Special Notices to All Who Deny Two-Seedline, Part 9

  • Christogenea Internet Radio
CHR20170630-CAE-SpecNotice09.mp3 — Downloaded 2285 times


Special Notices to All Who Deny Two-Seedline, Part 9

The Camp of the Saints is surrounded by the enemies of Yahweh our God, who are also the historical enemies of our Adamic race, and while these prophesies concerning the last days are being fulfilled before our very eyes, among Christians, there are multiple levels of deceit. The first is, of course, all of those Judaized Christians who seem to be oblivious to the fact that there is a problem. Then there are the anti-seedliners who may understand that we are in a time of trouble, but they refuse to properly identify the enemies, and they refuse to acknowledge that the other races dwelling amongst us are nothing more than a scourge for our disobedience, by which Yahweh our God has permitted His enemies to assail us, much like the story of Job. Yahweh permitted Satan to try Job, and Job prevailed because he never accused God for his troubles. Finally, there are those who claim to know the enemy, but who fail to properly draw the lines. The other races amongst us are not people. Rather, they are the caterpillars, cankerworms, palmerworms and locusts of the prophecy of Joel, they are the beasts of Isaiah chapter 56 who are called to arise and devour as the watchmen dumbly sit by like dogs tending to their own bellies.

When a rodeo clown such as Ted Weiland sends Bibles to Nigerians, we end up with niggers supposing themselves to be Christians. Then once we accept the concept that a nigger can be a Christian, how do we prohibit them from marrying White Christian women? Our own Scriptures are then used against us. So now we know why the Word of Yahweh says in Deuteronomy chapter 28 that for our disobedience “32 Thy sons and thy daughters shall be given unto another people, and thine eyes shall look, and fail with longing for them all the day long: and there shall be no might in thine hand.” Where it says “another people”, these are Ted Weiland's niggers, or Eli James' Mexicans, and by sending them Bibles Weiland assists the enemy, when instead it was his duty to teach the nature of sin and the need for repentance to the sheep of God's pasture! Ted has abandoned his true responsibility and bragged about making Christians out of beasts. He is a pastor for Satan and a minister of death no matter what he preaches about the twelve tribes and their history. In ancient times, the false prophets also knew of the history of Israel, and when fire came down from heaven at the beckoning of Elijah, they were nevertheless devoured. We await the day when Yahweh sees it fit to do such a thing once again.

With this, we will commence with our presentation of Clifton Emahiser's


This matter of Two Seedline is of the utmost importance in our day, for we are beginning to see the culmination of this age-old “enmity” coming to a head. While it has been lying festering just below the surface for several thousands of years, today it is reaching its peak. It’s like a giant abscess getting ready to erupt and spill out all its foul, infectious, corrupt, putrefying poison. And, while these great evil underground forces are at work, churchianity sits idly on the sidelines pretending [that] all is well. In fact, the infection from this giant abscess is seeping into their midst, and they consider it “Christian.”

Today the denominational churches do accept fornication, which is race-mixing, as “Christian”. But reading the Old Testament, Yahweh also warned the children of Israel repeatedly to remain separate from the other races, even other Adamic races. They also accept Sodomites and many other sinners who should be rejected from our communities. Once upon a time, there were serious social and economic consequences for people who chose to lead sinful lives. Those consequences helped to keep people from such sin. So in this respect, Jewish egalitarianism has damaged society in subliminal ways.

But even in Christian Identity circles, we tolerate far too much deviation from the Word of our God. Clowns like Ted Weiland, who has never repented of his sending Bibles to Nigerians, or Eli James, who would admit Mexicans as Christians, are accepted in Christian Identity circles. We call that Compromise Identity, and with that we will have no part.

The children of Israel were chastised for even trading with other nations in Hosea chapter 2, where the Word of Yahweh says of the nation, the mother of the people: “5 For their mother hath played the harlot: she that conceived them hath done shamefully: for she said, I will go after my lovers, that give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, mine oil and my drink.” So Yahweh announced His intention: “6 Therefore, behold, I will hedge up thy way with thorns, and make a wall, that she shall not find her paths. 7 And she shall follow after her lovers, but she shall not overtake them; and she shall seek them, but shall not find them: then shall she say, I will go and return to my first husband; for then was it better with me than now. 8 For she did not know that I gave her corn, and wine, and oil, and multiplied her silver and gold, which they prepared for Baal.” Trading with other nations and races, the children of Israel took the gifts they received from God, and prepared them for Baal. The ancient Israelites went off into punishment because when they began consorting with other nations in trade, they ostensibly began respecting the gods of those other nations. Yahweh is the God of Israel, and as the Psalm says, He never gave His law, statutes or judgments to any other people. David praised God for that, and that is the ideal which we should seek to uphold. But by giving Bibles to aliens, we blaspheme our God. Clifton continues talking about the Ted Weilands of Israel Identity and says:

As if this were not bad enough, the anti-seedliners disavow the cause of the infection. To the anti-seedliners, it’s just a theological game of words. They simply haven’t done their homework on the subject.

