In Partnership with Yahweh, A Critical Review of a Sermon by Bertrand Comparet

Not counting his commentary series on the Revelation, which we do not plan to critique here, there are nearly 130 sermons posted at the Bertrand Comparet archive at Christogenea. Now, over these past few years, we have already critiqued about a third of them, and we have greatly expanded on more than a few, such as his sermons on Ruth and Esther, and especially his sermon on Christianity in the Old Testament. Our first critique of his work was his sermon on Esther, which we discussed over three of our own presentations in the Spring of 2015, and we have presented commentary on about three dozen of his other sermons since then.

To us this undertaking is important, because for so many Identity Christians, Bertrand Comparet’s work provided a foundation for their understanding of Scripture and was instrumental in helping them to develop a basis for the substance of their faith. Therefore, if we take our faith seriously, that basis must be continually contemplated, measured against Scripture, and if one tenet or another is not upheld by Scripture then we must allow ourselves to be corrected. As we read in the 119th Psalm: “12 Blessed art thou, O LORD: teach me thy statutes. 13 With my lips have I declared all the judgments of thy mouth. 14 I have rejoiced in the way of thy testimonies, as much as in all riches. 15 I will meditate in thy precepts, and have respect unto thy ways. 16 I will delight myself in thy statutes: I will not forget thy word.”

But Bertrand Comparet is not the only Identity teacher or pastor from the past which we have critiqued, and we have treated Wesley Swift, Charles Weisman, and even our dear friend Clifton Emahiser in the same manner, always trying to be as objective as possible. Clifton actually enjoyed, and often watched my critiques of his work in person, even when he did not participate. In fact, we have critiqued many more of Clifton’s papers than those of any other writer, and I feel at least partially responsible for many of them because I worked with Clifton and edited most of them. So our objective is certainly not to trash the graves of dead men, but rather, we seek to build up an even more solid foundation for our faith, in which we endeavor to examine all things and find what is true, and to cleave to that, as Paul of Tarsus advised the Romans, in chapter 12 of his epistle, to “ 2 … be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.”

Now in our endeavor to advance that objective we shall critique this sermon, which is titled In Partnership with Yahweh, because it is highly illustrative of some of the most fundamental differences which we have with Bertrand Comparet. These differences have been the cause of many disputes between ourselves and many long-time Christian Identity adherents over the past twenty years, and regardless of how much we respect Bertrand Comparet, some of his work is still very much in need of correction. However even doing this, we have already critiqued some of the ideas he presents here in relation to another of his sermons, titled Noah's Flood Was Not World Wide, which we presented here in September of 2020. So we shall borrow some of our criticisms for this sermon.

It is Enough to be an Israelite, But Enough for What?, Part 3

Here we shall continue our presentation and critique of Bertrand Comparet’s sermon, Is it Enough Merely to be an Israelite?, but doing so I will probably have to repeat myself at least a few times. That is because Comparet opened his sermon by criticizing Paul of Tarsus in Romans chapter 11, where Paul had properly paraphrased the prophet Isaiah and said “all Israel shall be saved”, yet Paul was speaking of the salvation of the spirit and eternal life, within the context that temporal salvation may not be attained, whereas all of the examples by which Comparet attempts to refute him relate only to the temporal salvation of the flesh or the nation. Disagreeing with Paul where he said “All Israel shall be saved”, Comparet mentioned not one of the many promises of eternal salvation, resurrection, or redemption from death and the grave which are found in either the Old or New Testaments. He only mentioned Isaiah 45:17 while criticizing Paul, and neglected to note Isaiah 45:25, or perhaps he may have realized that he could not have justly criticized Paul.

But Comparet was a trained attorney, and an attorney is never going to introduce evidence which hurts his case. Here he has tried to make a case that Paul of Tarsus was wrong, and that all Israel shall not be saved, and it is our endeavor to defend Paul and his statement. So now, as he continues, while there are indeed many good ideas found throughout his sermon, he only provides examples, some of them quite lengthy, of temporal punishment and temporary deliverance. But those examples do not relate to any of the promises of eternal salvation found in Scripture, and it seems as if, at least in this sermon, Comparet completely failed to distinguish between the two, and to rightly divide the Word of Truth.

Apparently VLC on Windows, which I have used to apply metadata for years, has been ruining podcasts. But only some listeners had problems while others did not. So once again, I have resampled and uploaded a new file, as of 11:30 AM on the 22nd. Thank you for your patience!

It is Enough to be an Israelite, But Enough for What?, Part 1

The medieval Roman Catholic paradigm relating to salvation and heaven, or judgment and hell, has been ingrained into all modern Christian theology to such a degree, having been imbued into our thought from perhaps as long ago as 1,800 years, that it may be one of the most difficult errors of Roman Catholicism to overcome. But it really cannot be overcome at all, until one learns the proper differences between the wheat and the tares, the sheep and the goats, and can identify the good race of fish in the parable of the net. While Bertrand Comparet did know those differences, in my opinion he nevertheless had not fully thought them out in other areas of Scripture, and especially in this area. But we can forgive him, since the subject of salvation and the common perception concerning salvation is probably the deepest rabbit hole in Scripture. No matter how many times one may read the promises to the fathers and the words of Christ, there is always that one verse by which one may imagine that a child of God may ultimately and eternally be cast into the pits of hell, or the Lake of Fire.

But in this light we must ask ourselves: Are the promises to the fathers unconditional guarantees, or are they merely the offer of an opportunity to men?

