- Christogenea Saturdays
Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 23: Trees Good and Evil
We had started to address the portion of this final chapter of Weisman’s book under the subtitle “Elements of the Seedline Doctrine”, where we had left off with a discussion of the explanation of the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares provided by Christ Himself in Matthew chapter 23, as Weisman had mentioned the tares without elaboration. Evidently, Weisman took for granted the acceptance of his notion that tares were only tares because they were followers of the devil – as he had argued in another context on page 30 of his book – rather than being tares because they actually had been planted by the devil. Yet it must be the case, that the actual origin of the tares is with the devil, because as the apostle explained, Christ had come to reveal things kept secret from the foundation of the world. So if these things were kept secret for that long, since that very time which the Genesis account describes, then that is when the events must have actually occurred. The planting of tares among the wheat must be speaking in reference to the events described in a parable in Genesis chapter 3, and the subsequent scattering throughout the Adamic world of the children of Cain, the Rephaim – who are Nephilim – and other groups which may be associated with the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Actually, it is a wonder to us that Weisman did not even mention the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares until this very point in his book, where he only made a passing reference to tares and said “The tares are apparently a satanic group of people.” But notice that he said group, and not race, however in that same paragraph Weisman had already spoken of “God’s people” and said that “Jesus spoke of ‘the tares’ or ‘children of the wicked,’ who were contrasted with the ‘good seed.’” So in that case Christ is telling us that their parents were wicked, and we see that He is speaking of a race of wicked people, not merely wicked individuals. In both cases in Matthew 13:38 the word for children is υἱός, which is a son, and the word for seed is σπέρμα, which is offspring. If the people of God are physical offspring of a particular individual, then the seed of the devil also must be physical offspring of a particular individual. Weisman could not offer an exegesis of the parable because doing so he would not have been able to conceal his blatant dishonesty.
Earlier in that paragraph, Weisman admitted that the Canaanites, Edomites and others were entirely wicked and “as a race these nations were satanic without any redeeming qualities.” While Weisman refused to acknowledge precisely why those races were satanic, he nevertheless admitted that they were satanic races. Here we have already presented the actual recorded history, as well as the New Testament scriptures, which explain how men from those satanic races had been in a position to have been the adversaries of Christ in the course of His ministry. Weisman must have known elements of that history, yet he purposely chose to neglect them, claiming on page 32 of his book that “The Jews (or more correctly, Judeans) that Jesus was talking to in John 8 were true Israelites.” But in fact, they were not true Israelites as Christ had told them in John chapter 10 – in another passage that Weisman had never once cited – “26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.” So Weisman insisted that the Jews who opposed Christ were Israelites, and Yahshua Christ informs us otherwise. How did Weisman miss those words, or if he saw them, why did he not address them? Again, it can only be for reason that he was being purposely dishonest.
Now we shall continue where we left off with Weisman, in the middle of page 52 of his book, and he raises a topic from chapter 4, after having admitted that there were satanic races:
So the question is not if satanic seedlines exist, but why they exist. It seems that all of the satanic seedlines that existed in scripture were due to the fact that one of their ancestors were cursed or rejected by God.
First, the premise that the “ungodly” and their children are rejected only for their ungodliness, in the sense of impiety, is wrong. Abraham himself had come from a line of pagans, as the entire Adamic world had fallen into paganism, as we read in Joshua chapter 24: “2 And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood [which is a reference to the river Euphrates] in old time, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods.” A little further on in that chapter we see the Israelites themselves had already fallen into paganism, barely a decade after the wandering in the desert, and he exhorts them: “14 Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the LORD. 15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.”
The ancient Israelites, having turned to paganism once again from the time of Jeroboam I and well beyond the time that they were all taken away into captivity by the Assyrians, were never considered unredeemable in spite of all of the grievous sins which they committed, and the entire body of the prophets contains many promises that they will ultimately be reconciled and be obedient to their God, although they had never been obedient to Him in the past. The Gospel and writings of the apostles are the announcement of that reconciliation.
