- Christogenea Internet Radio
I have decided to continue the presentation of Clifton Emahiser’s 24 Special Notices to All Who Deny Two Seed-line for just one more week, and next week I plan to resume our ongoing presentations of the Epistles of Paul with 1 Timothy. Following that, we shall return to a continuation of this series again in the near future, as we plan to travel later this Spring.
But before we begin with Clifton’s essay I want to take a short digression. I am going to try to take at least one of these digressions throughout each episode of this series, as they give me an opportunity to discuss certain things which I do not frequently have a good context to discuss. I am certain Clifton would not mind that I do this. Not everyone who calls themselves “Two-Seedline” is our friend, or a friend of truth, and not all of those who neglect to use the label are our enemies. Last week I had discussed a paragraph from a book written by Joseph November, who writes and plays at being a Christian Identity pastor under the pseudonym of Eli James. Now I am going to discuss one aspect of a paper he wrote over 5 years ago, entitled Crumbs. In that paper, Eli, as I will reluctantly call him, referred to Clifton Emahiser and I as “exterminationists”, using this term to describe our exposition of Scripture just as if it were some sort of slander coined by the Anti-Defamation League or the Southern Poverty Law Center. Like it or not, it is important to elucidate these things, because we Identity Christians need to pursue the truth, and we need to be able to recognize the lies. That is our Christian obligation.
Eli likes to flippantly brag that I never refuted his paper, Crumbs, but in reality there are a hundred podcast and essay presentations at Christogenea which do refute his paper. But if I were to address the paper directly, there are so many false premises upon which it is predicated that I would have to write an entire book, and Eli James simply is not worth such an effort. I would rather believe that the people who actually follow our work at Christogenea and study behind us should easily recognize his many errors. But here we shall briefly address a couple of aspects of Eli’s paper which display his absolute dishonesty as an interpreter of Scripture.
The first is where he is quoting from Jeremiah chapter 31 and he says the following:
Continuing with this pericope: And it shall come to pass, like as I have watched over them, to pluck up and to break down, and to throw down, and to destroy and to afflict; so will I watch over them, to build and to plant, saith Yahweh. (Just as Yahweh has punished us, He will also watch over us, if we will only obey His laws.) In those days, they shall SAY NO MORE, The fathers have eaten the sour grape, and the children’s teeth are set on edge; BUT EVERYONE SHALL DIE FOR HIS OWN INIQUITY: everyone that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge. – Jer. 31:28-30.
There are three concepts being stated in Jer. 31:27-29, all of which contradict the exterminationist viewpoint: [I must say, they only contradict our viewpoint in the twisted manner by which he interprets them...]
1.) The “sour grape” is a proverb about the sins of the parents falling upon their children. Race-mixing is only one of these sins. Although our children can be blessed or cursed with good or bad parents, Yahweh judges them as to how they handle their situations. He never judges anyone, not even Canaanites, for being mongrels, precisely because the mongrel children are not guilty of the sin. Yahweh does prohibit them from entering the congregation of Israel (Deut. 23:2).
2.) This passage is clearly saying that, after the New Covenant is established, we Israelites WILL NO MORE RECITE THIS PROVERB, i.e., we will no longer blame our parents for our own problems! So, why are the exterminationists trying to revive it?
3.) Not only will this proverb be forgotten, we will understand that we have only ourselves to blame for our own sins.
We would actually agree with most of what Eli wrote here, but concerning mongrels, or bastards, there are a few concepts which are false premises with which we cannot agree, and we shall show that Eli is lying. It is of course true that mongrels are excluded from the congregations of Israel, but on the other hand Eli seeks to include them by applying the promises of Jeremiah chapter 31 to them. So he is a double-minded man. And while it is true that we should only have ourselves to blame for our sins, we would assert that the New Covenant is not truly established until it is consummated at the marriage supper of the Lamb. In the meantime, we all clearly continue to suffer for the errors of our ancestors.
In the second passage, where he further elaborates on the same topic, he says:
Yes, a mongrel is not allowed in the congregation of Yahweh, but neither is this a death sentence. Since the parents are the ones guilty of the sin, it is THEY who must be punished for it. Even in Ezra and Nehemiah, the mongrels were cast out but they were not punished with death. They were allowed to live in neighboring lands. They were not punished merely for being mongrels. Not even Cain was so punished (Gen. 4:7), because it was not his sin. Adam and Eve, however, were punished with death for this sin! Cain was not punished with expulsion until after he murdered Abel. (Gen. 4:14.) Not so?
In response to these words of Eli, firstly in Ezra and Nehemiah the parents of bastards were not punished, and were only commanded to repent by putting away their alien wives and children. This was the only possible solution in the political climate of the time, as the Judaeans were still subject to the Persians. Furthermore, Cain was not punished for his crime because there was no law. As Paul said in Romans, death reigned from Adam until Moses, but sin was not accounted where there is no law. However Adam and Eve were punished because they violated the only commandment which Yahweh God had given them, which was not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. So they had a law which they transgressed, and their punishment fit the transgression. But Cain was not governed by any law, so he was not punished. Instead, his progeny were later used to help punish the children of Israel when they sinned, and that remains their role until the Day of the Wrath of Yahweh, when He takes vengeance upon His enemies.
Secondly, mongrels are not properly children. They may be physical children because of the circumstances of their birth, but they are not children in relation to the covenants of God. In Jeremiah, Yahweh is addressing the children of Israel with whom He is going to make a New Covenant. Yahweh does not make covenants with bastards. As Paul of Tarsus pointed out in Hebrews chapter 12, a passage which Eli himself had quoted earlier in the paper, one is either a son or a bastard. Sons are children in every way, sons have an opportunity to assume the position of sonship, and Jeremiah chapter 31 applies to them, but it does not apply to bastard children, who are disqualified by the law. Furthermore, the proverb won’t be forgotten until Christ returns, and every tear is wiped from the eyes of His children, as men today are still being punished for their sins as well as the sins of their ancestors.
