Overview

Nubia was an early center of complex society, trade, and industry. Between about 2450 and 1450 BCE, the city-state of Kerma became the dominant regional power, controlling the Nile corridor between the First and Fourth Cataracts—an area comparable in scale to Egypt itself. Egyptians later applied the name “Kush” to this region, likely derived from an indigenous ethnonym. Over centuries, Egypt and Nubia alternated between conflict, commerce, and cultural exchange.

During Egypt’s New Kingdom (c. 1550–1070 BCE), much of Nubia fell under Egyptian control. After Egypt’s authority weakened during the upheavals associated with the Late Bronze Age collapse, Kush re-emerged as an independent kingdom centered at Napata (near modern Karima, Sudan). Kush adopted many Egyptian cultural forms—especially devotion to Amun—and royal intermarriage occurred, but Kushite language, identity, and traditions remained distinct, something Egyptian art and texts often emphasized through depictions of dress, appearance, and transport.

Rule in Egypt and the Shift to Meroë

In the eighth century BCE, King Kashta extended Kushite influence into Upper Egypt, and his daughter Amenirdis was installed as Divine Adoratrice of Amun at Thebes. Kashta’s successor Piye invaded Lower Egypt, founding the Kushite Twenty-fifth Dynasty. For more than a century, Kushite kings ruled Egypt until they were forced out during Assyrian invasions led by Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal in the mid-seventh century BCE. After this rupture with Egypt, the kingdom’s political center shifted south to Meroë, a period during which Greek authors often referred to the region as Aethiopia.

Later History and Decline

From the third century BCE to the third century CE, northern Nubia was contested and at times occupied—first by the Ptolemaic Kingdom and later by Rome. After centuries of Greco-Roman control in the border zone, Kushite rulers regained parts of this territory. Kush remained a significant regional power into late antiquity, but by the fourth century CE it weakened due to a combination of environmental pressures, internal instability, and external attacks—especially by the Noba and the Blemmyes. Around the same time, the Aksumite kingdom exploited the turmoil, capturing Meroë and seizing wealth; rulers such as Ezana adopted titles later associated with “Ethiopia.” Although Aksum’s direct presence in Nubia was likely brief, the disruption contributed to Kush’s collapse and the emergence of successor states including Nobatia, Makuria, and Alodia, with Alodia later dominating much of the southern former Meroitic realm.

Long treated as an appendage to Egyptian history, Kush has been re-evaluated through modern archaeology. Discoveries since the late twentieth century highlight a sophisticated civilization with its own language and script, extensive trade networks, advanced craftsmanship (especially archery and metalworking), and comparatively high visibility and influence for women in elite and public life.

Name and Identity

Egyptian sources recorded the name as kꜣš (often rendered “Kush”), a term that could refer both to the region south of the First Cataract and to its people. The name appears in personal names such as Kashta, meaning roughly “(one from) the land of Kush.” In Greco-Roman writing the region is frequently called Aethiopia, while biblical traditions associate “Cush” with a figure in Genesis and later passages.

Historical Development (Selected Phases)

Early foundations:

• Nabta Playa (from c. 7500 BCE) shows early organized settlement and megalithic construction, sometimes interpreted as having astronomical significance.

• The A-Group (c. 4000–2900 BCE) formed early hubs of Nubian society along the river.

Kerma (c. 2500–1500 BCE):
A powerful Nubian polity centered at Kerma expanded northward and became a major rival to Egypt, supported by a dense population and strong regional administration. Nearby Doukki Gel reflects additional cultural influences and long-term occupation.

Egyptian rule in Nubia (c. 1504–1070 BCE):
Egypt annexed Nubia during the New Kingdom, governing it through a Viceroy of Kush. Despite deepening Egyptian cultural influence, rebellions persisted, and Nubia remained strategically and spiritually important, with major ceremonies held at Jebel Barkal.

