This subject is being dealt with as a component of my series on The Princes, the Priests and the Prophets hence the preface of PPP. The link here is provided to connect with the main article.

The Real Situation

Even though men reject His authority God is still in charge.

He does not approve of kings because He is already king of His people (I Samuel 8:7), But even if we insist on a king God can raise up the right leader for us if we are willing. His system does not concentrate wealth and power in the hands of the unjust but looks for a man after His own heart wherever He is (Acts 13:22, I Chronicles 17:6-7, II Samuel 7:7-8).

Someone who is a father figure like Joseph.

Someone that rejoices in Him and is humble in His presence like David (II Samuel 6:21). Someone who recognises the value of His way of life like Moses (Deuteronomy 4:5-8). But the princes the priests and the prophets that establish themselves over the people do not want that, and the people do not know God because these leaders abuse their roles leading the people to participate in condemning Him even though they hear His word constantly.

The rich young ruler was eager to ask but He was unwilling to take the advice (Matthew 19:1630, Mark 10:1731 and Luke 18:18-30, Luke 18:18-30). The princes do not have the answers and God raised up people like Peter to tell them, but the message goes unheeded. They persist in another way.

And so we have the world as it is. Men living apart from God.

Good or Evil Economic Systems

God tells us that even the princes can recognise good works, so that is what we must strive for.

Because they praise you does not mean that they will not try to exploit you if it is to their advantage. That is the point of capitalism. Is it so hard to see the connection with Cain's attitude and capitalism?  And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper? [10] And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground (Genesis 4:9-10 [KJV]). Does God no longer see the blood of others spilt in pursuit of profits? Each system of government (God's and man's) includes an economic system. Economic systems are about wealth. It is about if and how a dominant class distributes the surplus. This gives us at least two things to look for: How do they create class distinctions (family structure: husband, father, grandparents etc. or otherwise) and do they force the subjected class to generate a surplus for the dominant class as opposed to provide for the family. The ways that the dominant class have come up with over the years is limited only by the imagination, but modern scholarship provides the following 4 basic classes. Economic systems are grouped into traditional, command, market, and mixed systems. Traditional systems focus on the basics i.e. goods, services, and work, and they are guided by traditions and beliefs i.e. there is a place for religion. Command systems are directly controlled by a central authority. Market systems rely on the forces of demand and supply. Mixed economies are a combination of command and market systems.

Another side of modern scholarship sees economic systems as these: Anarchy (voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government), Capitalism (trade and industry are controlled by private owners driven by profit), Colonialism (control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically), Communism (all property is publicly owned, everybody works and is paid according to their abilities and needs), Corporatism (serve the interest of large groups), Dirigisme (state control), Distributism (as many private owners as possible for the purpose of self-reliance) and Feudalism (The king own everything and bestows lands to lords, you owe them your service for living in the country). I find it hilarious that the anarchy type is most closely matched with the traditional type when comparing these two classification methods.

So what do you look for historically? I have narrowed it down to these: kinship production, feudalism, slavery, capitalism and socialism. It is interesting that I did not find slavery listed as an economic system despite it being the engine of the economy of North America, especially in the south. Kinship production is without question where it started (In Genesis 2:8 God actually planted the garden and provided for Adam and Eve) and is the obvious type for Cain and Abel (Genesis 4:2 [KJV] And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground). Slavery was the earliest mentioned system added. In Genesis 9:25 [KJV] we find And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. Servant is Strong's H5650 translated from Hebrew ebed  into English as bondman, (bond-)servant and (man-)servant, that is, a slave. After the flood Joseph turned Egypt into a feudal economy and God brought Israel out and gave them His system. I see these as the basics and my claim is that things have not changed.

Another primary concern of an Economic system is creating value and this has to do with utilizing production and distribution. Production is about transforming the world into and asset i.e. about making something less valuable into something more valuable. Distribution is about getting it to the consumer i.e. the person who finds it valuable. The first problem is how do you define value? In capitalism we define the person who values it most as the person willing to sacrifice most material goods for it. Like most other systems it is about creating wealth not necessarily value. Wealth is about moving assets to the place where they attract the greatest return not do the most good.

Only one system is sanctioned by God. It is kinship production under Him as king. Kinship production without accountability to God (e.g. rule by a king who has no accountability to God) will still corrupt society. Kin means family hence kinship production with God includes Him as head of the family. With God the focus is on providing for the family not the company or the state or the king.

He warned Israel of rejecting that system when they asked for a king (I Samuel 8:4-19). Basically this points out that a king TAKES what he WANTS and you get what is left and it does not matter whether the king is over a company or over a state. In Israel everyone was family and so you had to look after everyone. We are going to examine these systems in greater detail as we go on in the series but for now I want to introduce kinship production and feudalism.

Kinship Production

We have already dealt with the subject of kinship production but I started then with Abraham. Nowadays the popular discussion is to defend socialism or capitalism. It is the same discussion really, focusing on the merits or demerits of the global resource management system i.e. the economic system. Most activists act as though the problem just started. Many focus on the future and profess that it lies with socialism. The Bible shows that it does not end there. We cannot fix this worlds systems, we can only fix ourselves, we can demonstrate that there is a better way.