Lastly, where it says that “the fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children’s teeth are set on edge”, Eli fails to interpret that passage at all except to devise a lie concerning the “sour grapes.” When Eve race-mixed with the serpent, Abel’s teeth were set on edge. When Judah had Canaanite sons, the teeth of his true sons Pharez and Zerah were set on edge. Later, because of the presence of the bastards, the teeth of the entire Kingdom of Judah were set on edge. Sour grapes are born of bad trees, trees that cannot produce good fruit, and that is why the children’s teeth are set on edge.
The Canaanites were to be pricks and thorns to the Israelites when Israel did not destroy them all as they were commanded. But if we examine the punishment of Adam described in Genesis chapter 3, we find the same warning where he was told “cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee…” This was not a warning about future problems with agriculture. Rather it is an allegorical warning about the thorns and thistles that would spring up among his descendants because of his sin in the garden. Likewise Eve was told that “in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children” because of the enmity between her seed and the seed of the serpent which she was going to have to witness, and Abel was killed for it. Eve bore Abel in sorrow, because Abel was killed by Cain, the result of her sin.
Eli James cunningly abuses the story of the Canaanite woman in order to promote a back-door sort of universalism in Christian Identity, and only fools would tolerate such treachery. Because of liars such as Eli James, the Canaanite Woman fulfills her God-given role as a thorn and a prick in the eyes of all who would listen to him. But this illustrates just a few of the false premises upon which Eli James predicates his perverse interpretations of Scripture. Some of the others he has summarized more neatly in other places.
Click here for a screenshot of a June, 2014 Facebook conversation where Eli James unrighteously and rather childishly slanders me as a "Joo", and brags about this Crumbs paper which I am addressing here. This has been his pattern of behavior for six years now. To consistently slander me, provoke and challenge me, tell others I cannot refute his nonsense, but then play the victim whenever I attempt to address the actual issues, as I have done here. My objectives have nothing to do with personality or personal enmity, but only to establish what is true and what are lies in for a future of sound Biblical scholarship for Christian Identity.
For example, in a program he did with Greg Howard on his old Voice of Christian Israel Talkshoe program on January 23rd of 2011, the very weekend when our relationship was severed, just after the hour-and-twenty-minute mark, Eli James exclaimed “Is the mongrel guilty of the sin, and does Yahweh punish those who did not commit the sin? Obviously He does not.” This is the same sympathy for Canaanites which he expressed in his Crumbs paper. Earlier in the program he said “Yahshua has no intention of exterminating all Canaanites. Some of these Canaanites will be allowed to live wherever they were created.” - Eli James (See our posting of the podcast at Eli James - Canaanites are "Saved"?) This is why we split. Eli said these things the very morning after we had done what turned out to be our last podcast together, discussing Revelation chapters 6 through 8. When Eli said these things, among other duplicitous remarks which he had made in that podcast, I was done with him and pulled the plug on our working relationship. Eli has been in damage-control mode ever since, slandering both Clifton and I and misrepresenting our words and teachings in many of his podcasts and articles. Eli searches for what he perceives are gray areas in Scripture, and twists them into a form of universalism byt the back door.
Now, we do not know where Canaanites were created, since they are all bastards and Yahweh did not create any bastards, but Yahshua Christ stated quite the contrary when He said that “Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up”, which would ostensibly include all bastards. Shortly before that He said that “As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world”, whereas Eli evidently believes that Yahshua would only remove the tares to another place so that they may live happily-ever-after.
The Revelation of Yahshua Christ informs us as to exactly what our God thinks about bastards. There in chapter 2 we read in the message to the church at Thyatira:
“20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. 21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. 22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. 23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.”
Race-mixing is a form of fornication, which we see attested in 1 Corinthians chapter 10 and in the epistle of Jude. The Greek word for adultery was also used in reference to race-mixing, as we have recently shown from the writings of Strabo and Aristotle in our presentation of chapter 1 of Paul’s epistle to Titus. So Jezebel and those who commit adultery with her are cast into tribulation unless they repent. But then Christ says “And I will kill her children with death”. Those who commit adultery with Jezebel are not killed with death, but only the children are. Ostensibly, this must be because the children are bastards. Being bastards, they are not subject to the promises found in Jeremiah chapter 31. And this is in the Revelation, so Eli is wrong on several levels of his interpretation of Jeremiah 31:30, since these bastard children indeed suffer from the sins of their fornicating parents. In any event, Eli James is a liar. Christ certainly does punish and shall punish the children of fornicators and adulterers.
At the end of his Crumbs paper, Eli James proclaimed that “exterminationism is dead”. Again, he is a liar. We are confident that exterminationism will be dead, but not until the last bastard is exterminated. If you consider this liar a pastor, please do not listen here any longer, as you clearly do not have the Spirit of Christ by which to determine that Eli James is a false prophet and no better than the serpent himself. He is a thorn and he is a prick [or as he himself claims, a putz] in the eye of every Israelite who still listens to him.