So there must be something more than mere impiety which makes an entire race of people into the permanent enemies of God, to the point where every last one of them, man, woman and child, must be destroyed. There must be something more than mere impiety which makes a tare a tare. The ancient Israelites had worshipped devils and demons, they had sacrificed their own children to pagan idols, they committed fornication and adultery, they committed murder, robbed and stole from their own neighbors, even selling their own brethren into slavery. But even with all those sins being committed over many generations, they were still promised reconciliation, so long as they are sons and not bastards. That is the “something more”, which even Paul of Tarsus admits as the cause of ineligibility for redemption, yet Weisman never explained what that something more is, and never raised the prospect that something more is even necessary. If merely impious people were permanently estranged from God, we would not be here to discuss this, as there would be no people.
Now as he continues, Weisman contradicts even himself by saying:
Which brings us to Cain. Cain was cursed and rejected by God. Cain had a seedline. Cain’s curse and rejection would come upon his descendants. It thus is only logical that Cain’s seedline would be ungodly, and that an enmity would exist between his seedline and God’s chosen seedline through Seth, Noah and Abraham. It seems to be generally accepted by Bible scholars that this situation existed.
Saying that Cain’s seedline would be at enmity with that of Noah and Abraham is an admission that Cain’s seedline survived the flood of Noah, and that it survived even to the time of Abraham. Yet where the Kenites are mentioned in later Scripture, beginning in Genesis chapter 15 where Yahweh God was speaking to Abraham, throughout chapter 4 of his book Weisman refused to accept the fact that the Kenites were the descendants of Cain! In fact, he tried to claim that the Kenites of Genesis chapter 15 and Numbers chapter 24 were only the inhabitants of a certain city, something which we also had proved to be wrong. Weisman’s own words prove that he has been lying throughout this entire book. He adopts one position on something in one chapter, and a completely different position on that same thing two chapters later. Now he continues with another half-hearted admission:
So we see that many of the elements of the Cain-Satanic Seedline doctrine do exist in Scripture. The question or issue is not that a Cain-satanic seedline existed, but to what extent they existed in the past, and why their enmity and ungodliness existed. The enmity and satanic nature was due to God’s curse and rejection of Cain because of Cain’s act of murder. It was not due to Eve having sex with a supernatural, satanic being.
This is Weisman’s insistence, but he never proved it. Cain was rejected before he killed his brother, as his sacrifice, the fruit of his own hands, was rejected by God. Yahweh then informed him that if he could not do good, it was because sin “lieth at the door”, indicating that Cain could not do well because of the circumstances of his birth, because he was a bastard. So he immediately went and killed his brother. Throughout Scripture, many murderers were granted clemency, given a punishment less severe than that which they were worthy of, and continued in their inheritance. David is the foremost example of these.
But Cain’s act of murder could not be punished according to the law, because at the time, the law had not yet been received so there was no law prohibiting murder, and the sin could not be imputed. Therefore Cain was punished indirectly, according to his sin, and his line would be preserved, although they would be fugitives and vagabonds. But why would Yahweh assure Cain that he would be preserved, while Cain himself feared being slain? Why would Yahweh care to preserve a murderer? There is only one possible explanation, which is that Cain is indeed the “seed of the serpent” of Genesis 3:15 which Yahweh had to preserve so that His Own prophecy of enmity between those two seeds would be fulfilled.
Now, under yet another subtitle, Weisman continues:
EVIL WITHIN OR WITHOUT
An analysis of the human heart and mind reveals an interesting fact about how we tend to perceive such things as evil, corruption, enemies, or problems in our lives and in the world. We naturally want such things to come from without our personal domain, rather than from within it. It is unsettling to our nature, and thus hard for us to accept, that evil or harmful things should come from within ourselves, our family, our government, our nation, our race, or our God. It is much more appealing, and thus easier to accept, that such things come from outside ourselves, our family, our government, etc.