The anti-seedliners usually acknowledge an infection, but they cannot diagnose the source of the problem properly. And while Clifton's graphic explanation here may seem extravagant to some, it is nonetheless true. Universalism, the idea that other races of so-called people can somehow be the equals, or peers, of our White Adamic race, and can even join the children of the covenant in the Body of Christ, is a poison injected into White Christian society by the Jews who seek to destroy it, and it was injected hundreds of years ago. To accept any form of universalism is to accept defeat at the hands of the Jews who have been plotting against Christendom and against the Adamic race ever since Yahweh planted Adam in the garden of Eden. In many places the Scripture tells us that our God will receive us once we “come out from among them and be separate”. This we are told in both the Old Testament and the New, as Paul of Tarsus quoted from Isaiah chapter 52 in his second epistle to the Corinthians. There is no restoration without separation.

Clifton continues with an example of the homework which the anti-seedliners may have done:

To show you this, I will now quote excerpts from Dr. Lightfoot in his A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, volume 2, pages 367-369 concerning Matthew 27:38-46:

Among the monsters of the Jewish routs, preceding the destruction of the city, the multitude of robbers, and the horrible slaughters committed by them, deservedly claim the first consideration; which, next to the just vengeance of God against that most wicked nation, you may justly ascribe to divers originals. 1. It is no wonder, if that nation abounded beyond measure with a vagabond, dissolute, and lewd sort of young men; since, by means of polygamy, and the divorces of their wives at pleasure, and the nation’s unspeakable addictedness to lasciviousness and whoredoms, there could not but continually spring up bastards, and an offspring born only to beggary or rapine, as wanting both sustenance and ingenuous education. 2. The foolish and sinful indulgence of the council could not but nurse up all kind of broods of wicked men, while they scarce ever put any one to death, though never so wicked, as being an Israelite [Jew]; who must not by any means be touched ... All the rout indeed and force of hell was let loose at that time against Christ, without either bridle or chain: he calls it himself ... the power of darkness, Luke 22:53. God who had foretold of old, that the serpent should bruise the heel of the promised seed, and now that time is come, had slackened the devil’s chain, which, in regard of men, the Divine Providence used to hold in his hand; so that all the power and all the rancour of hell might, freely and without restraint, assault Christ; and that all that malice that was in the devil against the whole elect of God, [would be] summed up and gathered together into one head, might at one stroke and onset be brandished against Christ without measure.”

Now, Clifton wants to make a point, that the 17th century British cleric John Lightfoot understood the race-mixing which was going on amongst the early Judaeans and up through the time of Christ, and that he connected that race-mixing to the power of darkness, the raising of broods of wicked men, and the power and all the rancour of hell. So while Lightfoot seemed confused on the seed of the promise, errantly limiting that concept to Christ Himself, he nevertheless understood the racial aspect of evil, especially where he also connected these bastards to all that malice that was in the devil against the whole elect of God. Wherever these bastards prevail, we see society follow the pattern of Sodom and Gomorrah rather than of the Kingdom of Heaven, and Lightfoot notes the similar immorality which had developed in ancient Judaea. However in respect of our topic, Clifton responds to Lightfoot's comments and says:

If you listen to the anti-seedliners, they will claim there was “no power of hell” at work in the Crucifixion of the Messiah. They delegate all of that to some kind of “spiritual” hocus-pocus, making mockery of the foundational tenets of Scripture.

We would warn that Scripture, or any history, is always in danger of being oversimplified when men attempt to understand or explain it. Surely there were Israelites among those who were consenting to the death of Christ. There are Israelites in our society today who consent to all of the evil being perpetrated by the enemies of Yahweh our God. But the persecution of Christ was not engineered by Israelites, and today we know of the evil forces which lie behind the media and money powers that have always been averse to Christendom, and how they do affect our modern society. Rather, it was the “princes of this world”, who had nothing to do with Him, who were responsible for the actions against Christ, and the spawn of that same brood are responsible for the corrupt conditions which we now experience. These are the “wicked hands” Peter spoke of where it is written in chapter 2 of the Book of Acts that “23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain....” As Paul of Tarsus also noted, speaking of the Jews of his time, they “killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out. They are not pleasing to God, but hostile to all men....” But here Clifton offers an explanation from another perspective and says:

I addressed this subject of the “bruising of Messiah’s heel” in my Research Papers Proving The Two Seedline Seduction Of Eve. This passage, by Dr. Lightfoot, vindicates what I said in that article:


We have a direct connection, here, with Judas, and the ‘serpent’ of Genesis 3:14-15! We can see the connection between Judas and the ‘serpent’, if we read John 13:18:

I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his HEEL against me.

