The Celtic question solved by Oera Linda book

[Nordic]

No source other than Oera Linda book has the following explanatory ability as to Celts.

1. Celts as allies of Phoenician Hannibal.
In OL narrative the Celts are the European (cultural) Phoenicians.

2. Celts doing human sacrifice and keeping the heads.
The Phoenicians were also famous for obsessing with ritualistic killings and burning of human victims (news source, see also the "wicker man").

3. Reports of Celtic kings having a ritualistic go with horse.
In immediate vicinity of Levantine Phoenicians, we have the Ugaritic story of Baal deity (worshipped also by Phoenicians) who had a go with a cow. So it was a case of king modelled on a god. Irish report here and here, Baal story here.

4. Why Celts are always in European south and the similarity of names "Gaul/Gallia" and "Galli" priests.
Celts (Gallians) are cultural off-shoots of Phoenician culture that produced separately also the Levantine Galli cult.

5. Why did Romans hate the Gauls and especially the Druids of Anglesey so much - almost as much as the Phoenicians. They were the Phoenicians priest, but that of the geographically distant European branch.

6. How come northern branch of Celts are seemingly pale white Nordics, yet are associated with Mediterranean.
Personally this is the largest pointer to me; what indeed is the native 'Celtic culture' that is alleged to have been that of Mediterranean Portugese, Spaniards, North Italians et cetera, yet also that of Nordic racial type Irish, Scots and (south) Germans? By all geographical and racial DNA pointers the northern continental Celts ought to be culturally just the exact same thing as their neighbouring Germanic cultures with no sea or mountain ranges in between - yet they aren't. Nothing makes sense here in the official explanation, but the difference in customs, language and the Mediterranean associations are all explained easily by the OL account.

7. Why did the northern Celts have so lacking relations with their immediate Germanic neighbours,
Just look at the Britons vs. Anglo-Saxons story of England. A deep cultural division, as detailed at length in OL narrative, goes a long way to explain why the later Romans did not have a grand Celto-Germanic alliance to battle with when entering first time militarily the Celto-Germanic northern direction.

[Pax]

Indeed. I avoid the word “Celt” because it has so many confusing, loaded meanings to many people. The biggest reason for this confusion is that people believe Gaelic (“Celtic”) languages are native to Europe, when in fact they are the result of the Gola mixing with locals. I have written about the Gola in two recent posts which I will quote below in case they are useful to this discussion.

The Irish being the Hittites or another people from the Middle East checks out. One clue is that there was a historical area in Anatolia called Galatia, which would hint at the presence of the Gola, who are being mistaken for the Hittites who lived in the same area. We see the Gola in Britain in the OLB narrative.

Another clue is that the Gaelic languages (Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Brittonic) are actually Semitic, which is something that Theo Venneman talks about. The Fryas explain how the Gola took control of the “outer lands” (France, Spain) and the British Isles in ch. 67.09. I think they brought the Gaelic languages with them, which can still be seen in Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Brittany and, formerly, in Galicia (see: Gallaeci). Their dominion over Kelta's land would cause it to be known as Gallia (Gaul) to the Romans. The fact that not all of Britain, France and Spain speak Gaelic today is because the Fryas and Romans outnumbered them or fought them, which is why it only remained in outskirts areas that were less populated, like Ireland and Scotland. Of course the overlap in the names Gola, Galatia, Gallia, Galicia, Gallic and Gaelic cannot be a coincidence either. That is my theory.

Another interesting observation is that the city of Arles, which is very close to Marseille (likely related to Missellia in the OLB), was by some Roman authors called Gallulus, i.e. “little Gaul”.

I do not think that Frisians, Saxons, Angles and Jutes sailed over and conquered Britain like taught. Rather, since Britain was populated by banished Fryas (Brits) and an unknown admixture of Romans and Gola, the kingdoms that emerged in Britain were formed by groups of those Brits in the power vacuum left behind by the Romans following their withdrawal. Thus the descendants of banished Angles, who were grouped together in East Anglia, which looks like Angeln (which may be why they chose to settle there since antiquity), formed the Anglish (or English) Kingdom; and the descendants of banished Saxons formed their Saxon Kingdom (Wessex) south of the Angles in Britain, just as the Saxons live south of the Angles in Europe.

Because of the phantom years in the Scaligerian timeline, and because it is taught that Gaelic-speaking peoples are indigenous to the British Isles, historians had to invent the term Dark Ages and the invasion theory in order to make sense of Britain's history.

[Friedrich]

As far I understand it, according to the OLB, the Celts are the followers of Kelta, or did I miss something? And I thought Kelta was Fryan? So as I see it, Kelta got corrupted while engaging with the Magi and the Galli, and for sure over time they all became a mix of Fryans and Sidonians.

But the Phoenicians (Tyrians and Sidonians mostly) only really got to the main stage of world events, after mixing with the folks that founded Tyre with Neef Tunis, isn't it? And after they found their way to the Fryan tin mines of England.. The Phoenicians as the Fryans bastard race, I like that (better than the opposite).

