Of late, this has become a topic being tossed about within Israel Identity circles. It isn’t as though we didn’t already have enough confusion circulating among our ranks! It seems that there is always someone out there trying to spawn some new kind of revelation to somehow aggrandize their personal ego. It’s the old “king of the hill” syndrome. The rules are very simple inasmuch as they come naturally without the aid of a teacher. All one need do is observe a mound of earth being piled high by a back-hoe in the neighborhood. It isn’t long until some children gather around it climbing to the top. By fleshly instinct, one of the group soon tries to tower above all the other children by dominating the top position. In order to get to the top of the pile, one must reach to those above him, pull them down to his level, and then thrust them down behind him. Sadly, this same game is being played by some in Israel Identity.

Of course, you always have a few of those dumb Christians who don’t play by the rules. Instead of pulling those above them down to their own level, they reach for those below themselves, pull them up to their plane, then assist them to a higher level. This latter hill is Calvary, Luke 23:33.

One such person playing the “king of the hill” game in Israel Identity is Don Campbell, P.O. Box 301, Pipestone, MN, 56164. On three occasions Campbell has attacked my teaching ministry in an attempt to build up his own, and in all three instances he was, and continues to be, woefully wrong! Just how inaccurate his nefarious charges are will be addressed in this paper.

Campbell first took a crack with his sledgehammer at my brochure Irish And Scottish Genealogy. In the first paragraph of that paper I made the following statement:

Many have heard, and are very familiar with, the terms “Irish” and “Scottish”, and really don’t know the difference between the two. The Irish and Scots are really the same people except they arrived in Britain two thousand years apart. The ancestors of the Irish arrived in Britain about 1600 B.C., while the Scots arrived about 501 A.D. It is simply amazing that two groups of the same people would wander through the earth and end up locating within a few miles from each other two thousand years later in Britain. Had Campbell read the rest of the brochure, he might have understood the context. Had Campbell studied the subject before ranting, he might have discovered that the Scots began to arrive in Britain about 200 A.D., and that the ancestors of the Irish alone began to arrive in the isles about 1600 B.C. There were several waves of them, Phoenicians, Milesians, Danaan etc.

In that treatise I was quoting from Father Abraham’s Children, by Perry Edward Powell, Ph. D., pages 98-101. In column 2, I quoted the following from Powell:

“Zerah’s son Ethan, very wise, and indeed this line of Judah-Zerah is the only royal line termed wise, on the other hand led his people north, from Egypt where he was born, into what is now Asia Minor, and his son Mahol continued likewise. Mahol’s heir, Darda, reached the western shore, where on a commanding site, he founded the metropolis of Troy. The date is 1520 B.C. Here the city flourished for nearly four hundred years. Darda first saw the straits that separated Europe and Asia and gave them his name, Dardanelles. Darda also founded a fort here that is named after him. But the greatest honor is recorded in the Bible, Solomon was ‘wiser than all men; than ... Darda the son of Mahol.’ Thus great was the founder of Troy and the sire of the Trojan race whose children abide with us still.” Skipping a couple of paragraphs, I again quote from Powell: “Brutus, now with an object and direction, steered west through the straits (pillars) of Hercules, then northward along the east Atlantic main, across the English Channel to the present river Dart, and up its stream to Totnes where stepping on a large stone he landed on the great island which was ever to bear his name as a memorial among the proud nations of the world. This rock, more famous throughout the centuries than Plymouth Rock, is marked as Brutus Rock, and has been visited perennially by people of all nations, all ranks, and all ages. With his people he explored the whole island and he apportioned to each one according to his rank and services. At last he decided the proper place for his capital, a choice bank of the Thames river, so named for a stream, Thyamis, in Epirus from which he first sailed, and there he built his metropolis, and according to the advice of the oracle, he named it Tri Novantum, New Troy. This name it bore for over eleven hundred years when King Lud at the beginning of the Christian era built her walls and renamed her Luddun, Lud’s wall, easily refined into London. London is also derived by some from Llandin, meaning ‘Sacred eminence.’ London dates from three hundred-fifty years before Rome. Why should Rome be called the Eternal City?”