The scripture spoken of here, which was fulfilled in Judas, was Genesis 3:15! Does that sound ‘spiritual’? Judas was a Kenite-Canaanite ‘Jew-devil’, a descendant of Cain fathered by Satan! However, there is a problem here because it says that ‘he (Judas) hath lifted up his heel against me’ whereas Genesis 3:15 says that ‘thou (the seed of the serpent) shalt bruise his (Yahshua’s ) heel.’ Is it the ‘heel’ of Judas or Yahshua that is affected? I am quite certain that John 13:18 is referring to Genesis 3:15, as it is indicating that it is a fulfillment of Scripture. Tell me, what other Scripture could it be? — there isn’t any. There is another Scripture, Psalm 41:9, that reads similarly to John 13:18, but John 13:18 is not a fulfillment of Psalm 41:9 — as a matter of fact, Psalm 41:9 is not a prophecy about anything. The prophecy then can only be Genesis 3:15! — and Genesis 3:15 is definitely a prophecy. Therefore, there has to be a slight mistranslation in Genesis 3:15! Let’s try to render it in a manner which makes some sense:

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it (her seed) shall bruise thy head and thy heel shall (rise up and) bruise him (her seed).

Before we proceed, there are several things here which we must address. First, John 13:18 is a direct quotation of Psalm 41:9, and the two verses certainly are related. David being a type for Christ, Christ Himself related His travails to David's where it says in Psalm 41 that “7 All that hate me whisper together against me: against me do they devise my hurt. 8 An evil disease, say they, cleaveth fast unto him: and now that he lieth he shall rise up no more. 9 Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.” These things were clearly fulfilled in Christ, as the circumstances of His ministry are explained in the Gospel accounts. So we see a prophecy of the relationship between Yahshua Christ and the devil, Judas Iscariot, as well as the attitude that all of His enemies had towards Him, is embedded in the 41st Psalm and in the circumstances of aspects of the life of David – that is what a type is in Scripture.

But Clifton is attempting to reinterpret Genesis 3:15 so that it would agree with Psalm 41:9 and John 13:18, and examining the Hebrew or its early Greek translations, we cannot be certain that there is a sound basis for that. Rather, it seems that Psalm 41:9, and subsequently John 13:18, only invoke the language of Genesis 3:15, and I would prefer to leave the passage itself unmolested. But nevertheless, by that invocation we may understand the connection which Clifton is making is indeed a valid one. Clifton continues and says:

It’s not the seed of the serpent that was to bruise the heel of Yahshua, but the seed of the serpent will lift up his heel and bruise Yahshua (the seed of the woman). Now, Yahshua is not the only seed of the woman. All of Eve’s descendants are the seed of the woman. Once we understand that it is the seed of the serpent (in the person of Judas) that was to lift up his heel against the Messiah, we can better understand Isaiah 53:5:

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

Clifton did well, of course, to connect Isaiah chapter 56 to the Passion of Christ. He also did well to point out that the adversaries of Christ were to lift up the heel against Him, which is found in the 41st Psalm. However we would assert that while Psalm 41:9 invokes Genesis 3:15 by its similar language, that both statements are truly independent of one another, yet the one statement also helps to lead us to understand that the other is also being fulfilled. The serpent would both bruise the heel of the woman's seed and lift its own heel against the Messiah, as David's enemy did against him. Genesis 3:15 was fulfilled in one aspect in Christ as the serpent bruised His heel – killing His body He was still going to live and the serpent could not catch Him where He was going. In that aspect we see the bruising of the heel is a sign that the important part, which is the rest of the body, would escape injury. This is true of Christ, and it is true of the entire Adamic race, as Clifton correctly points out that Genesis 3:15 refers to the collective seed of the woman and not merely to a single individual. On the other hand, the enemy of David raised his heel against him, and Judas Iscariot, who shared bread at the table of Christ, raised his heel against Him after the manner of Psalm 41:9, and while the language invokes Genesis 3:15, it is used in a different manner.

