Special Notices to All Who Deny Two-Seedline, Part 22

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
CHR20171124-CAE-SpecNotice22.mp3 — Downloaded 5166 times


Special Notices to All Who Deny Two-Seedline, Part 22

As we make our presentation this evening, we shall see Clifton offer a defense of Bertrand L. Comparet, Wesley A. Swift, William P. Gale and Nord Davis. While we can defend these men for their profession of what we call Two-Seedline, we do not have to agree with everything which they taught or said. Rather, we must understand that they were merely men, and that while their studies have helped us tremendously, they were also imperfect, and it is our duty to improve upon their teachings where they themselves fell short. As Paul had said, we all sin – or make mistakes – and therefore we all fall short of the glory of God. But that is not an excuse to be slothful in our scholarship, or to cleave to errors for the sake of men.

I have told this story in various ways in the past, but now I am going to summarize it again: When I became acquainted with Christian Identity in 1997, for about a year I read and appreciated Swift, Comparet, and a host of other Identity writers to whom I am indebted. But when I decided to study it seriously, I wanted to prove it for myself. So by the end of 1998 I set aside all of the Christian Identity materials so that I could concentrate solely on Scripture, language and historical studies that would either prove or destroy what I had read from those other writers. While I did continue to purchase some Identity books and pamphlets after that time, it was mostly only so that I could give them to others who wanted to learn.

Around that same time, I was introduced to the writings of Clifton Emahiser by a good friend and long-time student of Christian Identity named Ralph Daigle. So at Ralph’s insistence, I began to read Clifton’s Watchman’s Teaching Letters. Some time later I became involved with Clifton, after I wrote him several times to contend with him on certain topics. Soon, our relationship grew out of the common understanding that we were both interested in getting to the truth of the matters of Scripture and Christian Identity, and especially Two-Seedline. But even then, I had no concept of what we might accomplish, or how far our relationship would grow.

Over the ensuing years, Clifton and I, along with a couple of other friends, had exchanged letters both evaluating and debating many of the common Identity teachings which were popular at the time, and which are still popular today. Among these are the so-called “6th and 8th Day Creation theory” and the idea that the creation of non-White races is recorded in Scripture. After a great deal of study and discussion of these issues, we now reject those concepts completely, even though they were taught by both Swift and Comparet. While Swift and Comparet taught the so-called “6th and 8th Day Creation theory”, others in Christian Identity who have rejected the notion that the adamic man of Genesis chapter 1 represents the other races have nevertheless conjectured that those other races are found in the chay ‘erets, or beast of the earth, mentioned in that same chapter. We also reject that notion as both unscholarly and unscriptural.

Of course, as I was experiencing all of this from 1997 and through 2008, I never imagined what I would eventually do after I left prison, and did not conceive of what would develop from it. I honestly thought that I would end up with a 9-to-5 job, embark upon some new career, and that perhaps posting some of my writings or discussing our ideas somewhere on the internet might be a side interest. However, I am both thankful and even blessed, that I have been able to continue my studies, and that I have been able to publish all of my writings on the internet. Now I have promised to pursue the endeavor to put more of them into the form of books.

But there are many Identity Christians who to this very day, in spite of our work, have decided to claim that we just make things up for ourselves, slandering us in the process, and they pretend to cleave to the teachings of Comparet and Swift. So I must ask, if it cannot be proven explicitly that other races of so-called people were created by Yahweh on the 6th day of Creation as adam, or on the 5th day of Creation as beasts, then who is it that is making anything up? And one individual whom we know from social media recently admitted to being familiar with our work in Pragmatic Genesis, while professing to continue to believe the “6th and 8th Day Creation theory,” ostensibly because he was an Aryan Nations member and that is what a large portion of the remnant of Aryan Nations members continue to promote to this day. We are not picking on all Aryan Nations members. We have some that are very good friends. However many of them use the memory of their organization as a reason to cling to doctrines which have been proven false. So how are they any better than Roman Catholics?

In Part 1 of Pragmatic Genesis, we proved beyond reasonable doubt, by examining the grammatical forms of the Hebrew words as they appear throughout Genesis and the rest of the Old Testament, that the adam-man of Genesis chapter 1 is the same Adamic man of Genesis chapter 2. We also proved that the Bible does indeed recapitulate itself, and that the account from Genesis 2:4 of the creation of Adam is a new account giving a more detailed description of the creation of the Adamic Man that is seen in Genesis 1:26-27. Then in Parts 17 through 21 of_Pragmatic Genesis, we proved through Scripture that the other races as we know them were never created by God, that He never took credit for having created them, and even that He denies them.

