The Tale of the Two Cusha Dwipas and Du Bois's Misconception

When we made a serious inquiry into the origin and history of ancient nations, we found out that there were two lands of Ethiopia in the ancient times. There was Ethiopia of the East, also known as Cusha Dwipa within (I.e., Indus Valley), and there was Ethiopia of the West, also known as Cusha Dwipa without (I.e. Nile Valley). It is not necessary to talk about the intimate cultural and spiritual relations that existed between the two lands in antiquity for those are already old and well-known (see my essay “The Similarities Between Eastern and Western Kush”); however, it is necessary to examine and talk about the supposed common origin of the inhabitants of the two lands (i.e. Cusha Dwipa within and Cusha Dwipa without). The big question is whether the Nile Valley Civilization borrowed from the Indus Valley Civilization or vice versa.

There are positive, not necessarily accurate or even convincing, historical records of ancient Africans (Cushites) from the Horn of Africa (i.e. Nile Valley) having come to the Indus Valley. In the Greek mythology, Bacchus (i.e. Dionysus), the Ethiopian god was said to have conquered and established a colony in India – Bacchus was an imaginary personage, whom many people in the esoteric circle believe personifies the sun; so, this idle story of Bacchus may not qualify as a positive historical record. According to the Puranas of the Indian Scriptures, the ancient rulers of the Cusha Dwipas were said to be men of Meru or Meroe – Meroe was the ancient name for Sudan. The Puranas account is obviously a more positive historical record.

Conversely, there are other historical records that show how the colonies of Indus Valley (i.e. India) passed to the Horn of Africa (i.e., Nile Valley). One in particular was the Puranas of the Indian scriptures which states that the ancient Indians ruled over the whole of Indus Valley before moving west to the Horn of Africa.  Some historians, ancient and modern, bought into this “out of India” hypothesis. They argued that the first waves of shepherds who migrated into the Nile Valley region were ancient Indians. In his book “Anacalypsis,” Godfrey Higgins alluded to the fact that the original Phoenicians were Africoid people who left their native country in the Indus Valley to settle near the Assyrian Lake, and the extensive district between the Tigris and Euphrates, now called Palestine. The word “Palestine,” he opined, was derived from Pallisthan, an Indian word that means the seat of the Pallis or Shepherds – Palli, in Indian, means Shepherd.  Thus, the Indian origin of the word “Palestine” was taken as a proof of the “out of India" hypothesis.

One of the staunch proponents of the “out of India” or should I say “Out of Southern Asia” hypothesis was W.E.B Du Bois. In his book “The Negro,” Du Bois states "from the center in Southern Asia primitive human beings began to differentiate in two directions. Toward the South appeared the primitive Africoid people, long-headed and with flattened hair follicle. He spread along the Southern Asia and passed over into Africa, where he survives today as the reddish dwarfs of the center and the Bushmen of South Africa." Du Bois and many European scholars of his day actually thought that the anatomical modern man originated from Southern Asia. According to them, since the fossil records had shown that the first anatomical modern man (AMM) was black; then, the first AMM had to be a “black Asiatic” - an erroneous assumption that has been disproven by the modern DNA test that shows that the first AMM actually came from Africa, not from Southern Asia as originally thought.

The “out of Southern Asia” hypothesis that was erroneously popularized by Du Bois among the black psuedo-scholars here in the United States was later adopted by many people in the black "spiritually conscious" communities. For example, the Moorish Science Temple, founded by Noble Drew Ali; Nuwaubian nation and the Nation of Islam. It is not uncommon, even today, to see members of the aforementioned communities adhering to the "out of Southern Asia" hypothesis and the erroneous concept of "The Black Asiatic." I must say that Du Bois was accurate in so many other areas, but on the “out of southern Asia” hypothesis, science proved him wrong. This is not a critique of the man, but rather an examination of his misconception and the origin of the misnomer “The Black Asiatic."

References:

Drusilla Dunjee: "The wonderful Ethiopians of the Ancient Cushite Empire."