Napatan kingdom (c. 1070–656 BCE):
After Egypt’s decline, Kush reconstituted as an independent state centered at Napata. Kings such as Alara and later Kashta consolidated authority tied closely to the cult of Amun at Jebel Barkal, setting the stage for the conquest of Egypt and the Twenty-fifth Dynasty.

Meroitic kingdom (from c. 270 BCE into the 4th century CE):
With political gravity shifting south to Meroë, Kush developed a distinctive urban culture and eventually its own writing system. Over time, economic and environmental stresses, coupled with invasions and regional upheaval, contributed to the kingdom’s fragmentation.

Language and Writing

Kush used Egyptian hieroglyphs for official and religious contexts during the Napatan period, largely in court and temple settings. Later, Kush developed the Meroitic script, written in both cursive (for everyday records) and hieroglyphic (for monumental and sacred use). While the script has been deciphered, the Meroitic language remains only partially understood, and scholars continue to debate its linguistic family connections.

Science, Technology, and Culture

Kushite society supported irrigation innovations such as the saqiyah water-lifting device and built large rainwater reservoirs known as hafirs. Meroë became especially noted for iron production, leaving substantial archaeological evidence of metalworking. Research on Nubian remains has also suggested early exposure to antibiotic compounds (notably tetracycline), likely through fermented foods or drink. Kushite architecture is best known for its steep-sided pyramids and temple complexes, blending Egyptian forms with local traditions, and it produced a military reputation—especially for elite archers—that echoes throughout ancient sources.

The Twenty-fifth Dynasty of Egypt (Dynasty XXV), also known as the Nubian Dynasty, Kushite Dynasty, or Napatan Dynasty after its capital at Napata, marked the beginning of Egypt’s Late Period following the Kushite conquest. Popularly labeled the “Black Pharaohs,” the dynasty has attracted scholarly debate due to the racial and cultural implications of this term.

The rulers of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty originated in the Kingdom of Kush, located in present-day northern Sudan and southern Egypt. Although they governed Egypt itself, most Kushite kings regarded Napata as their spiritual homeland. Their rule extended over part or all of Egypt for nearly a century, from approximately 744 to 656 BCE.

Despite their foreign origin, the Kushite pharaohs were deeply Egyptianized. They adopted the Egyptian language and writing system and showed strong devotion to Egypt’s religious traditions, artistic conventions, and literary heritage. Earlier scholarship proposed that the dynasty emerged from Egyptian migrants—particularly priests of Amun—an interpretation still supported by archaeological evidence from the royal cemetery at el-Kurru. Excavations there reveal a surge of Egyptian cultural influence during the Third Intermediate Period that coincided with the political rise of Napata.

By reuniting Lower Egypt, Upper Egypt, and Kush under one authority, the Twenty-fifth Dynasty created Egypt’s largest territorial empire since the New Kingdom. While reaffirming traditional Egyptian religious institutions and artistic forms, the Kushite rulers also introduced distinctive Nubian cultural elements. This era saw the revival of pyramid construction in the Nile Valley for the first time since the Middle Kingdom, with many pyramids built in what is now northern Sudan.

The dynasty’s decline followed repeated conflicts with the Neo-Assyrian Empire. After Assyrian rulers Sargon II and Sennacherib blocked Kushite expansion in the Near East, their successors Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal invaded Egypt and defeated the Kushite rulers. This collapse ushered in the Late Period of Egyptian history. The succeeding Twenty-sixth Dynasty initially ruled as Assyrian vassals and became the last native Egyptian dynasty before the Persian Achaemenid conquest.

Scholars have criticized the label “Black Pharaohs” for implying that earlier dynasties lacked southern connections and for oversimplifying the long-standing genetic and cultural continuity between Nubians and Egyptians.

Early History: Piye

The Twenty-fifth Dynasty emerged from Kush under the leadership of Piye (also known as Piankhi). From Napata, Piye launched a military campaign that brought Egypt under Kushite control. He commemorated his victory on the famous Victory Stele, proclaiming himself pharaoh of all Egypt and emphasizing his divine kingship as “Son of Re” and “Beloved of Amun.”