To facilitate my tracing of human systems I have had to line up Biblical history with Egyptian history. I outline Bible history in my article called Chronology from the Bible. Egyptologists claim that the Great Pyramids of Giza were built about 2,550 BC while creation scientists claim that the great flood occurred around 2,350 BC. This would put the Great Pyramids preceding the flood by about 200 years which makes no sense for several reasons, including the fact that the pyramids were built by Egyptians who came from Ham. Patterns of Evidence: Exodus, is a 2014 documentary film directed by Tim Mahoney. The film is somewhat based on David Rohl's New Chronology which contradicts mainstream Egyptology. The film presents the view that the Biblical story of the Exodus actually happened during the Middle Kingdom of Egypt. According to a YouTube video by Nathanh83, it presents evidence that Egyptian history should be adjusted by 200 years, putting the flood at the same time as the Great Pyramids, while some other sources record that Rohl's theory implies that it should be shifted up to 350 years. The critical analysis at http://torahtimes.org/rohl.html by the Torah Times, October 14, 2018 - David Rohl's New Chronology, speaks of 186 years and is good reading, and by by Charles N. Pope was also useful to me. The Wikipedia article New Chronology (Rohl) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_(Rohl) provides a summary of the evidence. Shifting the Egyptian chronology partially accounts for the discrepancy between the viewpoint of the Creation Scientists and that of the Egyptologists. The other part comes from how creation scientists ignore the evidence by Paul, the Greek Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and Flavius Josephus, who all state that the Children of Israel spent 430 years in Egypt AND Canaan. Paul says this

The Bible says that we should base our evidence on two or three witnesses when available. In this case it is four against one. The internal evidence in the same Hebrew Masoretic that they base their claims on also shows that what the creation scientists are claiming is impossible, when you add the lifetimes of the people involved. This is graphically demonstrated in the you Tube video How Long Were The Israelites In Egypt by NathanH83 which I set as a link before. I mentioned the New Chronology and David Rohl. This is not the same as the New Chronology by Anatoly Fomenko which is labelled as a pseudohistorical conspiracy theory. This is not a conspiracy theory and it is more recent. I have no authoritative critical comparison of the two to present, but David Rohl's work has won several film awards while the other has been condemned by many traditional historians as well as in the scientific community. There is also the Glasgow Chronology (proposed 1978-1982), which lowers New Kingdom dates by as much as 500 years. All of this is to say that true science always corroborates the Bible and that true Biblical evidence always supports science, but on the other hand all people are deceitful based on the Bible (Jeremiah 17:9). Over the last century the agreement between the Bible and Egyptian chronologies has improved https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_chronology. Looking at what is available indicates to me that the system of government that we have is at its core one and the same with the ancient one. The Egyptians record one strain of it while the Assyrians record another but the two once again converge in the joining of Egypt and Babylon through the unification of Pharaohs and Emperors, while God's system was sustained by Israel alone. Modern-day Israel emerged from history with the same system as all the nations. I have found that what the Bible says in Jeremiah 17:9 is very true in this case and both creation scientists and traditional modern historians have been deceitful as I see it. The dust has not settled enough to validate or refute the New Chronology and its implications authoritatively, but I know that the old one is wrong.

God's system is based on family with Him as Lord over all. Your kin is your family and so I roughly equate this to what men call kinship production. We are all His Children. Other systems also have only one family featured prominently in the structure too, that being the family of the prince, their Father, but concern for the many is completely excluded (check https://www.historyonthenet.com/medieval-life-feudalism-feudal-system/). This is made pointedly clear in John 8.

God has given us a description of those who are not His. Look around at the nations. They are murderers from the beginning, and abide not in the truth i.e. they tell the truth only when it suits them. God loves His family but I cannot say the same of the prince. I know for sure that he does not love God's family (John 8:37-40). The family broke down under Cain and the best that we have achieve since then is called kinship production. It is based on family but it excludes God. The family has God at the centre (Psalm 127) since He is the the creator and Father of all.

Each time that God has established His system it was based on family: Adam and Eve, Noah, Israel, the Church.

Adam and Eve

Adam and Eve were the first human beings. They made the mistake of excluding God from their equation. It defaulted to the price (Satan) as the head of the family. They were both priests because they had direct access to God, And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden (Genesis 3:8 [KJV]). They were both prophets because they both knew the way forward, But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die (Genesis 3:3 [KJV]). The system that developed after they rejected God produced a mix of good and evil and the evil destroyed the good when it became apparent that it was better.

According to Michael Porters five forces this behaviour has not changed.

Noah

Under Noah mankind again got a clean slate and once again God started with family. Once again God was excluded from man's thinking, And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without (Genesis 9:22 [KJV]). The situation degenerated to the point where Nimrod became obsessed with power. God wanted them to spread out and occupy the Earth but He wanted to herd them together in order to make a name for himself.

I find it interesting that spreading out with no central authority is today classified by scholars as as anarchy, which has pejorative connotations.

Nimrod and Semiramis

In God's system the princes are tenants of God and responsible for looking after the rest of God's tenants, not lording it over them.

