1/"Apparently" is the operative word here. Commonly my detractors have no direct knowledge of my work but rather gather their information from the misrepresentations of the strange emotionally wounded men that inhabit this realm. Certainly I would be unashamed to detract a

2/claim that I had been convinced was false. But I have never claimed that Jews originated in Crete. Hence I have never retracted this claim. My claim is that a proto-Jewish element inhabited Minoan civilization and for a period appear to have dominated it. The detailed proof

3/for this will appear in book 2 of my study.

I am glad to see that my super fan has adopted a word I certainly popularized in the DR and maybe invented (IN THE SENSE of Jews as cult creators prior to appearing on the world stage as Jews). That is the term: proto-Jew. Yes, it

4/appears that Carthaginians worshiped some near equivalent of Saturn, a God Tacitus identify as proto-Jewish.

The genetic makeup of the founding race of Sumeria, the one I propose as Aryan, may not, at least for the time being, be discoverable. "Officially" it is unknown. This

5/ is referred to in the archeological community as the "Sumerian Problem." The oldest remains are believed to date to 2000 years after the founding of Eridu. These remains were not testable because of their age (as far as I have heard). Though DNA analysis of remains from the

same period show blue-eyed travelers were appearing in the Levant from that area. This tells us of course Aryans inhabited Mesopotamia during this time. https://www.timesofisrael.com/anomalous-blue-eyed-people-came-to-israel-6500-years-ago-from-iran-dna-shows/

DNA tests of such ancient sites are limited by the very limited testable remains that are found. Are

they the remains of kings, slaves or immigrants? & when did these men live, during the rise of these civilizations, from which the least number of remains would survive, or during its multicultural decline? A similar question appears with artistic & religious development.

We might assume for instance, majority races might prefer their faces on idols as opposed to that of racially distinct founders. We see this today in America. In any case, we should find it unsurprising, in many cases, both to find the remains of those who closely resemble

current populations and those who do not. As it concerns Sumer, based on at least surviving myths, this dawn may have been relatively brief (or who knows?) My thesis is Arthur De Gobineau's: Aryans are a founding race. I add to his thesis that proto-Jews, skilled in religious,

cultural and artistic development, are a closing race. Despite this, blue-eyed statues are recovered from Sumeria suggesting the presence and veneration of Aryans as this is a trait unique to this race. Finally there is much we can learn from our present understanding of

civilizations: they decline through racial degradation. No one believes that India is of the same racial make up as it was at the height of its civilization, no one even believes this of Italy. We see in Europe and America that the founding stock is displaced by later arriving or

even later forming racial types. My thesis is that civilizations follow the same general pattern. In some cases the racial transformation is more radical and in others less so. Hence I would argue that my contention that Sumeria was Aryan at its origin is at least as sound as

Darwin's theory of evolution. It's actually strange that people in our sphere, sensitive to civilizational and racial degeneration would find my thesis in any way surprising or implausible. If we need to discuss it as a theory, as opposed to obviously true, I am fine with that.

But to me it is even clearer than the theory of evolution, which I suppose some people in our neck of the woods still discuss.