The Day of Deliverance

While I have often criticized Wesley Swift for some of the fantastic tales that he spun, or because in his sermons he had often cited dubious and even nefarious sources as if they were authorities and fountains of truth, frequently Swift was on target and quite accurate in certain important areas. One of those areas was his early awareness of the descent of our nation into a state of tyranny and communism. Swift understood that as an ongoing process, and he also understood that many of the people would volunteer themselves into tyranny in exchange for a false sense of security.

But this is not a new phenomenon. The vaunted democracy of ancient Athens, which certain “combinations”, or special-interest parties had always sought to undermine, was subverted several times during the Peloponnesian War, where Thucydides explained in Book 8 of his history of the war that after an oligarchy of certain wealthy Athenians was imposed, “The people, hearing of the oligarchy, took it very heinously at first, but when Pisander had proved evidently that there was no other way of safety, in the end, partly for fear and partly because they hoped again to change the government they yielded thereunto.” When the oligarchy failed a couple of years later, Pisander, whose proofs were evidently only propaganda for the elites of his time, had been attacked by the poets for corruption and cowardice and he was also ridiculed for being fat. So he fled to the enemy, to Sparta, and was convicted of treason in absentia.

The Athenians were able to recover their democracy, but it was in a modified form, and ultimately they were defeated by the Macedonians in 338 BC and a short time later had, in effect, lost it forever. However when tyrannical laws are imposed on Americans in the name of security, the process never seems to be reversed, the culprits are never punished, and the government grows more and more powerful. Now, with the Coronavirus scare and the accompanying fear-porn that has paralyzed the nation, the lemmings who readily sell their freedom for security may finally end up completely enslaved. But Wesley Swift already saw that as an ongoing process in 1965, when he gave this sermon.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 6, Demons, Devils and Satyrs

Once again we had many extemporaneous comments and explanations, and not all of them made it into our notes.

In our last presentation we came to the end of chapter 2 of Weisman’s book, and saw in one of his arguments towards the end of his section subtitled “The Enmity” that Weisman agreed with us when he tried to explain it. He admitted that the serpent was an intelligent individual, a person, who had its own order in the world which was contrary to the order of God. Of course, this could not be true of a simple snake created on the 5th day of Genesis chapter 1. So Weisman admitted that the basis for our so-called Two-Seedline belief is true, while at the same time he continued to deny Two-Seedline.

Now we begin to shall address chapter 3 of Charles Weisman’s book, which is simply titled “The Serpent”. Here he offers a lot of conjecture and what we may consider to be straw man arguments, however some Two-Seedline teachers or pastors of the past did indeed hold at least some of the more absurd concepts which Weisman argues against. Once again, I believe we shall see that Weisman’s arguments have no merit once we explain the basis for what we believe. Because this is probably the most important chapter in his book, we may present and address every single paragraph, so that none of our detractors can claim we purposely missed anything which they may then imagine that we cannot answer.

I really don’t like to discuss news or current events, but this evening I have a short program, so I will take a few minutes to discuss the latest media scare, coronavirus. The notes for this are found at the Christogenea Forum, where I am certain there will be further discussion.

The Time of the Heathen – a Critical Review of a sermon by Bertrand Comparet

While I admire and respect Bertrand Comparet as a trailblazer in developing and spreading the truth of our Christian Identity profession, I also believe that his message had a lot of flaws. But some of his errors were merely due to the time in which he lived, and if I had also lived then, doing what I do now, I may well have repeated them. This is because Comparet’s view of eschatology was a product of the Cold War, and apparently, he did not see any possibilities of an end-of-the-world scenario which may have transcended that age of apparent conflict.

But other flaws can evidently be attributed to the fact that his message was not fully developed, and for that reason it had some internal conflicts. For example, while Comparet recognized that there were goat nations and sheep nations, which were genetic races of people with contrary destinies, and of course he also knew that the identity of the sheep was with modern White Europeans, he sometimes also looked at goat nations as if they could somehow be allies of the sheep, and here he clearly makes that mistake.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 3

Once again, there were many extemporaneous remarks and explanations in this presentation. The prepared notes are found below.