Nimrod is claimed by some significant authorities to be the same as Gilgamesh from the Epic of Gilgamesh, http://davelivingston.com/nimrod.htm, as presented on a website by Dr. David P. Livingston, Ph.D. You can find the Sumerian flood story here https://www.livius.org/articles/misc/great-flood/flood2/ on the Livius.org website and a summary of the full book here https://www.britannica.com/topic/Epic-of-Gilgamesh. The concept of Citizens as tenants of God was probably given to man from the beginning and undoubtedly was carried over to after the flood by Noah.Moses codified the fact.

Christ was a mighty prophet before God.

But Nimrod was a mighty hunter before God.

They have opposing natures in the sight of God. In my estimation, Instead of tenants of God it soon became tenants of god's as God's principle was taken over by greed and evil. First you have to convince the people in the kinship production system to produce a surplus and then you have to arrange for that surplus to be passed on to you. You also want to do everything you can to generate value. You have to become like Balaam and the Nicolaitans. If you separate the world into classes with your class at the privileged pinnacle you create value out of nothing. So you set the class able to aid you in getting the surplus as most valuable, based on them having your favour, nothing to do with innate ability. The more important or valuable class will now help you exploit the others. The most valuable class is the profit manipulators, not producers, up to today.

Nimrod figured this out and if he is the same as Gilgamesh the record is there in that story. In the flood story they blamed the flood on Anu (to me Noah). Ea (to me Satan) warned them of Enlils plan. Enlil (YHWH to me) had ordered the flood. The Epic of Gilgamesh says that Gilgamesh killed the terror of mankind, Humbaba. The man-beast called Enkidu was originally sent by Enlil to keep Gilgamesh in check. Gilgamesh overcame Enkidu and together they went on an expedition to kill Humbaba the guardian of the Cedar Forest, where the gods lived. He came back to claim that he had cut off the head of Huwawa or Humbaba in the Assyrian version. Enlil had assigned Humbaba to be a terror to human beings. With the credentials of the one who could not be tamed by the gods and who killed the terror of mankind and directly approached the gods on the behalf of men, he would legitimise his claim to rule men.

Nimrod was a hunter in a kinship production society where hunting had no special value when there was no threat, but that skill could be used to impress and intimidate people. By claiming that the terror of mankind is dead by his hands he could convert the hunter class to a superior class. By using a combination of force and charisma he could convince them that the God that sent Enkidu and the flood was a constant threat to everyone, not just the unrighteous. Since the gods were spiteful and petty instead of representing justice and judgement for evil, he would be always needed. But Nimrod could not control masses of people on his own. He needed support. If he could convince people that hunting other people that they perceived as a terror to human beings was an honourable exercise then he would get others eager for the glories of conquests to rally to him. The story of the The Epic of Gilgamesh could have served just such a purpose. This myth about the glories of war has survived until today. It is the rhetoric that is pumped into innocent minds as they are sent off to battle for the glory of their respective nations. Conjuring up images of other people as evil spirits or malevolent races would certainly help and that too has stood the test of time. He created an army and organised the people into a kingdom, then he became the threat. He went out conquering. People were forced to provide him and his goons with a surplus. Colonisation 101. Prevailing conditions at the time might have supported this. I plan to delve a little more into that in soon coming chapters.

But how do you keep them from rebelling and appealing to God as a saviour? Since you have already convinced them them that God is a threat you can stress that they do not want to deal with personally, but you have been their sole representative to God in the past and will continue to carry the burden for their sakes. The god's respect you and the land and people that are associated with you. Gilgamesh came back with a special relationship with the gods. In addition to the army a priesthood would help a lot by sustaining these myths. The priesthood would keep the people looking to you as favoured by the gods instead of the basest of men (or at least prevent them from looking to God) through creating a mystic aura around themselves and simultaneously threatening awful repercussions to those who dared approach the gods. This is similar to what was done by Jeroboam. It does not matter if the people look to one god or a thousand as long as they do not worship the true God who can actually deliver them. Your prophets would spread propaganda like the Epic of Gilgamesh and teach them a new way as they did for Jezebel. The army would enforce your will by violence. The priesthood and prophets became particularly important under Semiramis. She did not have the physical prowess of Nimrod so she had to find a way to maintain that control.

According to dictionary.com this is the definition of cynical:

People who dominate others have all reason to be cynical. God wants people to be trusting and have faith iin Him but those are not the type for systems that control the world. The German sociologist Max Weber recognised this and proposed that there were alternatives to legitimate government. Most people in the west just assume that democracy is necessary but he claimed that legitimacy is a condition that can be established with codified laws, customs, and cultural principles, and did not depend on voting. He recognised that a society could switch or revert from the legitimate government of rational laws as authority to the charismatic government of a leader like the Nazi Germany of Adolf Hitler, Fascist Italy under Benito Mussolini, or fascist Spain under General Francisco Franco.