I pray that I never assert anything that I cannot prove through the Scriptures, and, so far as I am aware, I do not offer any Biblical thesis in any of my writings without the support of two or three witnesses from Scripture. But we cannot offer a full proof of these assertions here. All of this cannot possibly be repeated here. We have already given all of our reasons and our witnesses in our commentaries and papers. However I must say, that if we offer nothing but Scripture to prove our positions, and if our opponents within Christian Identity cannot prove that the Scriptures uphold their own positions, who is making things up? It is certainly not us.

This may seem divisive, but it is division that we require – so long as our division is for Christ. This may seem trivial, but it is far more important than many presumed Identity Christians can realize. Yahweh our God has rejected the non-Adamic so-called races. They are all goats destined for the Lake of Fire, having the same fate as the Devil and his angels. One is either a son or a bastard, a wheat or a tare. The Kingdom of heaven is likened unto a net cast into the sea containing kinds, or races, of fish both good and bad. Yahweh’s sheep are the children of Israel, according to Scripture, and there are no others who are ever called His sheep. So the good race of fish which is preserved must also be the children of Israel, as according to the words of Christ Himself, in the end it is only the sheep which enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. As Christ said in John chapter 3, “unless a man should be born from above, he is not able to see the Kingdom of Yahweh.” So which of the other races would any Identity Christian claim is “born from above”?

Clinging to doctrines that are not found in Scripture, such as putting non-Whites into the category of chay ‘erets, which is what Joseph November insists upon doing, or insisting that they are from the creation of Genesis 1 adam while Whites are from of the Genesis 2 Adam, as Swift and Comparet had done, that is “making things up”! It is November, Swift, Comparet and those who follow them who make things up, but that is not what we do. And any insistence at all that the non-White races were created by God leads to the idea that by Him they were called “good”, which in turn leads to the idea that we must accept them, and that in turn leads to the inevitable result that can be seen on the beige and chocolate faces of so many of our children and grandchildren. Even to think that Yahweh somehow created them as beasts leads to universalism by the back door. The word beast may be used as a pejorative to describe so-called people who are not really people, but that does not mean that such a beast was an element of God’s Creation. Yahweh did not create bastards, and according to Paul of Tarsus, if one is not a son then one must be a bastard. According to the apostle Peter, those spots on our feasts of charity – those among us who are not truly of the children of Israel, are “natural brute beasts made to be taken and destroyed”.

The Scriptures command complete separation for the children of Israel. As they did in the Old Testament in Exodus chapter 19 or in Deuteronomy chapter 14, so they do also in the New Testament in 2 Corinthians chapter 6 or 1 Peter chapter 2. We cannot and we will not obtain that separation while at the same time we imagine that these non-White beasts are “good” people that Yahweh our God had somehow created. Yet there are so-called Aryan Nations adherents, even those who claim to be leaders, who defend the non-White races and claim that Clifton and I simply make things up. Pretenders they are, and they shall always be pretenders so long as they cling to lies. The so-called “6th & 8th Day Creation” theory is a damnable lie and it needs to be destroyed from Christian Identity. The idea that there are people whom God created as “good” beasts, and yet somehow they are treated as men in the New Testament, is an even worse lie that needs to be eradicated from any sound Christian Identity profession.

One of these so-called leaders who criticizes us, a former Aryan Nations member, also has a political group somewhere in Arkansas. It has been reported to me that he has among the members of his group some imagined “people” who are not White. No wonder he criticizes us! It is evidently his agenda to make excuses for non-Whites, so that he can use them for his own political advantage. He is destined to fail, because Yahweh our God will not bless such an endeavor. The children of Israel were never blessed when they purposely included non-Whites in anything they did. One notable example is that of the Gibeonites, and the children of Israel were punished for their unholy alliance even where they did not make it purposely, having been deceived as to their identity.

Now, at the end of 2017, Clifton Emahiser is sitting behind me on the couch in my office as I type this. Some of our listeners have asked about him, and we have been slack to report on him since we have relocated him to our home in Florida. Clifton is doing well, and has lately found the energy to do some writing. We pray he finds more and that he is able to continue.

With this we shall begin our presentation of Clifton A. Emahiser’s Special Notice To All Who Deny Two Seedline, #22. This was written in February of 2003, when Clifton’s ministry was nearing the conclusion of its 5th year. Throughout his writings Clifton’s statements were often topical, responding to feedback that he was getting from his many subscribers. Thus he begins:


Many may be wondering why I am so unremitting and dogged in my staunch position on Two Seedline doctrine. To make my stance perfectly clear, and so there will be absolutely no question in anyone’s mind where I’m coming from on this issue, I will lay it all out before you. There were four principal men who taught Two Seedline who are now dead and are not in a position to defend themselves. These men were Bertrand L. Comparet, Wesley A. Swift, William P. Gale and Nord Davis. After their deaths, crafty distracters took it upon themselves to take cheap potshots at their teachings. Therefore, I have taken it upon myself to defend these four deceased cardinal men in the face of these unprincipled cunning deceivers. Many may condemn me for naming names and pointing fingers, but I would like to make it absolutely clear, these anti-seedliners were the first to point fingers. In many cases they didn’t name names, but there was no doubt in anyone’s mind to whom they were aiming their shoddy, unqualified remarks.