Piye’s success resulted not from Egyptian collapse alone, but from deliberate Kushite political strategy combined with Theban cooperation. He revived pyramid construction, building the earliest known Kushite royal pyramid at El-Kurru, and expanded the Temple of Amun at Jebel Barkal with a monumental colonnaded forecourt.

Although Piye attempted to extend Egyptian influence into the Near East, his forces were defeated by Sargon II. Despite being omitted from Manetho’s king list, Piye is widely recognized by modern Egyptologists as the founder of the dynasty.

Shabaka and Shebitku: Chronological Debate

Recent archaeological research has revised the traditional order of succession, indicating that Shebitku ruled before Shabaka. Evidence from royal tomb construction and inscriptions at Karnak demonstrates that Shabaka’s reign followed that of Shebitku rather than preceding it, contradicting earlier classical traditions.

Shebitku

Under the revised chronology, Shebitku consolidated Kushite control over the entire Nile Valley around 712 BCE and moved the political capital to Memphis. He eliminated resistance from rival dynasts and established diplomatic relations with Assyria, even extraditing rebels to demonstrate political cooperation. By the early seventh century BCE, Shebitku was firmly recognized as king of Egypt by foreign powers.

Shabaka

Shabaka strengthened Kushite authority in Egypt and promoted a cultural revival rooted in archaic Egyptian traditions. He restored temples, transferred the capital to Memphis, and reinstituted theocratic kingship by assuming the role of chief priest of Amun. His reign is especially notable for preserving Memphite theology through the inscription of ancient religious texts on the Shabaka Stone.

Taharqa

Taharqa, crowned in Memphis in 690 BCE, presided over the dynasty’s height of prosperity and monumental construction. His reign coincided with abundant Nile floods and agricultural surplus. Taharqa financed extensive temple projects at Karnak, Kawa, Jebel Barkal, and elsewhere, and built the largest Kushite pyramid at Nuri.

Taharqa also led military campaigns in the Levant and famously aided Judah during the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem. Although initially successful against Assyrian forces, he was eventually defeated by Esarhaddon in 671 BCE. After briefly regaining Memphis, Taharqa was forced south by renewed Assyrian invasions and died in Nubia in 664 BCE.

Tantamani and the End of the Dynasty

Taharqa’s successor, Tantamani, attempted to restore Kushite control over Egypt. Advancing north from Napata, he regained Thebes and Memphis and defeated Assyrian-backed rulers. However, Ashurbanipal responded with a massive counteroffensive, forcing Tantamani to retreat to Nubia and sacking Thebes in 663 BCE.

Following Tantamani’s defeat, Assyria installed Psamtik I as ruler of Lower Egypt. By 656 BCE, Egypt was fully unified under the Twenty-sixth Dynasty. Tantamani was buried at El-Kurru, and Kushite political power permanently withdrew southward, later establishing a new capital at Meroë.

Military Forces

Kushite soldiers of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty appear in Assyrian reliefs depicting the conquest of Egypt. These images show Nubian warriors defending fortified cities and prisoners being escorted by Assyrian troops, often identifiable by the distinctive single-feather headgear associated with Taharqa’s army.

The Shabaka Stone, sometimes referred to as Shabaqo, is an ancient Egyptian artifact engraved with a religious text dating to the Twenty-fifth Dynasty. In later centuries, the stone was likely repurposed as a millstone, a use that severely damaged its hieroglyphic inscriptions. This wear was compounded by deliberate acts of defacement, leaving much of the text in poor condition.

Provenance and Historical Background

Originally erected in the late eighth century BCE as a permanent monument at the Great Temple of Ptah in Memphis, the stone was later removed for unknown reasons and transported to Alexandria. From there, it was shipped to England aboard a naval vessel, where it was used as ballast along with other Egyptian antiquities, including a column capital, fragments of a Greco-Roman black basalt capital, quartzite lintel pieces from the reign of Senusret III, and a black granite kneeling statue of Ramesses II.