You can explore more on legitimate government at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political)

According to that site @ July 12 2018

Legitimacy is "a value whereby something or someone is recognized and accepted as right and proper".[6] In political science, legitimacy usually is understood as the popular acceptance and recognition by the public of the authority of a governing régime, whereby authority has political power through consent and mutual understandings, not coercion. The three types of political legitimacy described by German sociologist Max Weber are traditional, charismatic, and rational-legal:

  Traditional legitimacy derives from societal custom and habit that emphasize the history of the authority of tradition. Traditionalists understand this form of rule as historically accepted, hence its continuity, because it is the way society has always been. Therefore, the institutions of traditional government usually are historically continuous, as in monarchy and tribalism.
  Charismatic legitimacy derives from the ideas and personal charisma of the leader, a person whose authoritative persona charms and psychologically dominates the people of the society to agreement with the government's régime and rule. A charismatic government usually features weak political and administrative institutions, because they derive authority from the persona of the leader, and usually disappear without the leader in power. However, if the charismatic leader has a successor, a government derived from charismatic legitimacy might continue.
  Rational-legal legitimacy derives from a system of institutional procedure, wherein government institutions establish and enforce law and order in the

There are people who oppose that perception but I find it to be accurate and it sheds light on the solution implemented by Semiramis. Nimrod was charismatic and she needed to legitimise her rule after him. A priesthood would take care of the traditional aspect. Her army, controlled by nobles, would enforce the laws out of self interest and with a propaganda machine of her prophets it would all have that air of legitimacy. She set about to have Nimrod venerated as the sun and herself as high priestess. Nobles or princes would be the elite class driven by a lust for wealth and a desire to pass on their power to their posterity. For the rest of history we have had these two (princes and priests) dominate society with the support of the prophets (we call them media nowadays), but we will return to that subject later.

God owns the land but HE also owns every creature on it.

God started humanity with every man under his vine and fig tree which gave them the freedom to choose without the fear of losing their livelihood. Under those conditions it is difficult to force them to serve anyone but God the provider of the land and the weather. Now if you make their success depend on the lord of the land that changes. Once you are able to move the people away from the kinship production system then they are so many ways to force them to generate your economic value. In the kinship production system trade is of little importance but now that people are working to produce your surplus there is not enough time left to satisfy the needs of their own homes, so they must all specialise to be as efficient as possible or suffer for being a commodity asset. Commodity assets are typically the most essential ones but because they are plentiful, little value is ascribed them in this world. People come to rely on the services and goods from other dominated areas to improve their efficiency, and to provide high quality products that attract the interest of the lord, so you need a distribution system. Class becomes important so that you can establish lordship over the producers. Money becomes important as a store of value to collect and bring the wealth back to the prince. It creates a vicious cycle which puts pressure on the kinship unit. Because they have to generate excess for the lords first, they have little for themselves. They now have to figure out how the little that is left is to be allocated. The regular lines of status in the group are subsumed by a status that is focussed on wealth as the priority of the lord. Informal decision making is formalised to ensure that people produce, that trade is controlled, that the lords portion is collected etc. This is not to say that money or specialisation is bad in themselves but that they have become a response to oppression that feeds on itself.

One of the key ways to move people from kinship production is to conquer them. God owns us so we are either His slaves or His children. That is the nature of ownership in the household. This was soon perverted by Satan by deceiving man, so men became his slaves or his children.

If we chose to be Christians and are redeemed we again become God's slaves and are destined to be His children. Somebody always owns us. Fortunately for us God chooses to make us all His children, which is another type of ownership that He invented and is an expression of His love for ALL. Modern families are being robbed of this in favour of state ownership. This is the other principle that came over from the flood and was corrupted. Conquered people became slaves instead of children. For example Nimrod conquered Assur and so what would have been the fate of the families of Assur? Did he consider them brothers? Those who were prisoners of war would typically become slaves owned by the nobles. In some cases they could continue to work their land as usual but tribute to the overlord was required. Some claim that Nimrod was black and Assur was the father of the Germanic people. I know that Nimrod was Hamitic but I do not see enough evidence to prove his colour or that Assyrians are the Germans of today, but it could explain certain things.

Josephus says that Nimrod was an Ethiopian. In Ant. Book 1 chapter 6, paragraph 2. His record also demonstrates to me that colour and race are not the same thing. We will talk more later of this race-colour concept but Nimrod was Hamitic out of Cush not Canaan (Ham had Canaan, Cush, Put and Misraim). That alone does not define his colour but coupled with the understanding of the world according to Herodotus then he could have been considered black. The following is an excerpt from Josephus' Antiquity of Jews as translated by William Whiston and adapted in the Online Bible.

Canaan, the fourth son of Ham, inhabited the country now called Judea, and called it from his own name Canaan. The children of these [four] were these: Sabas, who founded the Sabeans: Evilas, who founded the Evileans, who are called Getuli: Sabathes founded the Sabathens: they are now called by the Greeks Astaborans. Sabactas settled the Sabactens: and Ragmus the Ragmeans: and he had two sons, the one of whom, Judadas, settled the Judadeans; a nation of the western Ethiopians, and left them his name: as did Sabas, to the Sabeans. But Nimrod, the son of Chus, stayed and tyrannized at Babylon; as we have already informed you. Now all the children of Mesraim, being eight in number, possessed the country from Gaza to Egypt: though it retained the name of one only, the Philistim, for the Greeks call part of that country Palestine.

