- Christogenea Saturdays
Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 24: Nailing the Coffin
This final portion of our address of Charles Weisman’s book, What About the Seedline Doctrine? may be anticlimactic. We have already witnessed and explained why Charles Weisman is truly not a Christian. We have already elucidated his many contradictions, and we hope to have fully exposed his many outright lies and misrepresentations of Scripture, and now that we near the conclusion of his book, we hope that he is already buried. But if not, then perhaps here we can drive the final nail in the coffin.
Up to this point in Chapter 6 of Weisman’s book, we have seen his attempt to explain psychological reasons for the existence of our Two-Seedline doctrine, and he ascribed a lot of reasons to its existence which all boil down to our needing excuses for blaming Jews for our woes, rather than blaming ourselves. But that too is a straw man argument, because we do not blame Jews for our woes. Rather, we blame sinful Whites who are caught up in all of the idolatry offered to them by Jews, and who have also accepted the antichrist teachings packaged under the umbrella of Liberalism. This is what has led us to accept not only Jews, but all of the other biological infestations of Yahweh’s Creation. So Jewish Supremacy and the imposition of Negros and all of the other races upon Christendom are a result of our problems, and not the actual cause of our problems.
But here Weisman also betrayed himself once again, where he spoke of Jews as a race and admitted that “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.”
Now we are going to read a paragraph from page 15 of Weisman’s book:
In Eden God established an order in which Adam and Eve were without sin, had dominion over all creation, and had a special relationship with God. The serpent was opposed to that order but could not on his own do anything about it. So it engaged in deceit to get Adam and Eve to upset that order, and consequently establishing a new order, one which gave the serpent dominion over man. Christ’s mission was to destroy this system and bring man back into his original relationship with God.
Then, from page 16:
The enmity was not with the lineage or seed of Adam because the serpent had already subdued them by getting them to leave God’s order and enter its order….
The reason for the enmity is the conflicting objectives and results that the serpent and Christ had in relation to Adamic man. The serpent induced Eve, and thereby Adam, to sin.
Then finally, where Weisman continues to deny Two-Seedline on page 17:
To better understand this enmity, one must put himself in the serpent’s place. Suppose you were told that someone was coming to destroy all that you accomplished – to destroy your order in the world. In fact, he destroy would you, and would then establish his order which you were against. Would you not have enmity toward that person? This was the relationship between the serpent and Christ, the two seeds of Genesis 3:15. The point of contention is between them, not between two races of people.
Now we have already shown at length that first, the “seed of the woman” was not merely Christ, but all of the legitimate descendants of Eve, and second, that the serpent does indeed have seed, the tares which were planted by the devil, and they are still in the world today. We cannot possibly restate all of the proofs of those assertions here.
But Weisman conceded the fact that the serpent was an intelligent being, who was able to establish an order in the world that was contrary to the order of Yahweh God, and that he was also able to seduce Eve, and then lead Adam into that world order in defiance of God. But Weisman refused to identify that serpent, in spite of the fact that both the Revelation and the apostles of Christ, as well as His gospel, all identify the serpent for us. Instead, Weisman merely accused Christ of being a name-caller, a slanderer, which is actually the role that the devil is expected to fulfill. At the same time Weisman insisted that Christ had already destroyed the power of the serpent, or as he also said, of Satan, in this world. However the very letters of the apostles of Christ, as well as the Revelation, all clearly refute Weisman’s assertion.
So if Yahshua Christ had called His adversaries serpents and the offspring of vipers, meaning that their parents were vipers, then He identified a race of vipers. And if Jews, as Weisman has admitted, have acted maliciously towards Christianity and towards our White race in general, and have done so for two thousand years, as Weisman also admitted, then they stand inherently contrary to the order of God. Therefore we must ask, how are they not the tares who were planted by the devil before the foundation of the world? We interpret that word world not as the planet, but as an order. The word for world in the New Testament is actually often translated from a Greek word meaning order, and the creating of Adam was a new establishment of the order of God, as opposed to the corruption in the world which came from the order of the serpent, as even Weisman has admitted. The tares were planted before the time when our Adamic race was created, because the “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil” was already present by that time, and Yahweh God gave Adam one law: not to touch or eat of that tree. But we must also state that the order of the Serpent is actually a disorder, represented in myth in the chaos of Tiamat, the primordial serpent of the Mesopotamian legends.