This is Weisman’s own psychological reason for the existence of our Two-Seedline doctrine, but we would assert that we do not need psychology, because we clearly get out doctrine from the Scriptures themselves. Neither do we reject the ability of men, even of ourselves, to sin. Rather, Weisman is only imagining that we do this. So his entire argument is based on false premises. He continues:
Let us look at some illustrations of this psychological concept.
1. When a problem arises among two or more people, there is a natural tendency to blame the other person or persons for the problem rather than ourselves, even if our accusation is obviously false.
These are Weisman’s words, and not ours. We do not accept them as true, and they certainly are not universally true. There are some people who are sometimes selfish and blame others for their errors, but Christians must be ready to admit their errors, as the Scriptures exhort us to do. We do not blame our own failures on some imaginary enemy.
Yet the consequence of national sin throughout the Old Testament informs us that Yahweh God uses our enemies to chastise us for our sin, and that phenomenon can also be identified in history today. So in the Gospel of Luke it is pronounced that Christ shall save us from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us. It is our Two-Seedline Christian Identity endeavor not only to point out our own sin, but also to identify those enemies which are against us. If the enemy is not identified, the sin cannot be stopped, since an acceptance of the eternal enemies of Christ is also a primary cause of the sins of our people.
Weisman continues with his spelunking, attempting to send his readers down more psychological rabbit-holes:
2. When you tell someone of the evil, corruption, and harmful things their own government is doing, they reject it and don’t want to hear it. But if you tell them lies and distortions about the corruption or evil acts done by some dictator or leader in a foreign country, they will accept it.
Of course, this has nothing to do with Two-Seedline, yet – as we have also already shown – even the apostles of Christ had taught that there were intruders, false prophets and teachers, who were privily introduced into the congregations of God to lead them astray. The governments of old were corrupted by outsiders who had somehow gotten into the congregations and worked themselves into positions of power and authority.
But this is only an emotional argument based on vague generalities, and a straw man argument because it is not related to the issues here. Now Weisman, evidently because he sought to make a long list which had an authoritative appearance, offers a similar argument:
3. A parent will accept lies about the unruly nature or wrongdoing of other children, but will naturally reject the truth of such matters in regards to their own children.
Again, this has nothing to do with our Two-Seedline profession. It may sometimes be true, but it is unrelated to anything we say or teach about the Scriptures. Now Weisman lists another argument which we have also addressed earlier in this book:
4. Christians have always had a difficult time accepting that their God causes evil, plagues and troubles in their lives and nation, regardless of all the supporting evidence in Scripture. Thus in their minds they had to conjure up another god, a god of evil, who causes wicked people and tribulation in the world. They call this god Satan or the Devil, and fear it as they should be fearing the true God. It is acceptable because evil now comes from without.
But referring to the punishments which were going to come upon the children of Israel for their sin, it is clear in Scripture that the punishment was imposed by the will of God. So we do not reject that concept. But as we explained, there are different types of evil. There is evil which is evil to men, but which accomplishes the will of God for the correction of men. That is the type of evil which comes from Yahweh. But then there is evil which is rebellion against God and the transgression of the law, and for that evil Yahweh God Himself cannot be blamed, even if He saw it coming and announced that it would come. Men must take responsibility for their own evil. Weisman refused to recognize this type of evil where he speaks of the evil which is from God. The evil from God is only evil in the eyes of men, and Weisman also failed to explain that. Why did he not make these distinctions?