Godfrey Higgins: "Anacalypsis - Vol.I & II."

W.E.B Du Bois: "The Negro."

Odu "gba were mesin" - Blind Faith.

In the Odu “gba were mesin”......a young initiate from the temple of Ast sought consultation with IFA. IFA warned the young one of an imminent flood, but advised the young one to be prepared and to have faith. Three days after the warning, there was a great flood in the land. The young initiate rushed out of his house to escape the flood, but was swept away by the heavy current into the pool of water where he started to drown.

While drowning, three different boats came one after the other to rescue the young one. But to the rescuers' dismay, the young one refused to get on the boat. He maintained that his salvation was in the hands of IFA, not in the hands of the rescuers, and that his strong faith in IFA would rescue him from the flood. The last rescuer reluctantly left just like the one before him, and the young initiate eventually drowned.

At his death, the young initiate reunited with IFA in the underworld where he protested to IFA for not being saved despite his strong faith in him. IFA responded "I sent three boats to rescue you, but your blind faith prevented you from getting on any of them; so, for your blind faith, you prematurely relegated yourself to the underworld." It is in the underworld the young initiate remains till date.

“Flavian Thesis” Examined.

The thesis that the canonical gospels are allegorical parallels of the Torah, and the writings of Flavius Josephus must be carefully examined. In the book “Caesar’s Messiah,” Joseph Atwill contends that the canonical gospels are typologic fiction formulated by the Flavian Dynasty (i.e. Roman Imperial family) to invalidate the Torah.

While the “Flavian thesis” proposed by Joseph Atwill is interesting, but certainly not convincing, I believe this hypothesis is a clever attempt by Mr. Atwill and his supporters to validate the authenticity of the Torah, and simultaneously invalidate the Canonical gospels. The current writer agrees that the Canonical gospels are typologic fiction, but so is the Torah.

My position, to be specific, is that even if it is true that the Canonical gospels are allegorical parallels of the Torah and the writings of Josephus; the Torah itself is an allegorical parallel of more ancient writings and mythoses (i.e. Homeric writings, Greek mythoses, Egyto-Cushite mythoses etc.). For example, just as the story of Christ in Matthew parallels the story of Moses in Exodus, the story of Moses in Exodus parallels the story of Akhenaton in ancient Egypt. And just as the Gospel of Mark and Luke parallels the supposed writings of Josephus; the story of Samson and Delilah in the Torah parallels the story of Hercules/Herakles in the Greek Mythos. In fact, many of the books in the Torah are named after Greek city states; so, the Hellenistic influence on the writer of the Torah is undeniable.

My research, unlike the “Flavian thesis,” revealed to me that both the Torah and the Canonical Gospels were formulated using a unique typologic method around 10th to 12th century A.D, but not in the 2nd century A.D as now implied in the “Flavian thesis.” What is a typologic method? A typologic method is a literary method whereby a contemporary story is superimposed on a more ancient story to make the contemporary story look ancient – ancient Greek scholars are well known for using typologic method in their writings, so it is plausible that the medieval-era Jewish writers were highly influenced by the literary method of the ancient Greek scholars.   

In fact, I would conjecture that Flavius Josephus was an incarnated personage, created perhaps in the middle ages or even later, whose supposed writings were back dated to defend Judaism as a classical religion and philosophy. It is very complicated to use hindsight to reconstruct ancient history; more specifically, the historical origin of the “Abrahamic Triad" due to the typologic method adopted by the scripture writers to code their writings. But when historians use competitive plausibility in the reconstruction of ancient history, they tend to eliminate what is less likely. In the present case, what is less likely is that the scriptures are true historical records, not some kind of typologic fiction.

/Ojo O Oyebisi/

The Similarities between Eastern and Western Kush and many more!