With this, we shall commence with Clifton Emahiser’s
Special Notice To All Who Deny Two Seedline, #4
Note: I have slightly revised this paper from the original as of 6-14-08, C.A.E. [The original seems to have been completed in July, 2001 - WRF]
This is a continuation of a topic of the utmost monumental importance, for we are moving very rapidly toward the climax of a 7,000 plus year-old WAR. The forces from both sides of this war are gathering for a final battle which will culminate in the total extermination of one side or the other. This war will not end with a truce or an armistice, but will be a fight to the death. As a matter of fact, we are already in this last great battle, and, for the moment, we are rapidly going down to defeat. And, unless our people wake up PDQ, we are in for one “H” of a conflict. All one has to do is observe the multiculturalism and miscegenation that is going on, and you can very quickly calculate where we stand in this life and death struggle. While all this is going on, the masses have been lulled into a state of indifference and unconcern, while the Clergy are actually aiding and abetting the enemy. And, if this were not bad enough, the anti-seedliners blow the “trumpet” with an “uncertain sound”, 1 Corinthians 14:8: “For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?” By denying the Two Seedline message of Genesis 3:15, this is exactly what they are doing. Actually, it’s a capital crime in a time of danger not to identify the enemy. Today, Israel is in greater peril than at any time in her history! [Mark 13:22]
Most of the anti-seedliners whom I have encountered the past several years have been accepting of the notions that there can be good Jews, and that there can be good people from among the non-Adamic races who may even be our allies. They really don’t understand who the call to come out from among requires Christians to come out from among. This is dangerous, since when we ally ourselves with the enemies of our God, we will surely end up on the wrong end of His wrath. So in essence, these so-called pastors blowing the trumpet to make an uncertain sound are complicit in the murders of our brethren by the enemies of our God. This is murder by peace, when Christ Himself denied that He came to bring peace. So Clifton rather appropriately continues:
“AN UNCERTAIN SOUND”
We will shortly see an excellent example of a “trumpet” with an “uncertain sound.” Once we understand we are in a WAR where the “Jews” are implementing their plan to interbreed the White Israelite peoples out of existence, any rhetorical proclamation which would aid such a cause would be very traitorous and untimely. Jeffrey A. Weakley, a fervently caustic, anti-seedliner, in his [book] The Satanic Seedline, Its Doctrine and History says this on pages 30-31:
“Results of the Satanic Seedline Teaching, The results of the Satanic Seedline teaching (if accepted as true) should speak for themselves. Most seedliners hate Jews today (those who claim to be) because of their ethnic origin. For this same reason, they honor the white races because of their ethnic origin. This easily leads to race worship. They stress the physical aspect of God’s Word (that is, the physical descent of Israel), which is ignored by most churches today, so much that they forget or neglect the spiritual aspect, which is of more importance (Gal. 3:26-29). They make true the words in 1 Sam. 16:7: ‘... for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.’ Many seedliners go so far as to say that only whites (Israelites) can have eternal life with Christ. Now it is clear that only Israelites can be ‘redeemed’ (Gal. 4:5), but this is not to say that other races can’t be born again. Our eternal life is the result of our election by God to accept His Son by faith. If the Scriptures are to be accepted, we must conclude that people of all races can be born again. ‘Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of the truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.’ (Acts 10:34-35) ... The seedliners that worship their race are no different than those who purport to be Jews. Jews today take pride in their race and consider themselves better than everyone else. Even the Jewish religion (Judaism) teaches that Jews are superior by race. This ludicrous belief was taught at the Baptist Bible college I attended. There is no doubt that God chose Israel to be His people, but nowhere do I find that it was because Israel was a superior race. So whether it be seedliners or Jews, the idea of a superior race is inconsistent with the teachings of God’s Word.”
The passage which Weakley cites from 1 Samuel 16:7 concerning the just judgement of God has everything to do with the status of men, and has nothing to do with race. Yahweh certainly did not judge David the same way that He had judged Goliath. James chapter 2 is a good example of the meaning of such terms, where the apostle uses similar language to illustrate that men should be judged fairly regardless of their stature.
To see that Weakley is taking the words of Peter out of context we need look no further than 1 Peter chapter 2, where the apostle writes to the Greek Christian assemblies of Anatolia and tells them “9 But ye are a chosen generation, 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.” The word generation there is the Greek word γένος, or race. The last part of that passage is a reference to the children of Israel sitting in the darkness of captivity described in Isaiah, and in the very next verse Peter cites Hosea in reference to these same people, from a passage that can only describe the children of Israel of that same captivity. So Peter was referring to these Christians, who he knew were descended from the ancient Israelites, as a chosen race and a holy, or set apart, nation.
Just like the deceit which is found in Eli James’ writing, Jeffrey Weakley’s assertions are based on false premises which would require several lengthier paragraphs to correct in their entirety. Before continuing with Clifton’s response, I will only state that first, we are not the children of Yahweh because we are White. Rather, we are White if we are the children of Yahweh as that is the order of His Creation. And we do not have the Spirit of God because we accept Jesus, or Yahshua. Rather, we accept Yahshua because we have the Spirit of God within us from the beginning, and we choose to abide by it. Every Adamite has the opportunity to obey the Spirit and accept Christ, or to remain in a state of disobedience. This opportunity was never offered to any of the other so-called races. Weakley interprets everything the opposite of how it should be interpreted. Nobody is born again, but rather, the children of God are born from above. So Clifton answers and says:
As you can plainly see, Jeffrey A. Weakley is in no position to fight back at the enemy in this great racial war to destroy the Israel race. With his attitude on race, it wouldn’t be surprising if his daughter or granddaughter ended up getting pregnant by a Negro or a Mongolian. But, that would probably be all right with him as long as they are “born again.” He indicates, according to his knowledge, that the Bible doesn’t teach such a thing. Mr. Jeffrey A. Weakley should be reminded that the Almighty killed two of Judah’s sons by his Canaanite wife in order to prevent the Satanic gene-pool from getting into the Royal Messianic Line. You will notice, Weakley used Galatians 3:26-29 to try to make his point. Let’s take a look at that passage and see what it is really talking about. Weakley intimates that in this passage it is speaking of other races getting into the kingdom:
“26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”
In our August, 2015 presentation of this portion of Paul’s epistle to the Galatians, we established that Galatians 3:29 was a conditional sentence which expresses a factual implication, and if one clause is true, then the other clause must also be true. We gave other examples of such sentences in Scripture, and our conclusion was that if one is not of the seed of Abraham, one cannot be in Christ. The point Clifton seeks to make is this: Paul wrote that “ye are all the children of God” to Galatians, not to Nigerians. The Galatians were descended from Israelites of the Assyrian captivity, for which reason Paul also told them in Galatians chapter 4 that Christ came “to redeem them that were under the law”, and none of the other races were ever under the law. The promise of redemption in the Old Testament was a promise of redemption for Israel from sin (i.e. Isaiah 50), which caused death, and from death itself (Hosea 13). If only Israel is redeemed, then only Israel is redeemed from death, and therefore only Israel has a promise of resurrection. Like this other person which Clifton is about to address here, Weakley’s treachery is in clear conflict with the context of Paul’s epistles and the entire Scripture. Continuing with Clifton:
With this passage, Weakley attempts to bring all the other races under Yahweh’s Covenant to Abraham. This is the same approach that Judeo-churchianity uses. Another Judeo-churchianity person, trying to make the same point as Weakley, also quoted to me, Colossians 3:11 where it says: “Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.”