In 1805, the artifact was donated to the British Museum by George Spencer, 2nd Earl Spencer, who served as First Lord of the Admiralty and had been a museum trustee since 1794. The stone was first deciphered, translated, and systematically studied in 1901 by American Egyptologist James Henry Breasted. It has remained part of the British Museum’s collection ever since.

Dating and Scholarly Debate

The dedicatory introduction on the stone states that it reproduces the contents of a deteriorated, worm-eaten papyrus discovered by Pharaoh Shabaka in the Great Temple of Ptah. Homer W. Smith argued that the original text dated to the First Dynasty, describing it as the earliest written record of human thought.

Early Egyptologists such as James Henry Breasted, Adolf Erman, Kurt Sethe, and Hermann Junker attributed the composition to the Old Kingdom. This view was supported by the archaic linguistic style—closely resembling the Pyramid Texts—and by political references emphasizing Memphis as Egypt’s first royal capital. Scholars including Henri Frankfort, John Wilson, Miriam Lichtheim, and Erik Iversen likewise endorsed an Old Kingdom origin.

More recent scholarship, however, has shifted toward dating the monument itself to the Twenty-fifth Dynasty. Friedrich Junge and many later researchers argue that while the text may preserve older traditions, the physical artifact was produced much later. Current academic consensus holds that the stone cannot predate the Nineteenth Dynasty.

William Leo Hansberry (February 25, 1894 – November 3, 1965) was an American scholar, lecturer, and pioneering Afrocentrist. He was the elder brother of real estate broker Carl Augustus Hansberry, the uncle of award-winning playwright Lorraine Hansberry, and the great-granduncle of actress Taye Hansberry.

Life and Career

Hansberry was born in Gloster, Amite County, Mississippi, to Elden Hayes Hansberry and Pauline (Bailey) Hansberry. His father, a professor of agriculture at Alcorn A&M in Lorman, Mississippi, died when Hansberry was just three years old. He and his younger brother Carl were subsequently raised by their stepfather, Elijah Washington.

In 1915, Hansberry enrolled at Atlanta University, where a newly published collection of essays on race from the university’s Sociology Department deeply influenced his thinking. Another formative influence was W. E. B. Du Bois’s The Negro. After attempting to consult the book’s references, Hansberry discovered that Atlanta University’s library lacked adequate research materials. Dissatisfied, he left the institution only two weeks into his sophomore year and sought a better-equipped university open to Black students. He began studying at Harvard University in February 1917 and completed his undergraduate degree there in 1921.

Following graduation, Hansberry taught for one year at Straight College (now Dillard University) in New Orleans. In September 1922, he joined the faculty of Howard University, where he founded the African Civilization Section within the History Department.

Hansberry earned his master’s degree from Harvard in 1932 and pursued additional graduate studies at the University of Chicago, Oxford University, and Cairo University. Despite his extensive expertise, he was unable to complete a doctorate because no institution had faculty qualified to supervise a dissertation in his specialized field of African studies.

At Howard University, Hansberry taught courses on African civilizations and cultures. By the mid-1930s, he had gained international recognition as a leading scholar. Among his students were future African leaders Kwame Nkrumah, who later became Ghana’s first prime minister and president, and Nnamdi Azikiwe, who studied under Hansberry from 1928 to 1929 and later became Nigeria’s first president. In 1961, Azikiwe, then serving as Nigeria’s Governor-General, offered to finance the publication of Hansberry’s major work, The Rise and Decline of the Ethiopian Empire, in recognition of its significance.

Although his classes were widely popular, two senior faculty members accused Hansberry of presenting material without sufficient research support. Facing possible dismissal and the elimination of the African studies program, Hansberry presented extensive documentation to the Board of Trustees. While the program survived, his research funding was cut, and he did not receive tenure until 1938.