As per the similarities between the cultures and religions of Eastern and Western Kush (India being Eastern Kush and Ethiopia being Western Kush); firstly, I would say the most significant similarity between the two cultures is the sacredness of cow/bull. One of the greatest deities, perhaps the greatest, in the Nile Valley (I.e. Western Kush) was Auset (Isis). Auset was a piscean deity of fertility, and was depicted as a cow, the mother goddess Hathor - whom the Semites call the golden calf. Remember, the ancient Nile valley people were big on symbolism; especially, the use of animals to symbolize physical realities and spiritual concepts. Thus, it makes sense that a great deity of fertility would be symbolized by a cow. I believe it's the same cult of Auset (I.e. mother goddess Hathor) that spread from the Western Kush to the Eastern Kush, and I consider this to be the reason why cows are sacred to Indians even today.

Another similarity that I've noticed between the two cultures is the belief in the idea of a "third eye" or a spiritual/hidden eye which can only be activated by the sun. The belief is that the pineal gland, located in the middle of the fore head, can be turned into a third/spiritual eye if activated properly by the sun rays. You may have noticed this in many Egyptian reliefs, where the Pharaoh's forehead is being penetrated by sun rays. The Kemetians called the "third eye" the eye of Heru, and the present day Indians visibly mark the location of the "third eye" with a red dot on their foreheads.

There are many other similarities between the two cultures; most importantly, the commonality of sacred symbols. The famous Hindu cross (I.e. Swastika) is also found on many ancient temples across the Nile, more specifically on the Axumite temple in Ethiopia. The Obelisk as a symbol of reproduction, resurrection and life (i.e. phallic symbol) in the Nile Valley is found under the same symbolism in India as Shiva Lingam.

As per the Tamil people's claim that their language is older than Sanskrit, I agree to this claim. I believe that the Tamil language and many other languages spoken in most of Southern India today are a variant of proto- Dravidian language group. Many contemporary scholars believe that while it's true that the original inhabitants of India and Indian subcontinent (Cusha Dwipa within or Eastern Kush) were Dravidian speaking people (please research Mohenjo-Daro/Harappan civilization), these original Dravidian people were invaded by a nomadic tribe from the North (Nomadic Aryans) who later destroyed the Dravidian's civilization and introduced Sanskrit language into India. Scholars cited the post-invasion nomadic culture of cremation of the dead, prevalent, in India to buttress their foreign invasion hypothesis.

However, the ancient scholars, more specifically, Homer, Herodotus, Strabo, to name but a few, were of the view that the people from the Western and Eastern Kush were one and the same. It is plausible they came into this conclusion based on the morphological similarities between these two groups of people. While I'm not dismissing the thesis of the contemporary and ancient scholars, I am however offering a slightly different view of the racial composition of Eastern Kush (Indian subcontinent) and the historical origin of its people. But before I do so, let me take you back very quicky to the origin of modern man.

I will start by saying that I agree to the evolutionist's mono-genetic origin of man. However, I believe the origin of modern man was that of mutation and hybridization. My research revealed to me that evolution occurred to the point of Grimaldi man, and the rest was a product of hybridization (please see Cro-Magnon man). That is to say, the divergent human species we see today came about through a process of hybridization or cross breeding between the Grimaldi man and the humanoids (I.e. Neanthertals, Denisovans etc).

In my essay "hybridization hypothesis," I surmised with caution that Australian aboriginals were a product of the interbreeding between the Grimaldi men and the Denisovans (sub species of homo sapiens). I believe the Denisovans were the original inhabitants of Australian and Indian subcontinent, but the Grimaldi men came over into these regions from Africa around 40,000 years ago where they interbreed with the Denisovans to survive in a new environment. Out of this interbreeding came the proto Dravidian people, who were the original inhabitants of Eastern Kush. Around 1000 B.C, perhaps much earlier, a group of nomadic men (Nomadic Aryans) from the Caucus region, who were hybrid of Grimaldi and Neanthertals themselves, invaded the Western Kush (North and North East Africa now called the Middle East) via present day Iran, and Eastern Kush (ancient India) via Afghanistan.They destroyed the original Elamite civilization, built by the Western Kushites or the Ethiopians in Iran. They also destroyed the original Mohenjo-Daro/Harappan civilization, built by the ancient Dravidians in the Indus Valley.