This other person also quoted me Romans 2:10-11; 10:11-13; and 11:13 in order to bring other races under the Covenant. I wrote and answered this person: “You quoted me Romans 10:11-13; Galatians 3:27-29; Colossians 3:11; Romans 2:10-11 & Romans 11:13. I don’t want to appear as a smart aleck or a know-it-all, but I would like to present some background on these passages which I can authenticate from a combination of Scripture, secular history and archaeology.
“As you quoted three passages from Romans, let’s consider who the Romans were. If you will look up in your encyclopedia (and you may have to use more than one) for the founding of Rome, you will find it was established under the insignia of a she-wolf (the story of Romulus and Remus). Who, then, in the Bible is identified as the wolf? The answer is found in Genesis 49:27; Benjamin is the wolf! Some of the Romans to whom Paul preached were Israelites of the tribes of Zerah-Judah and probably some Benjaminites! Do you know anyone by the name of Wolf/Wolfe?; no doubt a Benjamite. Also the name ‘Wilson’ means ‘wolf’s son.’ As Zerah-Judah also settled in that area, many of the Romans were definitely of the House of Zerah-Judah. When it says, Romans 10:12, ‘For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek ...’, it is indicating there is no difference between the Tribe of Dan and the Tribe of Judah for they are both Israelites. The term ‘Jew’ must be qualified as there were true Israelites of the Tribe of Judah and some counterfeit people claiming themselves to be of the Tribe of Judah, but lying about it (Revelation 2:9; 3:9).
Clifton’s argument here is fine for someone who appreciates symbolism and prophecy, however I may have taken a more technical approach. Paul had told the Romans that they had the truth of Yahweh God and turned it into a lie, and that Yahweh had turned them over to sin because they had turned their backs on Him. These things are only relevant to descendants of the Old Testament Israelites, and the narrative of the Old Testament establishes that assertion as fact. Then in Romans chapter 4 Paul explained that through his Gospel, the promise was made certain to all of the seed of Abraham, referring to the seed which had come from Abraham’s loins just as the promise to Abraham was spoken. Paul explained this in this same manner rather explicitly in that chapter of Romans. By the time of Christ, the children of Israel had already become many nations, and those nations were Romans and Greeks and Scythians and Barbarians. But they were not Chinamen or Hottentots or Indians or Mayans or Eskimos, so Paul did not bring his gospel to those other places. Clifton continues his answer to this other Judeo-Christian correspondent, and he says:
“As the word ‘Greek’ is used three times in these passages, let’s investigate who the Greeks were. Some of the Tribe of Dan left Egypt before the Exodus (I have documentation). As Hebrew writing has no vowels, it is written simply as ‘dn’. Variations of the name can be Dan, Den, Din, Don or Dun. Do you know anyone by the names of Dunn, Dunbar, Duncan, Dunham or Dunlap? Genesis 49:17 says: ‘Dan shall be a serpent by the way...’ Judges 5:17 indicates that Dan literally lived in his ships. Dan, in his ships, wove like a serpent up every river valley putting up a sign with his name on it. The river DANube is named after him. The name McDonald means ‘son of Don, or Dan.’ Paul preached at a place called ‘MaceDONia’ in Greece (Acts 16:9-12). I know you know the story. When Paul was preaching there to Danites, he was preaching to Israelites!
Once again, while Clifton’s answer appeals to people who love symbols, and that is fine, there are many more technical historical and archeological proofs that the Greek Danaans and the Hebrew Danites, the Danai (as they are called in Greek) and the Daniy (which is the plural of Dan in Hebrew), are the same people. Clifton has already told this person that he would provide further proofs of this. Some of those proofs are in Scripture, and Clifton already cited Judges chapter 5, but there is more. For instance, where it says of the ancient city of Tyre in Ezekiel chapter 27 that “Dan also and Javan going to and fro occupied in thy fairs”, it was speaking of Danaan Greeks and Ionian Greeks, which are Dan and Javan. Some of the earliest Greek literature makes the same connection, where it is explained that the Danaans came to Greece from Egypt several generations before the Trojan War. In 1 Corinthians chapter 10, Paul also explains that many of the Greeks, especially the Dorians, were also Israelites. Paul’s statements in that regard are verified in 1 Maccabees and the histories of Flavius Josephus. The Makedonians were also derived from a combination of Danaans and Dorians as well as the Illyrians, who were another branch of the Israelite Trojans and related to the Romans. But Colossae was a Greek city of Asia Minor, so Clifton continues:
“I’m glad you quoted Colossians 3:11. What this verse is saying in essence is: There is no difference between a genuine member of the Israelite Tribe of Judah and the Israelite-Greek Tribe of Dan — there is no difference between a circumcised Israelite and an uncircumcised Israelite — there is no difference between a Barbarian Israelite and a Scythian Israelite — there is no difference between a bond Israelite or a free Israelite, for Christ [Yahshua] is genetically a brother, or related to all of them. Galatians 3:28-29 goes on to indicate there is no genetic difference between an Israelite male or an Israelite female, for if you are a genetic relative to Christ [Yahshua], you are Abraham’s sperma and you are included under Yahweh’s Covenant to Abraham.
We would add that the Dorians were mostly of Manasseh, from Dor, a city of Manasseh.
“There is one other group we should talk about, and that is Zerah-Judah. There is much evidence, that some of Zerah-Judah, like Dan, left Egypt before the Exodus. If you will check 1 Chronicles 2:6, you will find that Zerah had a son by the name of Dara. In 1 Kings 4:31 his name is spelled Darda. This branch of Zerah-Judah left Egypt, as I say, before the Exodus. Today the area they settled is named the Dardanelles, although they are long gone from there. They were Trojans and established the city of Troy where they lived for four hundred years. The Israelite-Trojans then moved to Italy, and while some stayed in Italy, others returned to the Aegean area; built hundreds of ships and sailed to Britain. This part of Zerah-Judah’s history is completely documented by Bible and secular history; there are no missing links. In other words, it is an absolute historical fact that Zerah-Judah made it to Britain. The Scottish Highlanders wore kilts like the Trojans. In his 1999 book The Bible Is History by Ian Wilson, page 87, it has been found that the Israelites of Canaan wore kilts also; it has been a mode of Israelite dress from the beginning.