This will be part 3 of our discussion addressing aspects of the book: What About the Seedline Doctrine? A Biblical Examination and Explanation of the Cain-Satanic Seedline Doctrine by Charles A. Weisman. We are still in chapter 2 of the book, which is titled “The Basis of the Satanic Seedline Doctrine”. Once again, we still haven’t located a copy of the book which contains the first chapter, but if we ever do, we might have to backtrack a bit to address that also. A friend wrote me this week and I think he may have a copy. Now, as I have said several times already, continuing to examine Weisman’s arguments and methods of analysis, I am certain we shall also continue to find that he failed to answer the question which he himself had posed in the title of his book.

Before we get back to where we left off in Weisman’s book, I would like to discuss this hare-brained idea that our interpretation of Genesis chapter 3 had originated in the Talmud. Perhaps this argument belongs at the end of our address of Weisman’s book, since he has chapters there which present it, but it is brought to the forefront by his supporters, so we shall address it in part now. Concerning our interpretation, I don’t really like to call it “Two-Seedline” but we are sort of stuck with the label because it has long been popular. The label is too narrow, and the real struggle is between two trees, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and the Tree of Life.

The Talmud did not exist in the first century. However the basis for it seems to have developed from what was called the “traditions of the elders”. There was a so-called “oral law” of the Jews, which Christ had condemned and which Moses also condemns, which was eventually written down and compiled into what had evolved and is now known as the Talmud. That does not, however, mean that the entire Talmud had already existed in unified oral traditions. The assorted characters to whom are attributed many of the non-Biblical writings in the Talmud did not live for at least two to six centuries after Christ, and some even beyond that.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 2

There were extemporaneous sections of this podcast which are not included in the notes below, but what is found here is what I was able to prepare in advance in preparation for this presentation.

Here we shall continue our discussion addressing aspects of the book: What About the Seedline Doctrine? A Biblical Examination and Explanation of the Cain-Satanic Seedline Doctrine by Charles A. Weisman. Last week we began in chapter 2, “The Basis of the Satanic Seedline Doctrine”, and we still have not located a copy of the book containing the first chapter, so we shall pick up where we left off. As I also already said, once we see some of Weisman’s arguments and methods of analysis, I am certain we shall find that he failed to answer the question in the title of his book.

But first, before we began addressing Weisman’s book, in our last segment of this presentation we had a basic discussion which I hoped would answer many of the questions which TruthVids often receives from people who are new to Christian Identity. So perhaps we may need to follow up on that and make any further clarifications before we return to addressing Weisman....

Clifton Emahiser on Ted Weiland

Here I have decided to take a short break from my commentary On the Gospel of John, and have a little fun at the expense of a clown named Ted Weiland, a name which is probably too familiar to many of our listeners. But I guess some people will now wonder why I insist on doing this. The truth is that unlike many of the other men whom we have criticized over the years, most of whom we deeply respect in spite of any perceived flaws in their work, Weiland is still alive and well and spouting his nonsense under the pretense of being an Identity Christian, while he has willfully ignored all of our inquiries and criticisms. Weiland is actually a self-righteous universalist who would in effect eradicate Identity from Christianity altogether. But Weiland is also one of the ring-leaders of an entire circus of such clowns, which includes Stephen Jones, James Bruggeman, Jory Brooks and others. Two years ago I would have included Dave Barley in this list, but I have learned that he has openly recanted his former universalism, which is certainly to his credit. However while they are not quite as odious, Barley and Lawrence Blanchard and a few others still have subtle elements of universalism in their doctrines and scriptural interpretations.