I know several Flemish people that look quite 'canaanite' to me, but they swear to be baptised and all. I guess I understand it better, since I know where the Gauls, Celts (and Franks?) came from.

And my country of residence, Portugal, seems to be proud of their Sidonian roots (Port of the Galli).

[Kraftr]

I think contributing to the southern look was that in Spain and France probably Portugal, there were influxes of Alans and Visigoths, both Iranian from the far steppe, who were probably also more eastern looking, black hair for instance. I imagine a Russel Brand type, that is I believe meant by 'swarthy'. But also Suebi and Vandals who are more Gothic/Germanic I believe, who allied with Alans at times. Vandals mingled with Phoenicians in Africa(and Levant?), and Normans/Scandinavians have settled areas in these lands too, and there were tribes that have lived there from the stoneage, genetically comparable with Sardinians. And throughout the Celtic areas there were old tribes. The influence of Druids is a different one to the Phoenician or the Iranic/Scythian/Slavic/Jewish influxes, although there may be some connection or similarity, all being from the east.
Minoans were Eastern too(around Persia).
Possibly the Pharisees were thus named because they were Farsi.

[Nordic]

Where are all the Mediterranean old Germanic peoples? In southern France, what magical barrier stopped the Germanic nations of central and western Europe entering there in 1500 BC, in 2000 BC, in 3000 BC..? Celtic solutions a la Gallia transalpina, as provided by newer history, are a weak subtitute here for the older histories of Oera Linda book. Plus, Oera Linda book is thematically more with line with the Oium story of Goths and their stories of Gothic-Egyptian wars.

Regions of Portugal and Spain region may be inhabited by natives of that European corner, especially so in milleniums into BC era. It does make sense that various peoples, like the ones listed in The Book of Invasions, referred briefly also in OL two segments, would have ventured therein. Phoenicians may have had very early on a harbour city or colony there, in lines of their connection to British tin mines, but that doesn't make the whole Portugese-Spanish region a Phoenician land.

[Pax]

Slightly off-topic, but Oium (in Ukraine) and the related names Gothiscandza (in Poland? cf. Gdańsk) and Scandza (Scandinavia) also fit the theory that the Goths emigrated from Scandinavia, wandered across Eastern Europe, adopted Slavic grammatical features (no articles, highly inflected verbs and nouns etc. like in Latin), wandered down to Greece and eventually become the Trojans, who in turn became the Romans after their defeat in the Trojan War and subsequent escape to Italy where they founded Rome.

Maybe I will make a thread like this one, but for solving the “Roman/Trojan/Gothic question”. The OLB provides a few important clues.

What are the Gothic-Egyptian wars? I have not heard of these and a quick search did not bring anything up. Something written in Jordanes' Getica?

[Nordic]

Maybe I will make a thread like this one, but for solving the “Roman/Trojan/Gothic question”. The OLB provides a few important clues.

Yes, please make!

What are the Gothic-Egyptian wars? I have not heard of these and a quick search did not bring anything up. Something written in Jordanes' Getica?

Correct. See here. Note that Getica puts all the Geats, Amazons etc under the Gothic banner - correctly in my opinion (atomisation is the opposite Roman view). And as noted here, Getica's root sources in turn seem to have used OL chronology and not the one explicit in the book.

[half life over]

Here is some interesting evidence that backs the claim the Gauls were from the sidon region. A picture that shows Iranian script. Which matches cuneiform found in Ireland.
"The Gola,[2] as the missionary priests of Sidon" - https://wiki.oeralinda.org/view/EN060.12_Gola

an artifact with cuneiform writing dating to 5000 years ago. - https://x.com/histories_arch/status/1856215360388640879

[JMacLugash]

Historical author Ward Rutherford in his book on Celtic mythology cites 3rd century Greek writer Diogenes Laertius who, in turn cites lost works by Sotion of Alexander and Aristotle that “brackets the Druids with the Persian Magi, with what he calls the ‘Chaldeans’- in fact the Babylonic priesthood- and with an Indian sect whom he describes as the ‘Gymnosophists’”.

In “Mysteries of the Druids”, 19th century British historian W. Winwood Reade states:

“Those pupils of the Egyptian priests, the Phoenicians of Canaanites, who had taught the Israelites to sacrifice human beings, and to pass their children through the fire of Moloch, infused the same bloodthirsty precepts among the Druids. As the Indian wife was burnt on her husband’s pyre, so, on the corpses of the Celtic lords, were consumed their children, their slaves, and their horses.”

Another interesting passage from Reade states:

“There is, however, a tradition that at one period both in Gaul and Britain, the women were supreme, that they ruled the councils of state, that they led armies of war. That the Druids by degrees supplanted them and obtained the power for themselves.”