According to many ancient Greek writers, Dardanus was the legendary founder of the people of the Trojans, and the colony that eventually gave rise to the city of Troy after whom they were named. He brought his people to Troy from the islands of the Mediterranean Sea. The early and famous Epic Poet Homer gave a listing of the generations of Trojan princes from Dardanus down to Prian, King of Troy at the time of the Trojan War, and his son Hector, the chief Trojan warrior who was slain by Achilles, which was very agreeable to the arrival of Darda in the Troad at a time just before the Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt. The Trojan war is generally dated to have occurred about 1200 to 1180 BC, the middle of the Judges period in Israel.
There are many ways by which Israelite traditions and habits made their way to Britain, especially through the Israelite Phoenicians, and then later through the Picts and the Cymry, or Kimmerians, while the Scots themselves came even later than them. The migration of the Trojan prince Brutus to Britain is documented no earlier than the first-century poet Virgil, in his Aeneid, which certainly seems to be a political document more than it is a historical one. It sought to justify both the earlier Roman aggression against Carthage, and also the contemporary but failed attempts of Julius Caesar to conquer Britain. So I am skeptical of the overall veracity of the work. However there do seem to be early archaeological findings suggesting a Trojan presence in Britain, which are discussed by E. O. Gordon in his book Prehistoric London, and which merit further investigation. However the connection of the Romans to the Trojans, and the Trojans to Zerah-Judah, and therefore the Israelite and Trojan origin of the Romans, is much clearer in Scripture and History. I have already stated that this series of Clifton’s probably helped to inspire my paper, written a short while later, which was titled Classical Records of Trojan-Roman-Judah. Clifton continues addressing this same individual and says:
“As for the ‘Barbarians’ and ‘Scythians’: In Jeremiah 51:20, Yahweh told Israel: ‘Thou art my battle axe and weapons of war: for with thee will I break in pieces the nations, and with thee will I destroy kingdoms.’ Judah was the fighting tribe. The Barbarians of Paul’s time were the German tribes, and are rightly described as such in Jeremiah. My ancestors were these same Barbarians, for I am German and of the Tribe of Judah. The name Scythian is one of the names which the Israelites were called after breaking away from the Assyrians. Therefore, the Scythians spoken of in Colossians 3:11 are definitely Israelites. As a matter of fact, all the Scripture references you quoted me were speaking only of Israelites.”
While the term barbarian was used of Germans, it really only described anyone who did not speak Greek. In Paul’s time the term was also used to describe the people of Malta, in Acts chapter 28. The Maltese were actually very civilized people who descended from the Phoenicians, who were themselves a portion of the Israelites. The term barbarian was also used by Flavius Josephus, who wrote his Wars of the Judaeans to his kinsmen, whom he had called the “upper barbarians” in the preface of the book, so that they would somehow be encouraged to join in the Judaean revolt against Roman Imperialism. Those “upper barbarians” to whom he wrote included the tribes known to us as the Parthians, Goths and Alans, all of whom descended from the Israelites of the Assyrian deportations. I later explained all of this in an essay titled Classical Records of the Origins of the Scythians, Parthians,& Related Tribes. Without a doubt, these are the peoples whom Paul intended when he spoke of both Barbarians and Scythians. Clifton continues:
What I wrote to this other person, I now announce to Jeffrey A. Weakley! Now, Weakley accuses us Two Seedliners of taking Scripture out of context, but who really is, for he proved absolutely nothing to backup his thesis by referring to Galatians 3:26-29? Jeffrey A. Weakley then proceeds on pages 14 to 20 [of his book The Satanic Seedline, Its Doctrine and History] to try to prove that Two-Seedline doctrine (according to his assumption) must be false. In doing this, he presents some history of the Identity movement which I believe you will find interesting; although his conclusions, as in his foregoing postulation, are flawed:
“The Origin of the False Teaching. If, as I contend, the Satanic Seedline doctrine (as taught by the Seedliners) is not found in the Scriptures, and since it was not taught by any of the early church fathers as being correct, how did it find its way into the Christian belief system known as ‘Identity?’ To find the answer we need to properly define Identity. There are at least three specific systems of belief which are very similar, and yet each is distinctly different. There are the Anglo-Israel, British-Israel, and Christian-Israel beliefs. Identity can include all three of these beliefs, depending on how they are taught. For a definition of Identity we will go to the man who first made the term popular in America over 50 years ago (see The National Christians, 1991 Ed., p. 25). That man is Howard B. Rand. ‘The preaching of that Identity has been going on for years now. It has resulted in millions in Anglo-Saxondom becoming acquainted with the fact that they are lineal descendants of the northern ten-tribed Kingdom of Israel ... Thus, the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic people stand out as Israel in these latter days.’ (Study in Revelation by Howard B. Rand, p. 115.)
Before I continue with Clifton’s citation of Weakley’s subterfuge here, let me first state that Weakley is lying, where he said that Two-Seedline was “not taught by any of the early church fathers”. The late second century Christian bishop of Carthage, Tertullian, wrote in chapter 22 of his Apology that “We are instructed, moreover, by our sacred books how from certain angels, who fell of their own free-will, there sprang a more wicked demon-brood, condemned of God along with the authors of their race, and that chief we have referred to. It will for the present be enough, however, that some account is given of their work. Their great business is the ruin of mankind. So, from the very first, spiritual wickedness sought our destruction.” This is precisely what we teach as Two-Seedline, and in Book V of his Reply to Marcion, Tertullian repeats some of these same sentiments where he contrasted the race of Christ consisting of the chosen twelve tribes to the brood of the wicked. Tertullian’s writing is not perfect, as there are things which may be misconstrued by universalists, but these things we have illustrated are certainly agreeable with what we call Two-Seedline.
