Special notice to ALL WHO
DENY two seedline, #4
By: Teacher Clifton A.
Emahiser
1012 North Vine Street
Fostoria, Ohio 44830
Phone (419) 435-2836
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]
�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 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.�
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 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.�
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! The Romans were
Benjamites. The Romans to whom Paul preached were Israelites of the Tribe of
Benjamin! 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, some of the Romans may have been 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 the Tribe of Judah, but lying about it
(Revelation 2:9; 3:9).
�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!
�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.
�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.
�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.�
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 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)
�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).�
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 KKK 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.�
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.
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.�
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.
ANOTHER WITNESS
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.��
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.�
HOME
