Edited from Rosette Delacroix's program description on Bitchute:

William Finck joined TruthVids, Scotland Sean and Rosette Delacroix, and a few other of our friends, in a chat regarding various Christian Identity topics. We started out by going over Charles A. Weisman's work and his stance on Dual Seedline. Bill covers exceptionally well why Weisman's interpretation is inaccurate. We also had a number of excellent questions that TruthVids gathered from various subscribers posed to him, that Bill answered for us. We ended by asking Bill if he would be so kind as to join us for another chat in the future. He graciously agreed. We look forward to the next one, which we have tentatively made for the beginning of November. This chat was not posted to YouTube because when Rosette tries to do a chat there with Bill, Sven Longshanks or Dennis Wise, the chat gets blocked. So I will only be posting these here on Bitchute. This is now my main channel and posting platform. We are blessed to have Bill! I hope you enjoy this chat as much as we all did on the panel. Thank you Bill!

Some of my program afterthoughts:

During the initial portion of the discussion, I had in mind to explain how the British Israel position on the other races actually fed the vanity of those who loved their Empire and wanted to justify it. Then when American Christian Identity developed, those sentiments were transmitted to Americans, as America became the leading "superpower" after WW1. These people believed that this concept of "Dominion Theology" gave Anglos a license to rule over and be "teachers" to non-Adamics, who would then become "civilized". Many American CI of Charles Weisman's persuasion still think this, but it is an error which I have often addressed in the past. I regret that I got distracted and this sentiment was not included.

Another thing I may have better elucidated is that the naming of the beasts by Adam in Genesis 2, and his not finding a wife among them, is an anti-thesis to the sin of the fallen angels as it is described in Enoch! This helps to establish the nature of the rebellion of the "fallen angels".

On the Gospel of John, Part 33: Light and Truth

In our last presentation from chapter 12 of the Gospel of John, we made the assertion that Self-sacrifice is the Ideal Sacrifice. Speaking of the sin which is made manifest by the Law, Paul had informed his readers in chapter 5 of his first epistle to the Corinthians to “7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us”, and then in chapter 10 of his epistle to the Hebrews Paul had written “11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.” So there is no other sacrifice that Christians can make except where Christ Himself had admonished, as it is recorded in three gospels, that “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.” Therefore self-sacrifice is not only the ideal sacrifice, but it is the only sacrifice which is expected of Christians, and everything else, the rituals and the sacraments and the pretensions of piety, is superfluous and vain.

This is also evident where, the second time that this same admonition is recorded in the Gospel of Mark, in chapter 10, we see an exchange between Christ and a wealthy young man, which occurred after Christ, being in Judaea, had once again been challenged by the Pharisees, and then we read: “17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? 18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. 19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother. 20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth. 21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me. 22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions. 23 And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!”

What is a “church”?

If you are a nationalist, what should you think about “church”? If you recognize that the world is corrupt, and all of the Christian churches of any denomination are guilty of magnifying, perpetuating, or enabling the corruption, how could you take part in any such church? As either a Christian or a nationalist, how could you contribute to the corruption? If you attend these churches, how could you not be guilty of the sins which they have come to accept?

The Roman Catholic Church might take a public stance against Sodomy, but for centuries it has turned a blind eye to the Sodomy and pedophilia which have been practiced by its own priests. The Orthodox Church is not free of this dilemma, as its priests have also frequently been caught in the same behavior, not only in America but in Europe and elsewhere. The Protestant churches all have these same problems and perhaps to a greater degree. There are records of cases which can be found on the Internet, many sourced from the church organizations themselves, showing that the corruption of Sodomy, pedophilia, adultery and other types of sexual transgression is just as prevalent in these churches as it is in the secular world. For example, churches belonging to the Southern Baptist Convention have suffered 700 documented cases of child sexual abuse in 20 years, as reported this past February by the Houston Chronicle.

Those who commit or who overlook such sins cannot possibly continue to stand against sin. According to the words of Paul of Tarsus in Romans chapter 1, those who accept such sinners are just as guilty of the sins committed by the sinners as the sinners themselves, and he was speaking specifically in reference to Sodomy. While in 2012 the Southern Baptist Convention took a firm stance against Sodomy, it nevertheless resolved to take a “stand against any form of gay-bashing, whether disrespectful attitudes, hateful rhetoric, or hate-incited actions toward persons who engage in acts of homosexuality”, a vague position which could be construed as discouraging, or even condemning any admonishment of Sodomites. Then, by 2014 the Convention was officially neglecting to condemn “gay-tolerant” churches, even church pastors who had begun to proclaim that Sodomy is not a sin, when it certainly is.

Spiritual Sperm?

Here I am going to present and comment on a paper which was first published by Clifton Emahiser in September, 2006.

In my opinion, one important aspect of our New Testament commentaries here at Christogenea is a constant endeavor to illustrate the differences of Biblical Christianity, as it is evident in both the writings of the Old Testament prophets and the New Testament apostles, with the interpretations of Scripture which were accepted and institutionalized after Christianity had emerged from persecution in the 4th century, as a Roman-government approved Church began to take form. To a great degree, these interpretations are still found throughout the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox as well as all of the Protestant churches.

While I am only offering a hypothesis, it is very likely that these differences resulted because Christianity was persecuted by Jews for several centuries, and by the Romans often at the instigation of the Jews, at the same time that it was being infiltrated by Judaizers, which is evident throughout the New Testament epistles and Acts of the Apostles. During this period of persecution, the Judaizers sought to corrupt Christianity, and as Judaic thought gained more and more traction on a persecuted Christianity, there is an evident transition which occurred within the first century of the dissemination of the gospel. The spread of the gospel began as a message to the scattered twelve tribes of Israel and ended by adopting what we may call replacement theology, which is the misguided concept that somehow mere “gentiles”, people of other races and nations, had replaced the actual children of Israel as the object of the promises of God. This happened during a murky period of Christian history from about 100 AD up to the time of Justin Martyr, a period about which little is known. But the apostles, as well as the prophets, had taught that the twelve tribes of Israel which were scattered abroad, and had already become many nations, were being called to Christ. But the Judaic form of Christianity which took root in Palestine and in Alexandria and which ultimately became dominant had taught that anyone who was baptized and believed in Jesus somehow became one of the children of a “new” Israel, which was the ecclesia, and later, the Church.

This situation greatly benefited the Jews, who were then able to claim a special privilege of being the “chosen race”, pretending children of Israel while denying Christ. At the same time, the Christians who had actually descended from the “twelve tribes scattered abroad” and who were the original objects of apostolic evangelizing were ultimately reduced to perceiving themselves as second-class citizens within their own Faith. Ever since the second century, the Jews have been able to position themselves into being perceived as a special class even though they continued to deny Christ, and in spite of the fact that they are not even true Israelites, but rather, they are Edomite bastards. Jewry has always been a criminal enterprise, and thus it was able to continue to this very day.

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.