I do not believe, however, that this invasion happened just once. There was a series of invasions that spanned almost a millennium. For example, the initial invasion of Eastern Kush by the Turks was not strong enough to subvert the original indigenous spiritual system, but was strong enough to corrupt it into what is known today as Hinduism. Buddhism was later developed by the displaced Dravidians from the South as a protest to the corruption of their ancient system (please research Khmer people of Indian subcontinent) - note the similarity between Khem and Khmer. In the early A.D era, another group of Monist Turks invaded Eastern and Western Kush, and introduced a male dominated religious philosophy called Mohammedanism to these two regions. This is why North Africa, North East Africa (Middle East), and many countries in Indian sub-continent today are Islamic - Islam developed out of Mohammedanism. 

In conclusion, the origin of modern man is that of evolution and hybridization. And I contend that human population outside of Africa is largely a product of hybridization. What I have written here is not written in stone. They are to be studied, interrogated, and challenged.

References:

Martin Bernal: “Black Athena – Vol.I-Vol.III.”

Godfrey Higgins: "Anacalypsis - Vol.I & II."

Drusilla Dunjee: “The Wonderful Ethiopians of the Ancient Cushite Empire”

Dan Kedmey: "What DNA Reveals About India's Caste System," Time Magazine,  Aug.27, 2013.

Carl Zimmer: "Interbreeding With Neanthertals," Discover Magazine, March, 2013.

/Ojo Oyebisi/

Hybridization Hypothesis – the origin of Australian aboriginals

I

The mixed type - African/Denisovan type

The unmixed - 100% African type

The unmixed - 100% Denisovan type

Most of the mainstream archeologists and evolutionary anthropologists believe that the Australian aboriginals descended from a group of Homo sapiens, who were said to have left Africa about 40,000-70,000 years ago for Australia. However, in my proposed hybridization theory, I am suggesting that the Australian aboriginals are largely a product of interbreeding between the Homo sapiens and the Homo Denisovans (subspecies of Homo sapiens, native to the Australian sub-continent).

What am I really trying to convey? I am proposing that the proto-inhabitants of the Australian sub-continent were Homo Denisovans who were well adapted to that environment. However, about 40,000-70,000 years ago, a group of Homo sapiens left Africa and journeyed into Australian sub-continent where they encountered Homo Denisovans and interbred with them to survive in an unfamiliar environment. Of course, in most cases of interbreeding, not everyone in the population is (un)fortunate enough to be absorbed into the admixture – some remain unmixed. Similarly, in the case of the Australian aboriginals, some of them are a product of the admixture between the African immigrants (i.e. Homo sapiens) and the natives (i.e. Homo Denisovans), but a number of them are not mixed at all – that is, a number of them are descendants of either the pure-bred Homo sapiens or Denisovans.

Today, the “hybrid genotype and phenotype” are well preserved amongst the aboriginals in main land Australia, but to a lesser degree in West Papua and Solomon Island. The pure Denisovans’ genotype and phenotype are well preserved amongst the Papua New Guineans; whereas, the pure Homo sapiens’ genotype and phenotype are well preserved amongst the Solomon and Vanuatu Islanders, but to a lesser degree amongst the Papua New Guineans. In fact, in one of the Solomon Islanders' folklores that I read, it says that the Solomon Islanders’ progenitors migrated from Tanzania (East Africa) 40,000-60,000 years ago, and many of their elders today testify to the truth of this East-African migration theory.

