The Bible Commands Racial Segregation - A Review of a Sermon by Bertrand Comparet


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


  • Christogenea Internet Radio
CHR20240209-Segregation-Comparet.mp3 — Downloaded 9767 times

The Bible Commands Racial Segregation - A Review of a Sermon by Bertrand Comparet

Here we are going to present and critique a sermon by Bertrand Comparet which has been presented under diverse titles in the past, for reasons we shall describe as we proceed. However doing this, I also hope to demonstrate why it is important for us, as Bible-believing and Bible-studying Christians, rather than as merely denominational Christians, to constantly investigate, refine and improve our own understandings of Scripture, its original languages, its historical context, and all of the various aspects of the context of words, verses and passages found in Scripture, so that we may come to a better understanding of our faith, and so that we may be able to better defend and explain our professions to others of our kinfolk.

Every passage of Scripture has a historical and situational context which must be understood before it may be properly interpreted, and the same is also true of Hebrew or Greek words and their definitions. If Christian Identity is the Elijah ministry, as its objectives certainly do fit the description of that ministry where it is found in the closing verses of the prophet Malachi, then it is of the utmost importance that we do present our case to our kinfolk. But if we profess things which can easily be disproven, we will be quickly mocked, and we will have failed ourselves and our people, as well as our God. When people hear an argument in support of a position or doctrine which is contrary to their own predisposed beliefs, they will scoff at the slightest mistake in the data supporting that argument, and dismiss all of it for that one small mistake. It is already quite difficult to get our kinfolk to even listen to our case, so we must strive to make it as airtight as possible.

This has always been a constant challenge for me. Many Identity Christians who are much older than I, or who had only heard of our work at Christogenea recently, despise it and label us as heretics, because we dare to correct their icons, whether they be Bertrand Comparet and Wesley Swift, or Arnold Murray, or Sheldon Emry, or Dan Gayman, or whoever else it was from whom they may have learned about Christian Identity in the past. But all of these were also just men, none of them are Christ Himself, and all men make mistakes quite frequently. I have made many errors, and as I have often said, I pray that I can find them and correct them. Often, others find them for me, and when they do I am grateful, always being willing to correct them so long as they are actually errors. That is humility, since all Christians should bend the knee to the Word of Yahweh their God, without wavering or rebelling.

Throughout the evolution of Christian Identity thought, from the perspective of my own early reading, Howard Rand had offered opinions contrary to many of those upheld by British-Israel, and so did Herbert W. Armstrong, Although both of them had learned from others, they diverged from their own teachers, and both of them were early prototypes of modern Christian Identity. Arnold Murray was another fork from British-Israel, who had diverged away from it, corrected some of its errors, and nevertheless made a few serious errors of his own. But long before either Rand or Murray, William J. Cameron, the editor for Henry Ford’s Dearborn Independent, was much closer to the truth than any of these, especially in relation to the Jewish question. It is little known that the same William J. Cameron had written a Christian Identity book titled The Covenant People, some time around 1933, which was reprinted by Howard Rand’s Destiny Publishers for some years from about 1966. From the teachings of one or more of these came men such as Wesley Swift, Bertrand Comparet, William Gale, and they were all much closer to what we maintain today than any of their predecessors. They had all improved on their own teachers, but neither were they perfect. Except for Murray, I had learned something, at least, from each of these men as well as others. But I knew early on that I should not stop there, so I began to research original materials by making bibliographies from their writings and others. That is the method which Paul of Tarsus also encouraged, and Yahshua Christ Himself where He had chided His adversaries to “search the Scriptures”, and that is the example upheld in the Book of Acts, especially by the Bereans in Acts chapter 17. So if Yahshua Christ or Paul had never said “don’t worry, just take My word for it”, and instead had encouraged men to search for themselves, how should we not check up on any other man?

In the course of my studies, I developed some principles which I pray still govern my approach to everything that I do. So the first principle I would profess is that a Christian worldview must be grounded in Scripture, that Christ and the Word of God found in the ancient prophets, the Gospel and the writings of His apostles, as best as we can determine their original meanings, are the only authority upon which any and all doctrines should be based. The second principle is that we cannot allow our own feelings, which we have developed throughout the course of our lives under the influence of an evil world, to interfere in that process. Paul of Tarsus properly beckoned us to conform ourselves to Christ, in Romans chapters 8 and 12, in 1 Corinthians chapters 1 and 2, and in Philippians chapters 1 and 2, all in different ways. That should be the very first Christian Identity objective. If we do not cleave to these simple principles, then we shall suffer what is found in Jeremiah chapter 18: “12… There is no hope: but we will walk after our own devices, and we will every one do the imagination of his evil heart.”

