Tuesday, December 18, 2012

The Cain-Satanic Seed Line



Pastor Bertrand L. Comparet,A.B., J.D.

It has been brought to my attention many times, that there are preachers and teachers in the world who don't recognize there are literal children of Satan surviving in the world today. Since this is one of the central themes of the Bible, the fight for supremacy between the children of Yahweh and the children of Lucifer, I wonder what Bible these preachers and teachers are reading and studying.

In these studies we will be using the proper name of our God, which is Yahweh and Yahshua for Christ. For documentation read, "Who Is Your God?”          

The battle lines are drawn by Yahweh in Genesis 3:15, where He states he is going to put enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent.

Let's start at the beginning; of course Satan wasn't a serpent. The entity that deceived and seduced Eve wasn't a scaly thing wriggling along on the ground. Serpent was translated from the word nachash, which means enchanter or magician. A fallen angel, still retaining a lot of his angelic powers, no doubt could be very much of an enchanter or magician.

Lucifer's children, and I do mean children not just followers, through the centuries used a serpent as a symbol or emblem of their ancestor, until they attached a secondary meaning of serpent to the word nachash. In Genesis 3:1-3 Satan said to Eve, "Is it really true that Yahweh said, You can't eat of any tree in the garden?"  As it reads in the Hebrew, Eve replied to Satan, "And the woman said unto the enchanter, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden". Now I am going to switch to the King James translation and I will correct it as I go.

"Of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die." Let's see what it actually said in the Hebrew. Fruit is the Hebrew word pirchach, meaning progeny, brood, children or descendants. Do you talk about the children of a walnut tree or an apple tree? Of course you don't!

Of the pirchach, of the descendants of the tree, which is in the midst of the garden, Yahweh has said, "Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it". That word touch is the Hebrew word naga, which is a more polite expression meaning, to have sexual intercourse with. Do you need to be warned not to have sexual intercourse with an apple? Of course not, it isn't that kind of a tree.

Yahweh had millions of the pre Adamic, Asiatic and African people around. If He just wanted somebody wide between the shoulders and narrow between the eyes to spade up the garden, He had them. He didn't have to create a special being for that purpose.

Satan had been the governor of this planet until he forfeited the right to this position by rebellion. Yahweh sent Adam here and it is recorded in Luke chapter 3 that Adam was the son of Yahweh. It doesn't record that about any of these pre Adamic people mentioned in Genesis chapter 1. Adam was the son of Yahweh and Yahweh sent Adam here to take over by force, kick Satan out and govern this planet. The trees in the Garden of Eden were the family trees of nations and races.

Adam and Eve weren't supposed to intermingle with these people. If Negroes and Asiatics were all that Yahweh wanted, He already had them. What He created was a different and separate being who was to be a different sort of person, whom the Negroes and Asiatics could never produce.

The Hebrew word Awdawm, which we translate Adam, means of a rosy, fair complexion. Adam was the first person of a specifically created new race. Adam and Eve were told not to mongrelize their race with these per Adamic people that were in the world.

When you come to Genesis 3:13, Yahweh has called Adam, Eve and Satan before Him to give an accounting of their misdeeds. According to the King James Bible Eve said, "The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat thereof". Here again is the Hebrew word nachash, meaning enchanter. Then there is the use of the word beguiled; the Hebrew word there is nawshaw, which means seduced.

Beguiled means no more than deceived. Somebody who sells you some mining stock in a mine that doesn't have any good ore in it, beguiles you. The word nawshaw means seduced, not in any way or sense can it mean beguiled. "And Yahweh God said unto the woman, what is this thou hast done? And the woman said, the enchanter seduced me." This is what it says in the Hebrew and Cain was the product of this seduction.

In reply in Genesis 3:15 Yahweh says to Satan, "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed". The same word zehra was used for both the seed of Satan and the seed of Eve. Zehra literally means seed; there is no other meaning. It also could be used as grains of wheat but it is used throughout the Bible as meaning the descendants of a person. Satan was to have just as literal children in this world as Eve was to have. The same word zehra is used for Satan's seed and Eve's seed.

The reply of the churchianity preachers is usually to quote Genesis 4:1. "And Adam knew his wife, and she conceived and bare Cain." Notice that what is not said is more significant that what is said, the Bible nowhere says Adam begat Cain. As you have read in the Old Testament, the monotonous regularity with which it always says, and so and so begat whosis and whosis begat what's his name and what's his name begat somebody else, and so on. It was important to know your ancestry in those days, because you didn't get your citizenship for two box tops and a dime. You got citizenship because your ancestors, for over twenty generations, were Israelites and no other way.

So Adam knew his wife and she conceived. I can tell you something and I can prove every bit of it by witnesses. I went to a movie one night and the next morning the sun rose in the east. I didn't say the one caused the other. I said two things happened, one happened first and the other happened second. I never said they were cause and effect. The Bible never says there was cause and effect here. If you want further proof of this, go right on to Genesis chapter 5 where you will find the list of Adam's descendants. Cain's name is nowhere to be found. Neither Cain nor Abel is mentioned among the descendants of Adam.

If you say Abel might have been omitted because he was probably killed before he left any descendants of his own, we don't really know. However, this isn't true of Cain because the Bible traces Cain's descendants for six generations, naming them right down the line. Never once does it record that Cain was a descendant of Adam, never in any way, shape, forms or manner. The first time it records that Adam begat a child is Genesis 5:3. "And Adam lived 130 years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth." This child Adam begat was not named Cain it was named Seth.

The satanic bloodline crept in through Cain, possibly earlier, among the pre Adamic people. There were pre Adamic people who were not necessarily satanic. There were some pre Adamic people into whom the satanic bloodline came, and there were even some of the descendants of Adam who probably mongrelized. In fact, it is evident they did mix their bloodline for the fact that those living around Noah were wiped out by the flood. The Bible tells us that Noah was perfect in his ancestry, with no mongrelization. He and his family were the ones in the area that were still pure in their bloodlines.

This is why the flood wiped out the mongrelized Adamites around Noah. As I documented in "Noah's Flood Was Not Worldwide", this flood did not cover the whole earth as is falsely taught in the churches of today.

The pure descendants of Adam multiplied and then you come to the fact of the satanic bloodline getting in there. Remember, Yahweh had announced His purpose; He was going to take back the world from Satan's domination. Yahweh was going to rule it according to His purposes. He was going to rule it through His children, through the pure descendants of Adam. What would be the obvious move on Satan's part to thwart this plan? The obvious thing to do would be to mongrelize the descendants of Adam, then he could sneer in Yahweh's face and say, "These are my children but where are yours? All these have my blood in them." This is exactly what Satan set out to do.

Genesis 6:2 records, "The sons of God saw the daughters of men (Adam) that they were fair; and they took them wives of all they chose". You don't get the full significance of it in this translation, "the sons of God" (beni-ha-elohim, also means sons of magistrates or mighty men of the earth and angels).

