Introductory notes:

Before Alfred the Great, there were few Anglo-Saxon Kings who had any degree of care for learning and refined culture. One of them who did was Alfred of Northumbria, who preceded Alfred the Great by nearly 150 Years. But Alfred of Northumbria only had an opportunity for learning when he himself was passed over for the throne by the Witena, or council, and his younger brother had received his father's kingdom. Rather than fight the decision, Alfred retired to Ireland and received an education in the Scriptures and other literature. He became king of Northumbria after 15 years of such an education, when his younger brother died. Soon following Alfred to the throne was Coelwulf, the patron of the English church historian Bede. In Book 3, Chapter 9 of his History of the Anglo-Saxons, Sharon Turner says:

“The effect of Alfred’s reign and habits in this province became visible in Ceolwulf, who soon succeeded to his throne. This prince, who acceded in 731, was the patron to whom Bede addressed his ecclesiastical history of the English nation. In the dedication, the venerable father of the Anglo-Saxon learning says, that it was this king’s delight not only to hear the Scriptures read, but to be well acquainted with the deeds and sayings of his illustrious predecessors. From this feeling he had desired Bede to compose his history. But the flame, which Alfred had kindled in his dominions, was soon afterwards quenched there by the sanguinary civil contests that succeeded. It burnt, however, with a cheering influence in the other provinces of the octarchy. Bede and Alcuin may be considered as two of the valuable minds which it had excited.”

William Finck's program notes follow:

When the Jews were banished by Edward I, usury was banished along with them. I found the following excellent summary in a book of the Parliamentary debates of New Zealand for the year 1901, where there was a debate over the permittance of pawn shops:

The Anglo-Saxon laws against usury were also very severe. Edward the Confessor outlawed usurers and confiscated their property; and [300 years later] Edward the First took such stringent steps to put an end to what was considered a great evil that he hanged 280 Jews and banished another fifteen thousand in one year - in fact, the opposition of the Catholic and also the Reformed Church with regard to this matter was so strong that it was considered un-Christian to take interest for money lent; and the consequence was that a liberal interpretation was put upon the Mosaic law to which I have referred, and the business fell principally into the hands of the Jews. It was held that, while a Jew might not take interest from another Jew, he was at liberty to get all he could from a stranger. Well, the fifteen thousand Jews were banished in one year, and no Jews were allowed to return to England until the time of Cromwell. That shows the view taken in England at that time in regard to the practice. It was left to Henry the Eighth to be the first to legalise usury in England, and he fixed the rate at 10 per cent. But his son, Edward the Sixth, a few years afterwards, repealed it: he did not believe in it; but when Elizabeth, the virgin Queen, came to the throne, she revived the statute of her father. James the First reduced the rate of interest to 8 per cent., Cromwell to 6, and Anne to 5; and since then usury has continued to exist and flourish.

Henry the VIII was raising money for wars in Europe, and he was at first relying on benevolences and the taking of loans without intentions on paying them back to do so. Benevolences were the extorting of “free will offerings” by the king from his subjects.

The introduction for this program employed information found at Clifton Emahiser's website here: Early Celtic Church Taught Physical Seduction Of Eve!! and here: Early Church Era On Two Seedline

Two-Seedline Christian Identity teachings are found in some of the earliest writings of the Church Fathers. But it is the greatest of Biblical Truths and therefore the most oppressed and persecuted. Ultimately, the attitudes of the Alexandrian universalists prevailed because they were the most useul for both the Jews and the Roman Imperialists.

The following are William Finck's notes for the program:

A brief discussion of the universalist poison of Clement, Origen and Eusebius

Clement of Alexandria misused the phrase “brood of vipers” in Book 1 Chapter 11 of The Instructor (Paedagogus) and in Book 4 chapter 16 of The Stromata. Then in his Exhortation to the Heathen, Chapter 1, ascertained that one could go from being of the “brood of vipers” to being a man of God by accepting Christ:

Again, therefore, some venomous and false hypocrites, who plotted against righteousness, He once called “a brood of vipers.” But if one of those serpents even is willing to repent, and follows the Word, he becomes a man of God.

The universalist position of Scripture was expressed by Clement of Alexandria, and after him it was continued by his student Origen, another Alexandrian, and then by Eusebius. By the time of Eusebius, it seems to be the only position he could imagine, although he neglected to mention at least some of his own theological opponents, such as Methodius of Olympus.

What is White in a World of Bastards

Identity Christians should accept anyone who is apparently White, identifies as White, and who accepts the Gospel of Christ as being White. But it takes a greater-than-average knowledge of history and Scripture to accept Christian Identity, so we cannot expect all Whites who first hear it to do so, and some will never do so. Therefore. Identity Christians should accept as White anyone who, not having an Identity Christian understanding of Scripture, is apparently White and identifies as White so long as they do not openly oppose our message.

Because these lines can be so complicated in today's world with all of its various competing philosophies, then for the purpose of the problems which we are trying to address here we should define our expectations from our fellow Whites, whether they profess to be Christian or not, in the simplest terms possible.

Those terms are best represented by what we may call Positive Christianity and White exclusivity.