Therefore, it is not only fitting to investigate all of the things which have been professed by our teachers, it is also a Christian obligation. Then, if we find something wrong, it is our Christian duty to correct it, regardless of the status of the man from whom it had come. If you think that your teacher can never be corrected, then you are an idolater, a worshipper of men rather than of God, because men can and will make mistakes, since no man is without sin. So we read in Jeremiah chapter 17: “5 Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.” For Christians, that should be a primary consideration in every aspect of life.

It is evident that this discussion has motives beyond the presentation of this sermon, which itself is only about fifteen minutes in length, as we have it in the best recording available. But that is another story which I shall now attempt to relate, because it should be of interest in relation to our studies and what has been done with many of our sources.

This sermon was published under the title The Bible Commands Racial Segregation, in July of 1999 by someone who had operated under the name of James K. Warner’s New Christian Crusade Church. We have a copy of that particular publication in PDF format at a Christogenea document archive. This version was evidently transcribed independently by someone from Britain who must have been affiliated with Warner’s church, since it uses British spellings and Warner was an American who was headquartered in Metarie, Louisiana. It is also missing much of the original text, since it is only about 1,200 words in length.

In the version which we currently have posted at the Comparet archive at Christogenea the title is different, but that version was certainly published earlier than 1999, by Jeanne Snyder, and Clifton Emahiser was working from Jeanne Snyder’s text when he digitized that version in 2007, according to his own internal documents. So, as with nearly all of his publications of Bertrand Comparet’s sermons, the copy we have posted at our archive was also taken from Your Heritage, the collection of Comparet sermons which was first transcribed by Jeanne Snyder and published at Kingdom Identity Ministries. Then, because Jeanne would not share her electronic copies with Clifton, he took her printed copies from the book and typeset them so that we could have electronic copies to post and preserve, and he also made them into PDF files. The resulting sermon is nearly 1,500 words, which is almost 300 words longer than the copy that had been transcribed and published by the New Christian Crusade Church.

Jeanne Snyder was a lifelong friend of Bertrand Comparet, and while I was in federal prison, I had gotten to know her personally through letters and some occasional phone conversations. I met her because when I read her book of Comparet’s sermons I found dozens of errors in the typography, and mentioned it to Clifton Emahiser some time in 1998 or thereabouts, so he gave me her address and asked me to send her my findings. This was among my first interactions with Clifton, even before I began to proofread and edit for him. Most of the corrections were about a hundred or so errant verse locations that Jeanne herself had added in, and they were all one off in the sequence, so her error was only clerical. After I had sent them to her, Jeanne made all the corrections, the book was corrected, and we began corresponding. Over a period of 8 or 9 years until her death, we became good friends, but she passed on in December of 2007, about a year before my release from prison.

In preparation for this sermon, I took a recording which Clifton had originally had in his collection of cassette tapes. Some time in the mid-1990’s, Clifton had sent his copies of Comparet’s audio sermons to the young man who had started the website Israelect.com, and he digitized them for publication there. Jeanne Snyder, however, had worked from her own set of Comparet’s recordings, and they seem to have been of a better than those which Clifton possessed. Comparing Clifton’s recording to the text of the sermon produced by Jeanne, soon after the two-minute mark there are about 145 words missing from his recording, but 9 of them at the end of a citation from Deuteronomy chapter 7 were filled in by another voice, which is not that of Clifton Emahiser. But I also found words and sentences elsewhere in Clifton’s recording which were not in Jeanne’s text, and in Jeanne’s text which were not in Clifton’s recording, which left me in a quandary.

Long ago, in July, 2021 and before the recent passing of Mike Hallimore, I had downloaded all of the recordings which, as of this writing, are still available at his website for Kingdom Identity Ministries. It was at that point that Mike had stopped adding to his archive. So I found another copy of this sermon among his recordings, which must have been digitized from a better version than those which had been possessed by either Clifton or Jeanne. So this morning, I transcribed and digitized that, and the resulting text is over 2,200 words, which is considerably longer than what had been published in the past. Some of the text was missing in Jeanne’s transcription, but Jeanne had also made many redactions of Comparet’s words. She did not purposely change the meaning of what he said, but she took a lot of shortcuts in his explanations of certain terms.