A double race mixing took place here; both the rulers of the pre Adamic races and the fallen angels took wives of the fair Adamic women. It is written with obvious disapproval. The male descendants of Adam were not allowed, by Yahweh's law, to marry anybody but the daughters descended from Adam. If they were marrying within their own racial line in this instance, it couldn't have been spoken of with disapproval. So the beni-ha-elohim are evidently those of the pre Adamic darker races and the fallen angels who followed Satan into rebellion. Greater details of this event are found in the book of Enoch.

Go on to Genesis 6:4 where it is speaking of the same subject, again it is botched up in the King James Bible. "There were giants in the earth in those days, and also after that when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men (enowsh) of renown."

This is what it says in the Hebrew. "There were nephilim (the fallen ones) in the earth in those days." They were fallen angels. That is what the bible calls them in so many places. Jude 1:6 records, "Angels who had not kept their first estate," who had fallen from heaven and from their former powers. "When the sons of God", and again it’s the beni-ha-elohim, "came in unto the daughters of Adam...” so it's the same thing.

Here we have the spreading of the satanic bloodline. Genesis chapter 6 goes on to trace many of these descendants of the fallen angels. You find that all through Palestine, on both sides of the Jordan river, clear down through Mount Seir, the rugged mountain range southeast of the Dead Sea where Esau and his family lived, all through this area there are these various people with the satanic blood in them.

There are two different places, one in Isaiah the other in Ezekiel, where it speaks of what it calls a king or a prince. In the one case it speaks of Babylon and the other case of Tyre. Nevertheless it speaks of him in language, which could not possibly apply, to anybody except Satan. Therefore this indicates that at some time or other, Satan had incarnated in the form of these various kings, one king of Babylon and one king of Tyre.

Don't think this is so impossible because many times the Old Testament tells of these angels appearing in very solid form. They came and talked with Abraham on several occasions, one of them wrestled with Jacob almost all night.

Another of these angels came when the people of Israel were about to cross the Jordan River and take over Palestine. Joshua, making a scouting trip around his camp, saw this armed man standing there in armor and with a sword and Joshua asked, "Are you with us or for the enemy?" And the man said, "I am the captain of the hosts of Yahweh".

Let's take Isaiah 14:12-21 and note that these verses could not possibly apply to anyone except to Satan himself. We will quote from the King James Bible. "How art thou fallen from the heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations: for thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God. I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north." Lucifer then said, "I'm going to be the ruler over Israel (Yahweh's people). I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High".

Yahweh our God then told Lucifer the devil, "Yet thou shall be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee and consider thee saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms? That made the world a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof, that opened not the house of his prisoners? All the kings of the nations, even all of them lie in glory, every one in his own house; but thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcass trodden under foot. Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people; the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned."

You could not say this about any kings of Babylon. The only one, who may possibly have failed to get burial and an elaborate tomb, might have been Belshazzar. Belshazzar was nothing but an incompetent drunkard and nobody ever could say of him that he was the one who shook kingdoms and so on. He didn't even rule Babylon, because he was drunk all the time.

These passages are speaking of none other than Lucifer. Note how it goes on in Isaiah 14:21. "Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities." The word translated as children is from the Hebrew word Beni meaning sons. Satan obviously was to have children who could be slaughtered, to keep them from multiplying to the point where they would take over and rule the world. Old Testament? Of course it is, now let's see what the New Testament has to say about it.

Yahshua plainly says, in a number of places, that the devil has children, not merely followers. Remember the parable of the tares and the wheat. Yahshua spoke of the farmer who sowed good seed in his field and his enemy came along during the nighttime and sowed these poisonous weeds, the tares among the wheat. When the farmer's servants saw the tares growing among the wheat they asked him if they should go and pull them up now.

The farmer said, "No, you might pull up some of the wheat with them. Let them grow together until the time of the harvest, and then the reapers will first gather the tares into bundles to be burned, and then put the wheat in my barn".

Then Yahshua explains this parable to His disciples. In Matthew 13:38-39 Yahshua says, "The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom (the Greek word used here in the plural is huios meaning sons, the good seed are the sons of the kingdom); but the tares are the children (huios) of the wicked one. Satan has just as true children in the world as does Yahweh.

Speaking to the Pharisees, who as you know were Jews, Yahshua said in Matthew 12:34 (the King James Bible botches this up to an extent that seems to me often to be willful), "O generation of vipers, how can ye being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh".

The word is not generation at all. A generation is a number of people of not too different an age, living at the same time. You, for example, constitute one generation. Yahshua wasn't talking just about the people living then. They weren't any more wicked than the generation that lived before them or the generation that lived after them. What Yahshua said was, as we will paraphrase it (it's the Greek word genema which means children or offspring): "O children of vipers... sure all these centuries you Jews have used the serpent as the emblem or symbol for your ancestor. All right, taking you at your word, you children of serpents," right down the line they were vipers. Yahshua knew who they were.

In Matthew 23:29-35 it is recorded, "Woe unto you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchers of the righteous, and say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets." Here again is the Greek word huios. "Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye genema (ye offspring, children) of vipers. How can ye escape the damnation of hell? That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, son of Barachias, whom you slew between the temple and the altar."

Was Yahshua so unjust that He was going to punish these Jews for the murder of Abel, if they weren't descendants of Cain? Of course not. Yahshua was tracing the children of the serpent, the enchanter Satan, down through the centuries. Tracing those who had murdered the righteous, including all the prophets, right down the line. So Yahshua said, "Upon you (upon this race) these descendants of the serpent, will come the responsibility for all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel even unto the blood of Zacharias."

Throughout the Bible it records the two seed lines, Yahweh and Lucifer's. The Bible makes no reference as to what your religious point of view may be; it is talking about literal descendants. Romans 8:16 tells us, "The spirit itself bears witness, that we are the children of God". The word children there, the Greek word teknon, means one born a child, not adopted. Nothing is more fallacious than this church doctrine about being adopted children of Yahweh.

Read what Paul said on this subject and nothing in it can justify the mistranslation of that as adoption. Paul states that before the coming of Christ we were held in bondage under the law. He then says the law just like an heir under age strictly governed us. The heir has inherited from his father, who has died, all the estate but he is still a minor and cannot take control of it.

The heir is under the control of trustees and governors, appointed guardians, appointed by his father, until he comes of age. Paul continues that all the time the heir is owner of it all and yet he is controlled as though he is just a servant. You couldn't say that about anybody who was adopted. If you take somebody else's illegitimate child and decide you are going to adopt him, is he already the owner of your property before you adopt him? Of course not, Paul wasn't stupid enough to think he was. Only the churchmen are stupid enough for that.

What Paul was talking about was the coming of age ceremony by which they marked the fact that the heir had now become of full age and his property was put into his hands to control as an adult. As I said before, Romans 8:16 tells us, "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of God", teknon, one born a child, not adopted.