Weisman also admitted that the Jews as a people are ungodly and even Satanic, although he refuses to admit why they are that way. Later, he will once again make the preposterous claim that the Jews of Christ’s time were all Israelites. But for now we shall resume with his next paragraph after where we had last left off, on page 55, where once again he made this admission:
Again, the question is not that the Jews are ungodly or satanic, but why they are this way; and this gets to the error of the Satanic Seedline doctrine. This doctrine has the source of the evil and ungodliness associated with the Jews coming from outside the Adamic race and outside of God.
Earlier in this chapter, Weisman said “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.” So Weisman admits that the Jews have wicked innate characteristics, which have endured in them for many centuries. But then he counts them as “farm animals”, while foxes are certainly not “farm animals”. Rather, they are unwelcome intruders on the farm. Then Weisman makes an analogy showing concern for chickens, when he should have been concerned with the sheep.
But before commenting on his statements concerning the Jews here, we will continue with Weisman to the end of this page, for two more short paragraphs:
The evil and ungodliness of the Jews is actually derived from certain members of our race, the white Adamic race, which have been cursed or rejected by our God.
Now Weisman begins putting together the pieces of Two-Seedline, and at the same time he is denying it:
Persons such as Cain, Canaan, Ishmael, Esau, Amelek [sic], the evil figs of Judah, and the Judeans who rejected Christ were all of the white Adamic race. All of these people were cursed by God, not by Satan, and thus their descendants would be against God and His people. Throughout the centuries these cursed and rejected people have mixed with other peoples becoming the “Jews” of today. [Citing his own book, titled Jewish Identity, something which he truly does not understand.]
Weisman does not understand, or simply denies, that the Judaeans mixed before the time of Christ, to become the Jews of the time of Christ. So he fails in spite of the fact that we have historical documents proving this, and Weisman could not have been ignorant of their existence.
Before the last paragraph on this page, we must offer a digression. Where was Canaan cursed by Yahweh? In Genesis chapter 9 we read: “24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. 25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. 26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. 27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.” As the account goes, Ham had uncovered his father’s nakedness, and we can only understand what really happened where we read in Leviticus chapter 20 that “11… the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness”. So Canaan, who must have been the result of that unseemly union, was cursed by Noah, however he was not cursed by God. In fact, Noah insisted that Canaan remain as a slave to his brethren, and therefore Yahweh must have demanded that the Canaanites all be destroyed for reasons other than what Weisman suggests.
As for Cain, he was told that if he did not do well, it was because “sin lieth at the door”, as Yahweh was challenging him to do well but he failed, and Yahweh knew that he would fail, because he was a bastard. Later, Ishmael was rejected by Yahweh but only as the heir of Abraham, and he had to be sent off so that he would not compete with Isaac, but he was blessed when he was sent off, rather than being cursed. In spite of that, from the very time of Esau the Ishmaelites and Edomites began to mingle together, as even Esau himself had taken an Ishmaelite wife. However Esau was not cursed, and he was only rejected from having the birthright after he had sold it to Jacob, and – as it is clearly evident in Scripture, because he was a fornicator, a race-mixer, having taken Canaanite wives. That is seen in both the rejection of Esau for the birthright by his mother Rebekah, and in the words of Paul of Tarsus in Hebrews chapter 12. Where Yahweh said that He hated Esau, in the prophecy of Malachi, that was 1400 years after the time in which Esau had lived. Yahweh never cursed Esau, so like Canaan, there must have been a greater reason why Yahweh pronounced Esau to have been hated. Amalek was an Edomite, and like Canaan, there must be a greater reason than being an Edomite that Yahweh had said “Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.”