Campbell’s answer to all this was that it wasn’t true; that the Irish and Scottish people didn’t arrive in Britain until the time of (in his words) “The Scottish Declaration of Independence at Arbroath.” Campbell is ignorant of the fact that there were several different migrations, and indeed, they covered a period of approximately two thousand years. Campbell, in his inadequate mentality, is referring to page 6 of E. Raymond Capt’s book The Scottish Declaration Of Independence where it says:

“We know, Most Holy Father and Lord, and from the chronicles and books of the ancients gather, that among other illustrious nations, ours, to wit the nation of the Scots, has been distinguished by many honours; which passing from the greater Scythia through the Mediterranean Sea and the Pillars of Hercules and sojourning in Spain among the most savage tribes through a long course of time, could nowhere be subjugated by any people however barbarous; and coming thence One thousand two hundred years after the outgoing of the people of Israel, they by many victories and infinite toil, acquired for themselves the possessions in the West which they now hold after expelling the Britons and completely destroying the Picts, and although very often assailed by the Norwegians, the Danes and the English, always kept them free from all servitude, as the histories of the ancients testify. In their kingdom one hundred and thirteen kings of their own royal stock, no stranger intervening, have reigned, whose nobility and merits, if they were not clear otherwise ...”

Campbell, through his ignorance, has just flushed the unbroken record of Darda, Calcol and the Trojans along with Brutus into Britain down the toilet! It is overwhelmingly evident that Campbell has never studied any of the classics! It is also crystal-clear that Campbell is not in a position to pass judgment on anyone! Yet he is swifter than a bat-out-of-hell to do so! And, Campbell believes that somehow this kind of a stratagem will place him a notch higher on the totem pole. Had Campbell ever read Frederick Haberman’s Tracing Our White Ancestors in the chapter “The Coming Of Brutus”, he would have discovered that Haberman substantiates Perry Edward Powell’s narrative.

The next episode which Campbell took exception to was my teaching that Scripture does not record the creation of the non-Adamic races. Of course, Campbell holds to the “6th & 8th day creation theory.” Campbell called me several times to try to convince me that I was wrong. Campbell is one of those guys who wants to call about 11 PM and argue till 4 in the morning. Evidently he sleeps all day and stays up all night. His method is to badger, badger, badger until one caves into his absurd, harebrained assumptions. In one way I have to thank Campbell for his ridiculous ranting, for it inspired me to research until I found the origin of the idea that there were two different creations of Adam (man #120). I said the following in my Origin Of The 6th & 8th Day Creation Theory brochure:

I believe most would be amazed at the origin of such a concept. It seems to be an invention of Philo, a Jew of Alexandria, Egypt. Philo did not call it a 6th & 8th day creation of man, but he did foster the idea of the creation of two separate Adams. So the theory of a 6th & 8th day creation of “man” is definitely his brainchild and certainly not Biblical. Here let me repeat Philo’s theory of the creation of two separate Adams at “On The Creation”, page 19: “After this, Moses says that ‘God made man, having taken clay from the earth, and he breathed into his face the breath of life.’ And by this expression he shows most clearly that there is a vast difference between man as generated now, and the first man who was made according to the image of God ...” The implications are, if Philo is correct, we as White Adamites cannot have both (1) Yahweh’s Spirit ‘Breath’ and (2) His ‘Image-Likeness’ simultaneously. Which of these two very important inherent attributes shall we sacrifice? Philo implies one man is Spirit-man and the other is Image-man which is the same absurd theory that the 6th & 8th day creationists promote. Therefore, Campbell and his like-minded buddies are doing nothing more than parroting the “Jew”, Philo.

Then I tried to explain to Campbell that with the Hebrew article at Genesis 1:27 it could only be the blushing Adam-kind (the) Adam. I addressed this in my Watchman’s Teaching Letter #66 for October 2003: While the Hebrew article “ha” is not used in conjunction with “man” at verse 26, “ha” is incorporated with “man” at verse 27, or “the man.” This is not because it is speaking of two different men as some maintain. This is only proper usage, as in verse 26 “man” is only proposed, whereas in verse 27 “man” becomes an established fact. The “man” in both verses can only mean “Adam-man” because the Hebrew article is used in verse 27. In other words, it can’t be any of many, but the one and only “the Adam.” The next important thing to notice is that “the man” is (1) “in our image”, and (2) “after our likeness.” Surely, Yahweh Elohim doesn’t have the disposition and features of the non-white races!

