Consume Product - Arete Network

Not necessarily. The Bible itself doesn't mention what Jesus looked like, except his visage in the end times. Perhaps they didn't consider the physical characteristics important for Him. Furthermore, back then information sharing was incredibly limited. We can see even nowadays, with instantaneous information exchange en masse, that it still leaves vast, vast swaths of people wholly uninformed. It wouldn't be surprising at all if people in antiquity, even in Jesus' time, be unaware of specific letter detailing him.

> this must also be the millionth time I tell you Christo Genea is cherry-picking nonsense.

That's entirely possible. I don't ascribe, with certainty, one theory over another, at least right now. I will, though, posit that the language and historical breakdowns on Christogenea are much better than what we see in current judeo-Christian globohomo. If Christianity served globohomo's purpose outright there'd be no reason to subvert and corrupt Christianity, or to change the language of the Bible. It should also be a huge mark in support of this position, given that jews are so hellbent on saying that Jesus was brown. While I don't believe with 100% applicability that one should believe the exact antithesis of everything the jews say, at the very least it's a good starting point, and one should seriously question their position if jews support it.

Furthermore, this proclamation that ancient peoples were brown doesn't just occur with Israelites and Judahites, but with other ancient peoples as well. Modern (((historians))) love to leave out details of White people in the past, to obscure, censor, and manipulate the history of ancient peoples. Solutrean theory, out of Africa theory, White people in ancient Egypt, White people giving knowledge to "native" Americans, even Atlantis. Our history is curated entirely by people that hate us. It would be extremely foolish to believe the things they're trying to convince us of.