Likewise, Justin Martyr, in chapter V of his second Apology, wrote: “But the angels transgressed this appointment, and were captivated by love of women, and begat children who are those that are called demons; and besides, they afterwards subdued the human race to themselves, partly by magical writings [proto-Kabbalah], and partly by fears and the punishments they occasioned, and partly by teaching them to offer sacrifices, and incense, and libations, of which things they stood in need after they were enslaved by lustful passions [Colossians 2]; and among men they sowed murders, wars, adulteries, intemperate deeds, and all wickedness.” These and other similar passages from Justin, from Origen, and from the epistles of Ignatius were all discussed in a July, 2015 presentation that I made here with Sven Longshanks which was titled Early Two-Seedline. Jeffrey Weakley is indeed a liar, who probably only took it for granted that these things are not found in early Christian writings, for they most certainly are found in them. Clifton continues to cite Weakley’s book, and he says:
“Thus Identity is the belief or teaching that the Anglo-Saxon and kindred peoples are the physical descendants of the northern ten-tribed Kingdom of Israel in the Old Testament. I will note here that many believe that Wesley Swift founded Identity (see Bitter Harvest by James Corcoran, p. 38) in 1946 and others that the ‘Identity movement was conceived and first spread by three men with ties to the Radical Right: Wesley Swift, Bertrand Comparet, and William Gale’ (see God, Guts, and Guns by Phillip Finch, p. 68). Although this view is set forth, it is simply the product of those who do too little research and do not yet have all the facts. The simple fact is that the term ‘Identity’ as used to describe the Anglo-Saxon history was used as far back as 1884, when Elieser Bassin used it. He tells how he picked it up from others before him. However, it was Howard B. Rand that called the Anglo-Israel history ‘Identity’. Rand did not hold or teach the Satanic Seedline doctrine. ‘Two sons were born to Adam and Eve and they were named in their order: Cain and Abel,’ (Primo-Genesis by Howard B. Rand, p.41) The Satanic Seedline was brought into the Identity teaching with San Jacinto Capt and Wesley A. Swift. Actually, San Jacinto Capt claimed to have gotten Wesley Swift started (in Identity) (see Committee of the States by Cheri Seymour, p. 83). In any case, Wesley Swift presented the seedline doctrine to Gerald L. K. Smith (see Besieged Patriot by Gerald L. K. Smith, pp. 238-239). From there Swift got Bertrand Comparet started (who was an attorney that represented Gerald L. K. Smith) and shortly later Jacinto Capt (father of E. Raymond Capt, who has written many outstanding books on archaeology) introduced William P. Gale to Swift. In later years Richard Butler would take over Swift’s Church (now known as Aryan Nations).
“As this is not meant to be a history of the Identity movement, I will stop here, but suffice it to say that the seedline doctrine saturated Identity through the influence of San Jacinto Capt, Wesley Swift, and William P. Gale. Where did they get this belief? Capt and Swift both got it from the Ku Klux Klan (they both were members — see Committee of the States by Cheri Seymour, p. 84).”
Before giving Clifton’s response to this nonsense, we must state that Identity cannot stop at the Wheat. For that reason, we are not going to abide by Weakley’s personal definition. Proper historical identity of the ancient peoples of Scripture must include both the Wheat and the Tares, and what Yahweh had planted with an understanding of what Yahweh had not planted, which has been planted by the devil at the beginning according to the words of Christ Himself. Anything short of that prevents the children of God from fulfilling their Christian duty to “come out from among them, and be separate”, since they would never know what to come from among. Anything short of that is scattering, because one is not gathering with Christ who urges us not to gather grapes from thorns (and pricks) or figs from thistles. Here Clifton responds in another manner and he says:
We need to interrupt Weakley at this point, for he is making a dangerous and uncalled-for false assumption. From this point on, for the rest of chapter 4, he builds a case based on circumstantial supposition. (1) He first makes the claim, just quoted, that San Jacinto Capt and Wesley A. Swift got the Satanic Seedline doctrine from the Ku Klux Klan (2) He next presents evidence the Ku Klux Klan was instituted by the Masons. (3) Then, he makes a connection of the Masons with the Gnostics. (4) And lastly, he connects the Gnostics with the Jews and the Talmud, and makes the claim the Satanic Seedline doctrine originated with the “Jews.”
Jeffrey A. Weakley has a weak link in his hypothesis. He did not prove with any tangible evidence that there was a connection of the Satanic Seedline doctrine with the Ku Klux Klan!!! If he had had any evidence, you can be quite sure he would have quoted it. There isn’t any, and he didn’t. It is like saying he saw a person check in at a motel one night at Salem, Massachusetts, and then, swearing to God on a stack of Bibles 20 feet high, proclaiming he knew for a fact that person practiced witchcraft. I would sure hate to be on trial for my life and have Weakley as a juror. Let’s now continue with Weakley’s remarks on the Ku Klux Klan on pages 15-16:
“The Klan takes some explaining. The first Ku Klux Klan was organized in Tennessee in 1867 under the leadership of Gen. N. B. Forrest. This Klan was disbanded sometime in 1869 (see Vigilantes of Christendom by Richard K. Hoskins, pp. 245, 247). The next official Ku Klux Klan was founded in 1915 as The Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. The founder was William Joseph Simmons, who was a Royal Arch Mason (see Occult Theocracy by Lady Queensborough, aka Edith Starr Miller, p. 607). Thus the Ku Klux Klan got its seedline doctrine from the Masonic teaching. Many people do not know that a Mason started the Ku Klux Klan, and fewer people know the Masons teach the seedline doctrine. William P. Gale became an honorary member of the Ku Klux Klan after he had already been teaching the seedline doctrine for some time. He denied that he developed his belief from the Ku Klux Klan, and this may be true. William P. Gale was a long-time Mason and developed his seedline belief from the same place the Ku Klux Klan got theirs: the Masons. Now I will prove that the Masons teach seedline.”
I must say, that I myself first heard of what we call Two-Seedline in 1997, and I immediately began to study it intensely to see if it was true. But my response was not to read Emahiser, who was only just thinking about starting his ministry at that point, or Swift or Comparet or any of the others. Initially I read a lot of their writings and the writings of others, but I decided to stop reading any other Identity writers by mid-1998, and I was determined to study the issues using original source materials exclusively. When I made that decision, I took a couple of months just to put together a reading list and investigating where to find the appropriate books. In the meantime, I had only made an exception when a friend put me on Clifton Emahiser’s mailing list, some time around July or August of 1998, and after I wrote a letter to Clifton arguing with him over a certain aspect of history, Clifton eventually asked me to do his proofreading. So aside from Scripture and history, for ten years I read nothing else except for what Clifton was also writing, and our related correspondence.