Then, if they are a mere opportunity: Are we subjected to vanity for our edification, as both Solomon (Ecclesiastes 1:13) and Paul of Tarsus (Romans 8:20-21) had attested, or as a business venture which we may win or lose at any given time?

For example, a man may be a perfectly pious Roman Catholic for many years, never having sinned, having a pious wife and raising pious children, and then one day his neighbor's wife begins hinting at him and making advances, hoping to tempt him into adultery. So the man resists his temptation for many months, and when he is finally about to give in, when he is weak, something happens and he is stricken dead. Just think of the odds. If he had been struck one day later, he may have had his neighbor's wife that afternoon, and spent an eternity in hell! But if he had been struck one week later, he may have had his neighbor's wife, felt sorry after the act and repented, gone to church on Sunday and confessed, and then in a few days he would enter into eternity in heaven! So long as he dropped some cash in the basket and said whatever prayers he was told to say for penance.

Filling the Void, with Dr. Michael Hill

At one time any revelation of the slightest moral offense would cause a man to withdraw from public service, if he were guilty. For example, as recently as 1973 Spiro Agnew plead no contest and resigned as Nixon’s vice president for one charge of felony tax evasion, and although in 1980 he was still claiming his innocence, the claims are doubtful. Of course, Nixon himself resigned a year or so later, upon the revelation of offenses committed by his staff which he was accused of covering up. But more recently, nothing came of claims and evidence that the Obama administration had committed similar offenses against a political opponent, using false evidence as a pretense for a criminal investigation during the 2016 Trump campaign, and the media has been accused of willful blindness.

Today, in comparison, we also have Hillary’s email scandal, Hunter Biden’s laptop scandal, and the glaring violations of law are suppressed or ignored solely for political reasons. Unless you are the opposition. So Donald Trump’s house got raided and the FBI carted off all of his papers, which is unprecedented, and now in a speech delivered yesterday, Joe Biden bordered on declaring as criminals and enemies of the State millions of so-called “MAGA Republicans”, as he called them. Even the liberal progressive news agency NPR reported this morning that "Biden’s speech walks a fine line in its attack on MAGA Republicans".

The gulf between left and right continues to widen, and the political center certainly seems to be deteriorating. Like Rome in its last centuries or the papacy in the years before the Reformation, America is being run by gangs competing for power and looking for ways to hold onto it at the expense of all rivals. This is a time when political dissidents and the disaffected should be looking for tried and true leadership, and not the latest YouTube fad.

White Nationalist Cognitive Dissonance, Part 4: Jacob and Esau for Dummies

The "friend" I discuss in this podcast is David Duke. We spoke at length after the 2022 League of the South Conference in June. A few days after I finished it, I sent him a slightly redacted version of the notes. He never answered, but he is still spreading his lies and making his false arguments. Sadly, most unlearned people readily accept them.

There are one of two ways by which most people approach Scripture, and the first I will mention is the path taken by only a very small minority. One may study the entire Scripture, and eventually take the time to examine the original languages and the context of every passage, noticing who is speaking about whom and to whom it is that the words are directed. The second path is taken by the vast majority, even scholars in other or related fields who are not theologians. On that path, one reads the Scripture superficially, picking out verses or phrases that can be fit into one agenda or the other, because it seems to support some particular assertion or belief.

This past weekend, and for the first time ever, I was able to have a long conversation with a man with whom I have always been in conflict, whom I will not name here since he had indicated, even after we spoke for over an hour, that the conversation is not yet completed. So since I am not going to name him this evening, even if many of our listeners may recognize who it is to whom I am referring, and even if he is actually an acquaintance and not a personal friend, I will simply refer to him as a friend for our purposes here. I know that there are some listeners who will not even like that, but kindness and civility should be returned, and our conversation was conducted with mutual respect and free of any hostility or arrogance.

Christian Identity: What Difference Does it Make?

It is no mistake that 2000 years ago, Christianity spread and was accepted by tribes of White Europeans as they encountered it. It is no mistake that for the last 1500 years Europe has been predominantly Christian. Christianity had spread not only to both Greece and Rome, but also to Britain and other points in Europe as early as the middle of the first century. Tribes in Gaul were converting to Christianity in the second century. By the third century, if not sooner, Germanic tribes of the Goths and Alans had accepted Christianity. All of this was long before the official acceptance of Christianity began with Constantine the Great, the Edict of Toleration and the Council of Nicaea.

To mock Christianity today is to mock a hundred generations of our ancestors. People who mock Christianity think they know something better about our past than their own ancestors, the people who actually lived in those times many centuries ago. The truth is that the people who mock Christianity know little-to-nothing about the world of the past and the circumstances under which their ancestors ultimately accepted Christianity.

There are many incongruities in the perception of the people who mock Christianity today. On one hand they claim that it is a “cuck” religion, and on the other they complain that their ancestors were forced into Christianity by Christians. So they admit that their own ancestors were weaker than the “cucks” they despise. On one hand they claim that Christianity is an effeminate religion, and a Jewish religion, but then they complain that their ancestors were forced into it by Christians. So they admit that their ancestors were weaker than effeminates and Jews. All the while, they proclaim the “might is right” mantra of their own neo-paganism, while professing that their weak ancestors, forced to subject to Christianity, were somehow treated unfairly! Those who mock Christianity are simply too stupid to realize all of these cognitive disconnects, and there are many more that we won’t get into here. We already presented them here a few years ago, in two podcasts titled White Nationalist Cognitive Dissonance.