Furthermore, we consider Satan to be a collective entity operating in this world, in the form of a race, or really races, of people. But we do not imagine that there is a devil in heaven, nor do we imagine that Satan, or the Devil, is a god. There may have been some Christian Identity pastors or teachers who have professed that, but it is a Baptist teaching, and not a Christian teaching. The truth is that many Protestant churches, and even many Roman Catholics, do think that Satan is a supernatural spirit-being who causes all of the evil in the world, and none of them accept Two-Seedline. Many of them are not even aware of our doctrine. So that too is a straw man argument on Weisman’s part, as the argument is a fundamental issue, and not an issue related to Two-Seedline. It seems that Weisman had introduced these other heresies into Two-Seedline so that he could argue against them, but we do not profess any of his innovations. He continues with his list of reasons, which are actually his own pot-boiled prevarications:
5. Many Americans today are concerned about aliens from outer space, and how they are going to control or affect things in their nation. But they have no concern for the aliens that are on this planet and already in America. The alien problem is within, not without.
Now this is a ridiculous slander, to include something like this and impress upon the reader that it is one of the reasons for our Two-Seedline profession. However if one thinks that Wesley Swift is the sole representative of Two-Seedline doctrine, perhaps Weisman is not entirely wrong to present this, as Swift was caught up in all sorts of science-fiction delusions. However other teachers of Two-Seedline doctrine did not follow that path, and men such as Bertrand Comparet exhibited Two-Seedline exclusively from the Scriptures.
In truth, we understand that all of the aliens among us are the collective “seed of the serpent”, as they were not created by God. Rather, they can all be traced backwards or forwards to the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, having their destiny in the “fire prepared for the devil and his angels”. While we may not know the details of their origin, if they share their destiny with the devil and his angels, that must be their origin. They are corruptions of God’s Creation perpetrated from the fall of the “angels who left their first estate”, yet we do not even believe that fall to have been from “outer space”. We are only concerned with these aliens among us, as they are the enemies from whom Christ had promised to deliver us, and the Jews are preeminent among them.
Next, Weisman repeats another argument he already presented here, but in different terms:
6. Man tends to look at evil and sin as problems being without, while denying or ignoring that which is within himself, or his own carnal nature. As Christ said: That whatsoever thing from without enters into a man, it cannot defile him. For from within, out of the heart of man, proceed evil thought, adulteries, fornication, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, …
All these evil things come from within, and defile the man. [Citing Mark 7:18-23]
And with this we almost agree, as a Christian confesses his sin and confronts it, renouncing it rather than giving it an occasion to destroy him or those around him. As we explained earlier in this series, Paul of Tarsus wrote at length of the two natures of Adamic man, the carnal which may lead him to sin, and the spiritual by which man has the ability to overcome the carnal. This is found in chapters 5 through 7 of Paul’s epistle to the Romans, and particularly in chapter 6.
However this has nothing to do with the fact that there are also evil races in the world, carnal men “having not the Spirit”, as the apostle Jude had explained, who are satanic and who therefore cannot please or do the will of God. Christ Himself had said, as it is recorded in Luke chapter 6, “43 For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” A corrupt tree which cannot produce good fruit is a corrupt race of people that can never please God. A good tree cannot produce corrupt fruit because the children of God are inherently good, and forgiven even if they sin. It is the bastard which shall not enter into the congregation of Yahweh, and not the mere sinner, who is offered mercy in Christ.
Now Weisman offers yet another lie:
Note that Christ never blamed the devil or satan for the evil and corruption in the world. He is telling us to look within ourselves for evil and sin.
But in that same passage from Luke chapter 6, Christ is clearly speaking of trees as races of men where He says: “44 For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes. 45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.” We know this refers to race because it is a parallel allegory to what is found in Matthew chapter 12, where Christ exclaimed “34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.” Children of the wicked, offspring of vipers, these labels describe a race of people, and not mere individuals.
So Christ is not speaking of ideas or doctrines here, as as thorns, bramble, figs or grapes. Relating men to different types of trees, and informing us that bad trees cannot produce good fruit, we see that these trees certainly do represent races of men. But this is not fully apparent until the composition of 1st century Judaea is understood, as it consisted of both Israelites, and in rather large numbers, Edomites.