One other place in Scripture where similar language invokes Genesis 3:15, but where the symbols are also used in a slightly different manner, is in Romans chapter 16 (16:20) where Paul both prayed and prophesied concerning his readers and said “And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly.” That Satan was the Edomite Jew, collectively, and the Romans were a portion of the seed of the woman which was to bruise the head of the serpent. The Romans bruised the head of Satan 13 years after Paul wrote those words, in 70 AD when Jerusalem was taken by Titus. By this we must understand the nature of the Jew, and this is something which the anti-seedliners deny. When will we all awaken to the treachery of Ted Weiland and his cronies who deny that these Jews, and today's Jews, are themselves Satan? Paul of Tarsus called them “Satan”! 2 Thessalonians chapter 2 is a second witness to the veracity of the interpretation. For now, however, Clifton continues to discuss the concept presented as a type for Christ in Psalm 41:9:

One good comment on John 13:18, is from the Jamieson, Fausset & Brown Commentary On The Whole Bible, page 1058:

I speak not of you all — the ‘happy are ye,’ of vs. 17, being on no supposition applicable to Judas. I know whom I have chosen —in the higher sense. But that the scripture may be fulfilled —i.e., one has been added to your number, by no accident or mistake, who is none of Mine, but just that he might fulfil his predicted destiny. He that eateth bread with me — ‘did eat of my bread.’

It was Judas that raised up his heel against Him and bruised Him. It probably should be pointed out here what is meant by ‘lifting up the heel.’ It is described as someone who kicks out at the person who is feeding him. Judas, planning to betray Yahshua while eating of the sacrificial supper, did just that, and it is known as ‘lifting up the heel.’ This ‘heel’ in John 13:18 is the same ‘heel’ as in Genesis 3:15. This type of action was considered one of the most insulting things a man could do. Of course, what else would you expect of a devil?

So Clifton seems to be following Jamieson, Fausset & Brown in the opinion that the heel of John 13:18, and Psalm 41:9, is the same as the heel of Genesis 3:15. I myself would not make such an insistence, but rather I see each passage as describing a different aspect of the same situation, with the understanding that the language found in the 41st Psalm, quoted by Christ in John, had been selected to invoke the earlier passage of Genesis 3:15, without duplicating its exact meaning. Clifton continues:

Just before this ‘lifting up the heel’ on the part of Judas by partaking of the last supper, some interesting statements are made. They were having a foot washing lesson from Yahshua. Verse 10 says, ‘Yahshua saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean (pure) every whit: and ye are clean (pure), but not all.’ Yahshua is indicating that all the disciples are clean (pure) racially, but no amount of washing would make Judas clean (pure).

The interpretation is valid. If Christ was not making a reference to the inherent nature of His disciples, then the statement “He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean very whit” is pure nonsense, since “he that is washed” would have no need to wash his feet. But Judas, having been a Canaanite and therefore a devil, could not possibly be washed even if his feet were clean. Returning to Clifton he speaks of a latter passage concerning Judas:

A second statement in this 18th verse is also interesting. It says, ‘I speak not of you all.’ Again Yahshua is excluding Judas from the others. ‘I know whom I have chosen.’ I am not deceived in My choice. I knew what was going to happen from the very beginning of the enmity of the serpent. I have chosen Judas as a ‘serpent’ and I plainly foresaw that he would raise up the heel and deliver Me. Did not I foretell this at the time of the curse upon the ‘serpent’? Matthew 26:14-16:

14 Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests, 15 And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver. 16 And from that time he sought opportunity to betray him.

Here I must offer a clarification and say that Christ did not choose Judas to be a serpent. Rather, Judas was a serpent, by the fact of his birth and lineage, and for that reason Christ chose to include him in the group, as the man who would ultimately betray Him. Having the foreknowledge of God, Christ knew that He had to be betrayed in order to be crucified, and chose the serpent understanding that Judas would have the natural inclination to betray Him, thereby fulfilling the prophetic aspect of the 41st Psalm. Ever since the time of Christ, this same pattern has been fulfilled many times in history, as kings and princes took Jews into their confidence, as men such as Joseph McCarthy had Jews as their closest advisers. Why did we not learn from Scripture? Because in our Christian pulpits there are many more Ted Weilands or Stephen Joneses than there have been Clifton Emahisers or Bertrand Comparets.