Weiland had a book disputing our interpretation of Genesis chapter 3 titled Eve, Did She or Didn’t She? I never read it, but Clifton has a copy on one of the shelves here somewhere and if I ever do, I might have yet another presentation to write. But for that Clifton had criticized Weiland frequently in his Special Notices to All Who Deny Two-Seedline series, and when I presented that here in podcasts throughout 2017, I hope to have expounded upon those criticisms. That series of papers was written by Clifton throughout 2002 and 2003. Then later, as I have also explained elsewhere, our friend Tony Gonyer had written Weiland a letter in 2005, and that letter compelled me to also write to Weiland, which I did in August of that year. Weiland never responded to my letter, and Clifton had it published on the Israelect.com website, where he added some citations from Weiland which were representative of the things with which we took issue. Since I have come to control Israelect.com I redirect many of the papers there to where they are posted at Christogenea. Now since I have been released from prison, since very late 2008, I have encountered Weiland many times in social media, and I have confronted him each time in a kindly manner, but he has only scoffed at me and he has refused to discuss any of these issues with me. For that he certainly does deserve the label clown.

What is Religion?

When I first came to Christian Identity, I gave much thought to the meaning of the word religion. Perhaps this sermon by Bertrand Comparet, titled What is Religion?, had helped to stimulate that process. The primary definition of the word religion in the Oxford Dictionary is “the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.” But although that is what it has come to mean, I believe the original sense of the Latin word from which it was derived has a much deeper meaning, and that this deeper meaning is relevant to our Christian Identity profession. The Latin word religio was used in a manner much like we use the word religion today. But the related word religo is a verb meaning to tie back or tie up, and religatio is a tying back or up. So, according to The New College Latin & English Dictionary, the word religiosus, which is probably the closest antecedent to our word religious, was used to refer to something which was “subject to religious claims, under religious liability.” Liability is “the state of being responsible for something”, so there is the connection to the meaning of the root word religo, in the sense of being tied or bound to a thing.

This in turn brings several Scriptures to mind. First, in Matthew chapter 18, we read in the words of Christ: “15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church [assembly]: but if he neglect to hear the church [assembly], let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.” Then, after admonishing His disciples about sin and guilt and the need to reject men who do not accept correction along those lines, Yahshua Christ had also said “18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” So binding and loosing are related to Christian fellowship and community, or communion, and that in turn is based on an abstention from sin and a keeping of the commandments of God. Paul’s example of such loosing is found in 1 Corinthians chapter 5, where he encouraged the assembly at Corinth to ostracize a fornicator from their community.

Christianity in the Old Testament, Part 6, Israel in the New Testament, by Bertrand Comparet, with Commentary

Here we are going to present, critique, and hopefully elaborate on Bertrand Comparet’s sermon, Israel in the New Testament. These programs are intended to both honor and elaborate on the works of Bertrand Comparet, and to offer any corrections which are necessary, because all men are prone to making errors, and no man can avoid that fate. We are doing this as part of our series on Christianity in the Old Testament because the two subjects are actually a single subject. Comparet himself referred to this sermon in his original presentation of Christianity in the Old Testament. Regardless of the propaganda which is spewed by the denominational churches, both the Old and New Testaments represent racially-based covenants made with the same group of people. One may pick-and-choose passages in the New Testament in order to attempt to dispute that, but those passages are being taken out-of-context when such interpretations can be clearly shown to conflict with many plain statements made in either Testament which refute the validity of any universalist interpretation.

To the sincere Christian, Judaism should have no standing or consideration whatsoever. The promise of a future new covenant was made explicitly in both Jeremiah and Ezekiel. The condemnation revoking the old covenant was spelled out explicitly in both Hosea and Zechariah. The Jews as a people have never fulfilled any of the many promises made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob concerning the children of Israel. They will never fulfill them, because the Old Testament is a Christian book. With all certainty, it can be shown in history that the Keltic and Germanic peoples have their origins in ancient Israel and Mesopotamia, and that they did indeed fulfill all of those promises. They also accepted the new covenant that was explicitly promised for Israel, and they accepted Yahshua Christ the Messiah of Israel, who came “to confirm the promises made unto the fathers”, as Paul of Tarsus attests. This is the basic premise of Bertrand Comparet’s sermon, it is a true premise, and now we shall commence to hear it from him...