In the beginning, when Adam was created, there was a Tree of Life, and there was a Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. In the Gospel of Christ, it is revealed in more than one way that the Tree of Life is God and His people. As Christ told His apostles, “I am the Vine, ye are the branches”, and as we see in the description of the City of God in Revelation chapter 22: “2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.” The twelve fruits represent the twelve tribes of the children of Israel, whose names are written on the gates of that city.
Therefore in the parables of Christ, the good tree, the wheat, the good seed, they are His people, and He planted them just as the only race which God took credit for creating in Genesis is the Adamic race. In Genesis chapter 10, in the table of nations, it is historically demonstrable that they were all White. But from where are the bad trees which cannot produce good fruit? In Genesis, everything which Yahweh God created, He proclaimed to be good, so ostensibly, God created nothing bad.
However there are clearly races here which Yahweh God did not plant. The sin of Judah goes back to the very time of Judah himself. So it is said in Malachi that Judah “married the daughter of a strange god”, and the Shelahites in Judah were from his Canaanite wife. Later, they were discounted from the inheritance of Judah as the sons of Pharez, whom Judah had with Tamar, had inherited the scepter. When the prophets Jeremiah, in chapter 2, and Ezekiel, in chapter 16, gave reason for the sins of Judah in the period of the Old Kingdom, they were attributed to race-mixing with the Canaanites, and the prophet Malachi used Judah himself as an example that it was happening again in his own time, as the priests were polluting the covenant of Levi. In Jeremiah Yahweh had lamented “21 Yet I had planted thee a noble vine, wholly a right seed: how then art thou turned into the degenerate plant of a strange vine unto me? ” The answer was a description of the race-mixing in Judah. Later, the Judah of Malachi’s warning became the Judea of the time of Christ. So Christ declared that “Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.” Christ certainly did explain the reason for the apostasy in Judaea as originating with the bastards that had infiltrated and usurped the kingdom, and therefore the apostles Jude and Peter described it in that same manner.
Now Weisman gets near the source of our modern-day problems, which are caused by the same phenomena that plagued the ancient kingdom, but he never quite goes all the way to find the appropriate conclusion, where he says:
The closer we look within ourselves, our race, our government, etc., the closer we will get to the real source of the problems and evils that affect us. But this is unpleasing to our sensibility and offends our ego and pride. Thus we want the evil and problems which touch our lives to come from without, and will accept lies and falsehoods which say it is so. The farther away the source of evil and problems is, the more acceptable it is to our nature.
This is also an emotional appeal and a straw man argument. We do not sit and blame all our of problems on far-away Jews or a Devil in outer space. That is absurd. But the closer we look at our race and our government, we see traitors who have sold themselves as whores to commerce and joined themselves to the Beast, which is exactly what the Word of God says in reference to the children of Israel in Revelation chapters 17 and 18, and we see Jews everywhere in political offices, government agencies and in control of international banks and corporations, as we are also told in Revelation chapter 13 that it is the Dragon which gives its power to the beast, and warned in Revelation chapter 17 that the children of Israel would turn over there kingdom to the beast. All of this is easily explained once it realized that the Jews are the Dragon, that the system of global governance, commerce and so-called brotherhood of man is the Beast. However Weisman ignores most of the New Testament, even though these things are also attested in the Old Testament.
We near the end of page 54 and Weisman is starting to move towards a conclusion, but we still have a ways to go, so he says:
Now let us look at the “Jewish problem.” Most every one can recognize that there is a spirit of ungodliness and anti-Christianity with the people known as Jews. Throughout all of history we have examples of Jewish hostility towards white Christians, and the harmful effects Jews have had on the European nations. They have clearly been as aliens in our midst destroying our way of life.