After I had cornered Campbell on the Hebrew article, and he didn’t have an answer, he then placed the creation of the other races with the “beasts of the earth” at Genesis 1:24. But had Campbell read Josephus on the creation, he couldn’t have made that claim. Josephus at Antiquities 1:1:1 says: “On the sixth day he created the four-footed beasts, and made them male and female: on the same day he also FORMED man.” (emphasis mine) Here Josephus designates the “sixth day” and the same term “formed” as at Genesis 2:7, so Campbell and company don’t have a leg to stand on! Josephus doesn’t speak of an 8th day creation because there wasn’t any!

I then explained to Campbell that Genesis 2:4-7 was the first historical chronicle in the Bible and that it was simply chronicling the creation of Adam-kind at Genesis 1:26-27. He then sarcastically retorted that I was teaching the same thing as the churches. Now I’ve spent a lot of time in the churches, but I don’t remember any such thing. On one occasion, Campbell scathingly asked, “who are we going to rule over then?” I replied that I would pick my own cotton and shine my own shoes, and that he could have my share of n-words to rule over! At another time, Campbell stated “there are a lot of raised eyebrows at what you are writing.” Had I thought of it, I would have replied to Campbell, “they can lower their raised eyebrows the same way they raised them!” I will not repeat here the argument Campbell and I had concerning the function of the umbilical during the birth process, as he also believes in the unscientific theory of telegony. If telegony is true, Two Seedline is false. Conversely, if Two Seedline is true, telegony is false, and Campbell claims to be Two Seedline!

DON CAMPBELL’S LATEST TANGENT

No sooner had I placed my brochure The Three Tribes Of Judah in the mail than Campbell decided to take issue with it. The reason, I believe, is to find fault with my ministry, while at the same time, gain esteem for his own (the old “king of the hill” game). He called me on the phone and announced that I was all wrong about Judah; that Judah really didn’t marry a Canaanite woman. He said that Judah’s wife was only Canaanite by location, not biologically. Campbell then set about to find a suitable wife for Judah. And as I explain how he does this, you will see manifestly how inept he is in Biblical matters. Before we proceed any further, we need to read Genesis 38:1-2: “1 And it came to pass at that time, that Judah went down from his brethren, and turned in to a certain Adullamite, whose name was Hirah. 2 And Judah saw there a daughter of a certain Canaanite, whose name was Shuah; and he took her, and went in unto her.”

Campbell then picks up on the name Shuah and goes hunting for a wife for Judah by that name. He goes to 1 Chronicles 7:30-32 which says: “30 The sons of Asher; Imnah, and Isuah, and Ishuai, and Beriah, and Serah their sister. 31 And the sons of Beriah; Heber, and Malchiel, who is the father of Birzavith. 32 And Heber begat Japhlet, and Shomer, and Hotham, and Shua their sister.” Then Campbell shouts “eureka” seeing the name Shua, thinking he has found Judah a suitable wife! The “Asher” here is the eighth son of Jacob and second of two sons through Zilpah, Leah’s maidservant (Gen. 35:26). Firstly, this passage says that Asher had four sons and one daughter in Imnah, Isuah, Ishuai, Beriah, and Serah their sister. Secondly, this passage says that Asher had two grandsons in the persons of Heber & Malchiel, through Beriah, Asher’s son. Thirdly, we go to a third generation showing that Heber, Asher’s grandson had three sons Japhlet, Shomer, and Hotham, and a sister, Shua. So, according to Campbell, we are supposed to believe that Judah married Asher’s great granddaughter (three generations younger than himself)! Let’s go through it again: Asher (father) begot Beriah (son); Beriah begot Heber (grandson); and Heber begot Shua (great granddaughter).

To show you how absurd Campbell’s hypothesis is, all we have to do is consider the seventy souls of Jacob that went into Egypt after Joseph was made vice-regent to the Pharaoh. The family of Asher is shown at Genesis 46:17 thusly: “And the sons of Asher; Jimnah, and Ishuah, and Isui, and Beriah, and Serah their sister: and the sons of Beriah; Heber, and Malchiel.” Notice here that the last mentioned are Heber and Malchiel, the sons of Beriah. So it is quite evident from this that neither Heber nor Malchiel had any children at the time Jacob’s seventy souls entered Egypt, so the Shua that Campbell claims that Judah took for a wife was born in Egypt. Now if we will return to Genesis 38:1-2 above, it says that Judah went to Adullam where he found his Canaanite wife. It says that Judah “turned in to a certain Adullamite.” Adullam was a city in Judah in the fertile lowland of Shephelah, about halfway between Bethlehem and Lachish (Jos. 15:35). For a comparison, let’s check and see how big Judah’s family was when he entered Egypt at Genesis 46:12: “And the sons of Judah; Er, and Onan, and Shelah, and Pharez, and Zerah: but Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan. And the sons of Pharez were Hezron and Hamul.”