However once Jeanne’s text, Clifton’s recording, and the text of the sermon as it was published by the New Christian Crusade Church are all compared, something else becomes evident: they all must have been transcribed from different recorded versions of this sermon. So it is evident that Comparet may have presented this sermon at different times, and had made slight changes or additions on each occasion. There are words and even entire sentences which are found in each of these which are not in the others, yet it is quite doubtful that any of them had made purposeful omissions. A portion of Clifton’s recording had several paragraphs of missing audio, and one sentence was finished by a different voice, which does not belong to Clifton. So the poor quality of some of our source materials is sometimes the cause of at least some frustration. But I decided not to be concerned with any sentences which may not be in this much longer version from Mike Hallimore, since it is evident that his recording is without break or interruption and it is of much better quality than the other sources, and I will publish his recording along with this presentation this evening.

[As a digression concerning Kingdom Identity Ministries, I must warn our own community. The organization was turned over to someone else after the death of Mike Hallimore, and it has fallen into disorganization, disarray, or perhaps an even worse condition. After hearing reports from some of our own friends, who frequent the Christogenea Forum and chat, I would not advise anyone of doing business with them. This situation is sad, since I was personally informed by Lorraine Swift, whom I could count as a friend, that Mike Hallimore was the designated heir of the ministry of Wesley Swift, and although Richard Butler had made that claim, or perhaps it was made for him, Lorraine had informed me that it was wrong.]

So here we are going to use the text of Comparet’s sermon which we had transcribed this morning, for which I used a relatively new software program to transcribe, and then I listened to the recording so that I could amend the transcription errors for myself. Because even Hallimore’s copy was somewhat muffled, there were missing words, phrases, and other errors in the transcription. The availability of this technology is relatively new, and I hope to do much more with it in the future. Currently, I am transcribing our 28-part Pragmatic Genesis series of podcasts, for which I had never written out the notes, and perhaps over the next year or so, Yahweh willing, I hope to publish that. It takes several hours to process each one through the software, but each podcast will have to be heard in order to do the necessary editing. While it took me a little over an hour to transcribe and edit the 2,200 word Comparet sermon, each of the first 15 Pragmatic Genesis recordings have so far produced texts ranging from at least 10,000 to nearly 18,000 words.

Now we shall commence with our presentation and critique of Bertrand Comparet’s sermon, hopefully without too many other digressions:

The Bible Commands Racial Segregation, by Bertrand Comparet

Comparet himself evidently did not title this sermon when he presented it. When Jeanne Snyder transcribed it, she titled it Yahweh Commands Racial Segregation. When James Warner published it, the title was The Bible Commands Segregation. Here I had originally decided to title this program as I have, mediating between Jeanne’s title and that of the New Christian Crusade Church, knowing that Comparet had always used the title Lord rather than the name of Yahweh. While we would of course prefer to use the name Yahweh, I would also want to remain true to the terms which Comparet had used, although I cannot fault Jeanne for her corrections. Here in the opening lines of his sermon, Comparet himself merely declares that “God commands the segregation of the races”, so perhaps that should have been the title of this presentation. Now to commence with Comparet:

Discrimination, do you say? Yes, indeed it is. But from start to finish, from Genesis to Revelation, God himself has commanded discrimination. I wouldn't oppose it if I could. God commands the segregation of the races.

If one studies dictionaries, and especially older dictionaries, one may realize the corruption of language and the shifts in popular thinking which are found in many aspects of society are often quite obvious. Even today, just as an experiment, I searched Google for the word discriminating, and it returned a definition cited from Oxford Languages, a division of Oxford University Press, which is the company which produces the Oxford English Dictionary that provides English-language definitions to Google, and which is affiliated with Oxford University.

There at Oxford, the word discriminating is defined as an adjective meaning “(of a person) having or showing refined taste or good judgment.” So to be discriminating is obviously considered to be a positive trait, yet this world now sees discrimination as a crime, which is quite hypocritical. Historically, discrimination was healthy and natural in societies which had naturally and rightfully sought to preserve their own unique character or culture, and today it is scorned.

Discrimination was not always perceived that way. In Webster’s original American Dictionary of the English Language the word discrimination is defined as “1. The act of distinguishing; the act of making or observing a difference; distinction; as the discrimination between right and wrong. 2. The state of being distinguished. 3. Mark of distinction.” So in 1828, discrimination was not a crime, but it was rather a positive or even a necessary act. Our society has changed, but the word of Yahweh our God has not changed, so we shall be punished for neglecting God, and following the society if we do not discriminate. Continuing with Comparet:

In the Bible, God repeatedly warns us against any mixing of race, and especially against intermarriage and mongrelization. Some of this has been overlooked because of imperfect translation out of the Hebrew and Greek languages in which the Bible was originally written. Let's examine some of these passages and note carefully the exact meaning of the words used in the original languages.