Romans 9:26 reads (Paul is quoting from Hosea 1:10), "And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it is said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God". It is the Greek word huioi, meaning sons. We are the born, not adopted, children of Yahweh. As to the born, not adopted or converted, children of the devil, read Acts 13:8-9. This tells about a Jew sorcerer Elymas, who opposed Paul when Paul was trying to make some, converts. "Then Saul (who was also called Paul) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him and said, O full of sublimity and mischief, thou son of the devil (the same Greek word huios, meaning son), thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?"

The offspring of a cat is another cat, isn't it? The child of a Negro is a Negro and a child of Yahweh is what? He is not as wise and not as powerful or important as his Father, but nevertheless he partakes. Within his limitations, of a godly nature. This is what the Bible tells us about and this is exactly why we of Yahweh's people Israel are held to so much greater responsibility than other people. After all, you can't expect a Negro to act like anything but a Negro, but a child of Yahweh is expected to act like one.

The child of a devil is what, another devil isn't he? John 6:70-71 is part of a very important passage which began in this manner. Yahshua asked His disciples who were all gathered together, "Whom do men say that I am? And they said, Oh some say that you are this prophet or that one who has been reincarnated and come back here. Then Christ said, Whom do you say that I am? And Peter spoke up and said, Thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God. Christ then said, Blessed art thou Simon, son of Jonah: because flesh and blood didn't tell you that fact: it was My Father in heaven who told you that. And He said, Upon this rock (petra, the solid bed rock of the earth) I will found my church."

Yahshua didn't say He was going to found the church on Simon Peter (petros), a little stone. In Greek petros means a little stone, just barely bigger than a pebble. Was Yahshua going to found His church on a pebble that anybody could kick out from under it? No, Yahshua said, "I will found it upon petra." the solid bedrock of the earth.

Remember the example Yahshua gave, the parable wherein He said one man had built his house on the sand and when the storm came along, the flood washed the sand out from under it and it collapsed. Another man built his house upon the rock (petra, bed rock) and the storm beat upon it and couldn't do anything to it, because it was founded on a rock (petra).

If any of you have ever been to Yosemite Valley and have seen that enormous cliff El Capitan, you have seen a good example of what the Greeks meant by the word petra. You could build a castle on El Capitan and nothing could blow it off or wash it away. "So upon this fact, that you have recognized who I am: the Christ, the Son of the Living God; upon that I will found My church, and the gates of death shall not prevail against it."

John 6:70-71 records, "Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? He spoke of Judas Escariot, (the son) of Simon, for he it was that would betray Him, being one of the twelve". Our Savior was not just being vulgarly abusive by calling people names He never did that. He denounced these Pharisees, He called them hypocrites and they were. Yahshua wasn't abusing them with lying epithets, they were hypocrites and He was accurate.

When Yahshua called these Jews children of serpents, they acknowledged the statement was true, for that was the emblem they had used from ancient times. When He said that one of them was a devil, He wasn't being abusive, He was speaking the literal truth.

The First Epistle of John again states the existence of these two seed lines. I John 2:29 tells us, "If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that does righteousness is born of Him". I John 3:2 continues, "Beloved, now are we the sons of God". Here we have the Greek word teknon meaning a born child, not adopted, thus a child born of Yahweh. Let's continue with I John 5:9-10."Whosoever is born of God does not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God."

By this John didn't mean that none of us commit any sins at all. If that were the case, we wouldn't have needed the sacrifice of Yahshua on the cross. We all have our sins but people are divided into two classes. There are the one who are only sorry because they don't get a chance to sin more and the others who are sorry because they have sinned only a little. What John means is, whoever is born of Yahweh doesn't habitually sin. So John says in I John 3:10, "In this the children (teknon) of God are manifest, and the children (teknon) of the devil". Remember, John has talked about us as the born teknon of Yahweh and the others as the born teknon of the devil.

I John 3:12 records that as for those that are our brothers, not the children of Satan, we should love them and not be as Cain. The King James Bible says, "...who was of that wicked one and slew his brother." The people that have churchianity rather than Christianity say, "Oh well, you know it doesn't say that he was a son, it just means that Cain was morally associated with Satan and was bad and a reprobate and so on."

There weren't two separate Greek languages in those days. There wasn't one language to write the Gospel according to Luke and a different one to write the First Epistle of John. As you well know, different languages have their different idioms. In many languages one word may have a meaning that can only be expressed by a phrase of several English words. I think nearly all of you have a King James translation of the Bible and you know that in most editions of it, some words are printed in italics. Those words in italics are the words which the translators added because they thought it was necessary to give the English the same meaning the Hebrew or the Greek had, without these added words.

Luke chapter 3 traces the genealogy of Yahshua, starting with Yahshua and going all the way back to Adam. Let's start with Luke 3:23 as it is translated in the King James Bible. "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli (the words "the son" are in italics showing they were not in the Greek and the translators added them), which was the son of Matthew (the son is in italics), which was the son (italics) of Levi, which was the son (italics) of Melchi, which was the son (italics) of Janna," and so forth. All "the son" were in italics so were added.

Some people would read Luke 3:23-24 as follows: "...the son of Joseph, who was as big a reprobate as Heli, who was morally no better than Matthew, who was as bad as Levi..." Is this the way some people think Luke wrote this? If this is not the meaning of the Greek here in Luke, it is not the meaning of the same Greek phrase in John 3:12.  So where it says, "not as Cain who was of that wicked one", in Greek it means he was the son of that wicked one.

In Greek, if you say John was of William, in English it would read, John was the son of William. The better English translations recognize this. For example in the Weymouth translation, this same verse, John 3:12 reads, "We are not to resemble Cain who was a child of the evil one and killed his brother." Phillips' translation reads, "We are none of us to have the spirit of Cain who was a son of the devil and murdered his brother." The New English Bible, a magnificent job of translation reads, "Unlike Cain who was a child of the evil one and murdered his brother".

The verses that people use, as proof positive there isn't any basis for the belief that the Jews are the descendants of Cain and therefore from the devil, is John 8:31-33. Yahshua was talking to the Judeans who were the people we know of as Jews today. It isn't simply that Yahshua was behaving like a petulant spoiled child because somebody didn't believe in Him, because it says, "those Judeans who believed in Him". Check Strong's Concordance, the word Jew is mistranslated from the word meaning Judean. Yes so called converted children of the devil.

Yahshua said to these Judeans (Jews), "If ye continue in My doctrines indeed, then ye shall be My disciples; and you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free. They answered Him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man". Anybody that knows their Bible knows that all of Abraham's children had been in bondage at one time or another. Here is evidence that these people weren't descendants of Abraham. Who is it who could say he was descended from Abraham and had never been in bondage to any man?

If these Jews were of any of the twelve tribes of Israel at all, they would have been in bondage the first time in Egypt. If they belonged to the ten tribed northerly kingdom of Israel, they would have been in bondage the second time in Assyria. If they belonged to the two tribed southern kingdom of Judah, they would have been in bondage the second time in Babylon. Yet the Jews admitted they had never been in bondage to any man, thus demonstrating they weren't of Israel or Judah.