Finally, where Weisman makes mention of the “evil figs of Judah”, in the Scripture Yahweh had shown to Jeremiah two baskets of figs, good and evil, and while they were apparently in Jerusalem, nowhere does it say that the evil figs are of Judah! Rather, the good figs are likened to “them that are carried away captive of Judah”, and then there are others of Judah who would be turned over to the evil figs. So how could men of Judah be turned over to men of Judah? That is nonsense. The evil figs were never said to have been of Judah, and Weisman’s assumption is wrong. The evil figs were not of Judah, but certain men of Judah would be given over to the evil figs for their punishment. This is clearly the context in Jeremiah chapter 24. Weisman is crafty and deceptive, or he is stupid and cannot read. In any event, he does not get anything entirely right.
Now, Weisman’s final paragraph on this page:
It should not be surprising that the great enemy of the white Christian people is composed of degenerates and rejects of their own race. Most of Israel’s enemies were offshoots of the white Adamic race, such as the Midianites, Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Amalekites and even some of the Canaanites.
So Weisman is indirectly asserting that the Jews are “degenerates and rejects” of the White Adamic race, yet as we proceed with page 56, we will find him claim once again that the Jews of the time of Christ were all Israelites, but that today’s Jews are mixed, where he says that “many of their descendants became a part of the hybrid Jews of today.” We shall address that again where we get to that point at the end of his book.
Earlier in this book, Weisman confused Heber the Kenite, who was called a Kenite because he was a smith, with the tribe of Kenites, or with people of a particular city which was called Cain, as Weisman also confused that issue, and as we had shown that there was no city called Cain – at least in the older manuscripts such as the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls. The truth, as we had also shown, is that Heber, who was from the same family as Jethro the father-in-law of Moses, was a Midianite and a descendant of Abraham and Keturah, like the rest of the Midianites.
The Midianites were at times enemies of Israel, but it is certain in later Scriptures that they were in league with Moabites and others of Israel’s enemies. That is nothing novel, as White Adamic Philistines had Rephaim and others among them, and they were also the enemies of Israel. They were White tribes unaware of the truth and purposes of the God of Israel competing for the same land and resources. But Yahweh never commanded the complete obliteration of Midianites or Philistines, down to every last man, woman and child. So not all of the enemies of ancient Israel are equal, and Weisman is creating a lie by simplifying that issue.
The Canaanite races were to be destroyed completely, even though Yahweh knew that the children of Israel would fail to execute that command. Ostensibly, they were to be destroyed completely because they were mingled with the Kenites, the Rephaim, and other groups which were not from Noah and his sons, so they were all bastards. The ultimate destruction of Canaanites, Edomites, and all other bastards is a matter of prophecy which is yet to be fulfilled, because the children of Israel failed. Weisman fails once again, because he fails to make this distinction.
We will get to the issue of the Jews shortly. Now to commence with the final page of his book:
Proponents of the Satanic Seedline doctrine find it more appealing to have Cain be non-Adamic, by having his father be the serpent or satan. This places the source of evil in the Jews coming from an outside source, that being from outside of the white Adamic race, and outside of God’s work.
But according to the words of Christ, there are good trees that cannot produce bad fruit, and bad trees which cannot produce good fruit. Christ was speaking of men, not of fruit trees. But if Yahweh planted the Adamic race and Yahweh called it good, then when does man become bad? There must be some other reason for men becoming bad. In the Revelation, in chapter 2, Christ does not even kill fornicators, but He does kill their children.
By this doctrine, all the evil we see in the Jews comes from “satan’s seed,” resulting in a satanic disposition of a spiritual and genetic nature within Cain and his descendants. This is not in accord with the Bible, which reveals that evil things, whether spiritual or physical, come only from God (1 Kgs. 18:10; Isa. 45:7; Prov. 16:4), not from some devil.