From the very beginning, the commandment not to permit mongrelization is strongly emphasized. For example, in Exodus 33, verse 16, “so shall we be separated. I and all of thy people, from all the people that are upon the face of the earth.”

Again, in Leviticus, chapter 20, verse 24, “I am the Lord thy God, which hath separated you from other people.”

To this, we must add Deuteronomy chapter 14 verse 2: “For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth.” It was this same passage to which Peter had referred in 1 Peter chapter 2 verse 9 where he wrote: “But ye are a chosen generation [or properly, race], a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.” This serves to prove that the will of Yahweh God in the Old Testament had never changed in the New Testament.

Returning to Comparet:

And in Joshua 23, verses 12 and 13, “If ye do in any wise go back and cleave unto the remnants of these nations, even these that remain among you, and shall make marriages with them, and go in unto them, and they unto you, know for a certainty that they shall be snares and traps unto you, and scourges in your sides, and thorns in your eyes, until ye perish off from this good land which the Lord your God hath given you.”

Then, Deuteronomy 7, verse 3, “Neither shalt thou make marriages with them. Thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.”

Many warnings in the Bible are given not to mate with what our translations call the stranger. But the Hebrew words translated stranger in these verses are zuwr, nekar and nokriy, and each one means a person of different race from ours, not merely someone who has come from another city. There are other Hebrew words, geyr and towshab, which mean persons who are aliens in the political sense, but of our race. But the warning against race mixing is always against those strangers who are zuwr, nekar or nokriy. Here are some examples:

Proverbs 22, verse 14, “The mouth of a strange woman is a deep pit. He that is abhorred of the Lord shall fall therein” and that “strange woman”, that is zuwr.

Again, Proverbs 23, verse 27, “For a whore is a deep ditch, and a strange woman is a narrow pit.” And again, it's the Hebrew word zuwr.

While Comparet is certainly correct, that race-mixing is forbidden by God, and that these passages warn against race-mixing, he is not correct concerning the definitions of all of these words.

The word geyr is indeed a sojourner, a guest, which is a stranger with an expectation of hospitality whether he is of one’s own nation or from another nation which shares such an expectation, such as, in this case, Syria or Egypt. The word towshab only appears fourteen times in Scripture, and it also describes a sojourner, more specifically, one who is a foreigner. So where sojourners are distinguished in certain laws, such as that prohibiting them from eating the Passover in places such as Exodus chapter 12 verse 45, the word towshab is used rather than geyr. So Comparet was nearly, but not entirely correct concerning these two words.

But concerning the others, he was certainly not correct. We have recently discussed the Hebrew word zuwr in a presentation given here in December. There we had demonstrated that zuwr (# 2114), which is appropriately translated as stranger, but not in the sense of a sojourner, is directly related to the Hebrew word zer (# 2213), which describes something which makes a border. Although Strong’s did not make this connection, we proved our case with references from Gesenius, and from the Hebrew text itself, which agrees with our assertion. So we described a zuwr as a border-jumper, or someone who has come through a border, but that could refer to anyone of another Adamic race as well as the other, non-White races, so the word zuwr cannot be defined so simply as to mean only someone of another race, referring exclusively to non-White races.

Then furthermore, it is apparent that the children of Israel did not yet have a land of their own when commandments were given excluding the zuwr, so they could not have had borders. But the truth is that they did have borders, which were much more significant than geographical borders, when Yahweh told them that “I am the Lord thy God, which hath separated you from other people”, as Comparet had cited here from Leviticus. While men of certain other Adamic nations could join themselves to Israel under the law, along with those provisions there were certain protocols given which had to be followed, or even they would have been perceived as having been border-jumpers.

As for the terms nekar (# 5236) and nokriy (# 5237), these terms are related and they are each forms derived from the verb nakar (# 5234), which according to Strong’s Concordance means “to scrutinize, i.e. look intently at; hence (with recognition implied), to acknowledge, be acquainted with, care for, respect, revere, or (with suspicion implied) to disregard, ignore, be strange toward, reject, resign, dissimulate (as if ignorant or disowning)”. So while these words can certainly describe someone who is strange, referring to someone who is of another race, they can also describe someone of the same race who is estranged, or disregarded or disowned. So it is dangerous to simplify the meanings of these adjectives, which must follow the meaning of the verbal root, as if they only describe someone of another race.

If that were the case, Christians would be compelled to accept other races where we read in Isaiah chapter 56 in verse 3: “Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people…” The word for stranger there is nekar, so if nekar refers only to other races, we must interpret that verse to be saying that other races can join themselves to Yahweh, which is not true. Rather, nekar can also mean estranged, as word nokriy also does where it appears in a statement in Genesis chapter 31, verse 15, in a statement attributed to Rachel and Leah concerning their father Laban, who asked “15 Are we not counted of him strangers?”