As a reminder, the word Iscariot is a Hellenized version of the Hebrew phrase Ish Kerioth, or “man of Kerioth”. Kerioth was a town of southern Judaea which the Edomites had inhabited after the deportations of Israel and Judah, and they were converted en masse by the Maccabees like the rest of the Edomites of Judaea. Judas, whom Christ had called a devil, was certainly one of these Edomites. All of the other original apostles were from Galilee, and not from Judaea. Clifton continues and says:

If you can’t see ‘Jew’ written all over this action on the part of this ‘serpent’, Judas, you have to be blind. He was only doing his father’s bidding, John 12:4-6:

4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, which should betray him, 5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? 6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.

Not only was this ‘serpent-Jew’ a traitor, he was a thief — just like the ‘Jewish’ IRS and Federal Reserve of today. Here is more evidence that Judas was the offspring of Satan …

For many centuries, Jews have gravitated into the vocations related to banking and money management, just like Judas Iscariot. They have always been thieves, and this is another lesson which the Ted Weilands of the world would prevent us from learning: that this is their genetic nature because they are of that seed of the serpent. They have not done this simply because they are somehow good at mathematics or finance. The greatest mathematicians have been White men, and the only economics they require are outlined in the laws of their God. Rather, the Jews have taken to these vocations because they understand the power which comes from the control of a worldly economy. Continuing with Clifton:

Like the Spirit that is within Yahweh’s children (seed of the woman), so there is a counter-spirit within the ‘serpent’s’ children. That is why it just came natural for Judas to betray Yahshua. It says here that the devil put it into the heart of Judas to betray the Messiah. The children of Satan have a certain nature about them, and under various circumstances, they will react in predictable behavior patterns. The Messiah understood exactly what the behavior pattern of the ‘serpent’, Judas, would be. That behavior pattern is yet more evidence that the ‘Jews’ are a Satanic seedline. You cannot change the nature of a rattlesnake, nor can you change the nature of a ‘Jew.’ So much for ‘Jews for Jesus’!” (See also Jeremiah 13:23.)

Here Clifton also cited Jeremiah 13:23, which says: “Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.” He continues:

All this is totally oblivious to the anti-seedliners! Speaking further on page 83 of volume 2, Lightfoot says of that nation: “That the nation, under the second Temple was given to magical arts beyond measure... That it was given to easiness of believing all manner of delusions beyond measure. And one may safely suspect, that those voices which they thought to be from heaven, and noted with the name Bath Kol, were either formed by the devil in the air to deceive the people, or by magicians by devilish art to promote their own affairs... The very same which I judge of the Bath Kol, is [in] my opinion also of the frequent appearances of Elias, with which the leaves of the Talmud do every where abound; namely, that in very many places the stories are false, and, in the rest, the apparitions of him were diabolical.”

We must take note that even if Lightfoot believed that these musings of the Talmud and the Kabbalah represented historical events, that does not mean that they were actually historical. The Jewish books are full of lies, and cannot be trusted. Clifton replies with an explanation of the Kabbalah and says:

The “magical arts” used by the “Jews” is called the “Cabala” (sometimes spelled Cabbala, Kabbalah or Qabbalah). According to Warren Weston in his [book] Father Of Lies, [on] page 51: “The four collections of works composing the Dogmatic Kabbalah are: 1. The Sepher Yetzirah, or ‘Book of the Formation’: it treats of the cosmogony as symbolized by ten members and twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet, which it calls the ‘thirty-two paths’ or symbols,— with the esoteric zero making thirty-three in all ... The whole Kabbalah is usually classed under four heads: (1) The Practical Kabbalah. (2) The Literal Kabbalah. (3) The Unwritten Kabbalah. (4) The Dogmatic Kabbalah ... 2. The Zohar, or book of ‘Splendour’, itself composed of five important books (besides other treatises) ... These five are: Siphra Dtzenioutha, or ‘Book of Concealed Mystery’; Idra Rabba Qadisha, or ‘Greater Holy Assembly’; Idra Zuta Qadisha, or ‘Lesser Holy Assembly’; Beth Elohim, or ‘House of the Elohim’; and the ‘Book of the Revolutions of the Soul.’ 3. The Sepher Sephiroth, or ‘Book of Numbers’ (or Emanations) ... Sephira, ‘number’ (singular); Sephiroth (plural). 4. The Asch Metzareph, or ‘Purifying Fire’, dealing with Alchemy.”