In Myths and Legends of the Celtic Race late 19th/early 20th century Irish author T.W. Rolleston states that “Caesar and Strabo agree that there was a very sharp division between the nobles and priestly or educated class on the one hand and the common people on the other, the latter being kept in strict subjection.”

Rolleston also states how 4th century B.C. Greek historian, Hecataeus of Abdera states how the Celts “had in them the making of a great and progressive nation; but the Druidic system-not on the side of its philosophy and science, but on that of its ecclesiastico-political organization- was their bane, and their submission to it was their fatal weakness.”

Many are familiar with the Roman writings talking about human sacrifice among the druids with the infamous “Wicker Man”, but even later archaeological evidence like the Lindow Man seem to point to a tradition of human sacrifice.

Even Celtic myth and folklore apparently refers to druids casting spells, turning people into animals or stones, or curse peoples’ crops. As far as I can tell, this romanticizing of the Druids that we see in a lot of Neopagan circles didn’t really happen until, well, the Romantic era- go figure.

If I was going to give a (very) rough sketch of the druids based conclusions I’ve drawn based on the authors and sources I cited above and others like L.A. Waddell, Julius Evola, Alexander Dugin, Herman Wirth, Miguel Serrano (specifically his dialogues with Wirth), the OLB, and other rather eclectic sources ranging from British Israelism/Christian Identity apologists to Jews and Hindus, that sketch would go something like this:

The druids/Gola were a segment of the priest caste of a nomadic, likely mixed-race people (of varying degrees) that descended, according to Wirth, from slaves (and probably merchants) and lived on the periphery of the ancient Gobi Desert civilization (which was likely a caste system set up by lost/rogue/exiled Aryans/Fryans), after it was destroyed. This people likely traveled what would later come to be known as the Silk Road, making their way to and through India, then Persia, then Babylon, then into the Levant and Egypt, as well as up into Anatolia (Turkey), picking up and leaving various ideas, influences and stories along the way. The Jewish scholar Flavius Josephus (37 – 100 AD) quotes from Clearchus’s fragment in his Contra Apionem [Against Apion], which has Aristotle say: “Jews are derived from the Indian philosophers."

It was in the Levant that the OLB describes the druids (and the Canaanites) coming into contact with the founders of Tyre/Phoenicia that were fleeing Northern Europe, and forming a sort of business alliance with them. Then, at least a portion of this druid priest caste traveled with the Phoenician merchants (who eventually outcompeted the struggling Fryas) up through the Mediterranean, into Britain and possibly beyond. This caste would become entrenched in the aftermath of the conflict between the Mothers Kalta and Minerva which was also described in the OLB, and would become the priestly overlords of the society of banished convicts and slaves that seems to have made up the founding stock of whom we know as the “Celts” and the “Gauls”.

As a side note, beyond the noticeable similarities between the Celtic chief god Bel and the Phoenician chief god Baal, there are many similarities between Hebrew and Gaelic, which are outlined here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAAmwtdP1bE

There is also evidence of this eastern migration in the traditional history of Ireland with the Milesians, who were the final race to settle in Ireland (as the history of Ireland is about one succession of people replacing another) after spending hundreds of years traveling the earth. This traditional history is mirrored somewhat in the “Chronicles of Eri”- a sort of “Irish OLB” that came about in the 19th century, which speaks of the origins of the Gaels as being among the Phoenicians who eventually migrated to Scythia and then came into the British Isles. The accounts claiming Scythian origins of the Celts are also quite numerous. Interestingly, this whole story parallels much of what is found in Christian Identity/British Israelism.

An “Israelite” origin of the druids also makes sense when we look at how quickly the Celts took to Christianity. Celtic scholar Peter Berresford Ellis in his book on the druids argues that the remaining druids that weren’t killed by their Roman enemies, became absorbed into Christianity in large part due to the similarities Christianity and the earlier druidic religion (i.e. Trinitarianism, etc.). Ironically, it was after the Romans left Britain that Christianity came, and it is known that the Celtic church was an altogether separate entity until the 5th century. It also seems quite plausible (and seems to be hinted at in the OLB) that prior to this, the druids, the Gauls and the Phoenicians/Carthaginians formed a sort of confederated opposition to Roman interests.

[Pax]

Thank you for the excellent quotes. In my view, the people from the Gobi Desert were what I call the Proto-Magyars, the ur-group that migrated in various offshoots to India, Persia and Eastern Europe after the 2194 BC natural catastrophe, also known as the 4.2 ka event. The OLB calls this place Aldland (ch. 21.15), although I think that “Aldland” was a generic term for the old world prior to 2194 BC. Thus the Magyars in the OLB shared distant relations with the foreign priests that dominated the Indians (ch. 163.10). They were probably also distantly related to the Xiongnu, Moghuls/Mongols, Huns and other groups. The Proto-Magyars were priestly shamans, as all their offshoots shared this trait. Alewyn J. Raubenheimer talks about this in Chronicles From Pre-Celtic Europe.