Furthermore, David was not calling himself a nigger in the 69th Psalm, where in verse 8 he lamented that “I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children.” In that passage, stranger is zuwr, and alien is nokriy, and David was only bemoaning the fact that he was alienated from his people at the time when his son Absalom had sought to overthrow him and he was banished from Jerusalem. Therefore Comparet’s simplified and errant definitions of these terms must be corrected, or there are many discrepancies to be encountered throughout Scripture which we as Identity Christians cannot uphold.

Otherwise, in other areas Comparet did quite well:

The reason for this warning is clear. Mongrelization is the worst form of what today we have been taught to call genocide. If you kill 99% of a race, but you leave the other 1% pure-blooded, they will in time restore the race. But if you mongrelize them, you have destroyed that race eternally. Once mixed with the black or yellow races, the white race would be totally and forever destroyed. Hence, God has forbidden it.

For example, Psalm 144, verses 11 and 12, “Rid me and deliver me from the hand of strange children”, and that's the Hebrew word nekar, meaning those of another race. “Rid me, and deliver me from the hand of strange children, whose mouth speaketh vanity, and their right hand is the right hand of falsehood: that our sons may be as plants growing up in their youth, that our daughters may be as the polished cornices of the palaces.”

Here the word nekar can refer to anyone of another race, but it can also refer to anyone of any other Adamic nation besides Israel, who at that time had also been in competition for resources and political power with Israel. The context is defined in verse 12 where David referred to “our sons” and “our daughters”. But if the word nekar is defined as strictly referring to other races, the Scripture is forced to contradict itself in the examples which we have already provided here, especially the passage from Isaiah chapter 56.

Furthermore, in 2 Samuel chapter 15 verse 19, one of David’s men, a warrior named Ittai the Gittite, was addressed by David where we read: “Then said the king to Ittai the Gittite, Wherefore goest thou also with us? return to thy place, and abide with the king: for thou art a stranger, and also an exile.” A Gittite was a man of Gath, and six hundred of them had joined David when his son Absalom had banished him, so David was telling Ittai that he was also an exile and alienated, just as David had lamented in the 69th Psalm, which we have also already cited, and here the same term was used in the same situation but where David was describing himself, which is nokriy.

Continuing with Comparet:

Then take Jeremiah 2, verses 21 and 25, “Yet I had planted thee a noble vine, wholly a true seed. How then art thou turned into the degenerate plant of a strange vine unto thee?” And again that word strange is zuwr. “Withhold thy foot from being unshod, and thy throat from thirst. But thou saidst, There is no hope: no, for I have loved strangers, and after them will I go.”

Comparet is correct, that this is a condemnation of the race-mixing with the Canaanites that was ongoing in Jerusalem at the time, and other allegories in that same condemnation help to clarify that context, such as the references to broken cisterns in verse 13 and the sin which cannot be washed from one’s face, in verse 22. But the word zuwr alone does not exclusively refer to non-White races. Rather, it refers to any outsider, of any race. It is only from historical context that we are certain that it describes Canaanites here, and from a contemporary and parallel condemnation found in Ezekiel chapter 16, where Yahweh had spoken to the prophet and commanded him: “2 Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations, 3 And say, Thus saith the Lord GOD unto Jerusalem; Thy birth and thy nativity is of the land of Canaan; thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother an Hittite.”

Now Comparet offers a conclusion from Scripture before he proceeds with other examples:

And what is the result of this? Hosea 5, verses 6 and 7 tells it, “They shall grow with their flocks and their herds to seek the Lord; but they shall not find him, he hath withdrawn himself from them. They have dealt treacherously against the Lord, for they have begotten strange children”, and again this word zuwr, showing us the mixture of the person of another race.

Actually, Hosea prophesied over a hundred years before Jeremiah and Ezekiel had prophesied, but the citation is nevertheless appropriate, because the sin had been committed over the several centuries leading up to the times of the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities of Israel.

Now Comparet turns to discuss the most prominent condemnation of race-mixing found in Scripture, where his definitions of two other Hebrew words found in Genesis chapter 6 are acceptable:

Now Noah was saved because he was pure-blooded, while those around him were mongrelized. The 5th chapter of Genesis, verses 2, 4, and 5, record the forbidden mixing of races and the evil results of it. But speaking of Noah, Genesis 6 verse 9 says, “Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations.” Now that perfect is the Hebrew tamiym, without blemish or fault, and the word mistranslated generation is the Hebrew toledah, which means descent or ancestry. Noah, therefore, was a just man and without any blemish in his ancestry, no mongrelization. Therefore, Noah and his family were saved while the mongrels were wiped out.