While a good deal of the form of the Cabala can be traced to the second century, the substance appears to originate from remote antiquity, possibly as remote as Cain. In the book Trail of the Serpent by Miss Stoddard, page 25, the Cabala is described: “The Practical or Magical Cabala with its combinations and correspondences was the astrological, magical, and magnetic basis used by the Alchemists and Magicians of the Middle Ages in working their transmutations and conjurations. It was impregnated with the ‘fluidic magic’ derived from very ancient cults, and still practiced at the time of the Captivity among the Persians and Chaldeans. To-day, all Rosicrucians and cabalistic sects use this Magical Cabala for their works of divining, clairvoyance, hypnotic and magnetic healing, making of talismans, and contacting their mysterious masters. As the Jewish writer Bernard Lazare said: ‘Secret societies represented the two sides of the Jewish mind, practical rationalism and pantheism, that pantheism which, metaphysical reflection of the belief in One God, ended at times in cabalistic theurgy’.” [Theurgy is the effect of the divine or supernatural in worldly affairs.]

Stoddard only assumes that the magi of Persia and Chaldaea at the time of the captivity of Israel had practiced black arts, something which is without documentation. Ostensibly, there was obscure knowledge at the time of both good and wicked varieties.

It is my opinion that the usual explanations of the Kabbalah are wanting, or even misleading. While there have always been mystery cults and magical books (as we witness even in Acts chapter 19 (19:19), the Kabbalah as it began to develop in modern times was compiled and published in 13th century Spain. It has no greater authority than that of some medieval rabbis who plotted to usurp the emerging sciences. While it may have been, in part, a compilation of earlier Jewish mysticism, as well as neo-Platonism and other Greek and Eastern traditions, its claims of great antiquity and the connections which the Jews assert to the Biblical patriarchs are not legitimate. These claims are devices of the Jews by which they assert the Kabbalah to have great authority, and they are nothing more than Jewish lies and fables. Clifton continues:

Let us now see an example of what is contained in the Cabala. For this, I will now quote from The Esoteric Tradition by [theosophist] Gottfried de Purucker, volume 1, page 62:

Turning to the Jews, one may find in the Zohar — a Hebrew word meaning ‘splendor’, which is perhaps the greatest text-book of the Jewish Qabbalah, and which has been mentioned before — a statement to the effect that the man who understands the Hebrew Bible in its literal meaning is a fool. ‘Every word of it’, says the Zohar in this connexion, ‘has a secret and sublime sense, which the wise [that is, the initiated] know.’ One of the greatest of the Jewish Rabbis of the Middle Ages, Maimonides, who died in 1204, writes:

We should never take literally what is written in the Book of the Creation, nor hold the same ideas about it that the people hold. If it were otherwise, our learned ancient sages would not have been [sic. gone] to so great labor in order to conceal the real sense, and to hold before the vision of the uninstructed people the veil of allegory which conceals the truths that it contains. Taken literally, that work contains the most absurd and far-fetched ideas of the Divine. Whoever can guess the real sense, ought to guard carefully his knowledge not to divulge it. This is a rule taught by our wise men, especially in connexion with the work of the six days...’”

The Jews rather naturally lie, but they do not lie about everything. However the proper way to interpret many of the allegories of Old Testament Scripture, and especially the allegories of Genesis, is revealed in the parables and Revelation of Christ. Clifton replies to the citation and says:

It is true that the Bible is written, to a great degree, in allegory and symbols, and if we don’t understand them, we cannot grasp the message contained therein. The “Jews”, on the other hand, attach an occult meaning to every word and phrase. Their views of Scripture are so foreign to our perspectives one would not recognize them. In spite of this, their view is not always entirely incorrect. From the above, it is obvious that the “Jews” do not believe in [a Creation of six twenty-four hour days,] as do some Christian fundamentalists! If we take the same stance as the anti-seedliners like Ted R. Weiland, Jeffrey A. Weakley, Stephen E. Jones, Jack Mohr, Charles Weisman, etc., that everything found in “Jewish” writings is evil, we will have to take the opposite position and [also] start advocating [a Creation of six twenty-four hour days]. Can you see now how absurd some of the positions taken by the anti-seedliners are? You will remember, as I showed you before, if we throw everything out which can be found in the Talmud and other “Jewish” writings, we will have to pitch out most of the contents of our Bibles, along with the truth of our Identity. One thing I have noticed with the anti-seedliners is: they are strangely quiet about “Jewish” history, and never seem to quote “Jewish” history books. This should run up a red flag for us, indicating they’re not as knowledgeable on the subject as they pretend to be. And that hardly qualifies them as students who have studied to show themselves approved, (2 Timothy 2:15). As I have said oft before, we need a Bible in one hand and a history book in the other (“Jewish” history books without exception).

Referring again to A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica by John Lightfoot, volume 2, page 209: “That nation and generation might be called adulterous literally; for what else, I beseech you, was their irreligious polygamy than continual adultery? And what else was their ordinary practice of divorcing their wives, no less irreligious, according to every man’s foolish or naughty will?”