Who could say that 1,800 years earlier that Abraham was one of his ancestors, Esau? Remember Esau and Jacob were twin brothers, born with (presumably) the same bloodline. However, Esau married two Canaanite women in violation of Yahweh's law. Esau couldn't leave anything but mongrelized satanic descendants, because among these Hittite Canaanites there was the satanic bloodline.

When the Bible records Esau selling his birthright to Jacob for a bowl of lentil stew, this isn't when he lost his birthright. This was only a formal ceremony by which he gave up any claim to it. Esau lost the birthright when he did the thing that rendered it impossible for him to continue as the head of the clan.

Esau's descendants from then on would be mongrelized. Recognizing he was already out of the line for leadership, Esau sold his inheritance for a bowl of stew. The Bible records that Esau and his two Canaanite wives moved down to Mount Seir, a very rugged mountain range southeast of the Dead Sea. Mount Seir is exactly where some of these people lived who were descendants of the fallen angels. Read Genesis chapter 6, among the people who had the blood line of the fallen angels were these Horites. They were the cave dwellers who were known as Horim.

Suppose a white man married two Negresses here and then moved to the interior of the Congo. For the next 18 centuries his descendants lived there with nobody they could marry except the Negroes around them. Of course the last trace of white blood would have vanished. Nevertheless, after 18 centuries they could still say they had a white ancestor.

These weren't Negroes, they were satanic Canaanites, but the principle is the same. These Jews talking with Yahshua had identified themselves as Edomite Jews. Genesis 36:20-30 lists Esau's descendants. Listed are all the various chieftains among the family of Seir, the Horite satanic line, including his daughter Timna. Genesis 36:12 records that Timna was a concubine to Esau's son Eliphaz and bore him a son Amalek. What a pestilential lot the whole tribe of Amalek was, they all behaved according to their satanic bloodline. You will find a good deal about this in Exodus 17:8-16 and Numbers 20:14-21.

This same satanic conduct, on the part of the Edomites, was repeated as the opportunity arose. Remember when the people of Israel came out of Egypt in the exodus, they wanted to march up to Palestine, they were then attacked by the Edomites. The Israelites were driven back so they had to detour around, down through the wilderness, in the Sinai Peninsula.

When the Babylonians, under Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem, they looted and burned the city and massacred a lot of the inhabitants. Then the Edomites came rushing in to help in the massacre and plunder. The whole book of Obadiah is just one continuous condemnation of the Edomites for the way they acted. This book also predicted their eventual slaughter and punishment for what they did. Obadiah verse 10 records, "For thy violence against thy brother Jacob shame shall cover thee, and thou shalt be cut off forever".

Obadiah verse 15 continues, "For the day of Yahweh is near upon all the heathen: as thou hast done, it shall be done unto thee: thy reward shall return upon thine own head". Obadiah verse 18, "And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau for stubble, and they shall kindle in them, and devour them; for there shall not be any remaining of the house of Esau; for Yahweh has spoken it."

Exodus 17:14-16 continues, "And Yahweh said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. And Moses built an altar, and called the name of it Yahweh Nissi (Yahweh our banner). For he said, Because Yahweh hath sworn that Yahweh will have war with Amalek from generation to generation."

How did these satanic, mongrel, Edomite Jews get up there into Judea? They came in two principle waves. During the time the southern kingdom of Judah was practically empty during the Babylonian captivity, the Edomites were driven out of Mount Seir by a heavy invasion by the Arab people, the Nabateans from the east. So the Edomites were driven westward. They couldn't go southwest or straight west, they would then be getting into Egyptian territory and they weren't strong enough to fight the Egyptians. Consequently they went slightly northwest and took over the southerly half of what had been the kingdom of Judah and settled there.

When the small remnant of Judah came back from the Babylonian captivity, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah record that 42,600, or something like that, came back. It lists them by their families and when you run those down you find that slightly over 8,000 of these people were not from any tribe of Israel or Judah. Only 34,000 of the 42,000 that came back were Israelites of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and a few Levites among them.

Since they were too few to drive out these numerous and warlike Edomites, all they could do was settle in the little territory left vacant. To give you an idea of the size of this territory, the entire area of the twelve tribed nation of Israel, before it broke up, picture it as follows. If it were set down here in southern California, it would extend from the Mexican border to the southern part of Los Angeles and inland from the coast it was never more than 40 miles wide.
Now divide this into thirds, the northern two-thirds of that comprised the kingdom of Israel, the ten tribed northern kingdom. Only the southerly one-third of that was the kingdom of Judah. Of that one-third, take out the southern half of that now occupied by the Edomites. This little strip of land is all that remained for the true Judaites and Benjamenites to settle in.

Before the captivity, the tribe of Judah had been in the south, the tribe of Benjamin in the north, with the city of Jerusalem lying right on the boundary line between them. They sorted themselves out as well as they could, the way they were before. Judah was in the south and Benjamin pushed to the north. However, Benjamin couldn't just move up to the north a little bit, because north of them was Samaria. Remember I said you divide this twelve tribed territory into thirds, the middle third constituted Samaria.

Isaiah, Kings and Chronicles record that when the Assyrians captured the northern kingdom of Israel and deported its entire people, they brought other people from Assyria and settled them in Samaria. It purposely failed to say the Assyrians settled anybody in Galilee, the northern most portions, because they didn't, they left it vacant. Now the Judahites pushed the Benjamenites to the north, as they returned from the captivity. They couldn't just move up into Samaria that was fully settled. So Benjamin had to leapfrog over Samaria to the vacant land of Galilee, to the north.

In Galilee was Yahshua's own hometown of Nazareth. He was born in Bethlehem, down close to Jerusalem, but His family home was up in Nazareth. Remember, Yahshua got almost all of His converts up in Galilee and of the twelve disciples only Judas was a Jew. In Bible translations Judas is called Judas Iscariot. There is no such word as Iscariot in any language known to man. This is a corruption of the Hebrew word Ish Kerioth, meaning a man of Kerioth. Kerioth was a little village in the southwestern portion of Judea, down in the territory occupied by the Edomites. Judas was an Edomite Jew and the only Jew of the twelve disciples. The other eleven were all Galileans, therefore Benjamenites. If a Jew could walk with Yahshua for three years and still betray Him, is there any Jew we can trust?

When Yahshua was arrested and taken into the high priest's home for illegal questioning, Peter followed Him in. The servant said "Well, you're one of them, you're a Galilean, your accent shows it". You certainly don't have any trouble telling the southerners from a northern Yankee here in this country do you. They speak English with a different accent and the Galileans spoke the Aramaic of the day, with a little different accent from the Judeans down around Jerusalem.