There is no possible way that Judah could have married Shua the great granddaughter of Asher as Campbell contends! Yet Campbell is telephoning people all over the country promoting his defective personal theory. And because I won’t buy his BS, he personally told me that I don’t believe the Bible.

BUT THIS IS NOT THE END OF THE STORY

Like the old saying: “You ain’t heard nuthin yet.” There’s one more twist to Campbell’s fabricated fiction. For that we will need to review Genesis 38:2 which partially says: “And Judah saw there a daughter of a certain Canaanite, whose name was Shuah ...” Campbell reads this in his King James Authorized Version and concludes that the daughter’s name is Shuah. This is not true, for rather her father’s name was Shuah! Actually Judah’s wife’s name is not given in this passage. Neither is it given at Genesis 38:12 which states in part: ‘And in the process of time the daughter of Shuah Judah’s wife died’; which leaves the fact that Shuah was Judah’s father-in-law quite indisputable! This only proves that Don Campbell can not read simple English with any degree of comprehension, and he claims to be a teacher in Israel Identity! So the Shuah at Genesis 38:2 is a male and the Shua at 1 Chronicles 7:32 is a female! I wrote to Campbell and asked him: “Did Judah marry some kind of hermaphrodite?” Campbell never answered that question, so I doubt whether he knows that a hermaphrodite is an individual in which the reproductive organs of both sexes are present. If the Shuah of Genesis 38:2 is the same Shua at 1 Chronicles 7:32, he?/she?/it? must be a hermaphrodite!

Don Campbell loves to go into his diatribe and blab how God killed Er and Onan because they didn’t place their seed into Tamar’s female organs the way God wanted them to. Now that I have heard many times before in the churches, so Campbell is guilty of the very same thing he accused me of!

There is another very important factor that Campbell overlooks in Genesis 38:1 when he reads his KJV: “And it came to pass at that time, that Judah went down from his brethren ...” Smith & Goodspeed renders it: “It was at that time that Judah separated from his family, and joined an Adullamite ...” Moffatt renders it: “It happened about then that Judah withdrew from his brothers and joined an Adullamite ...” The LXX translates it: “At that time, Judah left his brothers and went down to stay with a man of Adullam ...” Therefore, if Judah “went from his brethren”, “separated from his family”, “withdrew from his brothers”, “left his brothers”, he certainly did not marry his brother Asher’s great granddaughter as Campbell insists! Whoever Judah married, then, was not his own kin. This is but another example of Campbell’s inability to comprehend what he is reading! And since Campbell is unable to properly interpret Genesis 38:1-2, one must shudder at what he might do with the rest of the Bible! At one point in time, Campbell said to me: “I’m just trying to help you.” My answer is: No, Don, I don’t need that kind of help!

BUT THERE IS MORE!

I first met Don Campbell by telephone. He would call me occasionally and ask questions on various subjects. I would always answer his questions to the best of my ability. Nothing was said during the course of those calls to indicate anything of a controversial nature. About a year ago in April of 2003, I met him personally at a meeting in northwestern Ohio. This meeting was not organized by me, but I did arrange for a place to meet. I was told that the meeting was for the purpose of preparing a Two Seedline position paper. The meeting place was kept strictly confidential, and the location was not revealed until the various parties gathered at a motel the evening before the meeting. Twenty-six men in all attended. Another meeting was scheduled for a month later but was extended another 30 days. It was understood by all that everything was to be kept quiet. Anyway, just a few days before the second meeting, I got a call from a jerk from North Dakota advising me not to go to that meeting. I had no way of knowing whether or not he might be a federal agent, so I called three parties and left messages on their answering services that the meeting was canceled. Later I would find out more of the details, and I wrote the following letter to the men in charge:

“I am sorry about the meeting cancellation! The problem seems to have been caused by one Charles Claud (maybe spelled Clade), General Post Office, Strasburg, North Dakota, 58573. He uses the post office at Linton, ND 58552 to mail his literature. He calls himself the ‘Christ’s assembly of North Dakota.’ In short, he’s bad news. He called me on three occasions asking the most absurd questions. On the last call, Friday, June 20, and toward the end of the conversation, out of the clear blue sky advised me that I better not attend that meeting! I acted like I never heard of any meeting, but he insisted there was one scheduled in Ohio. He seemed to know more about it than I did!”