So Lightfoot understood that the Jews were a literally corrupt race. We know for a fact that by the time of Christ, the Jews were a literally corrupt and bastardized race, but Clifton wants us to understand that Lightfoot knew that as well. Clifton then continues under the heading:


Again on Lightfoot, volume 2, pages 295-297 concerning Matthew 23:13-14: “Under a pretence of mighty devotion, but especially under the goodly show of long prayers, they so drew over the minds of devout persons to them, especially of women, and among them the richer widows, that by subtle attractives they either drew out or wrested away their goods and estates. Nor did they want nets of counterfeit authority, when from the chair they pronounced, according to their pleasures, of the dowry and estate befalling a widow, and assumed to themselves the power of determining concerning those things…

It should be obvious that Lightfoot's source for these statements is the Gospel itself, and specifically Matthew chapter 23. Clifton's citation continues:

Yet in making of these they used their utmost endeavours for the sake of their own gain, that they might some way or other drain their purses, after they had drawn them in under the show of religion, or make some use or benefit to themselves by them. The same covetousness, therefore, under a veil of hypocrisy, in devouring widows’ houses, which our Savior condemned in the former clause, he here also condemns in hunting after proselytes; which the scribes and Pharisees were at all kind[s] of pains to bring over to them. Not that they cared for proselytes, whom they accounted as ‘a scab and plague’; but that the more they could draw over to their religion, the greater draught [load or catch] they should have for gain, and the more purses to fish in. These, therefore, being so proselyted, ‘they made doubly more the children of hell than themselves.’ For when they had drawn them into their net, having got their prey, they were no further concerned what became of them, so they got some benefit by them. They might perish in ignorance, superstition, atheism, and all kind[s] of wickedness: this was no matter of concern to the scribes and Pharisees; only let them remain in Judaism, that they might lord it over their consciences and purses.”

And of course, religion has always been a business, centered around the administration of rituals and the impression that man needs some intermediary endowed with special knowledge in order to have communion with God. But Christianity is truth, and not religion: it dispenses with the need for rituals while all Adamic men have equal access to God through Christ, who is God incarnate, so there is no need for any intermediary. Clifton now changes the subject, but continues in his endeavor to prove that the Jews are bastards under the subtitle:


The main index of the History Of The Jews by Heinrich Graetz is found in volume 6, and on page 512 are listed the various peoples proselyted by the “Jews” during their extended history. The list is too extensive to elaborate on here. We will key in on volume 3, pages 60-62 concerning the subtitle “Arabs Become Converted To Judaism” (approximately 450-500 A.D.):

Happily, the Arabian Jews bethought them of the genealogy of the Arabs as set forth in the first book of the Pentateuch, and seized upon it as the instrument by which to prove their kinship with them. The Jews were convinced that they were related to the Arabs on two sides, through Yoktan [or in the KJV, Joktan] and through Ishmael. Under their instruction, therefore, the two principal Arabian tribes traced back the line of ancestors to these two progenitors, the real Arabs (the Himyarites) supposing themselves to be the descendants from Yoktan; the pseudo-Arabs in the north, on the other hand, deriving their origin from Ishmael. These points of contact granted, the Jews had ample opportunity to multiply the proofs of their relationship. The Arabs loved genealogical tables, and were delighted to be able to follow their descent and history so far into hoary antiquity; accordingly, all this appeared to them both evident and flattering. They consequently exerted themselves to bring their genealogical records and traditions into unison with the Biblical accounts. Although their traditions extended over less than six centuries on the one side to their progenitor Yarob and his sons or grandsons Himyar and Kachtan, and on the other, to Adnan, yet in their utter disregard of historical accuracy, this fact constituted no obstacle. Without a scruple, the southern Arabians called themselves Kachtanites, and the northern Arabians Ishmaelites. They readily accorded the Jews the rights of relationship, that is to say, equality and all the advantages attending it.

Even though this was written by a Jew, whom we can never trust by himself, this is not entirely inaccurate. Although the Jews seem to have duped the Arabs into giving them equal recognition, the Nabataean Arabs do have a claim to partial descent from Ishmael, through his son Nebaioth. At the same time, it is evident from Scripture that Joktan and other early descendants of both Shem and Ham were originally settled in the land historically known as Arabia. But among the early inhabitants of this land were also the Edomites, Moabites, Ammonites, and all of the tribes of the Canaanites, as well as the Ishmaelites and the descendants of Abraham by Keturah. The land became known as Arabia because from the earliest times, all of these tribes had mingled with the Canaanites and with one another. The word Arab is from a Hebrew word which means mixed, and it describes these people quite appropriately. Later in history, Nubians and other sub-Saharan Africans were evidently added to the mix, and it can be established that these Arabs spread themselves east all the way to the islands of the Pacific, and India and Southeast Asia, where they took with them their African slaves and their idolatrous religions.