When the people were gathered at Pentecost, and the Holy Spirit came upon the disciples, they were all there except Judas Escariot. The disciples began speaking to this assembled multitude in a multitude of different languages. How astonished the people were when they heard the disciples speaking in all these different languages, which obviously they didn't know. The people said, "Aren't these Galileans?" All the remaining disciples were.

Down to the south of what was left of the territory of Judah, these Edomite Jews settled. They were always a pestiferous people and were constantly raiding the southern boundary of Judea. Their descendants are raiding the Arab's territory the same way today. A leopard doesn't change its spots. For a long time, after the return from the Babylonian captivity, the people in Judea were a conquered province of one empire or another, Syria, Egypt and finally Rome. They got their little flare up of independence under the Maccabee kings beginning about 150 B.C. and about 120 B.C.

John Hyrcanus, one of the Maccabee kings, who had by that time a good disciplined army, got tired of these Edomite Jew raids on his southern border. So, Hyrcanus marched down south and defeated these Jews thoroughly. Saul, the first king of Israel, had been told by Yahweh, "You go down there and absolutely exterminate these Edomites, don't you leave one of them alive". Saul made a big mistake, as it is always a mistake to disobey Yahweh's commands and instructions, he didn't exterminate these loathsome people. When Saul came back the prophet Samuel said, "Because you have disobeyed God, God has deposed you from being king, and He is going to put a better man in your place".

Approximately 900 years later, John Hyrcanus made the same mistake. After he had defeated the Edomites, he then decided he was going to be a missionary; he would convert them to the religion of Judaism. He offered the Edomites a choice; he would spare them if they would accept the religion of Judaism. This was not the religion of the Old Testament ever; it was what was brought back from Babylon with the Babylonian Talmud. The late Rabbi Stephen S. Wise said it briefly and accurately; I have never been able to improve on his words.
The learned Rabbi said, "The return from Babylon and the introduction of the Babylonian Talmud marked the end of Hebrewism and the beginning of Judaism". The people of the Old Testament were real Hebrews and the religion Yahweh had given them could well be called Hebrewism. This Talmud/Judaism began as the Jews destroyed the religion of the Old Testament. In Yahshua's time they had not yet given it the name of the Talmud, they called it "the tradition of the elders". Remember how often Yahshua rebuked them for following their tradition. "Why have ye by your tradition set aside the laws of Yahweh?" Yahshua was referring to the Talmud.

So, John Hyrcanus was going to be the Billy Graham of his day, he was going to make converts. Hyrcanus told them, "If you will adopt the religion of Judaism, I will give you full citizenship in the kingdom of Judea. If you don't, I will cut your throats". As you well know, this is the most effective missionary technique that has ever been developed. Even Billy Graham doesn't make converts that fast. Naturally the converts made by the sword are of doubtful validity. So the Edomites adopted the religion of Judaism and were accepted in full citizenship in the kingdom. You will find this described in great detail in the one reliable history of that period, Josephus in his history, "Antiquities of the Jews", book 13, chapter 9.

The second wave of Edomites came in when the Edomite chieftain Herod conquered and became king of Judea, under the Roman Empire. Herod was a very able and very evil scoundrel. He raised a large sum of money by taxation and by raiding his neighbors. With this money he bribed Mark Anthony, who was over in Egypt with the Roman legions at this time, to lend him a couple of the Roman legions to add to his own Edomite troops, for the conquest of Judea. With the Roman troops and his own, Herod did capture Judea.

In 40 B.C. the Romans recognized Herod as governor with the title Ethnarch. In 37 B.C., Rome formally recognized Herod as the local king of Judea. He was still subject to Roman foreign policy but he had complete self-government at home. Herod had come in with a conquering army and his Jewish Edomite followers came in with him for the sake of the plunder they could get, they overran the area. They have also gone back to Germany for the same reason. You can learn much about these events in Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews" books 14-18.

In his other history, the "Wars of the Jews", book 4 chapters 4-5, book 5 and chapter 6 and thereafter, Josephus writes of the horrible conduct of these Edomite Jews within the besieged city of Jerusalem while it was undergoing siege by Titus in the year 70 A.D. Their robbery and massacre of the inhabitants inflicted probably more casualties than the Roman army did. In the Jewish encyclopedia, the article "Edom" (in the edition I used to look it up, it was Volume 5, page 41) the article "Edom" concludes with these words: "The Edomites are found today in modern Jewry".

These Edomites had come in the first time when John Hyrcanus gave them full citizenship. The second time they came in was as a wave of conquerors under Herod. This is the same Herod that tried to murder Yahshua as a baby. They had overrun the land. They had control of the entire civil and religious government until the death of Herod.

By will, Herod left the kingdom of Judea to his son Herod Archelaus. The Romans were too wise to trust somebody with the kingdom when they didn't know anything about him. The Romans gave the new Herod a trial period as governor, under the title Ethnarch. For ten years he gave the country the most miserable misrule that any nation ever had. The people finally petitioned Rome to send a Roman to govern them.

The people didn't like the tyranny of Rome at all but conditions were so bad, anything was better than what they had. When a Roman would rather govern the people, you can understand how bad the situation was. The Romans put Herod Archelaus on trial, found him guilty of misrule and banished him to Vienne.

From that time on there were a series of Roman governors called procurators, Pontius Pilate was number 6 in that series. The military government was entirely in the hands of the Roman procurators. They were also in full charge of the tax collections for Rome.

On the other hand, these Herodian Jews had control of the entire religious government and the temple. They also had control of the civil government, in all respects concerning purely local self government, could collect their own taxes and so on.

When the priests were getting greatly upset about Yahshua's teachings they said, "If we let Him alone, all men will believe on Him. The Romans will take this kingdom away from us." The way the clergymen have taught it, this is meaningless stupidity. The clergy picture Yahshua as a whining, cringing milksop, going around whimpering to people they ought to be good. If this was all Yahshua did, these Jews would not have bothered with contempt for Him, much less worry about His teachings.

Yahshua was explaining to the people the utter evil of the Jewish economic and religious system under which they were living. Let's paraphrase what the Jews might have said, based on what is recorded in the Bible. "Look, if we let Him alone, He is going to awaken the people to these controls we have over them. They will petition Rome just as they did about Herod Archelaus and the Romans will kick us out of here. We will lose control of the money and might have to pay fair wages. The people might rebel against the usury we charge them for use of their own money." This is what they were talking about.

Here were these Edomite Jews, who told Yahshua they were descendants of Abraham. However, they revealed they really couldn't be true Israel when they said they had never been in captivity to any man. They might have had some Israelite ancestors but, no alien blood was allowed in those called Israel. As we read in John 8:31-44, we will come to the place where Yahshua tells these Jews they were the children of the devil. They would do the lusts of their father who was a murderer from the beginning.

Yahshua recognized the two seed lines. He didn't say these Jews had only adopted some of the bad principles of the devil, He said they were the children of the devil. The Old Testament as well as the New Testament recognizes the two seed lines. The Adamic seed line, Yahweh's children, came down through a carefully selected best one in each generation from Abraham, Isaac, Israel, then on down through the twelve tribes of Israel. So there are the two seed lines, that of Yahweh's children through Israel and the children of Satan, some of the most pestiferous of which have come through the line of Cain.