So Weisman can see this, but cannot make the next logical conclusion, that the Jewish proclivity for such treachery must be genetic? Why else is it that the Jews as a people have never produced good fruit? If Jews have acted in the same pattern for 2,000 years, and if they still act that way today, and if they are absolutely unlikely to ever change, how are they not a bad tree which cannot produce good fruit? And if, as Weisman would acknowledge elsewhere, the nations of Christian Europe are the descendants of Old Testament Israel, yet the Jews are forever opposed to them, how is this not a product of the same entity described in Genesis 3:15? Weisman admitted here that the descendants of Cain would be at enmity with the descendants of Seth, Noah and Abraham, but then he has denied it even as he admits it.
And Weisman moves even closer to the root of the problem, without ever reaching it:
Israel of old also suffered much from captivities and alien control over their life, liberty and property. But Israel’s problem was never the Canaanites, Philistines or Assyrians, it was within their nation, their race, and their own hearts and minds. The same is true regarding the Jew.
To interrupt Weisman mid-paragraph, the Philistines and the Assyrians were notable and powerful nearby nations, whom Yahweh God had used to chastise the children of Israel when they were disobedient. But that alone does not make either Philistines or Assyrians evil, and Christ Himself had said that the Assyrians, in reference to the men of Nineveh, would be in the resurrection. So the Adamic Philistines shall also be there.
But the Canaanite is another story. Among several similar warnings concerning the Canaanites, we see in Joshua chapter 23: “13 Know for a certainty that the LORD your God will no more drive out any of these nations from before you; but they shall be snares and traps unto you, and scourges in your sides, and thorns in your eyes, until ye perish from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you.” For this same reason, we see the Canaanites were indeed snares and traps to the children of Israel, as the sins of Israel are described 800 years later, in the words of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. But the Canaanites, and the related Edomites, had never perished from the land, and instead they flourished in it as Israel and Judah were taken into captivity. Later, after the return of some of Judah with Zerubbabel and the eventual rise of Jerusalem in the 2nd century BC, those Canaanites and Edomites were all converted to Judaism, and the result is the Jews of today. Christ told them plainly who they were, and so did His apostles, but Weisman steadfastly refused to see it.
Their ungodliness and cursed ways would not have any affect on us if we did not have problems within ourselves, such as believing they are God’s chosen people, or that all people are equal. The Jews are a problem just like the fox is a problem. If we are so foolish to ignore the innate characteristics foxes have exhibited throughout the centuries, and believe the humanistic tripe that they are equal with all the other farm animals, and thus allow them equal access to the farmyard, then we have no one to blame but ourselves for the loss of chickens from the chicken coup.
Earlier in this book, Weisman insisted that the Jews that had opposed Christ were all Israelites. Now he is saying that Jews, in the context of the last 2,000 years, are not God’s people, and are foxes destroying the other farm animals. So why does Weisman want it both ways? Why is he contradicting what he said in earlier chapters? Because he is dishonest and lying, that is why. He uses the argument he needs to support his lies, and has no real care for the truth.
Weisman is correct about the sins of the Christian children of Israel, but does not recognize, or does not concede, that it is Jews, and converso-Jews, who taught egalitarianism and humanism to the world, as they destroyed the medieval world in a series of European revolutions, and they are the enforcers of those satanic creeds to this very day.
As it says in the Revelation, in chapter 20, “7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, 8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. 9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.” All nations have been gathered against the camp of the saints in the name of humanism and egalitarianism, and the Jews have fulfilled the role of Satan by organizing it all. In the post-apostolic period, it was Jews who went to Antioch and Alexandria to teach Christians “replacement theology”, a false theology which inevitably led to Christian universalism, and in the medieval church, it was Jews who promoted medieval universalism. Furthermore, they have always held the claim of being “God’s Chosen People” even when most Christians still believed that they were accursed.
So even Weisman admits that Jews are playing the role of the Devil, while he denies that they themselves are devils. In his next paragraphs, Weisman attempts once again to cover for the Jews, and we will pick up at that point when we return to finish this address of his book.