We have already exhibited the fact that there are two types of evil in Scripture. There is evil which men see as evil, but which God brings upon man as correction in result of his sin. Often, He uses the wicked mentioned in Proverbs chapter 16 for that same purpose. That sort of evil is evil to man, but it is not evil to God as He is using it for good. But then there is the sort of evil which is sin, and which is a form of rebellion against God. Every time we choose to sin, we are rebelling against God on one level or another, since sin is violation of the laws which were made by God and given to men. We cannot blame God for that sin, for the evil which men do.
In Revelation chapter 12, the serpent of the garden is described as having done that very thing, having at one time been an angel who formed a conspiracy and rebelled against God. So both the apostles Peter and Jude describe them as having “left their first estate”, having sinned, and later as having “crept in unawares” among the ancient children of Israel in order to corrupt them, teaching heresies, speaking evil of good things, and doing so they are waging an ongoing dispute with God Himself. These same angels that sinned await the judgment of the great day. Here we will read Peter’s description of them, in part, from 2 Peter chapter 2:
12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption; 13 And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you; 14 Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children: 15 Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; 16 But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man's voice forbade the madness of the prophet. 17 These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.
Who is that that were “cursed children”? Cain was cursed by God, who told him that his sin was a result of the circumstances of his birth. Canaan was cursed by Noah, and the Canaanites later mixed with many non-Adamic tribes, including the Kenites, the descendants of Cain, and the Rephaim, who were from of the Nephilim or fallen ones. Esau was rejected, and brought the curses of Canaan upon his own seed by taking his wives of Canaanite women. So if there were cursed children among the early Christians, it is these to whom the apostles must be referring, and we have shown from the history of the period that the Jews were also comprised in large number from these “cursed children”. Charles Weisman has admitted that these people were cursed, even if he gave poor reasons, and at the same time he denies the history and the words of the apostles which identify them as the Jews, and as most of the Jews in the time of Christ. So our Two-Seedline doctrine does indeed come directly from the gospel and apostles of Christ. Peter believed in “cursed children” in Judaea who rejected Christ because they were already cursed, and so do we.
The “way of Balaam” is also fornication, or race-mixing, so we further see what the original sin of the fallen angels had been. Jude likens this also to the “way of Cain”. Both Peter and Jude describe them in a manner by which we are assured that they are still among us doing these things, spots in our Christian feasts of charity exercising their disgusting and adulterous practices unto this very day. These words of the apostles do not describe Christians. They do not describe the “lost sheep” who are invited to the table of their Master. These words describe interlopers, intruders who did not belong in the first place, men who are “twice dead” and “having not the spirit”, as Jude describes them. Now today they are found in every Christian land, playing the role of Satan and gathering all the heathen nations of the world against the Camp of the Saints. Why is it that Weisman is obfuscating this plain truth of Scripture, history, and current events? Throughout his entire book, Weisman only cited eight words from Revelation chapters 12 and 20, and he only did that in order to argue our connection of the Satan of those chapters to the serpent of Genesis chapter 3. So he never really cared to explain what Christ had revealed about Satan, just as he mentioned tares only once but he never commented on the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares.
Answering these same claims which Weisman had made earlier in this book, we have elucidated the truth of Genesis chapter 3, we have shown beyond doubt that Genesis 4:1 is corrupt, and we have illustrated from Scripture how Cain could not have been the son of Adam. We have cited several early apocryphal Christian works and many New Testament passages ignored by Weisman in support of our arguments, and we have spoken at length about the many New Testament passages which Weisman conveniently ignored in his denial of the truth of Two-Seedline. However as we have also proven from many of his own statements, Weisman is no Christian, so it is no wonder that he did not discuss those New Testament passages at length.
With only a few paragraphs remaining, Weisman continues in denial, but he thinks he has already proven his assertions, when in fact he had not proven them, so he says:
The fact that Cain was of Adam should be no more difficult to accept than the fact that Esau or Canaan were Adamic, or our racial brothers. It should be no more difficult to accept than the fact that it was Israelites who killed the prophets and committed gross acts of idolatry.