If that is so, or more importantly if they believe that it is so, then it could explain the racial prejudice of Hitler and others and their need to show that they are dominant especially over blacks. Some claim that all Hamitic or Canaanite people are black but I have shown that Canaanites vary in colour the whole spectrum.

Aetheopia

Herodotus (c. 484 BC c. 425 BC) was an ancient Greek historian who was born in part of the Persian Empire that is modern-day Turkey. He is known for having written the book The Histories, a detailed account of the origins of the Greco-Persian Wars. He is often referred to as The Father of History because he applied systematic investigation (that is to say, he collected his source materials and then critically arranged them into a historiographic narrative) to his subjects. According to wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aethiopia @2019-02-16)

The inhabited world according to Herodotus: Libya (Africa) is imagined as extending no further south than the Horn of Africa, terminating in uninhabitable desert. All peoples inhabiting the southernmost fringes of the inhabitable world are known as Ethiopians (after their dark skin). At the extreme south-east of the continent are the Macrobians, so called for their longevity.

The point being that Ethiopians in the Bible are not necessarily what we call Ethiopians today and neither is Libya (Africa). Libya was all of the known continent of Africa hence Egypt was in Libya. The quote from wikipedia is the caption from the adjacent map which seems to be based on Herodotus history. You may also take note of where the Celts are.

It gets very convoluted. Notice also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Empire @2019-02-16

The Ethiopian Empire ... also known as Abyssinia (derived from the Arabic al-Habash), was a kingdom that spanned a geographical area in the current states of Eritrea and Ethiopia. It began with the establishment of the Solomonic dynasty from approximately 1270 and lasted until 1974, when the ruling Solomonic dynasty was overthrown in a coup d'tat by the Derg.

This dynasty starts at 1,270 AD but is claimed to be continuation of an earlier dynasty terminated by the last Solomonic King of Axum, Dil Na'od (or Anbesa Wudm). Apparently the records of these earlier kings were destroyed.

Now let us look at a scripture that is often taken out of context and used to justify the current overlords:  For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel (Jeremiah 33:17 [KJV]). This scripture is used to prove that the US and Britain are Israel and that the ruler of England is an Israelite. The theory then branches off to talk about Jeremiah and Tea Tephi etc. and how she brought the throne of David to Ireland. The lineage of kings to preserve the throne may well have been preserved through Jehoiakim on to Zerubbabel and beyond, but the prophecy of Jeremiah 33 needs to be read in context and not just verse 17 alone. The prophecy says the both the king AND the levitical priesthood will be preserved. It does not say that there will always be a functioning king and priesthood but that there will never be lacking someone to fill these positions because they will be required in those days and at that time. The initial prophecy is speaking of conditions at the time of the Branch of righteousness.

There are men who have decided for God when in that day and at that time is and that they will set it up for Him since He is so incapable of doing it Himself. But they do not consider this: if it is true that Israel will be identified by the people who have a ruling king of the lineage of David then the Ethiopians have the better case. They have had kings out of Solomon for centuries and all during the time between the Testaments continuing past the time of Christ.

On the other hand this promise is true too.

Arabs now control Egypt. Arabs are Semitic out of Abraham and Keturah. Egypt is considered a gateway to Africa. The promise was made to Abraham in Genesis 22:17, not Israel. Canaan and the Arabian peninsula would have been the gateway to all trade around the world. Getting back to Herodotus, I am suggesting that the Egyptians and other Africans were all lumped together as one people before the Europeans dominated Africa, nevertheless because the map above is how Herodotus understood the world does not automatically mean that it is how the prophets did. The Kingdom of Kush or Kush was an ancient kingdom in Nubia, located at the Sudanese and southern Egyptian Nile Valley.

Kingdom of Kush https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Kush

The Kushite era of rule in Nubia was established after the Late Bronze Age collapse and the disintegration of the New Kingdom of Egypt. Kush was centered at Napata during its early phase. After Kashta (the Kushite) invaded Egypt in the 8^th century BC, the monarchs of Kush were also the pharaohs of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty of Egypt, until they were expelled by the Neo-Assyrian Empire under the rule of Esarhaddon a century later...

I understand this to say that Even though the family of Kush existed it was not a recognised kingdom (probably more nomadic and tribal) until they invaded Egypt after the dynasty with Tutankhamun. Egypt was under Kush until the kingdom was invaded by Sennacherib's son, Esarhaddon of the Empire that preceded the one with Nebuchadnezzar. Continuing from the same article:

...During classical antiquity, the Kushite imperial capital was located at Mero. In early Greek geography, the Meroitic kingdom was known as Aethiopia. The Kingdom of Kush with its capital at Meroe persisted until the 4th century AD, when it weakened and disintegrated due to internal rebellion. The seat was eventually captured and burnt to the ground by the Kingdom of Aksum. Afterwards the Nubians established the three, eventually Christianized, kingdoms of Nobatia, Makuria and Alodia.