And here we must recognize that there is a distinct difference between building upon our teachers of the past, by correcting their work and continuing to improve it, and actually tearing them down. We only seek to correct and improve upon our teachers, and we pray that in the future, other men hold us in that same esteem. So Clifton continues:

While I do not agree 100% with these four named principal men, nevertheless, I rate them in the high 90’s. I have developed a rating system for all those who proclaim they are Israel Identity teachers. I use the 100% figure as a grade of perfect. If the doctrine of Two Seedline is denied or omitted, I subtract 30%. If the doctrine of “Israel only” is not taught, but replaced with the doctrine of “universalism”, I subtract another 30%. Then, if the “no devil” doctrine is promoted, I subtract another 30%. As you can distinctly perceive, I do not give some of those misleading con-artists a very high rating. And if the doctrine of “dispensationalism” is advanced, I would give an even lower score. Of all the false teachers, I would rate Stephen E. Jones the lowest on this scale, for he fosters “anti-seedline”, “universalism” and “no devil” [doctrines]. While Stephen E. Jones currently holds [the] top position for teaching false doctrine in this category, there are others who are trying to surpass him in all three of these erroneous concepts. Since Pete Peters has recently refuted the “no devil” doctrine, I have raised him from 10% up to 40%, but in my book he still has a long way to go. For anyone who wishes to borrow this rating system for themselves, please feel free to do so.

Pete Peters also died shortly after Clifton wrote this, but from what I understand, he was beginning to admit that there was some truth to Two-Seedline before he died. Sadly, he created purposeful division over the use of the Hebrew names for God and Christ, which is quite unfortunate. Clifton continues:

We are told in Matthew 24:14 that “this gospel of the kingdom should be preached in all the world for a witness unto all [Israel] nations; and then shall the end come.”

Clifton added the word Israel in brackets here, which is not unjust because the original Greek has a definite article, reading “all of the nations”, referring to specific nations and not to just any nations. So he continues:

You will notice that it was to be a “witness”, not a mass conversion. If you get weary telling the Israel Identity message, only to be scoffed at in return, don’t give up hope for it’s our duty to continue to do so. Galatians 6:9 says, “let us not be weary in well doing.” If someone then gets all bent-out-of-shape because of the true message, simply go on and witness to someone else.

The witness of that “gospel of the kingdom” starts with the story of Genesis 3:15. Anyone trying to witness to the Gospel without the truth of Two Seedline simply is not proclaiming the entire Gospel, and thus it becomes “another gospel” ([citing] Galatians 1:8). After reading this passage, it becomes quite apparent that proclaiming the Gospel without the protevangelium (first gospel) is rather serious. The antichrist, anti-seedliners will always quote Genesis 4:1 without regard to Genesis 4:25 and 5:3, and will usually say: “See there?, Cain was Adam’s son.”

Genesis 4:25 reads: “And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.”

Genesis 5:3 reads: “And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:”

One verse precludes the idea that Cain was Adam’s son, because Cain did not need to be replaced but Abel did. The other precludes the idea that Cain was Adam’s son because it is pointed out explicitly that Seth was of Adam’s image and likeness, words which were never used of Cain. So again Clifton continues and says:

Most good Hebrew students recognize [that] there is a problem with Genesis 4:1, and indicate [that] there must be some kind of omission or gloss involved. The Targum of Jonathan to Genesis 4:1: “And Adam knew his wife Eve, who was pregnant by the Angel Sammael, and she conceived and bare Cain; and he was like the heavenly beings, and not like earthly beings, and she said, I have acquired a man, the Angel of the Lord.” From this evidence, it would appear there is an omission from the text.

From the evidence found in several Targums and apocryphal books, as well as from several New Testament passages, it is clear that there is a problem with Genesis 4:1. This is true whether or not we agree with the specific substance of this particular Targum. Clifton continues:

The antichrist, anti-seedliners usually read only one verse at a time, and in the process, [they] miss the overall picture. Had they ever read and studied Genesis 4:25 and 5:3 in their proper context, they couldn’t have made that error. Let’s now examine these two passages in detail, and it will become quite evident that Cain was not Adam’s son. Genesis 4:25 says: “And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For Elohim, saith she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.” From this, there is no other alternative but to recognize that Seth was a replacement for Abel, not Cain. But this is not the end of the story!

