Another Conversation with Rosette Delacroix and Friends


Christogenea is reader supported. If you find value in our work, please consider donating to keep it going! See our Contact Page for more information.


  • Christogenea Weekends
ChrSun20191006_RosetteDelacroix.mp3 — Downloaded 3040 times

 

Edited from Rosette Delacroix's program description on Bitchute:

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

Some of my program afterthoughts:

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

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