Classical antiquity starts around the 5^th Century BC (i.e. the time of the Persian Empire and the return of the Jews) so from the beginning of classical Antiquity (Herodotus was born in the fifth century BC) their kingdom, the Kushite kingdom including Egypt, was called Aethiopia. They would eventually lose Egypt but the Kingdom of Kush existed until the 4^th century AD i.e. until around the time of Constantine. All of the people south of Egypt tended to be lumped together as dark skinned people called Ethiopians so when Kush invaded Egypt it would naturally become part of the land of the Ethiopians. The Bible talks of people in terms of families but classical history tends to focus on kingdoms and territory. Matching them is not always straightforward. The Bible uses terms like Mizraim (Egypt) and Phut (Libya) but historians tend to look for a rulers or what they consider to be racial characteristics.

Whoever Nimrod was, his system persists down to today. The Assyrian is supposed to be the German people of today. I have not seen convincing evidence yet but if that is so Just consider.

I will just say that the story of Nimrod shows how we got the systems of government that exist today. These systems are based on power by violence (armies) and power by mysteries (church) power by propaganda and indoctrination (media and education). Nimrod stared the kingdom with power by violence. His wife, Semiramis sought to perpetuate her power after his death by establishing a mystery religion. Both establishing control over the land as a kingdom, and establishing control over the land as a church, breach the principle that it is not yours but God's and you are merely a tenant. Assyria is at the centre of it using Nimrod's system.

Now it was Nimrod who excited them to such an affront and contempt of God. He was the grand-son of Ham, the son of Noah: a bold man, and of great strength of hand. He persuaded them not to ascribe it to God, as if it was through his means that they were happy; but to believe that it was their own courage which procured that happiness. He also gradually changed the government into tyranny; seeing no other way of turning men from the fear of God, but to bring them into a constant dependence on his own power. He also said, He would be revenged on God, if he should have a mind to drown the world again: for that he would build a Tower too high for the waters to be able to reach; and that he would avenge himself on God for destroying their fore-fathers.

The underline is mine. People are still claiming that they will preserve humanity against anything that God tries again, whether it is global warming or an ice age. They will not turn to God but rely on politicians, scientists and other types of strong men to guarantee their future. These want to root God and His way out of their lives permanently, and replace it with theirs with their princes, priests and prophets, and them in charge of course.

Slavery

Slavery has been a legal part of economies far back into antiquity. We remember that Joseph was sold as a slave and that appears to have been a commonplace matter.

These were the descendants of two other streams of Abraham. Ishamel was from Hagar and Midian was from Keturah. These are the origins of the Arabs who were at this time in their evolution nomadic traders. This is the origin of the Muslim/Arab slave trade which evidence suggests continues to this day. Then there is the colonialists Trans-Atlantic slave trade which is technically ended but in reality is not. It has been transformed under the neocolonialists. It is the same system adopted by Nimrod. People are more interested in making a name for themselves than in providing for God's family. That is at the core of the all the economic systems and the princes of the world claim that it is human nature. It is not but it is their nature and they impose it on everybody else just as Nimrod did.

Slavery is distinctive for the concept of one person owning another person who is actually his brother. Treating another human being as anything less than a brother is a rejection of God. The problem is not the ownership but the treatment.It is the same notion of inequality existing in apartheid. It was never an element of the way of life given to the Jews.

And it certainly is not Christian.

The present efforts of Zionists to use God as justification for abusing others is not of God, because Joshua shows that God has already fulfilled His promises to them and later ejected them form His land.

Zionism and British-Israelism claim that the promises made to Jacob's children were never fulfilled and that they are now to be fulfilled in Ephraim and Manasseh and a modern Zion. God fulfilled His promises to Israel in Joshua and the reign of Solomon, then later ejected them from His land with no promise of restoration until the Kingdom of God is established by Him on Earth. I cover this in another article that I am writing called Lost and Scattered. People use all sorts of concocted aberrations of scripture to justify abuse of others. I plan to cover slavery in greater detail as a later article but you will find it as a part of all major empires sine the Roman Empire.

Feudalism

The definition of feudalism is highly debated. There was an old link from Wisconsin University that I had used to demonstrate this https://faculty.history.wisc.edu/sommerville/123/feudalism.htm but nowadays such links have become dead and I find it more difficult to access the opinions of scholarship without buying a whole book. Feudalism as a word appeared in language in the 19^th century to refer to the dominant set of legal and economic customs which describe European life covering the 9^th to 14^th centuries. Generally a feudal system structures all of society around relationships between land owners (Lords) and those who are bound to work that land (serfs). At the root of it is a class distinction that seeks to perpetuate a system of the haves and the have-nots by birth and privilege.

Based on the fundamental definition of feudalism, it is akin to what Joseph did in Egypt.

But the spirit of God was in Joseph so we see how he administered his power. Notice too that the priests were excluded. But notice that Joseph was concerned about . . . your households, and for food for your little ones (v24). He had feelings for the people and they were grateful to the point where they volunteered to gladly be pharaoh's servants (v25). The missing element in medieval feudalism was this concern for people. Joseph had taken drastic measures in order to save them and they could see it. It was not to make himself rich and it was not without concern for their needs. The taxes were fixed and the same for everyone and there were no arbitrary demands from administrators.