People have asked me if I thought the Jews know of their descent from Cain. They certainly do, and here is how they proved they know. The Jews have given the owner of the radio station on which I broadcast, a very bad time. As some of you may know, a radio-broadcasting station license is good for only three years. If it is renewed on a regular basis, you have a going money making business of considerable value. If the license isn't renewed, all you have is some used equipment. It makes a great deal of difference to the owner whether he gets his license renewed or not.

The Jews put pressure on this radio station owner to put two programs off the air. One of the programs was Richard Cotten, a conservative commentator and the other program was mine. Much to the owner's credit, he refused to take us off the air. His reply to the Jews was, "I have no authority to censor any of these programs, besides, this is the United States of America and I believe in free speech." They told him, "You've got to put these programs off the air." The owner of the station answered them, "If either one of them has said anything that you think is untrue, although they are paying for their time, I will give you an equal amount of free time for you to answer them."

Surprise, surprise, the Jews didn't take the station owner up on his offer. Neither Richard Cotten nor I go off the deep end with any statement we can't prove. The Jews still insisted the station owner put us off the air. When he refused, the Jews filed objections to the renewal of his radio station license, which came up for renewal about this time. They kept the matter before the Federal Communications Commission for more than a year so the owner operated his station on a day to day basis, not knowing if his license would be renewed or not.

During this time the Jews terrorized the station owner into to making an agreement. The agreement was the station owner would hire a Jew who would censor my program and Richard Cotten's. This Jew could cut out whatever material the Jews objected to.

I have never sent any cut and spliced tapes to the radio station. When I am paying $100.00 an hour for broadcast time, tape is the cheapest thing you use. While I have never known of one of my splices to come apart, I don't take any chances on it. The tapes I send in for broadcast are complete, without splices. When these tapes are returned to me, they are cut and spliced in a number of places where this Jew censor has cut portions of them out.

I don't like a Jew, to remove matters of essential Christian doctrine, can censor it one bit that a Christian broadcast. However, this station owner doesn't have to carry my program. The owner of the station still has to fight the Jews and this is three years later. He finally won before the Federal Communications Commission. The Jews appealed to the U.S. District Court of Appeals and the station owner won there also. The Jews then appealed to the Supreme Court. This radio station owner undoubtedly has spent somewhere between $50,000 and $100,000 in legal expenses fighting to retain his radio station license and indirectly to preserve my right of free speech. If I make myself too troublesome to him, he may just decide he doesn't want to carry my program any further so I don't argue with him about it.

On one of my broadcast tapes, I quoted the Bible verses telling that after Cain killed Abel, Cain had been a farmer up to that time, Yahweh said, "Cursed is the ground for your sake. I will not hereafter yield you its strength." Cain's reply was, "My punishment is greater than I can bear. You have driven me off the face of the land, and I'll be a wanderer and a vagabond." Then I went on to say that I suppose you have noticed that the children of Cain are not farmers today. You find them in financial and money lending institutions. I didn't use the forbidden word Jew, I just said the children of Cain. Guess what the Jew censor cut out of my tape! As a Jew he knew exactly whom I was talking about. Yes, they know who they are.

The Bible records Cain saying he was being driven out of the land where the descendants of Adam would be. He complained that wherever he went, whomever he met would kill him. In those days there were a lot of places that weren't too hospitable to strangers. If, as the preachers teach, Adam and Eve were the parents of the only people on earth who were these other people? The only other child of Adam and Eve, at this time, was Abel and he was dead.
With Cain driven away from Adam and Eve, out into some other part of the earth, who was Cain going to meet that would kill him? Remember, the Bible records Cain very speedily found enough people that with them he built a city. The Bible records these pre Adamite people. Yahweh told Cain He would put a mark on him so the people would recognize him and not kill him. Just what was that mark? Did Yahweh tattoo something on the sole of Cain's foot or where Cain would sit down on it? No, long before any hidden mark could possibly be seen, Cain would have been killed.

Yahweh had to put this mark where it was the first thing others would see, He put it in the exact geometrical center of Cain's face. This big Jew nose they have borne ever since, as the sculptured monuments of the ancient empires show.

The ancient kings were extremely vain of the conquests they had made. The pharaohs of Egypt, kings of Babylon, Assyria, and Persia, all left elaborately carved monuments telling how they had captured this city or that. They recorded the massacre of so many of its inhabitants and made slaves of the others, plus how much loot they took and so forth.

In addition to the inscriptions, there was almost always a carved panel illustrating this, showing some of the captives. Wherever any of these panels showed an Israelite, it is invariably a straight nose, typical of what we would call an Anglo Saxon, Scandinavian or Teutonic type of face. Where it shows these Canaanite people, it is always a typical hook nosed Jew.

  The evidence of the Bible, and the evidence of archaeology all show one thing. There is definitely two different seed lines, the satanic seed line and the other seed line of Israel, Yahweh's own children.

source: http://israelitewatchmen.com/archive/ChurchOfTrueIsrael/comparet/compcainsatan.html

Saturday, December 15, 2012

False Prophets


by Bertrand L. Comparet

For many years, Christianity has been under constant, bitter and treacherous attack---until the major churches are now in disorganized retreat. The attack by those who are openly atheists or Communists has done little damage, as it could not appeal to anyone but our enemies in any event. The most vicious attack, and the most successful---has come from men who have gained high positions of power in church hierarchies and have used this power to destroy every­thing the Christian churches have stood for over the centuries, everything that brought Christianity greatness and kept it great. It is the old Marxist strategy of "boring from within.

The first step in this plot was to keep the church congregations ignorant of the real Biblical basis for Christian doctrine. The average man has no training in analysis of the Bible---and if he wished to, he could not spare the great amount of time necessary for the years of studies which are required; and --- lets face it---the average man doesn't have the capacity to undertake such a study independently. He must trust his minister to give him the results in pre-digested form. But his trust is far too often betrayed. How much of what is actually in the Bible were you ever taught in your church? Think back over your own church-going experience: on how many Sundays did your minister ever tell you what was in more than just one verse of the Bible? Remember, he took just one verse as his "text"---that is, the point of departure at which he left the Bible, never to return to it; and the rest of the sermon may have caused you to admire the cleverness of the man --- but when did he give you, word-for-word, what the Bible itself says?

I remember noticing, just a few months ago, that the text for the Sunday morning sermon in one of the great churches here in Southern California was "The Horse that Played Baseball.

Naturally, I would not expect a modernist minist­er to know anything about the Old Testament: he would be strangely proud of his ignorance, saying that he is "a New Testament Christian. Very well: let him now produce the verse in the New Testament where he found the text for that sermon! In my library I have eleven different translations of the Old Testament and twenty-one different translations of the New Testament --- and you can't find that sermon in any of them. Was it, possibly, an attempt to amuse the congregation, in the hope of getting more of them to attend the services? They could get enough amusement at the movies; but where can they hear the word of God instead of the word of man, if they can't get it in their churches?

