalism and race-mixing. Once we understand, as I have written above, that race-mixing is fornication and that the first commandment ever given to man was a prohibition against race-mixing, the false narrative of universalist churchianity crumbles for good. Lying priests and pastors will no longer be able to marry the daughters of white men to Negroes who call themselves the “spiritual seed of Abraham” because they “have faith”. If race-mixing was sin before the Law of Moses was given then it is still a terrible sin 2000 years after the Mosaic Law was abolished.
The person who came up with the theory I mentioned above forgot to ask himself one thing: If the “sons of God” were “spiritual men”, why did they take wives from among the daughters of “carnal men”? And if (let’s assume) they did so, why did their deed anger God so much? Yahweh had declared and even spoke this in the manner of a curse (who can resist a curse coming from God Himself?) that “thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” (Genesis 3.16, KJV) The “carnal” woman would have simply followed her “spiritual” husband into the husband’s godliness and their offspring would have belonged to the father and would have been raised in a godly or spiritual manner.
Such a thing not only did not happen, but in fact the children that resulted from the ungodly unions of Genesis 6 were nothing like the sons of men. They were giants, ‘men of reknown’, as the Bible calls them. I will now quote Genesis 6.4 as can be read in the New English Translation of the Septuagint, which does not attempt to obfuscate the message contained in this verse:
“Now the giants were on earth during those days and afterward. When the sons of God used to go in to the daughters of humans, then they produced offspring for themselves. Those were the giants that were of old, the renowned humans.” (Genesis 6.4, NETS)
Who were the giants that were of old? Were they the ones who took the daughters of men as their wives or were they the offspring which resulted from that union? I would say the latter makes more sense. A 10-11ft (around 3 meters) giant could have had sexual intercourse with a taller and larger framed Adamic woman, but I believe 10-11 ft would barely be considered impressive by the standards of giants. So we can only imagine the average giant was far taller and bigger than that. It would have been impossible for such giants to impregnate Adamic women. It makes much more sense to accept that the ones who took the daughters of men as their wives and impregnated them were much closer to the size of Adamic women. That means the giants from the second half of Genesis 6.4 were the offspring that the daughters of men bore to the “sons of God” and that the ones who took the women as their wives were much closer to the stature of those women.
Mainstream “Christians” also need to ask themselves, if the “sons of God” were simply Adamic men, how could the sexual intercourse between an Adamic man and an Adamic woman produce giants? That is impossible. God Himself had declared that each seed would produce fruit after its own kind.
“And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.” (Genesis 1.11-12, KJV)
That is law, one that God doesn’t not disregard, since God does not despise His own laws. Only disobedient men and the sons of bastards despise God’s laws. If all seed produces kind after kind, than the sexual union between two Adamites, man and woman, could not have produced giants.
Some “Christians” may be arrogant, foolish and defiant enough to claim that God deliberately violated his own law in order to punish a sexual union that wasn’t even unlawful in the first place. They would say that God made the seed of man produce giants in those particular instances in order to punish…to punish what? What is the sin being committed when an Adamite marries of a woman of his own kind to produce offspring? There is nothing sinful about that.
There were many Adamites and Israelites who committed abominable sins against Yahweh God, but He never punished anyone by making their seed produce dogs and pigs and rats instead of human babies. Only a brain-dead or dishonest man could come up with such a crazy explanation to conceal the fact that the sin mentioned in Genesis 6 was race-mixing and that the “sons of God” were in fact the sons of heaven, the fallen angels.
Judeo and universalist “Christians” would go to any length in order to keep their race-mixing promoting fantasy religion alive.
There is another thing we need to address here, concerning fornication. The commonly accepted definition of fornication is: “sexual intercourse between people not married to each other.”
This definition, however, is based on the false assumption that marriage is a ritual performed in a church or a contract between a man and a woman sanctioned by the state. This is not how things are, according to the Bible. When a man lies with a woman who is a virgin, he takes her as his wive.
This is how Laban could trick Jacob into marrying Leah before Rachel. When Jacob had sexual intercourse with Leah, he was inebriated and he slept with her in the dark. This way, he did not know it was Leah he was sleeping with. While thinking he was sleeping with Rachel, he took her elder sister as his first wife, without his knowledge. It was not an act of fornication. There was nothing unlawful about what he did.
The only person who can be accused of having acted dishonorably was Laban, who acted deceitfully towards his future son-in-law, Jacob. But even this deception was part of God’s plan for Jacob, since Leah, while not as beatiful as her younger sister Rachel, turned out to be a blessing to Jacob-Israel and his posterity. She bore six out of Israel’s 12 sons and her sister’s envy towards her and her fertility is what caused both of them to offer their handmaidens as concubines to Jacob. This is besides the point that I am trying to make, however. The main point is that Jacob was not a fornicator, with or without his knowledge, for sleeping with a woman “he wasn’t married to”. To the contrary, when he slept with her he took her as his wife.