Classic feudalism, as defined by Adam Smith, was brought to England from Europe by William I, The Conqueror after he invaded in 1066. William ruled England until his death, on September 9, 1087, in Rouen, France. He was illiterate and never spoke English. Galatia and France and England are linked. According to ancient History Encyclopaedia:

Gaul (Latin Gallia, French Gaule) is the name given by the Romans to the territories where the Celtic Gauls (Latin Galli, French Gaulois) lived, including present France, Belgium, Luxemburg and parts of the Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany on the west bank of the Rhine, and the Po Valley, in present Italy. The original inhabitants were colonised but not by Rome, by the invaders that followed them, and they are still there as the master race.

Under the feudal system all land was owned by the King. One quarter was kept by the King as his personal property, some was given to the church and the rest was leased out. To answer the question of whether or not there were prophets through the ages, ask yourself what is the classic definition of treason. It is the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government. So spokesmen against the king are treasonous and are killed by his law. Prophets represent God and hence have to speak out against the king when there is evil.

William found a different system operating in England. It does have some artefacts of the feudal system but the treatment of the people does not indicate that it was e.g. there is no evidence that the workers of the land did not own it. It would have been the way of the early Celts. The general description of Celts seems to be that they were farmers protected by war-lords, typically lived in small settlements, not large cities and with no large central government like Romans. They were no friends of Rome and sacked it in 369 B.C. The Gauls were from the west but Galatia was in Anatolia (Asia Minor). The Galatians were a Celtic people like the Gauls but notice that Paul is writing to them not Peter, Galatians 1:1-2[KJV] says: Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;) [2] And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia. History shows that the Celts in England were related to these people. Some were apparently Israelites because Peter introduces his first epistle in this way:

Peter was sent to the lost tribes so evidence is that they were not all the Celtic people but were mixed with them. John, who wrote at the end of the first century, sends his message to Asia Minor i.e. where Galatia was, showing that true Christianity was there as well as lost Israel, to whom the message was also sent. We know from references to the Synagogue of Satan that Jews were there. Later kings of England were from France or Gaul through William the Conqueror. In England the land was granted to the earls and barons, approved by the Witan or Witenagemot, meaning meeting of wise men. It was the highest council in the land, which operated from before the 7^th century until the 11^th century. It is in the 7^th century that we have the Synod at Whitby. Oswald was the leading king in England and was a Celtic Christian. Remember that there were Christian Celts but not all Celts were Christians or of the lost tribes. The Roman Catholic church was intent on winning the king over to their side in order to control England. The might of Rome had not been able to destroy Celtic Christianity. In 325 Constantine summoned the First Council of Nicaea, as the first major attempt by Roman Catholics to define orthodox Christianity for all Christians. Until Nicaea, all previous Church Councils had been local or regional synods affecting only portions of the Catholic Church. Celtic Christianity survived the might of Rome, as the Roman Empire fell in the west in In 476 leaving their religion intact. When the empire fell the pope was left as the leading political figure representing Rome in the west. Pope Gregory I is responsible for the first recorded large-scale mission from Rome, the Gregorian Mission in 596, to convert the Celtic Church and Anglo-Saxons in England. Some time before 601 that led to Athelberht the king of Kent, becoming the first Celtic king to convert to Christianity.

I spoke of Oswald before as having to flee to the Scottish kingdom of Dl Riata in northern Britain, where he was converted to Christianity. Upon returning he became the dominant king in England. Oswald (604 5 August 641/642) became King of Northumbria from 634 until his death in 642. It appears that he also became a target for Catholic conversion. Wikipedia has an article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_of_Northumbria, which speaks of him, and it never records him being a Catholic but an outstanding and godly king, however just like Columba and others he is now a Catholic saint. Hilda, who hosted the synod was also a Christian and a student of Aidan. According to Truth Triumphant, Oswald and his army were baptized, not sprinkled. The Synod of Whitby was in 664. There are two principal sources for the synod. The first source, the Life of Wilfrid, is a written by Stephen of Ripon who is claimed to be too flattering of the Celtic people and was done soon after 710. The other source is the Historia Ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum by the Venerable Bede, written in 731. Bede is a die-hard Catholic and his work is elevated by scholarship above Stephen who has suffered significant criticism. The way that it is now presented, Oswald did not know whether or not to adopt Catholicism and was convinced to accept it by the Synod at Whitby. This view is contested by Truth Triunphant, which shows that Catholicism was introduced by far more nefarious means, which included extensive violence (e.g Augustine of Canterbury of the Gregorian Mission, slaughtered the Celts). In any case that is impossible since he was already dead at the time of the synod. One of the main issues of the synod was Easter versus Passover, which basically tells us who were the true Christians. Oswald is portrayed as becoming a Roman Catholic. This is not the view of Truth Triumphant. The 7^th century saw the rise of Muhammed and the Western (Latin) and Eastern (Greek) divisions of Christianity began to take on distinctive shape. When William became king in 1066 he confiscated all the land in England from the Saxon lords and allocated it to members of his own family and the Norman lords who had helped him conquer the country. Unlike the older form of feudalism the people no longer owned the land, they were tenants of William the Conqueror himself. If Ephraim and Manesseh were represented among the Gauls of France then this may be how Ephraim and Manasseh came to rule in Britain but I highly doubt the veracity of British-Israelism (a.ka. Anglo-Israelism).