To this day Clifton still prefers to use the specific Hebrew term, elohim, rather than the general English title god. He continues:

Now, let’s read Genesis 5:3 in its proper context: “And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth.” Why would the writer of Genesis go to all the bother of pointing out in a double manner indicating that Seth was the “likeness” and “image” of Adam? The word “likeness” is the Hebrew word #1823, and means: resemblance, model, shape, manner, similitude and fashion. The word “image” is the Hebrew word #6754, and means: shadow, shade, phantom, illusion, resemblance, a representative figure. From this description, we can see that Seth was both the physical spitting image of Adam, and also had his mental characteristics and mannerisms. If we take it one step further and accept the fact that Seth was a replacement for Abel, we can only conclude that Abel was also the “likeness” and “image” of Adam!

I would go one step further and insist that the image of Adam represents that part of the organism which we would call the eternal spirit, which includes the mind but is not limited to it, as it says in chapter 2 of the Wisdom of Solomon that “God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity.” So the image of God in which man is made is that same eternity of Spirit which Yahweh God Himself possesses. Clifton continues and asks:

How can the antichrist, anti-seedliners overlook this immensely important Scriptural testimony? Yet they do, and exalt themselves in the process. I would challenge every one of the antichrist, anti-seedliners to show any Biblical evidence that Cain was the “likeness” and “image” of Adam! They can’t; there isn’t any! I refer to them as “antichrist, anti-seedliners” because if there was no physical seed of the serpent to bruise the heel of Messiah, then we have no Redemption. In denying the bruising, they are also denying that He came in the flesh, was bruised, died in the flesh and was resurrected in the flesh on the third day, and ascended into heaven in the flesh. To deny one is to deny all, and therefore “antichrist.” This is a very serious position for the antichrist, anti-seedliners to take.

Here I would also assert that to claim that the flesh is the devil is even more anti-Christ, since it is tantamount to saying that Christ came in the devil, died in the devil, was resurrected in the devil and ascended to heaven in the devil. And if one wants to insist that the flesh of Christ was somehow different than the flesh of man, then one denies the Scriptures which say that “he took on him the seed of Abraham” (Hebrews 2:16), that He was “of the seed of David according to the flesh” (Romans 1:3), that He might be “the firstborn among many brethren” (Romans 2:29) and that He was “made like unto his brethren” (Hebrews 2:17). Now continuing with Clifton:

At Genesis 4:26, we are told, “then began men to call upon the name of Yhwh.” Never are we told it was the nature of Cain to worship our Almighty Father. In fact, the record shows quite the opposite, and is quite evident among Cain’s descendants (the “Jews”) of today. [PORTION] They never have, and they never will. Therefore, Abel and Seth were born of the Spirit, and Cain wasn’t, for John 3:6 states: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” Cain, being a half-breed, obstructed the ingress of the Spirit. Abel and Seth, along with all their descendants, were spirit-men like their father Adam (check Genesis 2:7). Here again, Abel and Seth were born according to Yhwh’s Law, kind after kind. Cain was not purely Adam-kind. Not only were Abel and Seth the image of Adam, but Adam was the image of Yhwh; Genesis 1:26.

Here it is evident that if the Genesis 1:26 creation is a creation of adam-man other than and separate from the creation of Adam in Genesis 2, then the Genesis 2 Adam has the Spirit of Yahweh, but the Genesis 1 adam has His image and likeness! So Genesis 5 either creates a third Adam, or the first two are one and the same. All of this proves that the “6th & 8th Day Creation” advocates have not properly thought these things through. We pray they are not stuck on stupid forever. Returning to Clifton, who is writing in reference to Cain:

Therefore, it is blasphemous to even intimate that Adam was Cain’s father. Yet the antichrist, anti-seedliners do this incessantly. By the way, the Hebrew article (the) is not used at Genesis 1:26 with respect to Adam, but (the) is used in verse 27. It is only proposed in verse 26 to create Adam in Yhwh’s image, but in verse 27 it becomes an established fact and he is called “the man”, or Adam, #120. There are many unqualified, alleged authorities going around Israel Identity spouting all kinds of nonsensical refuse, and don’t even know the use of the Hebrew or Greek article. Col. John R. Niemela Ret. is a case in point teaching his “no devil” doctrine. Whether it is a real devil or not depends, in most instances, on the Hebrew or Greek article.

Ever since the birth of Cain, his descendants have been both murderers and liars. This was not the true nature of either Abel or Seth. Adam’s descendants have to be taught to act like Cain, and Cain is an effective teacher.