The first step of the plot is, as I said, to keep the congregations ignorant of what is really in the Bible: go to almost any church you may select, and you will see a clear demonstration of the success of this step. The next step is to fill this vacuum with false doctrines which are not derived from the Bible. Any man-made doctrine can be dressed up plausibly in nice words: look at Communism, for an example. You know how they actually behave in every country they control: their brutal massacre of whole classes of the population, and the degrading slavery and poverty they force upon those who are allowed to survive. But you don't find any mention of this in Communist literature: they talk as though Communism were the most compassionate, generous and warm-hearted movement which had ever existed. But man-made doctrines can also be dressed up in nice words and then passed as "religion"-and so they are.

The process is simple---and familiar: first, they attack the existing social institutions of our civilization as cruel and evil. And when this comes from your minister, the man you have been taught to regard as a man of God, it is very easy for him to give you a guilt complex about every actual virtue you may have: they say that you are selfish because you love the members of your own family more than you love the people who would reduce your neighborhood to a jungle in which no woman is safe at night---as, indeed, they have already made Washington D.C. a jungle in which a woman is not safe in the daytime in the corri­dors and yards of the government buildings. They say that you are wicked, and un-­Christian because you don't want to bring this blight into your own neighborhood and make it a menace to your own teen-age children. When your own minister, the man you have been led to trust, tells you this, it is hard to avoid a sense of guilt.

Those who have preached such things to you are false prophets, who bring you actually Satanic doctrines under the false guise of Christianity. The very Christ to whom they give nominal lip-service warned us of them: in Matthew 24:17 and Mark 13:22, Jesus Christ warned us that one of the signs of this end of the Age would be the coming of false prophets, who would preach a false Christ instead of the real one. Indeed, this is exactly what we are seeing today on a vast scale.

The most outstanding example of this which has come to my notice recently is an article in the May 18, 1965, issue of Look Magazine, in which the Director of the National Council of Churches' Commission on Religion and Race makes a bitter and abusive attack upon the White Race --- supposedly in the name of religion! The article contains so many utterly false statements that I cannot let it go unchallenged. It is my purpose to take up his points, one by one, and prove their falsity.

He begins by making this astonishing statement: "For years, most of our churches have aided and abetted the Anglo-Saxon White conspiracy. If an indictment were to be prepared, it might very well read like this: The Christian churches have not influenced their adherents to practice racial justice in housing, education, job opportunity and public accommodations. The Christian churches, in their own internal life, have practiced discrimination and built barriers to prevent open membership in the very household of faith.

Since this man appoints himself the supreme authority on what constitutes Christianity, we are entitled to test his knowledge of that subject; and he who claims authority to bring an indictment must prepare to hear the defense to his charges.

Of course the Anglo-Saxon White Christians are proud of their race, and want to keep it pure. We honor the equal right of the Negro and the Asiatic to be proud of his race, and to want to keep it pure so that it will continue to have the qualities of which he is proud. While I do not condone the Black Muslims' threat of violent revolution, I do respect them for their own self-respect, that they are proud of being Negroes, not wanting to become imitation Whites. In that spirit they can accomplish wonders in raising the Negro to a level higher than he has ever attained in the past. But we insist upon that same right for ourselves, the right to be proud of our race and its accomplishments, the right to preserve it free from any mongrelization, which would destroy forever its present qualities.

For any man to call this basic right "a conspiracy" is crass impudence which should not pass without rebuke. It is a fair sample of the tactics of the extreme left in their "boring from within". If the White Race were the hard-hearted -monsters which our enemies pretend we are, this tactic would be a total failure. It is only because the White Race, above all others, is conscientious, deeply con­cerned with being righteous in all their dealings with others, that these infil­trators car, give some of our people a guilt complex by means of false accusations. But the White Anglo-Saxons have a record of love and charity which stands absolutely alone in all history. Find me just one black nation in all Africa which is pouring out its wealth to help others --- even to help their fellow Negroes. Don t tell me that they are too poor to help anyone: their vast wealth of minerals, the plantations in their fertile soil, these produced wealth when the White Man operated them --- remember, that was one of the favorite accusations of our profess­ional bleeding hearts, that the White Man was "exploiting the wealth of Africa." Find me just one Asiatic nation which is prodigally pouring out billions of dol­lars in aid to others, even to their fellow Asiatics. Don t tell me that they cant do it: Japan is one of the world's great industrial nations; the rice, rub­ber and tin of Southeast Asia brought in great wealth while the White Man ran them; China's poverty is the obvious and inevitable fruit of the way the Chinese are running it. The British were accused of pumping great wealth out of India:---now that the British are gone, why can't the Hindus spread some of that immense wealth around, if they claim to be our equals? And if there isn't any wealth there, why do they falsely accuse us of exploiting" it?

In my last broadcast, we started to consider the massive attack upon Christianity which has the major churches in confused retreat. We saw that the most effective attack was that which was made from within, by men who are opposed to the traditional position of the Christian churches, but who have infiltrated these churches and wormed their way into high position in church hierarchies, and who use such positions to confuse the policies of the churches. They are making the Christian churches a major weapon in the hands of those who are bringing about the Black Revolution as the first wave of the Red Revolution. Of most of them it can be said that "they know not what they do"---and when that revolution finishes wrecking the civilization which they first weakened, they will be surprised at the result. Never make the mistake of doubting that this is a Black Revolution. The Negro Congressman, Adam Clayton Powell, said this about it:

The White Man is running scared. The Whites won't interfere with you. We are now in the majority in the world. The Whites are afraid of us. The Negro has to learn how to fight. This is a black movement. It is ridiculous for the White Man to try to lead the Negro. This is OUR LAND. We stand in the middle of THE BLACK MAN'S REVOLUTION, AND MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT: THIS IS A REVOLUTION. No Black Man should be anything but a fighter.

Christianity and the true church have always been the solid core around which our civilization was built. Our present civilization is the visible expres­sion of those ideals. Like all human efforts, it has some imperfections; but it is In every respect the highest civilization the world has ever seen; and not one of its critics would like to live anywhere else in the world, which is the most eloquent testimony to the virtues we have developed. Those who are trying to reverse all of our efforts and take this civilization out of the control of the White men who created it and give complete mastery to the balance of power held by the various alien Minority Groups, and abolish the barriers which have thus far prevented large-scale mongrelization and eternal destruction of the White Race, perhaps they have some fatuous notion that there is some vague good in this: but in truth it is the height of wickedness.