Christianity in the Old Testament, Part 4, a continuing presentation of Bertrand Comparet's Sermon, with our own Commentary

In the first part of this series, we described the meaning and the use of the word catholic by early Christian writers, and we demonstrated that originally the term described the reception and acceptance of the Christian faith, as coming from the Scriptures of both the Old and New Testaments, the Scriptures which were handed down by the apostles of Christ. In that original sense, we then asserted that Identity Christians are the true catholics, since of all of the modern Christian denominations, only we understand that both testaments, and both covenants, apply exclusively to ourselves. And of course, saying Identity Christians we include only White Europeans, the only people for whom the apostles intended the Gospel.

Then in parts two and three, we began a presentation and critique of Bertrand Comparet’s sermon on the Christian nature of the Old Testament. Doing this, we hoped to expand somewhat on Comparet’s original sermon, while adding our own opinions and outlining the reasons for our differences wherever we may disagree with him.

One topic we expanded on in part three of this series was the sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham. While Comparet described it as a foreshadow of Christianity from his own perspective, and said little that we had any serious disagreement with, our Christian faith is often condemned on this account, that a man would sacrifice his own son. So for that reason we were compelled to expand on Comparet’s sermon to a large degree.

Our pagan adversaries often complain that human sacrifice is Jewish in nature. We agree, that human sacrifice is evil. However we took the time to demonstrate that human sacrifice is also pagan, and that ancient pagan literature has many instances of human sacrifice which was looked upon favorably and even blessed by pagan gods. We gave as examples the sacrifice of Iphigenia by Agamemnon, the king of the Danaans, and the sacrifice of nine of his own sons to Odin by the ancient Swedish King On, or Ane. We also illustrated the fact that these heathen kings sacrificed their own children for their own personal gain. But Abraham, sacrificing Isaac, had nothing to gain. Everything promised to him was to come through Isaac, his only heir. So which of these ancient sacrifices are Jewish in nature? In the end we must admit that the heathen sacrifices are worthy to be called Jewish, but Abraham’s sacrifice was selfless, a token of his obedience to his God rather than to his own lusts for money and power.

Christianity in the Old Testament, Part 2, a presentation of Bertrand Comparet's Sermon, with our own Commentary

In the first part of this series, we had a long introduction of our own which asked the question What is a Catholic? Doing that, first we gave a brief exhibition from history and the prophets in order to help explain why it matters. Then we endeavored to provide a definitive answer from both the Greek meaning of the word καθολικός and from the earliest Christian writers. From there, we provided much evidence that originally, the word was applied to the origination and the acceptance of the Christian faith, and not to its application. A true and original Catholic accepts both Old and New Testaments in relation to himself and his people, and understands that both testaments are Christian testaments. At the same time, we would assert that a true Catholic can only accept both testaments if he or she is one of those people with whom were made those “catholic covenants”, as Irenaeus called them. In order to substantiate our arguments, we mentioned the Book of Odes from the Codex Alexandrinus. We had provided a commentary on that book here three months ago. Then we cited the early Christian writers Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Lactantius. And then, to establish what it was that the ancients saw as the world, we cited both Irenaeus and Martin Luther.