We have already shown that Weisman lied several times in his supposed proof that Cain was of Adam. He claimed that the devil was the first murderer, when Christ was clearly referring to Cain as the first murderer and a devil, and where there is not one scripture supporting Weisman’s claim. Then in one paragraph, on page 28 of his book, we caught him in several lies where he said “cursed or rejected people… are never included in the true genealogy of Adam, Noah, and Abraham”, then he claimed “Esau was a true Hebrew and descendant of Abraham, but is not included in genealogy listings because he was rejected by God”, then further that “Canaan was an Adamite, but is not listed in Adam’s genealogy because he was cursed”, and finally that “Ishmael was Abraham’s son, but is not in Abraham’s genealogy as he was not of the chosen seed.” We established that all four of these statements were lies.
Where the children of Israel shouldered the blame for killing the prophets, that is true as the entire nation is responsible for its actions, but Weisman misrepresents or ignores the circumstances. As we had elucidated, the few times that it is recorded in the Old Testament narratives that the priests of Yahweh were being slain, it is foreigners who were chiefly responsible for the murders. The prophets themselves, as we had further explained from Jeremiah chapter 2 and Ezekiel chapter 16, had attributed the sins of Israel, and specifically to those in Jerusalem, to the fact that the Canaanites had infiltrated among the people, and the children of Judah had mingled their seed with them.
So where Christ assigned blame for the deaths of the prophets, He said that one race would pay the penalty for the death of all of the prophets from Abel to Zachariah. In Scripture, if a man makes an accusation, the entity he accuses must actually be guilty of the crime, according to two or three witnesses. If the entity is not guilty, the accuser suffers the punishment. So did Christ die blameless, in exchange for the sins of the children of Israel? Or did He die because He made false accusations against the Jews? Yet Christ is true, and He cannot lie. When He said that one race alone was liable for the blood of the prophets, that must be the race which is descended from Cain, and not from Seth, and His opposition in Jerusalem must have also belonged to that same race. The descendants of Seth cannot justly be held liable for the blood of Abel, as that would also be a false accusation. Only our Two-Seedline understanding of Scripture and history satisfies every aspect of the words of Christ and the laws of Yahweh without leaving any conflict or question.
Now Weisman claims that we have psychological problems, but he himself has problems which could only be resolved in the Lake of Fire, where he says:
Identity adherents have also succumbed to this same psychological problem, by their making the “Jews” in the New Testament as being Edomites, Canaanites or a mixed race people. If you believe that you are an Israelite, then as a Christian it is naturally hard to accept that Israelites were against Christ and wanted to kill Him. It is much more appealing to have these people be of an enemy race than of your own race. The truth is these “Jews” or Judeans were Israelites, though many of their descendants became a part of the hybrid Jews of today.
First, if only “many of their descendants” are mongrels today, what of the rest of their descendants? Weisman seems to be suggesting that there are “good”, “pure” or unmixed White Jews, although he does not state that explicitly. On Page 56 he cites his own book on Jewish identity, which he evidently hopes his readers will now purchase. But it is clear that Weisman does not understand Jewish identity. The following two paragraphs are adapted from a paper at Christogenea titled A Concise Explanation of the Creation of the Jewish People:
From Greek and Roman records, we can see that from the Hellenistic period all of the southern portions of the land once known as Judah and Israel were called Idumaea, after the Edomites. Strabo, the early first century Greek geographer, attests that the Idumaeans were “mixed up” with the Judaeans, and that they “shared in the same customs with them” (Book 16). From the histories of Flavius Josephus it can be determined that around 130 BC, the reigning Hasmonean high priest John Hyrcanus had decided to conquer all of the surrounding cities of ancient Israel inhabited at that time by Edomites and Canaanites, and to either convert them to the religion of Judaea (first called “Judaism” by the Greeks) or to let them leave the land, or to be slain. His predecessors were driving them out, but not having any success at keeping them out. Josephus states that from this point these Edomites became “none other than Jews”, or properly, Judaeans (Antiquities, 13:257-258, 13:395-397 et al.)….