On the other hand, the Apostle Paul informs us that Esau, the twin brother of Jacob-Israel, was a fornicator: “nor some fornicator or profane person, as Esau who for one meal sold his own birthright.”(Hebrews 12.6, CNT)
It is easy to understand why Esau was called a “profane person” by Paul, since Esau had disregarded the sacred covenant of his fathers. But why did Paul call him a “fornicator”? The Bible doesn’t mention a single event or act in the life of Esau that fulfils the modern criteria for fornication. Esau is not reported to have engaged in what we call “pre-marital sex”. Nor is he reported to have cheated on his wives, which would qualify as one form of adultery (there’s more than one).
What the Bible tells us about Esau is that he took wives for himself from among the daughters of the Canaanites/Hittites (Genesis 26.34) and that they were a source of grief to Isaac and Rebekah. No wonder Esau’s parents were displeased with his wives. Abraham had sent his trusted servant, Eliezer, all the way to Syria to find a suitable wife (Rebekah) for Isaac, a wife of unmixed blood, rather than a daughter of the bastard tribes that Yahweh would soon deem fit for extermination.
ESAU SOLD HIS BIRTHRIGHT BECAUSE HE DESPISED THE RACIALLY EXCLUSIVE COVENANT OF HIS FATHERS
As a short digression, I have already explained in one of my articles that the prohibition against marrying foreign women primarily concerned their race, and not their religion. You can read that article here.
Getting back to Esau, Rebekah said the following, concerning his wives: “I have become irritated with my life because of the daughters of the sons of Chet. If Iakob will take a wife from the daughters of this land, why shall I live?” (Gen. 27.46, NETS)
What Rebekah was saying is, Esau had married bastard women, who couldn’t produce legitimate offspring. If Jacob was to do the same, her life would have been in vain from that moment on. If both of Isaac’s sons married alien women who couldn’t bare legitimate sons to them, then that would be the end of God’s covenant with the anointed seed of Abraham.
Fortunately, things didn’t happen so. Isaac instructed Jacob to travel to the plains of Syria (Mesopotamia, as the Septuagint reads) and find a suitable and lawful wife for himself:
“Then Isaac having called for Iakob, blessed him and commanded him, saying: ‘You shall not take a wife from the daughters of Chanaan. Rise, escape to Mesopotamia, to the house of Bathouel, your mother’s father, and take a wife for yourself from there from the daughters of Laban, your mother’s brother. (Genesis 28.1-2, NETS)
Isaac also blessed Jacob and made it clear that his marriage to a wife taken from among his own people was connected to his responsibilites and duties as the sole heir of the Abrahamic Covenant, which Esau had disregarded:
“And may my God bless you and make you increase and make you numerous, and you shall become gatherings of nations. And may He give to you the blessings of my father Abraam, to you and to your offspring after you, to possess the land of your living as an alien, which God gave to Abraam.” (Genesis 28.3-4, NETS)
JACOB TRAVELED FAR AWAY TO FIND A RACIALLY PURE WIFE FOR HIMSELF
These last paragraphs have been a digression, to some degree. The main point that I am trying to demonstrate is that, from what we read in the Book of Genesis, Esau did not “have sex before marriage”, he did not cheat on his wives, he did not go to whoring houses and use the services of prostitutes, nor did he attend sexual orgies. What he did was, he married Canaanite women, and for that reason he was a fornicator.
So, on one hand, we have Jacob-Israel, who engaged (without his knowlede) in what modern people call “pre-marital” sex, and he was not called a fornicator as a result. On the other hand, his brother Esau was called a fornicator although he seems not to have engaged in unlawful sexual behaviour. That is, until we understand that race-mixing is fornication and it is an abomination to Yahweh our God. Once we accept that, it becomes easy to understand why Paul called Esau a fornicator.
If we check the meaning of the Greek word πορνεία (porneia) in Strong’s Concordance we can see that it refers to illicit sexual intercourse in general.
Strong’s short definiton for porneia (Strong’s G4202) reveals the following:
πορνεία porneía, por-ni’-ah; from G4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively, idolatry:—fornication.
His outline of biblical usage for the porneia includes:
I illicit sexual intercourse
A. adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.sexual
B. intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
C. sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11-12
II metaph. the worship of idols
A. of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols
While fornication may very well refer to adultery (whether in the sense of confusing bloodlines as a result of marital infidelity or simply as race-mixing), sodomy, bestiality, incest, etc., we see that according to Jude’s interpretation it primarily refers to race-mixing. The Book of Enoch also confirms this view and it is no wonder Jude quoted Enoch in his short epistle.