The men who leased land from the King were called Barons or Earls (and referred to as the Lord of the Manor), they had complete control of the land they leased from the King. They established their own system of justice, minted their own money and fixed their own taxes. The Barons also served on the royal council, and had to provide the King with Knights for military service when he demanded it. The Barons kept as much of their lease as they wanted for themselves and then divided the rest among their Knights.

Before a lord granted land (a fief) to someone, he made that person his vassal (someone who owed him allegiance). These were typically called knights and in return provided military service as required by the king and protected the baron. The knights kept what land they wanted for themselves and distributed the rest to their tenants called villeins or serfs.

In exchange for occupying the land bestowed by they knights, the Villeins had to provide the Knight with whenever he demanded. The knights and the barons were very rich while the villeins were very poor. Villeins had no rights. They were not allowed to leave the Manor and had to ask for permission marry.

The BBC article at http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/fallofrome_article_01.shtml is on the Dark Ages. It is the period of European history from about A.D. 500 to 1000, roughly from the fall of Rome to William the Conqueror. The Dark Ages were called that name due to a supposed period of decline in culture and science. There is this view that the darkness was the more necessary evil since Rome had to fall to destroy large-scale slavery and make possible, eventually, a world which valued all human beings more equally. From the sixth through the third centuries BC, Rome gradually became a slave society, with the first two Punic Wars (265–201 BC) producing the most dramatic surge in the number of slaves. The Punic Wars were a series of three wars between the Roman Republic and the Carthaginian (Punic) empire, terminated by the destruction of Carthage and the enslavement of its population. The dark ages refers to the period following the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West in September 476 AD. For many historians the fall of Rome marked the demise of the rule of written law, education and literacy, sophisticated architecture and advanced economic and market development. In reality these benefited only a very small minority of the population but for the majority there was large-scale slavery and massive inequality. Captive barbarians were fed to wild animals in the Colosseum and peasants laboured away in the much the same state as they did from the beginning to feed themselves and to produce the surplus which funded everything else. On the other hand the privileged elite enjoyed the bounty of the land. During the Dark ages the monstrous atrocities of Rome against true Christians were held back in British territories for a time but eventually fully restored through the efforts of people like William the Conqueror, and it continues up to now. These same tyrants that enslaved God's Celtic Christians would go on to impose trans-Atlantic slavery on Africans in just a few hundred years.

Capitalism

I have begun an essay focussed on capitalism but I will give a brief introduction here. I have made it a subhead of Feudalism because in reality it is the same thing imposed by the same people, thought the rhetoric that defines it makes it appear to be the opposite. In Feudalism the Barons, Lords etc. enslaved the masses and robbed them of their possessions and human rights while in Capitalism it is done by the employers and CEOs. People have set about to define capitalism in all sorts of elaborate ways but what is unique about Capitalism is the employer-employee relationship as is so eloquently expanded on by Marxian economist Richard David Wolff, a professor emeritus of economics at the University of Massachusetts. That relationship does not treat everyone as brothers and equals. The people that start out with the capital are the same people that were the lords and barons. These elites are descendants of thieves and mass murderers who achieved material prosperity by nefarious means, and now seek to sanctify their past instead of repenting of it. While it is true that it is possible (and indeed some employers do treat everyone in the workplace as brothers) the fundamental description of an employee (hireling in the Bible) is someone who takes orders, cares nothing about the owner and is paid a wage for working. The description of the employer is someone who gives the orders and does as he pleases without regard to the interest of the employee. The scripture that defines what the approach to fixing the working relationships should be in God's eyes is in my opinion John 10:7-18. It portrays the leader/employer as a shepherd looking after sheep. The verse that specifically refers to an employee/hireling is John 10:12. Capitalism rejects God in the workplace. Capitalism is the natural expression of a group of people that produced the dominant class of the world today. It is their nature, not the nature of genuine Christians, or the majority of the population it seems. It does the same thing that Cain did with Abel and excuses it as human nature, which it is not. It is the nature of the prince that they have chosen. Capitalism destroys good people when they show up the evils and weaknesses of it. I defined my topic as from Cain to Capitalism and so I do not go into socialism here in any great detail.

Socialism

Socialism has never been the dominant economic system of the world. It is largely a critique of Capitalism (which is why I put it under a subhead equal to that of Capitalism) and is now finding its legs so to speak, hence it is not even really a clearly defined economic system at all. In socialism people identify the elements of capitalism that are bad and try to eliminate them. In America there seems to be an intense hatred of socialism. I believe that this has been deliberately cultivated to protect the massive capitalist interest there. Socialism neither requires nor excludes God, nevertheless is has somehow been given the requirement of atheism by the capitalist in America. I saw this definition of Chinese Socialism on Wikipedia: The socialist market economy (SME) is the economic system and model of economic development employed in the People's Republic of China. The system is a market economy with the predominance of public ownership and state-owned enterprises. As its solution to the evils of Capitalism, Socialism focuses on giving workers shared ownership and responsibility of the tools, land, and buildings that they use to make products or provide services (called the means of production) and a fair share of the surplus rewards.