Despite conducting vast amounts of research throughout his career, Hansberry remained hesitant to publish his work. Former student and Howard University professor James Williams recalled in 1972 that Hansberry consistently declined publication requests, replying with a smile, “I am not ready yet.”

Hansberry retired from Howard University in June 1959.

Shahid Bolsen explains how the pursuit of the unrealistic goal of “ending racism” becomes a trap—one that leaves oppressed communities waiting on a moral transformation from their oppressors that is unlikely to ever happen.

The term Pelasgians (Ancient Greek: Πελασγοί, Pelasgoí) was used by classical Greek authors to describe either the people who lived in Greece before the arrival of the Greeks or, more broadly, the early indigenous populations of the Aegean region. Over time, “Pelasgian” became a general label for ancient native cultures whose identities were unclear or predated recorded Greek history. Historian Peter Green characterized the word as a convenient catch-all term for early, primitive, and supposedly indigenous peoples of the Greek world.

During the classical era, communities identified as Pelasgian still existed in parts of mainland Greece, Crete, and the Aegean islands. Although Greeks often classified Pelasgian speech as “barbarian,” some ancient writers considered them Greek, or at least closely related. A widespread tradition held that much of Greece had once been Pelasgian territory before undergoing Hellenization, particularly in regions later associated with Ionian and Aeolian Greek speakers.

Etymology

The origin of the name Pelasgoi remains highly uncertain. Scholar Michael Sakellariou documented at least fifteen proposed explanations, noting that many are speculative. One ancient interpretation linked the word to pelargos (“stork”), suggesting migratory behavior, an idea later mocked by Aristophanes in his comedy The Birds. Other scholars connected the name to geographic terms meaning “neighboring land,” “flatlands,” or “sea people,” though none of these theories has achieved consensus.

Ancient Literary Evidence

Classical authors extensively debated the Pelasgians, but no definitive conclusions were reached. While philological analysis advanced during the Victorian period, modern progress on the topic relies primarily on archaeology rather than ancient texts alone.

Pelasgians in Ancient Sources

Ancient writers described the Pelasgians inconsistently, labeling them at times as Greek, semi-Greek, foreign, or pre-Greek. Because no Pelasgian self-recorded accounts survive, knowledge of their identity comes entirely from Greek perspectives. Greek authors often used Pelasgian ancestry to emphasize shared origins among Greeks, while at other times portraying Pelasgians as outsiders to reinforce cultural distinctions. Despite these contradictions, Pelasgians consistently appear in literature as figures tied to Greece’s distant past and the formation of Greek identity.

Poetic Traditions

In Homer’s Iliad, Pelasgians appear on both sides of the Trojan War and are associated with regions such as Thessaly and Dodona. Homer also places Pelasgians among the inhabitants of Crete in the Odyssey. Hesiod connects them to Dodona and traces their ancestry to Pelasgus, a legendary progenitor. Other poets, including Asius, portrayed Pelasgus as an earth-born ancestor, reinforcing the idea of Pelasgian autochthony.

Aeschylus expanded the Pelasgian legacy by depicting a vast Pelasgian kingdom centered on Argos. His play The Suppliants links Pelasgian identity to themes of migration, ancestry, and political legitimacy. Sophocles and Euripides continued this tradition, portraying Pelasgians as integral to early Greek history and occasionally renaming them as Danaans through mythic lawmaking.

Roman poet Ovid also referred to the Greeks of the Trojan War as “Pelasgians,” emphasizing their ancient heritage and mythic continuity.

Historical Accounts

Early historians offered competing interpretations. Hecataeus and Acusilaus traced Pelasgian origins to Thessaly and the Peloponnese. Hellanicus suggested that Pelasgians migrated from Greece to Italy, possibly becoming ancestors of the Etruscans. Herodotus acknowledged uncertainty about their language, describing it as non-Greek, yet suggested that early Athenians had Pelasgian roots. He also recorded Pelasgian settlements across the Aegean and Asia Minor.