Corresponding with Clifton, and operating with only Classical histories, Apocryphal materials, and Greek and Hebrew language resources and original Greek texts, aside from the King James Version and a couple of concordances, after another year or so of study I was fully convinced that Two-Seedline, or as I would rather call it, two-treeline, is absolutely true. But through our many written dialogues, I think that eventually Clifton and I went far beyond what Swift and Comparet had diagrammed, and I also think that we are much closer to the truth of Race and Scripture today. However Clifton never quoted the Talmud, or a Freemason, or a Gnostic to substantiate Two-Seedline in any of his writings. In fact, he generally only quoted Scripture and some popularly accepted Bible Commentaries and encyclopedias to substantiate practically all of his assertions. And I, sitting in prison, surely did not have any access to Freemasons or the Ku Klux Klan. But all of my own early writings cite only Scripture and Lexicons and ancient historians, and I have always shunned the Gnostics, whom I have never cited. So far as I know, Clifton has always shunned the Gnostics as well, and his writings do not quote any of them in a positive manner.
Bertrand Comparet only quoted Scripture in his sermons, and so far as I can remember he never cited any Masonic or Gnostic writings. I read most of his available sermons in early 1998. I also read books by other Two-Seedline teachers, such as Robert Balacius, and neither do they quote the Talmud, Kabbalah, or works of Masonry to prove their points. Both Clifton and I have pointed out the many problems with Wesley Swift, where he often quoted the Zohar – which is a book of the Kabbalah – or spurious works such as the The Book of the Bee or The Cave of Treasures, but neither of us have ever followed Swift in any of that nonsense. So Jeffrey Weakley is indeed being disingenuous and demonstrates his own ignorance of what we teach today. Now to present Clifton’s response to Weakley’s argument, which catches Weakley in a quagmire of sorts:
Mr. Weakley, we may have another problem. I don’t know whether it is true or not, but I have heard that Howard B. Rand was also a Mason. If this is true, why did he teach against the Two Seedline doctrine? If this is correct, would this discredit all of Mr. Rand’s teachings also; or any other former Mason for that part? This is the old dishonest con-artist’s trick of guilt by association, plain and simple.
We must also state, that it seems that Weakley may have gotten some of his history on Christian Identity from a book titled Fundamentalism by a Sociology professor named Rebecca Joyce Frey, who wrote nearly the same account from page 64 under the subtitle “Christian Identity”. So if Weakley wants to play the guilt-by-association game, he already condemns himself, even if he obtained his own material independently of Rebecca Frey. Now Clifton continues to address Weakley under the subtitle:
WEAKLEY PLAYS HIS ACE CARD
On page 20, Jeffrey A. Weakley finally plays his ace card, and thinks he has won his argument. After going step by step from the KKK to the Talmud, he lays all his cards on the table. This is what he says: “Next we find that the Kabalists got their teaching from the Jewish Babylonian Talmud. ‘... what evil, however, could be involved here? 13— That of infusing her with sensual lust. For R. Johanan stated: When the serpent copulated with Eve, 14 he infused her 15 with lust ...’ ... ‘(14) In the Garden of Eden, according to a tradition. (15) I.e., the human species ...’” [The Babylonian Talmud (Soncino Press Ed.), Seder Nashim (Yebamoth 103b)]
“The Babylonian Talmud is the written form of the ‘tradition of the elders’ (Matt. 15:2-3) which had been orally taught since the Babylonian captivity. This teaching was a perversion of God’s Law. These traditions were actually a combination of Baal worship (as practiced in Babylon) and the Law of God as given to Israel by Moses ... Thus we have arrived at the human origin of the Satanic Seedline doctrine: Babylon. What I find especially fascinating is that most seedliners express unfathomable hostility toward those who call themselves Jews today and at the same time they adopt the ‘Jewish fables’ (Titus 1:14) that came out of Babylon.”
Of course, Weakley’s argument is disingenuous, since not everything found in the Talmud is original to the Jews, and not everything found in the Talmud is a lie. Clifton responds along these same lines and says:
To catch you off your guard, Weakley wants you to presume that every last statement in the Babylonian Talmud is a 100% total lie. If this were true, even the “Jews” would repudiate their own Talmudic books. Weakley believes he has pulled some type of magic string by quoting directly from the Babylonian Talmud, and you will automatically, like a programmed robot, buy his argument. It’s similar to the way the “Jews” use the magic “anti-Semite” word. Again, it’s the old dishonest “Jewish” con-artist’s trick of guilt by association, plain and simple, and Weakley is playing it to the hilt of his sword. My advice is: don’t ever stay at a motel overnight in Salem, Massachusetts, or you might be accused of being a witch.
One of the very first things the anti-seedliners who are opposed to a literal Satan-spawned genetic physical seedline do, is point out the fact the information can be found in the Babylonian Talmud. Jeffrey A. Weakley is no exception as quoted above. This is a sneaky, deceptive and dishonest method used by many to declare guilt by association. The question must be asked: is every single word in the Talmud false? This idea is built on the assumption, that if it is found in the Babylonian Talmud, it is automatically evil. For anyone who uses this approach, I would challenge them to prove every single word in the Babylonian Talmud to be false. It can’t be done, even though it is a collection of the most evil writings ever put together. Only a weak mind would accept such a totally flimsy premise. Not only is there evidence found in the Talmud substantiating the seduction of Eve, but evidence can be found in The Lost Books of The Bible and The Forgotten books of Eden, The “Protevangelion” 10:1-10:
“1 And when her sixth month was come, Joseph returned from his building houses abroad, which was his trade, and entering into the house, found the Virgin grown big: 2 Then smiting upon his face, he said, With what face can I look up to the Lord my God? or, what shall I say concerning this young woman? 3 For I received her a Virgin out of the temple of the Lord my God and have not preserved her such! 4 Who has thus deceived me? Who has committed this evil in my house, and seducing the Virgin from me, hath defiled her? 5 Is not the history of Adam exactly accomplished in me? 6 For in the very instant of his glory, the serpent came and found Eve alone, and seduced her. 7 Just after the same manner it has happened to me. Then Joseph arising from the ground, called her, and said, 8 O thou who hast been so much favoured by God, why hast thou done this? 9 Why hast thou thus debased thy soul, who wast educated in the Holy of Holies, and received thy food from the hand of angels? 10 But she, with a flood of tears, replied, I am innocent, and have known no man.”