To make a long story short, it was Don Campbell who blew our cover! As I was not in agreement with many of the things proposed at the first meeting and their interpretations of the Bible, I was just as happy that it turned out the way it did, and I have since washed my hands of the entire thing!

About a month later, Bill White, who owns the http://www. childrenofyahweh.com/ website came to visit me while he was on vacation from his truck driving job. When Bill White arrived, Don Campbell was with him. Bill White has been putting my material on his website now for nearly five years, and he is highly trustworthy as far as I am concerned. Bill brought his laptop computer and most of the time was spent copying CD’s. Every few minutes, Campbell had to go outside to smoke a cigarette. During that time, I showed both Bill and Don some of my books in my library. On one occasion, Campbell had just stepped outside again, and Bill White alerted me that Campbell had just picked up one of my booklets The Book Of Nicodemus and was on his way to Bill’s car with it. White said to me: “Campbell has a bad habit of picking up things; you have to keep an eye on him; he just took one of your books.” Quickly, I went to the front door and called out to Campbell that he was carrying off one of my books. Campbell stuttered a little bit and then returned my book to me. Bill White also told me that he didn’t believe all the things Campbell was advocating while riding with Bill on their way here. At the time I was not sure what Bill White meant, but since then I have painfully discovered some of those things.

I am not fully aware of where Campbell is disseminating all of his misinformation, but I’m getting some feedback from it. Not only that, but he’s badmouthing my ministry in the process. I received a call from a man in Michigan informing me that Campbell had faulted my ministry to him. Ditto from a man in California, and Campbell was using the same deviations from the truth as found in this paper. So I have to assume that Campbell is mouthing this all over the entire country.

There’s one other attribute about Campbell I find repulsive. He is the only man I ever observed, and this is by his own admission, that uses money as a fleece-test. He’s always bragging how he promises he will do something for God, and God rewards him with a big donation. And while we are talking about money, I should mention one other thing. Campbell is a chain smoker. I wouldn’t be surprised if he should go through two or three packs a day. Anyway, figure that up for a year and it’s quite a sum. Those who are supporting Campbell should stop for a moment and ask themselves whether they are supporting the Kingdom or the “Jewish” owned tobacco companies?

Whom did Judah marry? He married a biological Canaanite as his first wife! After her death, it was only then he got his intended daughter-in-law, Tamar, from the house of Shem, pregnant that Judah contributed his seed to our Messiah through Pharez!

This paper would not be complete should we overlook that Scripture cites that Simeon also married a Canaanite, (Genesis 46:10, Exodus 6:15). But was she a biological or only a geographical Canaanite? We are even told in the Book of Jasher, 45:1-2 that Reuben married a Canaanite. To solve this dilemma, we must examine the context rather than the letter. We must remember that it was a Simeonite whom Phineas killed at the incident of Baal-Peor when Zimri took a Midianitish woman into his tent for the purpose of sexual intercourse, (Numbers 25:7-14). Had the Simeonites been of mixed Canaanite blood, Phineas wouldn’t have had cause to destroy Zimri and the Midianitish woman with his javelin!

Conversely, the genealogical chronicles of Judah spell out a different story. While Er, Onan and Shelah are always mentioned in chronological order, yet Pharez was considered #1 and Zarah as #2. Why else would it have been necessary for the midwife to have tied a scarlet thread on the hand of the firstborn of the twins of Judah by Tamar (Genesis 38:28)? If Er and Onan were truly of pure blood, the positions of #1 and #2 could never have been taken from them, dead or alive. Thus, Er was a nobody, Onan was a nobody and Shelah was a nobody (persons of no influence or social standing, or in other words nonentities). All people of mixed blood are nobodies! Also, if Er, Onan and Shelah were of pure blood, Pharez would have been considered #4 and Zarah as #5 and of a lower status than born of a concubine!

It now becomes each reader’s Biblical responsibility to check all of these secular and Scripture references and prove these things one way or the other for himself!