The point Clifton makes here, is that our Adamic race was created for good. And while we can do evil, we nevertheless have an innate capacity to do good. But in contrast, Cain was a murderer from the beginning, he was a son of the devil, and all of his descendants, even if they seem to do good, can only do evil. As Christ had said to them, “ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.” If His Word has no place in them, then they cannot possibly do well. Again continuing with Clifton:

The Bible Knowledge Commentary by Walvoord and Zuck, while wanting in many areas, does have a striking remark on Genesis 3:15, volume 1, page 33: “... God said there would be a perpetual struggle between satanic forces and mankind. It would be between Satan and the woman, and their respective offspring, or ‘seeds.’ The ‘offspring’ of the woman was Cain, then all humanity [sic. Adam-kind] at large, and then Christ and those collectively in Him…” [To this Clifton responds and says:] It can readily be seen that Walvoord and Zuck are teaching Two Seedline, and that their position is superior to that of the anti-seedliners. Remarkably, they point out that Cain is from the seed of the woman rather than Adam. At least Walvoord and Zuck admit there are two “seeds” and that those “seeds” represent two kinds of “offspring in a perpetual struggle.”

We could imagine that Walvoord and Zuck come to the inevitable conclusion as all of those who do not recognize that there is a problem with Genesis 4:1, and mistakenly believe that Cain must be of the seed of the woman because he is, as they believe, the son of Adam. With a single gloss, the ancient scribes have caused a world of confusion.

Let me state further, that a woman is of the seed of her parents; her reproductive seed is of the same nature as her parents. If she mates with someone of another race, her offspring is not her seed. It may have come out of her, but it is of a different nature than she is. So Cain was not of the seed of Eve, and was called the seed of the serpent, being a bastard. But a bastard is not actually the seed of its parents.

Clifton continues:

By the antichrist, anti-seedliners taking the position that Cain was Adam’s son, they imply that Cain was a brother to Yahshua. That also suggests that Cain was in the image of Adam. By this, they make our Messiah a congenital liar and a murderer as are the descendants of Cain. The twofold image of Adam’s descendants are both physical and mental. Those antichrist, anti-seedliners really don’t stop and consider the horrible consequences of their flawed thesis. They keep digging themselves into a pit of their own making. The definition of “congenital” means “existing from birth.” That’s the true meaning of John 8:44! Therefore, all [of] the descendants of Cain are “congenital” liars and murderers, and Yahshua didn’t make any exceptions when He accused them in Matthew 23:35. But the antichrist, anti-seedliners are insistent on hanging on to their old, decrepit, insubstantial, churchianity teachings.

Here I would only say that “The twofold image of Adam’s descendants are both physical and spiritual”, believing that the spiritual aspect of the creation of man transcends his physical state, whereas what we think of as mental is usually perceived to die with the body, but we should know that it is the spirit which contains the mind.

In Matthew 23:35 we read where Christ tell His adversaries: “That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.” Our assertion is that if these men, whom Christ refers to as a γενεά, or a race, are responsible for the blood of Abel, then they must be descendants of Cain – and they were. If they were actually descendants of Seth, Christ could not have made such an accusation. Continuing with Clifton:

I need to repeat how nefarious a position the antagonists of the two-seeds of Genesis 3:15 are demanding! By making Cain the full brother of Abel and Seth, they imply the Messiah was in the same image as Cain; implying that Messiah was also a congenital liar and murderer. Additionally, if such a thing were true, that would make our Messiah equally responsible for all the murders of the prophets since Abel (Matthew 23:35; Luke 11:51).

This is true. If Cain was a devil, the law of Kind after Kind insists that Adam, Abel and Seth were devils, if indeed Cain was of Adam’s seed. If Christ told His adversaries that they were doing the work of their father Cain, then that would also be the work of His father Adam! John chapter 8 certainly stands in conflict with Genesis 4:1, and the only way to resolve the conflict is to admit that there is a problem with Genesis 4:1, and that problem certainly is demonstrable. So Clifton continues, from a different aspect of the situation:

The anti-seedliners, in general, believe that Cain had a choice in the matter of murdering Abel (Genesis 4:7). But if one will check the words “sin”, “lieth” and “door” [in] that verse, one will discover it is speaking of conception and birth through the birth canal “door.” The problem with the antichrist, anti-seedliners is they are still reading the Bible through churchianity glasses. They read John 3:3 as being regenerated by the spirit (born again) rather than to be born of the Spirit from above (or born of the chosen race). Here again, they try to make it man’s choice as they also claim in the case of Cain. They read Leviticus 19:2, where it says “Ye shall be holy: for I Yhwh your Elohim am holy”, to mean some kind of spiritual perfection rather than to keep one’s racial line pure (whereas “holy” simply means set apart). They read the parable of the wheat and the tares, and make the tares all those who haven’t “chosen Jesus Christ as their personal savior”, rather than the wheat being the descendants of Seth and the tares the descendants of Cain. They try to make man the one doing the choosing, when John 15:16 proclaims: “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you ...” Cain really didn’t have a choice in the matter, for he would simply follow his satanic-genetic temperament. They suggest that a seed can choose to be wheat or tare. The next time you plant your garden, ask each individual seed what kind of fruit or vegetable plant it wants to be, and see how far you get. [Now Clifton makes a parenthetical remark in relation to those who imagine these things, and he exclaims:] (Shades of Bozo the clown!)