If you will remember, Jeffrey A. Weakley made this statement on page 14: “The Origin of the False Teaching. If, as I contend, the Satanic Seedline doctrine (as taught by the Seedliners) is not found in the Scriptures, and since it was not taught by any of the early church fathers as being correct, how did it find its way into the Christian belief system known as ‘Identity?’” As he seemed to have such a high regard of his own ability to research, and was so critical of the Two Seedliners to do so, let’s see whether or not the “early church fathers” understood anything concerning this doctrine. For this we will use part of an article from The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, volume E-J, pages 799-800:
“James, Protevangelium Of, ... The earliest of the infancy gospels, recounting the birth, childhood, adolescence, token marriage, supernatural pregnancy, and delivery of Mary. Together with the Gospel of Thomas, ... it was the chief source of several other infancy gospels. Its original title appears to have been History of James Concerning the Birth of Mary; Origen refers to it as the Book of James .... It was first styled Protevangelium (i.e., Protogospel) of James by its sixteenth-century discoverer, Guillaume Postel. The earliest certain reference to this writing is by Origen, who cites it as the source of the tradition that Jesus’ brothers were ‘sons’ of Joseph by a former wife whom he had married before Mary’ ... ‘Now I, James, who wrote this history in Jerusalem, when there arose a tumult when Herod died, withdrew myself into the wilderness until the tumult ceased in Jerusalem. Glorifying the Lord God who gave me the gift and wisdom to write this history’.”
I cannot agree that the brethren of Christ were from Joseph, as James the brother of Christ was called the “son of Alphaeus”, and I am therefore persuaded that instead, Mary had a second husband after the death of Joseph, who was much older than she was. Of course, that would be a heresy to the Catholics, and in many respects Origen was certainly a proto-Catholic. Continuing with Clifton:
As you can plainly see, the early church fathers were very much acquainted with the Protevangelium, and thus they understood the physical seduction of Eve by Satan as described in the quotation from said book above. I believe, Mr. Jeffrey A. Weakley, that Origen was indeed an “early church father.” Weakley uses some very underhanded tactics in his unwarranted and groundless argument trying to prove the Two Seedliners in error. We will look at one of them now. On page 21 of his The Satanic Seedline, Its Doctrine and History, he tries his best (or maybe his worst) to mislead his readers. He tries in vain to convince them that the Seedliners are mistaken by quoting from Matthew Henry’s Commentary. In doing this, he does not name the volume or page as he so faithfully did with his other quotations. It is glaringly apparent he didn’t want anyone to go to Matthew Henry and check on him on this one. All he said was: “The best explanation for this is found in Matthew Henry’s Commentary.” After searching for some time, it was found he was quoting from page 29 in volume 1 concerning Henry’s comments on Genesis 3:14-15 and this is what he quoted:
“Observe here, The serpent and the woman had just now been very familiar and friendly in discourse about the forbidden fruit, and a wonderful agreement there was between them; but here they are irreconcilably set at variance. Note, Sinful friendships justly end in mortal feuds: those that unite in wickedness will not unite long.”
Weakley deliberately omitted Matthew Henry’s remark just three paragraphs later on the next page (page 30), hoping you would never find where Matthew Henry says the following: “A perpetual quarrel is here commenced between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the devil among men; war is proclaimed between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent.”
Clifton ends on that note, fully elucidating the fact that Matthew Henry understood Two-Seedline to at least some degree. I was not going to cite Origen from my own presentation which I had cited here earlier, called Early Two-Seedline, but since Clifton mentioned him here, I will. This is because while Origen was also drifting off into universalism and had what we may consider some theological problems, he too was acquainted with certain racial truths which we teach in Two-Seedline. So this is what we said in that presentation concerning Origen:
In A Letter from Origen to Africanus About the History of Susanna, in Part 9, Origen insisted that the Story of Susanna was removed from the Scriptures, but he did not attribute the removal properly:
Wherefore I think no other supposition is possible, than that they who had the reputation of wisdom, and the rulers and elders, took away from the people every passage which might bring them into discredit among the people. We need not wonder, then, if this history of the evil device of the licentious elders against Susanna is true, but was concealed and removed from the Scriptures by men themselves not very far removed from the counsel of these elders.
However if we read Susanna, Daniel himself attributed the behavior of the rabbis to the fact that they are the “seed of Canaan, and not of Judah” who were posing as men of Judah. We would assert that for this reason the Story of Susanna was oppressed by early Jews, who were indeed the seed of Canaan themselves as the histories of Josephus and the New Testament attest.
Origen seems confused as to the nature of demons, where sometimes he seems to admit that they are human. We will see [or here, we have already seen] that Justin Martyr certainly upheld that demons could be human. In Volume 4 of Ante-Nicene Fathers, in Origen's Against Celsus at the very end of Book 7, he says that demons are “scattered as it were in troops in different parts of the earth” then in Book 3 chapter 32 of Against Celsus he says “we have to answer that probably certain wicked demons contrived that such statements should be committed to writing”.
Origen was talking about embodied demons, and that is also what we teach in Two-Seedline, which the apostles themselves had also certainly taught. These demons “scattered ... in troops in different parts of the earth” are actual tribes of people who are here with us to this very day, just as Tertullian and Justin Martyr had also professed. If one early Church Father wrote these things, then Jeffrey Weakley is a liar, and now here alone we have produced three who stand as witnesses against him. The early Church Fathers were not perfect, as Christianity was already infiltrated, corrupted and suppressed in the persecutions. But some of them certainly did teach some of the significant elements of Two-Seedline.
This concludes part 4 of this presentation of Clifton’s papers. As the series progresses, Clifton will show many other Scriptures, both Apocryphal and Canonical, which fully support our positions and which fully discredit naysayers such as Jeffrey A. Weakley.