Lastly, we made a brief exhibition showing ancient attitudes towards the negro, citing two historical sources: the first century BC historian Diodorus Siculus, and the first century AD Christian work titled The Shepherd of Hermas. There we quoted a passage from the 9th Similitude of the 3rd Book, which was subtitled “Building of the Militant and Triumphant Church”, and which explains that blacks are an unredeemable and lawless race. Therefore it should not be a stretch to imagine that a truly militant, and ultimately triumphant Christian is one who stands against race-mixing, the likes of which we see all around us this very day. In the first centuries of Christianity, blacks were excluded from the “world”, and they must continue to be excluded. However knowing the Scriptures we must also exclude all other races, which were not a part of the “world” from the time of Christ to the time of Luther. So, we said that: Christianity is only for White Europeans, and Niggers certainly are unredeemable. And any of our White brethren who do not repent, and who have not yet been blasphemers or traitors, had certainly better repent soon or they are going to end up in the Lake of Fire along with the Niggers. All blasphemers and traitors to our race and our God are already headed in that very direction.

Now, we stand by these words. However saying these things, some of our critics have accused us of diverging from our teaching of absolute salvation for the children of Israel, and have even accused us of embracing the so-called “works salvation” similar to that of the denominational churches. But our critics are fools, because nothing is further from the truth. We have not capitulated on anything which we have taught in the past concerning our Adamic race and salvation. Rather, our critics are simply too dull to realize that making that statement last week, we used the term Lake of Fire as an allegory to represent temporal destruction, which is what it is. Not temporary destruction, but temporal, meaning worldly as opposed to spiritual. The student of Scripture should understand that non-Adamic people do not have the spirit of God in them, and therefore they are “twice dead”, as the apostle Jude had called certain infiltrators among Christians of his time, where the apostle Peter called them “evil beasts made to be taken and destroyed.”

A critical review of the sermon False Prophets, by Bertrand L. Comparet

It has been nearly two years since we have made a presentation from the sermons of Bertrand Comparet, and doing so once again we hope to offer both constructive criticism and also some clarification and edification of Comparet's work wherever we can. Doing this, we will also present the critical notes of Clifton Emahiser from his own publication of Comparet's work. These sermons were originally digitized by Jeanne Snyder, which is where I became familiar with them back in 1998, and then again by Clifton where he was compelled to offer several of his own remarks as appendices. We may move his remarks to pertinent sections of the sermon as we present it.

As I have explained in the past, we make these occasional presentations of Comparet’s material for two reasons. First, we as Identity Christians praise Yahweh our God with much gratitude for men like him, who helped to lead us to Christian Identity truth. And secondly, since no man is perfect, we can honor our teachers but we cannot worship them, we cannot imagine that they are infallible, and we cannot place any of them upon a pedestal. We are all mere men, we can all be criticized, and at times, at least, any of us may be wrong and require correction. Therefore it is our obligation to test the work of our teachers, and, when we can, to correct, improve and build upon that work in order to bring this truth which we have at least a little closer to its perfection. That being said, we know we will never achieve perfection, but we also know that there is always space for improvement.

A Critical Review of Let’s Examine the Evidence, by Bertrand Comparet

This evening we are going to present a sermon by Bertrand Comparet titled Let’s Examine the Evidence. The purpose of the sermon is to prove through an assessment of certain of the parables of Yahshua Christ that the New Testament is consistent and contiguous with the Word of God in the Old Testament, and therefore that all of the promises of the Old still stand for the children of Israel under the New.

We are going to offer several of our own comments both supporting Comparet’s work, and sometimes criticizing and seeking to correct his work. As we have often said concerning Bertrand Comparet and other Christian Identity teachers of the past, we owe them a debt of gratitude for the wonderful work and excellent research which they did, blazing a trail for us in our quest for Biblical truth. But we also owe it to them and to ourselves to correct any errors they made along the way, and to further edify the work which they left us. We would be honored if in the future, others did that same thing with our own work.

If our text here varies slightly from what is posted at the Bertrand Comparet archive at Christogenea, it is only because we amended parts of Clifton’s original publication from a taped presentation made by Comparet himself, and then we realized that two different taped presentations of Comparet’s sermon exist in our archives, so the slight differences were probably made by Comparet himself.