Did you know that the mixing of races, the mongrelization, is the sin for which Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed? Yes, it is. Read Jude, verse 7, “Even as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”

In Genesis, the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is described as Sodomy, which is true. But according to Jude, it is fornication, which is race-mixing, and that also must be true. While an event was described in Genesis chapter 19 wherein the men of Sodom had sought to Sodomize certain angels, the fact is that the angels were already in the city in order to punish it for its sins, which is evident where Abraham had pleaded on behalf of any potentially righteous men of Sodom in chapter 18, and Yahweh refused to concede that there were even ten righteous men in the city. Therefore the attempt at Sodomy with the angels came after, and Jude must also be correct, that the Sodomites were race-mixing as well as engaging in other disgusting sexual practices.

In support of Jude, in 1 Corinthians chapter 10, in verse 8, Paul had warned his readers “Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.” There he could only have been referring to an event described in the opening verses of Numbers chapter 24 where we read that “Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab.” So Paul used the term fornication to describe race-mixing, just as Jude had also used it in reference to the sins of both the Sodomites and that of the fallen angels.

Now Comparet urges his listeners to consider the consequences of integration with other races in light of these Scriptures:

Those who are trying to force integration in the schools and churches are now beginning to admit that their real purpose is to bring about racial intermarriage. They've even deceived certain well-meaning but ignorant clergymen into helping them. Even without intermarriage, just allowing Negroes into the white churches is a terrible disobedience to God. You say, well, I didn't read that in my Bible. That's only because mistranslation concealed it from you.

Like all of Comparet’s sermons, it is hard to discern when they were presented, as they are not dated unless he himself mentions some specific and notable event contemporary to when it was written. This sermon does not mention any such events. Comparet had passed in 1980, so we can only assume that this sermon was written some time in the 1960’s or 1970’s, and there is nothing which helps us to narrow that down. The threat of integration came to the political foreground, and was a great struggle especially in the American South, from 1954 and the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. In the South, the National Guard was employed to force Southerners to accept school integration at gunpoint, literally. The struggle lasted perhaps as long as 20 years, and even in northern States there were riots in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and elsewhere as late as the early 1970’s. But the riots were not only in schools, as many workplaces were also involved, as well as many churches.

Continuing with Comparet:

No doubt you were puzzled if you read Deuteronomy 23, verse 2, as it reads in your King James version of the Bible, “A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord. Even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.” You wondered at this, because an illegitimate child is not to blame for the sins of its parents. And besides, why should the penalty extend for ten more generations? They might all be legitimately born. But the Hebrew word which was mistranslated bastard is the word mamzer, and it means a mixture, a half-breed or mongrel. It has nothing to do with whether the child's parents were married, but it refers to the forbidden intermixture of races. And that is why the penalty extends for ten generations. And it shows how seriously God treats this thing.

Here Comparet seems to be confused as to what a Christian marriage should be. Of course, there are no marriage licenses in the Bible. If a man and woman were engaged in a sexual relationship, then they were married, so long as they were not committing fornication or adultery, and there is no other choice. In Scripture, even in that same chapter of Deuteronomy, it is also evident that the phrase “to the tenth generation” is an allegory meaning forever. Returning again to Comparet:

It is true that a mulatto child is not to blame for his parents' sins, but he is still a mulatto. The first generation would be a half-breed. The second would have to have at least a quarter of the dark blood. The third, at least one-eighth. The fourth generation, at least one-sixteenth, and so on. Carry that on to the tenth generation, and you will find that there the Negro blood may be as small as one part in a thousand and twenty-four. Yet God himself says that this is too much to be allowed to enter into the congregation of the Lord.

Over the years, we have encountered many supposed Identity Christians who think that if a bastard is of the 11th generation, then the bastard is acceptable, and that is not only false, it is destructive. A bastard is a bastard in every generation forever, as the seed can never be pure again. Furthermore, we would not want to permit ten generations of issue with Whites to be destroyed for the sake of saving some eleventh generation of bastard, so the people who make such claims are actually encouraging the further spawning of bastards. A bastard of ten generations can only generate another bastard, and no bastard is ever acceptable in the eyes of God. But thankfully, Comparet himself did not make such a boneheaded conclusion.

So again he urges his listeners to make considerations:

Now, if you admit that your church is not worthy to be called the “congregation of the Lord”, then perhaps this doesn't seriously concern you. But if your church is or is trying to be the “congregation of the Lord”, haven't you better obey God's own commandments concerning it? There must be no integration in the churches. It's a violation of God's own direct commandment.