To further buttress my hypothesis, let me refer you to an article published by Carl Zimmer in the Discover magazine this year (“Intebreeding with Neandethals,” March 04, 2013). In it, Carl says: “the Denisovan genes were closest to the Neanderthals, but the genome had many mutations not found in either humans or Neanderthals. Denisovan ancestors apparently had diverged from the ancestors of Neanderthals somewhat more recently than the split between Neanderthals and modern human beings. It is possible that their common ancestor emigrated from Africa many hundreds of thousands of years ago. The ancestors of Neanderthals headed north....The Denisovans’ ancestors, meanwhile, headed east and survived long enough to at least leave that pinkie bone in the Siberian cave......Knowing that Neanderthals and humans had interbred, Reich and his colleagues (The Harvard researches) looked carefully for Denisovan DNA in the genomes of living humans. They found it in genomes from two populations, one from New Guinea and another from the nearby island of Bougainville. As much as 5 percent of their DNA came from the vanished Denisovans.” (http://discovermagazine.com/2013/march/14-interbreeding-neanderthals).

The current revelation in my hypothesis and in the Harvard genome research enclosed above is probably just the beginning of a new understanding of our evolution. I hope my hypothesis would enlighten the ideologues who argue vehemently against the “out of Africa migration” with a flawed genome result that links the Australian aboriginals to Asia, not Africa. I have made it clear in my hypothesis that the so-called native people of Australian sub-continent are not racially homogenous. That is, while some of them appear to be 100% Denisovans (i.e. subspecies of Homo sapiens, native to Australian sub-continent and some parts of Asia), some of them are actually genetically and phenotypically100% Homo sapiens (the migrant Africans), and the rest appear to be a mixture of both. So depending on which aboriginal group you include in your genome test, you are bound to come up with different DNA results. 

In conclusion, I must say that the primary focus of my hypothesis at this time is the origin of Australian aboriginals, but the hypothesis can be broadened to include the origin of any racial group.

All these people are native to Australian sub-continent

The Cult of Serapis and the Pagan Origin of "Abrahamic Triad."

The bust of Serapis

The cult of Serapis was rooted in the Ancient Egyptian belief in the Divine father, Osiris (Ausar). Serapis was derived from the combination of two well-known Egyptian gods, Osiris and Apis (Osiris+Apis = Osirapis or Serapis). Technically, the cult of Osiris and Apis predated the Ptolemies (i.e., the Greek dynasty of ancient Egypt - 323-30 BC). But it was the Ptolemaic rulers who fused the two gods into one.

That is, before the creation of Serapis by the Ptolemaic dynasty (the Greeks) of Ancient Egypt, Osiris was the mythological god of the Nile valley who presided over the throne of judgment - The Pharaohs were regarded as the vicar of Osiris on earth. The Ptolemaic rulers, however, changed this traditional arrangement by creating a new god, Serapis, in the exact likeness of the father, Osiris. The only difference was that the Ptolemaic rulers elevated themselves to the status of god/Serapis, and demanded to be worshipped as such – a clear violation of the traditional arrangement in which man, regardless of status, can only be the vicar of god on earth, but not god himself. The traditional thought process was that god could only have one nature, which is divine, not human. 

Osiris, the father, sitting on the throne of Judgment

The Coptic community of Egypt (mostly Hellenized Africans) rejected the Ptolemaic ruler's stance on being one and the same with the newly created father, Serapis. They refused to worship the Ptolemaic rulers as gods. The Ptolemy rulers responded by closing down all the ancient temples of Egypt and in some cases killing and exiling the African priests who opposed them.

The Romans took over the rule of Ancient Egypt from the Greeks (the Ptolemaic rulers) after the Greeks had ruled for nearly 300 years. And it was the Romans, more specifically Emperor Constantine who Christianized Serapis, and made Serapis a creature with dual nature (human and divine). The Coptic Egyptians (Africans) and a handful of Turks and Arabs (hybrid of Turks, Greeks and Africans) in North and North East Africa (now Middle East) rejected the dual nature of Serapis just like their previous ancestors. They maintained that Serapis the father could only have one nature which was divine, not human.