However where Graetz uses the term “pseudo-Arab”, we must deny that any such thing exists. An Arab is, essentially, a bastard, and in the racial sense all bastards are indeed equal. Continuing with Clifton's citation from Heinrich Graetz:

The Arabs were thus in intimate intercourse with the Jews, and the sons of the desert whose unpoetical mythology afforded them no matter for inspiration, derived much instruction from Judaism. Under these circumstances many Arabs could not fail to develop peculiar affection for Judaism, and some embraced this religion, though their conversion had not been thought of by the Jews. As they had practiced circumcision while heathen, their conversion to Judaism was particularly easy. The members of a family among the Arabs were indissolubly bound to one another, and, according to their phylarchic [or tribal] constitution, the individuals identified themselves with the tribe. This brought about, that when a chieftain became a Jew, his whole clan at once followed him, the wisest, into the fold of Judaism. It is expressly recorded about several Arabian tribes that they were converted to Judaism; such were the Benu-Kinanah, a warlike, quarrelsome clan, related to the most respected Koraishites of Mecca, and several other families of the tribes Aus and Chazaraj in Yathrib.

We would assert that Islam itself was among the instruction that the Arabs had received from Judaism.

Especially memorable, however, in the history of the Arabs is the conversion of the powerful king of Yemen. The princes or kings of Yemen bore the name of Tobba, and at times ruled over the whole of Arabia; they traced their historical origin back to Himyar, their legendary origin to Kachtan ...”

Clifton now asses this information from Heinrich Graetz and says:

This is only one example of the extensive amount of “Jewish” proselytizing in history. This is the kind of history the anti-seedliners are mute on. Their incompetent, inept commentary bears record of their immaturity on the subject.

This is only one way to prove that the modern Jews are bastards, and not of Judah. Of course, the Judaeans by the time of Christ were all mixed up with the Edomites and other Canaanites, so the Jews as we know them were never a pure race to begin with. But Clifton is endeavoring to demonstrate just how foolish Christians today sound when they insist that there may be such a thing as a “true Jew” or a “pure Jew” or a “real Jew”. What bastard can be true, pure or real? Now Clifton concludes by discussing the consequences of his own honest historical inquiry:

You may think it is out-of-place for me to mention names of the anti-seedliners. Before I wrote one jot, Jeffery A. Weakley in his The Satanic Seedline, Its Doctrine and History, wrote this on page 29: “If you have encountered an argument and you are sincerely seeking an answer [against Two Seedline], I suggest that first you completely study it out in God’s Word (look up definitions, check parallel passages, be sure of the context, etc.). After that I suggest you contact men such as Pete Peters, Dan Gentry, Earl Jones, Jack Mohr, etc. ...” From Jeffrey A. Weakley’s comment, here, there can be little doubt where Pete Peters and the three others mentioned stand on Two Seedline! After Weakley, writing a book against the Two Seedline doctrine, you surely wouldn’t expect him to recommend someone who didn’t agree with him, would you? Jeffrey A. Weakley was an anti-seedliner, and he knew Pete Peters was an anti-seedliner also. To the date of this writing, there is no pubic evidence that Pete Peters has changed his position on the subject, and I don’t believe he ever will! He may make all kinds of derogatory statements about the “Jews”, but he will never say, as our Messiah did, [that] they are genetically Satanic. If he ever does, he will lose half of his following, one way or the other. The only way he can keep them is to talk out of both sides of his mouth. He must continue to try to please both the Two Seedliners and the anti-seedliners in his audience to keep the lucre flowing in. With the message of Two Seedliners, there is little financial support. All this is in defense of the late Bertrand L. Comparet and Wesley A. Swift!

Of course, Comparet and Swift were continually under attack by men such as Pete Peters, Ted Weiland, Dan Gentry, Earl Jones, Jack Mohr, Dave Barley, Richard “Dick” Niemela, and a thousand other clowns who claim to be Identity Christians. None of them are truly Identity Christians, as they utterly refuse to identify the tares along with the wheat. How do we survive the harvest is we are caught frolicking with the tares, simply because men presumed to be teachers deceived us by refusing to acknowledge the devil?

CHR20170630-CAE-SpecNotice09.odt — Downloaded 29 times