Judaea from 130 BC forward was a multiracial polyglot of a nation. The first Herod, an Idumaean by race who usurped power from the Hasmoneans, bribed the Romans for the kingship and from that time the temple priesthood at Jerusalem was used as a political tool. Both Josephus and the ecclesiastical historian Eusebius admit that many of the priests were not worthy of the distinction under the former Levitical traditions, and the veracity of Malachi’s prophecy, that the priests had corrupted the covenant of Levi, becomes quite clear with their testimony. The usurpation of political control in Jerusalem is the primary reason for all of the division recorded in the New Testament. In Romans 16:20 and 2 Thessalonians, Paul alludes to the temple priesthood as “satan” (which means “the adversary”), and this is also attested to in Revelation 2:9 and 3:9. Yahshua Christ informs the priests and other leaders in many places that they are the children of the adversary, and that they are not His people, i.e. Luke 11:47-51, John 8:33-47 and John 10:26. In Romans chapter 9, Paul makes a clear distinction between Israelites of Judaea and the Edomites of Judaea, calling the one “vessels of mercy” and the other “vessels of destruction”. It can be shown from the New Testament that many of the original Israelites of Judaea converted to Christianity during the ensuing years, losing their identity as Judaeans. The Edomites never converted, clinging to their traditions found in the Talmud – which has absolutely no authentic connection to the ancient Hebrew religion. Today these people, and all of their many proselytes and those whom they have intermarried with, are known as Jews.
As we have often said here, and as we make a reference to in that paper, Yahshua Christ Himself told His adversaries that “ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.” Since the children of Israel were the sheep, as it is often described in Scripture, then how could the priests of the time of Christ not have been His sheep? Only if they were not Israelites, as He said to them. Rather, they were Edomite converts from the decades leading up to the time of Christ. Paul of Tarsus also explained this in Romans chapter 9, where he prayed for his “kinsmen according to the flesh” and said that the word of Yahweh did not fail because “they are not all Israel, which are of Israel”, and he went on to compare Jacob and Esau. Where Paul prayed for his “kinsmen according to the flesh” he was praying for people that had not yet accepted the gospel of Christ. They were still not believers, and that is why he was praying for them. Then he said the word of God did not fail because they were not all Israel which were of Israel, so where he prayed only for his “kinsmen according to the flesh”, he defined what he meant where he said “they are not all Israel”, because that means there were some people in Israel who were not his “kinsmen according to the flesh”, which all Israelites certainly were. That reveals that Strabo and Josephus had told the truth, that those who rejected Christ in Judaea were of Esau, and Paul went on in that same place to describe the children of Israel as “vessels of mercy” and the children of Esau as “vessels of destruction”. However Weisman ignored this and several other significant statements by Paul which also explain the true nature of the Jews. Christ told His adversaries that “ye are not of My sheep”, and Weisman insists that they were of His sheep. That insistence puts Weisman in direct opposition to Christ Himself.
Now for the very last paragraph of his book, Weisman concludes:
Satanic Seedline advocates see an inherent evil and anti-Christian nature in Jews and want to separate themselves from the Jews by having the source of evil come from outside their race. To do so, their doctrine had to be based upon speculation and bad interpretation, and is thus false.
But Weisman himself had said here in this chapter that the Jews were satanic, and, comparing them to foxes, that they had “innate characteristics” which they have “exhibited throughout the centuries” in opposition to Christ and the White nations of Christian Europe. Yet Weisman ignores all of the history and Scripture which proves that the Jews are not Israelites, and that they were not Israelites at the time of Christ. Either Weisman is wrong, or Josephus, Strabo, and Paul of Tarsus are all lying. Weisman’s own words have driven all the nails into his coffin. Now he needs to be buried for good.