The unfortunate children of such marriages are not the guilty ones, of course. The sin is that of their parents. Yet the fact that they cannot help what they are doesn't change the permanent fact that they are what they are. The experience of thousands of years has demonstrated that the dark races do not have what it takes to produce the white man's high civilization. They've never had it in their own land, and they only have it here because we, the white majority, created it and maintained it.

This is why the Word of Yahweh, in that same chapter 2 of Jeremiah which Comparet had cited earlier, had said in relation to such race-mixing that “13 For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.” This is clarified by the apostle Jude, where he wrote in his epistle of the bastards related to the fallen angels and said: “12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; 13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.” Speaking of the same, Peter in chapter 2 of his second epistle described them similarly where he wrote: “17 These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.” Clouds without water, wells without water, and broken cisterns that can hold no water are all allegories which describe men who do not have the Spirit of God which He has instilled into the Adamic man. Without the spirit of Yahweh, there is no ability to create a thriving civilization.

Comparet’s statements here are rather altruistic, as he continues to discuss bastards and the other, non-White races:

The mixed breed is the same. It does not have in proper measure those qualities which God so carefully implanted in the white race to carry out certain purposes which he has assigned to them. Recognition that God himself made the races different does not imply hatred or contempt for any of them. Difference has its purposes, which must be respected. I do not expect the family cat to sing like a canary, nor the canary to keep mice out of the kitchen. If I went quail hunting, I wouldn't expect a horse to point quail for me, neither would I try to saddle and ride the best hunting dogs in the world. All the family pets are equally loved, and neither is despised because he can't do what some other does. But each has his own purpose, and trying to mix them up or interbreed them can only harm them.

Here concerning one particular statement in that paragraph, when he published this sermon Clifton Emahiser had made a critical note:

While Comparet did well with this topic, I cannot agree with his remark: “Recognition that Yahweh made the races different does not imply hatred or contempt for any of them.” Yahshua Christ Himself said at Matthew 13:47-50, which in context reads:

“47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea [of people], and gathered of every race: 48 Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good [racial kind] into vessels, but cast the bad [racial kind] away. 49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, 50 And shall cast them [the bad racial kind] into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.” Are we to believe that Yahweh created a bad racial kind?

Of course, Clifton was certainly correct. In Genesis, Yahweh created nothing bad, and everything He created, He called good. The Gospel of Christ informs us that Yahweh God did not create non-White races of men, but rather, they must have come from the fallen angels. So another place where this is evident is in the parable of the Sheep and the Goats, which is found in Matthew chapter 25. In the words of Christ in that parable, the sheep and the goats are separated as a shepherd would separate them, which is by looking at them. Then all of the goats, without exception, are placed on the left hand, and all of the sheep on the right hand. Then it is explained why the goats did not fulfill the will of God, and where Christ explains it, it is apparent that the goats are judged for how they had treated the sheep, where we read in verse 45: “Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.” So for that reason, in verse 46 He spoke further of the goats and He said: “46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.” A few verses sooner, in verse 41, He described that punishment more completely where He spoke of the goats and said: “41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.” The goats, which are all the nations which are not of the sheep, have the same fate as the fallen angels, and that must also have been their origin, which is why they were of a “bad kind” or race.

Continuing once again with Comparet’s sermon:

Now, I know there are many people to whom these facts about the Bible are new. There are also many who have learned the evil lesson that they can get more money or more political popularity by violating these laws of God than by obeying them. Some of you may not like to be reminded of these things, but remember, I didn't write the Bible. God wrote it through his prophets, and his commandments are always right, for our own good, for the very survival of our white race upon the earth, and that we may face our own God with a better conscience, we'd better obey these laws of God.

Now, as early as the 1960’s, Comparet speaks of the public cowardice that prevented people from standing up to the satanic Jewish integration agenda, even in that relatively early time:

Never before in the history of our race has such a spirit of timidity, of abject fear of offending anyone, taken hold of almost everybody. Go where you will, into the homes, the offices, public dinners, public forums, you will still find this idea that certain subjects are taboo, they cannot be mentioned because they are controversial. Oddly enough, only vitally important matters are controversial. Why are you forbidden to freely speak your views on the important subjects of social, economic, political, and religious life of today. It is because the truth has always been controversial. And what makes it controversial? Only the fact that the evil always attack it. And they also attack the man who speaks the truth.