All in all, Constantine was successful in making Serapis the Christ (I.e. Iesus Christos) - a creature with dual nature (human and divine). Constantine legacy divided the Roman Empire into two philosophical camps: the Eastern camp (North Africa, Middle East and Asia) and the Western camp (Western and Central Europe) - See the Crusade. The Eastern camp believed that the created Serapis only had one divine nature like the original father, Osiris, and refused to worship Serapis as the Christ with dual nature. However, the western camp accepted Serapis as the Christ, having dual nature - see the Nicaea council I&II.

Today, the Western camp are the Christians (Dyophysites) and the Eastern camp are the Muslims (Monophysites) – see Allah/Mahommet/One Nature. In other words, Muslims are Monophysite Christians. And Christians are worshippers of Serapis, now called Christ - who our ancestors refused to worship. But we in our ignorance continue to worship a creature dissimilar from the father, a creature nonetheless (Arius - see Arianism), and we continue to suffer in the world because of our ignorance. Wake up!

References:

"The Black Athena" vol.I&II - Martin Bernal****

"Holy Blood Holy Grail" - Richard Leigh et al

"The historical Origin of Islam" - Walter Williams *****

"Christianity before Christ" - John G. Jackson

"The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors" - Kersey Graves

/Ojo o Oyebisi/  - 7/20/13

WAKE UP

I identify, wholeheartedly, with any group of people who portray themselves as the "chosen ones," or better yet, colonized god in their own image. But I refuse to sympathize with people who worship and praise god that is not in their own image, or worse still, a god that has failed to choose them in the first place. I cannot sympathize with them because they refuse to reason logically.

The image of god is high and mighty in our conscious and sub-conscious minds. So if a group of people have managed to be chosen by god or have colonized the image of god; invariably, those godly people are high and mighty in the conscious and sub-conscious minds of those who choose to worship that same god. It is not an accident that the people that have portrayed themselves as the chosen ones and those that have colonized the image of god are the same people who now control the world as a collective. It is called “positive self-fulfilling prophesy.” However, the “tag-alongs” or those who are willingly waiting for the return of the messiah to establish their own relationship with the creator are now the peasants of the world.

Imagine the joy, the confidence, the ego in a little child’s mind looking up and seeing god in his/her own image or looking down into a holy book and reading that his/her people are chosen by God. Now contrast that with another child, who looks up to a godly image that does not resemble him/her or look down to read a holy book that makes no reference to his/her people being chosen by god. In the liberated mind of the first child, the world is his father’s realm, so he/she can do as he/she pleases. However, in the poisoned mind of the second child, the world is a struggle, so he/she looks up to the first child for salvation. The first child is god in the second child’s mind. So, the struggle continues!

I think if you need to subscribe to a deity, you should subscribe to one in your own image. There are some people who would try to validate the three major belief systems we have today by pointing to their Kemetic, Ethiopic and Sumerian origins. I contend that this old and well-known fact should not be used as a point of validation, but rather as a point of rejection. I think it is ludicrous to validate and accept a fallacy just because you can trace its root to your land. The mere fact that these belief systems, in spite of their common origin, are in constant struggle to annihilate each other to the detriment of our civilization speaks volume to their emptiness. After all, if their deity is mighty and powerful as purported in their books, why fight for it - it can fight for itself.

Religion is an effective ideological tool for promoting, through the use of allegorical method, cultural supremacy and political control. As a matter of fact, an effective way to achieve an ideological goal is through the use of allegorical method. The most prominent allegorical method ever formulated by man is that of the eternal struggle between god and devil. Man’s main ideological goal is to feed his ego; so, he associates all that satisfies his ego with god and the opposite with devil. In other words, man creates god in his own image to always support or stand for man’s egocentric agenda. Thus, it is no accident that religious ideology is formulated on the allegorical struggle between god and devil; where, the godly people are rewarded with heaven and the devilish people are banished to hell – it is a control tool.

The current writer finds that the religious texts contain plasma (relating imaginary events as if they were real) and mythos (telling what never happened) but no historia (describing what actually happened). Thus, all the stories in the religious texts are allegories, compiled for the ideological goal of promoting cultural supremacy and political control.