In the Book of Enoch, chapter 10, verse 9, we read the following:
“And to Gabriel said the Lord: ‘Proceed against the bastards and the reprobates, and against the children of fornication: and destroy [the children of fornication and] the children of the Watchers from amongst men [and cause them to go forth]: send them one against the other that they may destroy each other in battle: for length of days shall they not have.” (RH Charles’ version)
In this passage God refers to the children of the fallen angels (who are themselves called ‘Watchers’) as bastards and reprobates, and also as ‘children of fornication’, which is what they are, since race-mixing is fornication.
A few chapters earlier we read:
“And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters.
And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: ‘Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.’ ” (Enoch 6.1-2, RH Charles’ version)
This passage removes all doubt as to who the “sons of God” mentioned at Genesis 6.2 are.
Maybe it is not by chance that Enoch 6.2 sheds light on Genesis 6.2. As I said a little earlier in this article, the “sons of God” of Genesis 6.2 should more appropriately be refered to as the “sons of heaven”. This way everyone will understand that those who committed the sin (or, at least, who were the initiators of that sin) that angered God and caused Him to flood the land where Adamkind lived were none other than the fallen angels.
Before we continue, if there are any readers who believe that Noah’s flood was worldwide, I will say it shortly and directly, it was not! It was a regional flood. The following podcast (or article, if you prefer to read, rather than listen) by William Finck is highly recommended for those who are willing to let go of the false notion that God flooded the entire earth, but who haven’t yet found convincing arguments in favor of the regional flood hypothesis:
Noah’s Flood Was Not World Wide – a Critical Review of a sermon by Bertrand Comparet
Now, let us quote the full passage of Jude’s epistle which speaks concerning the sin of Genesis chapter 6:
“But I desire to remind you, you all knowing that once for all the Prince having delivered the people from the land of Egypt, the second time destroyed those not believing, and the messengers not having kept their first dominion but having forsaken their own habitation are kept under darkness in everlasting bindings for the judgment of the great day, as Sodom and Gomorra and the cities around them in like manner with them committing fornication and having gone after different flesh are set forth an example, undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.” (Jude 1.5-7, CNT)
Please notice how Jude connects the sin of fornication to going after different flesh. As I have said, fornication can refer to more than one sin, but as we can see from both Jude and Enoch it primarily refers to race-mixing. We could say that race-mixing is not the only form of fornication, but it is without a doubt the worst form of fornication.
The Greek word used for ‘different’ in Jude’s epistle is ‘heteras’, which is the feminine for ‘heteros’ (ἕτερος), which means “not of the same nature, form, class, kind, different”. This reminds us of the following quote by Paul:
“Not all flesh is the same flesh, but one flesh of man, and another flesh of beasts, and another of birds, and another of fish.” (I Corinthians 15.39, CNT)
‘Different flesh’ does not mean ‘someone else’s flesh’, but ‘flesh of a different type’.
THIS IS FORNICATION AND IT IS AN ABOMINATION TO YAHWEH GOD
And now, the passage where Jude directly quotes Enoch:
“And Enoch, seventh from Adam, prophesied to these saying ‘Behold, the Prince has come with ten thousands of His saints to execute judgment against all and to convict every soul for all of their impious deeds which they committed impiously and for all of the harsh things which the impious wrongdoers have spoken against Him!’ ” (Jude 1.14-15, CNT)
This is a direct quotation of Enoch 1.9, which states:
“And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of (His) holy ones To execute judgement upon all, And to destroy (all) the ungodly: And to convict all flesh of all the works (of their ungodliness) which they have ungodly committed, And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners (have spoken) against Him.” (RH Charles’ version)
The fact that Jude quoted Enoch with such accuracy is good evidence that he believed in the divine inspiration of those writings that later came to be part of what we call today ‘The Book of Enoch’, those chapters that we find at the beginning of the Book of Enoch and which speak in condemnation of race-mixing in clear and direct terms. Those same passages reveal to us that not all hominids descent from Adam and Eve and that the very existence of bastards (who are the offspring of the fallen angels) is an affront to Yahweh our God.
“A BASTARD SHALL NOT ENTER INTO THE CONGREGATION OF YAHWEH” (DEUT 23.2)
The Bible itself is full of passages that condemn race-mixing and the bastards who result from race-mixing. However, this article is already long enough, so I will no longer add to it. I will end it by saying that all those who have sincere hearts should understand and accept the fact that race-mixing is a grave sin and that the act and products (bastards) of race-mixing will never be acceptable to Yahweh God.
If we truly love God and His laws, then we must accept what the Bible clearly teaches, even if the truth is often painful and by nature it is hard to accept. I too happen to have had race-mixed friends. I even have a relative who meant very much to me at one point in my life, but I will do no justice to my blood and to my ancestors by accepting that person as my kin. Yahweh and His laws must always come first, while our own feelings must come second.