I think Comparet misspelled “Jews” when he spoke of those who attack the truth, but the jews have had plenty of assistance from self-righteous Christians and Christ-hating pagans and atheists over the past hundred years. I will let him continue:

Christianity is controversial because all the satanic wickedness in two thousand years has been hurled against it. The most controversial figure in all history is the one who is the very personification of truth, Jesus Christ. But he never fled from controversy, never kept silent to avoid offending the wicked. To the contrary, he pressed the attack against evil. There is no evil in the abstract. It exists only in the evil deeds of evil persons. These truths Jesus Christ knew and demonstrated. The beginning of his ministry was when he found the temple filled with the corruption of the money changer. Did He preach abstract sermons on the desirability of honesty and of reverence for the house of God? But of course, without mentioning the dishonest or the irreverent? No, indeed! He made a whip of ropes and flogged those crooks out of the temple. He found the temple and all the organized religion of the day in the hands of the Pharisees, men of much outward piety, but who were spiritual frauds.

Of course, the Pharisees were the more numerous of the sects, but the high priests of the time of Christ were Sadducees. While Christ often communed with Pharisees, He never communed with Sadducees, and only spoke to them when they had accosted Him.

The apostle Peter spoke of Christ in a manner similar to that of Comparet here, where he had written in chapter 2 of his first epistle: “21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: 22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: 23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously.” Yet Christians, in the timidity of which Comparet speaks here, have been afraid to offend anyone, and now sin has run amok in Christian nations for many decades on account of their timidity.

As Peter had written, Christ is our example, and sooner or later we must face it. Either we suffer for either good or we suffer for evil, but either way, in the wrath to come we will suffer:

Did he content himself with preaching on religion and the abstract without giving offense to the Pharisees? Oh, no. The Bible records nine times he denounced them as hypocrites, six times as blind and fools. Once he identified them as serpents, a race of vipers, and he told them that even the tax collectors and the harlots would enter the kingdom of God before they could. He knew that false ideas cannot arise or exist without someone to teach the falsehood, so he exposed them.

There are actually ten times in Matthew alone that Christ had openly called His adversaries hypocrites, and the one time in Mark and one of the two times in Luke each seem to have been at different times than those ten occurrences which Matthew had recorded. But I won’t mince the numbers too much…

Continuing with Comparet, the spirit of his words are certainly true and even if the numbers are not exactly precise, and he is close enough and the point is made:

Of course, this brought upon Him the bitterest hatred ever directed against any person in all history, hatred which is as strong today as it was on the day of the crucifixion. We Christians are also hated for our religion, but Christianity grew great and strong despite its enemies and produced its greatest leaders under the stress of persecution. It was always greatest when it was most controversial. Jesus Christ foresaw this, and in the 10th chapter of Matthew He told us, “Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I also confess before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. Think not that I am come to send peace on earth. I came not to send peace, but a sword.”

The statement that Christianity “was always greatest when it was most controversial” seems odd, since Christianity itself should never change at all. But it does seem to be true from a worldly viewpoint, in the eyes of Christians who are willing to resist the sin in the world. An uncontroversial Christianity is one which has abandoned the precepts of Christ, as Comparet has explained here, so it is not truly Christianity. Therefore it seems that when Comparet had said this, he spoke of the Christianity which had overcome Paganism in the Roman world, or the Christianity which had overthrown the tyranny of the Roman Catholic popes in the late Medieval period. However it seems that once the Kingdom of Yahweh is apparent on earth, and all of His enemies are destroyed, that is when Christianity will be greatest. That time is coming, in spite of the timidity of men.

To conclude Comparet’s sermon:

You can't proclaim truth without opposition. Water it down until evil no longer attacks you and you have no truth left. The only thing which can peacefully coexist with evil is some other evil. We didn't receive our fine heritage from cowards, neither can cowards preserve it. You should be the one taking the initiatives, making the enemy retreat. And if that's controversial, make the most of it.

This is the precise state of the churches today, which have now completely embraced evil. Christians must therefore abandon the churches, if they seek to please God, because He is not found in them, nor they in Him. Yahweh God is not going to dwell with Sodomites and fornicators.

For this sermon as well as for the rest of his work, we can love Bertrand Comparet at the same time that we seek to improve on his legacy, and correct his mistakes. His delivery was simple and forthright, he cleaved to Scripture without adding any incredible tales, Talmudic mysteries or New Age fantasies, and in that manner he abode in the simplicity which is in Christ. So of all the early Christian Identity pastors, his work was the most sensible and seemingly also the most honest. So, of course, we admire our teachers, but we should not worship them, and we should aspire to find better truths beyond them, even correcting them where we must. We are all brethren, and in the end there is only one Master, which is Christ.