Also, if Cain and Yahshua our Messiah had been in the same image, as the anti-seedliners imply, then our Savior would be in the same category [of] a “fugitive” and a “vagabond.” Not only that, but all the Apostles would also have been fugitives and vagabonds. Cain was cursed to be both a fugitive and a vagabond. The meanings of these two words in English are very similar to those of the Hebrew and Greek. Also, Cain was driven out from the presence of Yhwh into the land of Nod. The term “Nod” simply means “exile”, (Probably into the land of nowhere). Who are the people living in “exile” in all the countries of the world, having no place to call home? Who are the vagabonds of the world, and why aren’t they White like the descendants of Adam? Oh, there are some who are almost White! This alone should prove, beyond all doubt, that Cain was not a full-blooded brother to Abel or Seth, therefore [he was] not in the spitting image of Adam!

Actually, while Clifton is correct about the Jews, who descended from Cain, being permanent exiles, the word nod (Strong’s # 5113) actually means wandering. The word wandering, which is a going astray, is often a synonym for sin. But I would rather assert that Cain was banished to the land of wandering, outside of the Garden of Eden, ostensibly because the world was already engaged in sin, in the rebellion of the fallen angels who were “cast out into the earth” and “neither was their place found any more in heaven.” So to me Nod represents that part of the world which was not under the governance of Yahweh for which reason He created Adam, to establish His government. Clifton continues:

In the English, [which is] similar to Hebrew and Greek, vagabond means: 1.- wandering from place to place without any settled home or habitation; nomadic: a vagabond tribe (a person without a fixed home or abode who has no apparent means of support). 2.- leading an unsettled or carefree life (an itinerant beggar or thief; a vagrant; a tramp). 3.- a wandering rogue; drifter (worthless; shiftless; good-for-nothing; rascal; an idle, disreputable, or shiftless person). 4.- of, pertaining to, or characteristic of a vagabond: vagabond habits (aimless; drifting; unstable; driven to and fro; strolling about; shiftless). 5.- having an uncertain or irregular course of direction (unpredictable; aimlessly following an irregular course or path; drifting): as vagabond voyage. 6.- a person usually without a permanent home, who wanders from place to place; nomad. 7.- an idle wanderer without a permanent home or visible means of support; tramp; vagrant; a scamp. 8.- a carefree, worthless, or irresponsible person; a rogue …

This is also how the devil of Job was found, “going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it”, in Job chapter 1.

We cannot overlook the term “vagrant” as it’s a variant of vagabond: 1.- a person who wanders about idly and has no permanent home or employment; vagabond, tramp (in other words, someone who is allergic to a good day’s work). 2.- Law. an idle person without visible means of support, as a tramp or beggar. 3.- a person who wanders from place to place; wanderer; rover. 4.- wandering idly without a permanent home or employment; living in vagabondage: vagrant beggars. 5.- of, or pertaining to, or characteristic of a vagrant: the vagrant life. 6.- wandering or roaming from place to place; nomadic. 7.- (of plants) staggering in growth. 8.- not fixed or settled, especially in course; moving hither and thither: a vagrant leaf blown in the wind ...

Not only was Cain to be a “vagabond”, but also a “fugitive”: 1.- one who is fleeing, from prosecution (from legal punishment by the avenger of blood), intolerable circumstances, etc.; a runaway: a fugitive from justice. 2.- having taken flight, or run away: a fugitive slave. 3.- fleeting; transitory, elusive. 4.- Fine arts. changing color as a result of exposure to light and chemical substances present in the atmosphere, in other pigments, or in the medium. (Cain’s ever elusive descendants also change color and behavior like a chameleon).

Cain and his descendants are all of these things and more. To imply that Cain’s and Seth’s descendants are alike in “image” and nature is to accuse the Messiah of having these same qualities. Reread these characteristics, and reconsider what the anti-seedliners are accusing the descendants of Adam, Abel and Seth of being. They should be ashamed of themselves! And, yes, Abel had descendants through Seth. The anti-seedliners fail to see that Cain and his descendants are yet to pay the full legal price for the murder of Abel, via Seth, via Yahshua (the principal avenger of blood), and his brethren. Therefore, to hate Two Seedline is to hate Yhwh and His cause (1st John 3:8). All the anti-seedliners hate the Two Seedline doctrine with a passion! In addition to this, it should be mentioned there is no statute of limitations for the revenge of Abel’s blood which is still crying from the ground.