Thucydides viewed the Pelasgians as the dominant population of Greece before the rise of the Hellenes and described how the Greek identity gradually replaced older tribal names. Later historians such as Ephorus portrayed the Pelasgians as militaristic colonizers who spread their culture across Greece.

Dionysius of Halicarnassus concluded that the Pelasgians were originally Greek and traced their migrations across Thessaly, Crete, the Aegean islands, and Italy. He described them as a wandering people who influenced many regions but were eventually displaced by other groups.

Whether it was built by the Pelasgians, the Cretans, or the Egyptians, Mycenae was famously described as “broad-streeted and golden.” It later became the political center of a powerful civilization that dominated much of mainland Greece and the Aegean islands. The term Mycenaean is therefore sometimes used more broadly to describe the later Bronze Age cultures of the entire Aegean world.

Mainland Greece maintained close contact with Crete, and from this interaction a prosperous culture emerged, strongly influenced by Late Minoan traditions. Around 1450 BC, however, the Mycenaeans gained control of Crete. Between approximately 1375 and 1200 BC, they expanded their power into a vast empire stretching westward to Sicily and southern Italy and eastward to Asia Minor and the Levantine coast.

Unlike their Minoan predecessors, the Mycenaeans showed a strong preference for monumental stone sculpture. Among the few surviving examples, the most famous is the relief known as the Lion Gate at Mycenae (circa 1250 BC), which depicts two lions facing one another across a central architectural column.

Note: Ancient sources often use the terms Pelasgians and Minyans—the founders of Cyrene in Libya—interchangeably. Some scholars suggest this may indicate that both groups were, in fact, the same people or closely related populations.

Beyond the citadel walls of Mycenae lay the burial grounds of the city’s earliest rulers and their families, dating to the beginning of the Late Helladic I period (approximately 1650–1550 BC). These tombs were originally enclosed by a low circular stone wall measuring about 28 meters (92 feet) in diameter. Part of this burial enclosure was later overlain by a tholos tomb, now known as the Tomb of Klytemnestra.

Grave Circle B, dating to the 17th and 16th centuries BC, served as a royal cemetery located outside the Late Bronze Age fortification walls of Mycenae in southern Greece. Together with Grave Circle A, this burial complex represents one of the defining features of the earliest phase of Mycenaean civilization.

Most of the shaft graves were originally marked by stone mounds, and four were further distinguished by upright stone stelae. These stelae reached heights of up to two meters (approximately seven feet). Notably, two of them—associated with Graves Alpha and Gamma—were decorated with engraved hunting scenes, offering rare visual insight into elite symbolism and warrior ideology during the formative period of Mycenaean culture.

Note below that this stele obviously depicts a Black man.

 

Now note how the Albinos depict the Greeks.

 Genesis 3:8

And they heard the sound 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 among the trees of the garden.

Genesis 3:8 says, “And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.” We know that God is spirit (John 4:24), so how exactly could He be “walking” in the garden?

First, it is clear from Genesis 3:8 that God’s approach in the garden was heralded by a “sound” or a “voice.” The verse begins by stating, “They heard the sound” of the Lord God. Whatever form God took, it certainly allowed for the physical production of sound. His walk was audible; He was making noise.

The verse also mentions the “presence” of God “among the trees” of the garden. It was a presence that Adam and Eve acknowledged and thought they could hide from. So, God’s garden walk included both sound and some sort of presence among the trees.

Even given these two statements, interpretations differ greatly. Some emphasize the fact that God the Father is invisible and cannot be seen by humans. According to this view, God did not appear in the flesh; rather, He took on a symbolic, incorporeal appearance, such as a cloud, much like He did with the Israelites in the desert with Moses (Deuteronomy 31:15).

Others suggest that the idea of God “walking” refers to a theophany—an appearance of God in a tangible, human form. Theologians who hold this view point to a parallel in Genesis 18, where God appears as one of three (seemingly human) visitors to Abraham.