Christogenea Internet Radio December 25th, 2015

Just this past week two members of our extended family of friends and listeners have lost spouses. Our prayers and deepest sympathies are with them. We also have some dear friends who are sick, and our prayers are with them constantly. We pray for their well-being and recovery, but of course we also understand that the will of Yahweh our God is not always what we desire. So we honor Him whether our prayers prevail or not. We grieve upon the passing of a loved one, and we should. Of course we shall miss them. But as knowing Christians we also have a sure hope that the loss is no loss at all, but is rather only a temporary separation. As we read in 1 Corinthians chapter 15: “12 Now if Christ is proclaimed, that from of the dead He has been raised, how do some among you say that there is not a restoration of the dead? 13 Then if there is not a restoration of the dead, neither has Christ been raised; 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation is empty, and empty is your faith. 15 Then we are also found to be false witnesses of Yahweh, because we have testified concerning Yahweh, that He raises the Anointed, which He does not raise if indeed then the dead are not raised. 16 Indeed if the dead are not raised, neither has Christ been raised, 17 but if Christ has not been raised, empty is your faith; you are still in your errors. 18 And then those that have been dying in Christ have been destroyed. 19 If only in this life have we had hope in Christ, we are the most pitiable of all mankind. [Even the pagans had always believed that the spirit of a man survived the physical body.] 20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruit of those who are sleeping. 21 Indeed since death is through a man, restoration of the dead is also through a man. 22 Just as in Adam all die, then in that manner in Christ all shall be produced alive.”

When I first began to study Christianity, after being introduced to Christian Identity, I thought long and hard for many months, comparing in my mind the materialist worldview of life and death to the transcendental worldview expressed in Scripture. As I progressed through reading the Bible cover-to-cover for the first time, I encountered the book of Ecclesiastes and I realized that the failure of the materialist worldview was addressed 3,000 years ago by Solomon. That book was written with a purposely cynical attitude because the author in his wisdom wanted to relate to us that there is no hope without our God, and, in turn, if there is a God then indeed we have hope. I then came to realize that all is indeed vanity, unless there be a God, and since both the wonders of Creation and the marvels of prophecy have the signature of our God all over them, then all is not vain, and the promises of Christianity must be true. Now I have no doubt at all, that the confidence expressed by Paul of Tarsus is true, and to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. With this we hope to encourage our brethren.

Christogenea Internet Radio, October 30th, 2015 - A critical review of the sermon Historic Proof of Israel's Migrations, by Bertrand Comparet

Since we are still on the road we are going to present another paper by Bertrand Comparet, along with some hopefully constructive criticism. We are doing this with the hope of putting Comparet's sermons in perspective. Over the years, we have had many critics who have expressed chagrin for many of the things we have said about Bertrand Comparet, or Wesley Swift and others, and that is quite unfortunate. We can appreciate our teachers, as we should. But we should not put them on pedestals. Rather, we must build on their work, and offer corrections when it is needed. So when we offer criticism of Bertrand Comparet, it should certainly not be seen as a condemnation of a good man. Rather, we must move forward from where he and others have left us, and continue to develop a better Christian Identity understanding, through further study of the Scriptures along with history and archaeology. Comparet helped to point the way, but he alone is certainly not the destination.

Last week, we presented a critical review of Bertrand Comparet's sermon Israel's Fingerprints. After doing so, this week we listened to a little more of Comparet's original recording. Disappointingly, we have found that apparently Jeanne Snyder had left out a portion of Comparet's words when she transcribed the sermon, or we may have been a little more critical of Comparet than we were. I do not know why Jeanne did that, and since she passed on in 2008 I may never know. But I do know that she had always seemed to be sincere and sought to defend Comparet and help protect his legacy. We can only be left guessing. Perhaps realizing that some of his comments on prophecy were not entirely accurate, she having had the benefit of maybe twenty additional years of hindsight, simply omitted some of his comments. For my part, I would rather she had transcribed all of Comparet's original words.