Here Clifton cited 1 John 3:8 which says “He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.” As Clifton has said here, Yahshua is ultimately the avenger of the blood of Abel, and all of the seed of the serpent shall ultimately be destroyed. The devil sinned from the beginning, and Cain was a murderer from the beginning. His descendants were called congenital murderers and congenital liars by Yahshua Christ in John chapter 8, and Christ also denied that His Father was their father, but said that their father was a devil. Since Yahweh did not create devils, then Cain must have had a different father, and that is the reason for the enmity between the two seeds. The two lines, that of Seth and that of Cain, must have had different inherent natures, as Christ fully explains in John chapter 8. To deny as much is indeed to deny Christ. Now Clifton continues under the subtitle:


We should never have difficulty identifying Cain’s descendants by their lifestyle, for they are cursed to never find a home. On the other hand, Adam’s descendants through Seth, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are promised to be planted and MOVE NO MORE! (2 Samuel 7:10). Today all one need do is take a look around the world and observe who are moving and who are not moving — who have a land of their own and who do not. The anti-seedliners are totally oblivious to this fact — living in their own little fanciful 2 by 4 dream-world. MY GOD!, WAKE UP!, YOUR HOUSE IS ON FIRE! And the anti-seedliners echo back, “Oh no it isn’t — it’s all a matter of the ‘flesh’.” In a way they are correct, for Cain’s descendants are of the “world” and Adam’s descendants are of the “Spirit” (John 8:23; 15:19; 1 John 4:4-6).

After Christianity took hold in Europe, replacing paganism, for over a thousand years the anti-Christ Jew had no home there. Then when they were admitted, they were chattel property of the kings and there were continuous pograms where they were constantly expelled and driven from whatever homes they had. But now we live in a different dynamic, where the allegorical Satan – the Jew – has been let out of the allegorical pit and has become our master. So we await the final day of vengeance, where all of these enemies of our God will indeed be completely destroyed. Only Genesis 3:15 describes and accounts for what the Jew is doing in all of the lands of Christendom today. So Clifton continues under the subtitle:


Of all the preposterous allegations put forth by the anti-seedliners, examine their claim [that] there is only one party to have enmity (hatred) in Genesis 3:15. They intimate this by saying that the only seed of the woman is, as they call Him, “Jesus Christ”, and that is the only seed there is in that verse. They then claim that the “seed of the serpent” doesn’t exist, or is of “the flesh”, or is “figurative.” Had they read the entire chapter, especially verse 14, they would have discovered the “thee” and “thy” in verse 15 is the “serpent” of verse 14. The problem seems to be: the anti-seedliners can only read one verse at a time, and a short verse at that. ([Now Clifton makes a parenthetical remark in relation to those who claim these things, and he exclaims:] Shades of the second grade.)

Clifton continues:

They completely overlook the word “between” as if it wasn’t even there! The word “between” is derived from twain and twixt in Old English. The base word is bin in several languages and is bane in Hebrew (see dwo in The American Heritage Dictionary under “Indo-European Roots”, page 1514). Also see #996 in the Hebrew in Strong’s or Gesenius’. [Strong’s Hebrew # 996 is the Hebrew word beyn, which means “a distinction, but used only as a preposition, between”, according to Strong’s.] It should be noted that #996 is used four times to separate between the two in verse 15a, ([where in the King James Version it is translated] two times as “between” and two times as “and”), but that doesn’t seem to mean anything to the anti-seedliners. After all, it takes two to hate (the hater and the hated), except and unless one hates himself. In English, “between” means: (1) used to show two things considered together, (2) in the space separating, (3) used to indicate a comparison or choice, and, (4) in an intervening space or interval. Therefore, each meaning demands at least two things. Likewise, the “between” in Genesis 3:15 requires two entities, and they are the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman. Thus the term “Two Seedline” is very appropriate.

In addition to this, the Hebrew word #995 [distinguished by Strong’s as biyn rather than beyn, it has the same Hebrew spelling] is the root word for #996 (interval, space between) and it says in Gesenius’: “To separate ... to stand apart, to be distinct ... to be separate and distinct ... to be easily distinguished, distinct, manifest ...” What is there about it, that we don’t understand there are TWO separate seeds, not one?!?! Well, I guess, at least according to the anti-seedliners, that that single-seed was “Christ”, and He hated Himself! Poor old “God”; can’t do anything right! Or must He first consult the single seedliners for their own private, all-wise interpretation as to the meaning of His Word?!?! [Now Clifton makes another parenthetical remark concerning those who deny Two-Seedline, and exclaims:] (Conceit unlimited!)