Another theory is based on the Hebrew phrase translated “the cool of the day.” This could be literally translated “the wind of that day.” Some think this might refer to a strong wind. If so, Adam and Eve’s reaction makes more sense. They heard God’s approach as a terrible wind that lashed the trees of the garden, and they took cover. God called (using a Hebrew word that also means “to summon”) Adam to face judgment. Acts 2 records an interesting parallel: the coming of the Holy Spirit was accompanied by “a sound like the blowing of a violent wind” (verse 2). Also, God spoke to Job “out of the whirlwind” (Job 38:1).

Regardless of whether God appeared in human form or in a cloud, or whether He made His presence known by a windstorm, it is clear God Himself confronted the sinners and issued judgment. To the praise of His grace, this judgment also included the promise of a future Redeemer (Genesis 3:15). Thus began a great saga that ultimately led to Jesus Christ, the perfect sacrifice for sin and substitute for sin’s judgment. Through Christ, those who believe are forgiven of sin and receive eternal life (John 3:16).

Trey Knowles’ “The World” is a bold, satirical comedy short that challenges the popular mindset of “only seeing the good.” When people encourage Trey to focus solely on positivity, he responds with a powerful question: “Where are the prophets of old?” — the voices who courageously confronted wickedness in the name of truth.

In Trey Knowles’ “I Am Running,” this short comedy tells a fictional story about Trey being chased by the world for speaking out against sin. Businesses—and even Walt Disney—join the pursuit, determined to silence him. Trey runs so far that he ends up in a dangerous neighborhood known as 18th Street.

In Trey Knowles’ “Who Gives You The Right To Say That,” this funny short highlights how America reacts angrily when Trey speaks out against sin. Trey responds by challenging the culture, saying, “Stop coveting, and I’ll stop calling out your schizophrenia sin.” Both Democrats and Republicans fire back, admitting the people won’t give up coveting because their investments depend on it. They argue that taking away the “right” to covet is the same as taking away their right to make money. The allegory delivers a powerful message: Who do you love more—God or idols of money?

In this short, Trey Knowles jokes that only the wicked need a “Golden Dome” to protect themselves from the chaos they created. Trey hilariously breaks down how America is building shields for Armageddon like it’s a deluxe insurance plan for bad decisions. With nuclear weapons everywhere and fear in the air, Trey asks the real question: Can a golden dome save you from heavenly karma? Or is it just another expensive panic button?

In this funny but thought-provoking short, Trey Knowles calls out European Christians with sharp humor and truth. He reminds them that Jesus taught His followers to love their enemies, turn the other cheek, and overcome evil with good. Yet history shows many chose the sword instead of mercy, violence instead of humility. Trey points out the contradiction—claiming Christ while practicing conquest. With satire and boldness, he warns that the wicked will always reap what they sow, and that true followers of God don’t win battles with blades, but with righteousness, repentance, and love.

In this short message, Trey Knowles explains how the devil attempted to colonize God’s authority in heaven by exalting himself and trying to take God’s place. Because of this rebellion, he was cast out. Trey then challenges listeners with a powerful truth: if the enemy tried to colonize God in heaven, what do you think he is trying to do to you here on earth? The same spirit of domination and control is now directed toward humanity. This message highlights the ongoing spiritual conflict between the offspring of darkness and the offspring of God, reminding us that this battle is happening right now. Trey calls for spiritual awareness, discernment, and strength to resist being spiritually colonized and to remain rooted in God’s truth.

In this short message, Trey Knowles exposes what he describes as Europe’s hidden power structures and the influence of royal authority that shaped global deception. Drawing from Revelation 18:24, Trey challenges listeners to examine the fruit of leadership, tradition, and institutions that claim moral authority yet operate in contradiction to the Spirit of God. He emphasizes that true discernment comes from observing actions, not titles—because character reveals the source of power. Trey urges viewers to test every system, tradition, and ruler against God’s truth, reminding us that deception often appears beautiful on the surface but carries destruction underneath. The message calls for spiritual awareness, repentance, and a return to righteousness so that believers are not misled by appearances, status, or worldly influence.