Clifton makes all these points in order to accentuate the fact that the serpent must have seed of its own, and that Yahweh God is speaking to the serpent where He says that “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed”, so Christ can only be a party to one side of this enmity, and by necessity this seed of the serpent opposed to Christ must be of some different seed, some seed not related to Christ. However we understand the seed of either side to be collective, so the seed of the woman is Christ along with all the rest of the Adamic race. The seed of the serpent is also collective, but we discern that to include all the branches of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil as well as Cain and his descendants. In any event, the anti-seedliners are fools indeed, but they are too thick-headed to recognize their foolishness. Now Clifton continues under the subtitle:


Because White Adamites are by nature a peace-loving people, the idea of a WAR between two genetic peoples is repulsive. That is until they understand [that] there is an enemy who wants to destroy their family and everything they stand for. Because the Adamites are sheep rather than wolves, they think the wolves have the same values as sheep. The WAR in Genesis 3:15 is a WAR between the sheep and the wolves. The sheep are the true Israelites, and the wolves are the impostor Israelis known today as “Jews.” Actually, for the most part, today’s “Jews” are the old Canaanites that occupied the land of Canaan before the true Israelites invaded that area under the command of Joshua. With their characteristic sheep nature, they didn’t complete their Yahweh-commanded job of destroying the Canaanite wolves, and they still cling to that same weak position today.

We would assert that the “seed of the serpent” has carried itself not only through the Jews, but through the Arabs, the Turks, and all of the world’s other races as well. Much of this assertion is readily evident in history. Continuing with Clifton:

Since Yahweh came in the flesh, as our Redeemer, the hatred of Genesis 3:15 for the descendants of Cain came with Him also. Therefore, the single seedliners are at WAR with Messiah Himself, and shaking their fist in His face. They have wittingly, or unwittingly, joined the enemy. They are like the “fundamentalists” who scream and denounce the ADL, and then turn around and mollycoddle the “Jews” who run it and declare they are “God’s chosen people.” Until the anti-seedliners discard their single-seed theory, they will be of no use to the Almighty or [to] themselves. In fact, with their untenable position, they become traitors to His cause. The only way one can line up with Yahweh is to love those whom He loves and hate whom He hates! The antichrist, anti-seedliners hate the message of Genesis 3:15, and by doing that, become haters of Yahweh Himself! Luke 6:46 says: “And why call ye me, Master, Master, and do not the things which I say?” They deny His proclamation of Genesis 3:15, and teach the opposite!

The very first thing the antichrist, anti-seedliners do is accuse the Two Seedliners of dividing the brethren, when in fact they are the ones who are guilty of that crime. They are quick to quote Proverbs 6:16 & 19: “16 These six things doth Yhwh hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him ... [citing the one which says:] 19 ... and he that soweth discord among brethren.” The anti-seedliners would do well to read the first part of verse 19 which states: “A false witness that speaketh lies ...”

As I had said before, Clifton was often responding to letters which he had received, or perhaps also to email messages. The entire passage cited from Proverbs reads thus: “16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: 17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, 19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.” The anti-seedliners should indeed heed closely all of verse 19. Clifton concludes:

There is only one kind of disciple spreading the Master’s teachings: those who gather, while others scatter, (Matthew 12:30 & Luke 11:23). These verses state: “He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.” Those who deny the Two Seedlines of Genesis 3:15 are among those who “gathereth not”, but “scattereth.” I realize that this is a very serious charge to make against the anti-seedliners, but they have actually joined themselves with the enemy. They are undermining the Kingdom rather than building it. They really should read Joshua 5:13; I Kings 18:21; 1 Chronicles 12:17-18; Matthew 6:24; Mark 9:40; Luke 9:50; John 8:34-44; 11:52; 15:23; Romans 6:16; 2 Corinthians 6:15-16: 1 John 2:19; 3:7-8; Revelation 3:15-16.

I could name all those who shake their fist at the Two Seedline doctrine, but if you’ve read the first twenty-one articles I have written entitled Special Notice To All Who Deny Two Seedline, you already know who they are. If you’re an anti-seedliner, don’t feel bad if I have not mentioned your name. I apologize if I have missed naming any of the antichrist, anti-seedliners.

The anti-seedliners are scatterers, rather than gatherers, because they do not understand the racial message of the Scriptures, and are for that reason frequently found gathering grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles. Christ asserted that He came only for the sheep, to gather the sheep, and everyone who does not gather with him scatters. Then He said “15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?” Of course, Ted Weiland, sending Bibles to African negros, is attempting to gather figs from thorns, or perhaps sheep from monkeys, and that makes him a scatterer. When aliens are brought into the sheepfold, the sheep are scattered. Now Clifton closes and says:

Again, I would point out, I am defending four principal men; Bertrand L. Comparet, Wesley A. Swift, William P. Gale and Nord Davis, who taught Two Seedline doctrine and who are now dead and unable to defend themselves against the onslaught of the antichrist, anti-seedliners. Therefore, we Two Seedliners cannot promote or fellowship with such ministries who continue to defame them, for in doing so, we would become part and parcel of their misrepresentations of Scripture.

To this very day clowns such as Ted Weiland, Stephen Jones, James Bruggeman and Col. Richard “Dick” Niemela continue in their treachery, and are blinding the sheep to the Truth.