Americans successfully resisted these attempts to subvert our civilization until a new weapon against us was discovered: infiltrate our churches, and under the guise of "modernism" change their doctrines until our clergy would constantly condemn us for wanting to keep the good heritage which our God has given us. This tactic has been amazingly successful, because our ministers have long ago ceased to tell us what is in the Bible, but have only told us church doctrines of modern­ism, occasionally reinforced by a partial quotation of a single Bible verse taken out of context and applied to something the Bible was not talking about. Really, this is not new: it is just a repeat performance of the same attack upon our re­ligion performed in the same way and with the same success, in the time of the prophet Jeremiah. In Jeremiah 5:30-31, he warned, "A wonderful and horrible thing is committed in the land: the prophets prophesy falsely and the priests bear rule by their means; and silly people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?" Again, a vision of this evil was given to the prophet Ezek­iel, in the 9th chapter of Ezekiel, where God showed him how the corruption of the true religion had penetrated to the very temple itself under the leadership of the priests. "And what will ye do in the end thereof?"---then, it brought upon them the Babylonian invasion and captivity as a punishment; just as in our own days the same evil will bring equally severe punishment. As God told Jeremiah, "Many pastors have destroyed 'My vine yard (Jeremiah 12:10) --- and how true that Is today.!

But to get back to the recent example I was talking about --- the article in Look magazine dated May 18th. The writer tries to make us believe that Jesus Christ wanted everyone jumbled together in an indiscriminate hash: he calls Him, "the Head of the Church, the friend of Samaritans, the destroyer of class distinctions of all kinds. Except for the words "Head of the Church" this is, of course totally false, as I will now prove. First let us take up that phrase, "friend of Samaritans". The Bible records only two instances in which Jesus Christ had anything at all to do with Samaritans. One is in Luke 17:12-19, which records that Jesus healed a group of ten lepers, and one of the ten was a Samaritan. The other is in the 4th chapter of John, which tells how He talked for a few minutes with a Samaritan woman who gave Him a drink of water; and on the request of the Samaritans who lived in the village, He stayed there two days and preached to them. Does this make Him "the friend of Samaritans"? Remember, He also preached to the Pharisees --- but who will pretend that this shows that He was "the friend of Pharisees"? (Yes, I guess that our modern Pharisees would even claim that He was "the friend of Pharisees"!)

But what does the Bible tell us about Jesus Christ's real attitude toward the Samaritans? In the 10th, chapter of Matthew, we read that He sent out His 12 disciples on a preaching mission ---but forbade them to even so much as enter a city of Samaria: "These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, 'Go not into the way of the Gentiles, AND INTO ANY CITY OF THE SAMARITANS ENTER YE NOT: but go rather to the lost sheep of the House of Israel." (Matthew 10:5-6) By Jesus' express command, they were not to try to convert the Samaritans, but to bring the message to the true Israelites.

Was Jesus Christ "the destroyer of class distinctions of all kinds"? Both Matthew 15:22-28 and Mark 7:25-29 record the incident of a woman of the Phoenician coast of Syria who asked Jesus to heal her daughter. She appealed first to Him as "Son of David", the way a true Israelite could appeal to Him; and Matthew 15: 23 records that He answered her not a word." When she still followed Him, asking for help, did He invite her to join the Disciples? Definitely not: He refused her again, saying, "I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the House of Israel." When she still persisted, He told her that it was not proper to take the children's bread and give it to the dogs --- does that sound like "the destroyer of class distinctions of all kind's? Not until she recognized and accepted her place, and acknowledged that the good things of the Kingdom of God---including healing the sick---must come first to the true Israel, and then from them to the others when they are ready to accept it in the right spirit---not until then did He heal her daughter. She said, "Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs. And He said unto her, 'For this saying, go thy way: the devil is gone out of thy daughter.

But there is still -more. Remember that every time the Disciples traveled between Judea and Galilee, they passed through Samaria; and there were a few Samaritans also in Judea and Galilee. Did this "friend of Samaritans" seek to brin g them into the church? No, indeedl In Matthew 7:6, He warned His Disciples, "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." Now Jesus Christ was not so foolish as to think that His disciples were going out to the barnyard and preach to the four-footed animals there: these "dogs" and "swine" of whom He spoke were all two-footed varieties---men, but not the kind of men who should be brought into His church on a basis of equal and indiscriminate fellow­ship. The entire Bible record of Jesus Christ's whole earthly life shows that He was carefully selective of those whom He brought into His church---the only excep­tion being Judas Iscariot, and that was for the purpose of allowing the prophecies of Jesus' martyrdom to be carried out.

The writer of the article in Look magazine also makes the absurd statement that "It is only by mutilating Christ that men can justify theories of racial superiority." Remember that Jesus Christ Himself stood firmly upon the fact that He was not sent to anyone but the lost sheep of the House of Israel. If that is not the strongest "theory of racial superiority", how could you make it any stronger? Yes, these left-wing modernists are ashamed of Jesus Christ's own words, and try to make a Socialist of Him. But Jesus Christ Himself gave them their answer, in Mark 8:38, "Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of Me and of My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed when He cometh in the glory of His Father with the holy angels." Believe me, I don't envy these modernists their position: but it is one of their own choice.

In my last two broadcasts, we were discussing some of the many false state­ments contained in an article In Look Magazine, entitled "Our Churches Sin Against the Negro." We proved by exact quotations of Jesus Christ's own words out of the Bible itself that the writer's statements that Jesus Christ was "the friend of Samaritans, the destroyer of class distinctions of all kinds" was utterly false. Jesus Christ was carefully selective about the people to be admitted to His church rejecting others in words far more blunt than polite; Jesus Christ personally emphasized strongly a doctrine of racial selection, insisting that He was not sent to any but the true Israelites. This does not mean that no hope of any kind was held out to the others: It does mean that not everyone can elbow his way into the select group on an equal basis. If he will accept God's plan and his proper place in it, his place will be a very favorable one; but the Kingdom of God is not a democracy in which God must be very careful lest the lower elements, who are always in the majority, vote Him out of office. He makes the rules, and it is up to all of us to accept them.

The writer of that article bitterly condemns the Christian churches because they have not forced the Negro into all phases of White life. He conveniently overlooks the consequences which have been demonstrated in those places where this has been done--for example, the city of Washington D.C., where the Negroes are now in the majority. It has become a jungle in which no woman is safe on the street at night, nor even in her own home alone; women have been assaulted in the corridors and parking lots of the government buildings; the very Supreme Court which has been most active in forcing all this upon us has found it necessary to provide an armed guard for its women employees when they leave work, to escort them safely to their automobiles in the Court's parking lot. (But how horrified that Supreme Court would be if you wanted an armed guard, so that your teen-aged daughter would be safe in the hallways of the apartment house in which you live!) Because you do not want this nightmare made a part of the daily life of every White neighborhood, the writer of this article has the brazen impudence to condemn you as un-Christian!

The terrible race riots in several cities, a year or two ago, he shrugs off as being useful, to terrorize Whites into submission to the Negro demands. He says, "There are far worse things that can happen to a city than a race riot"--­one of these worse things being a refusal to surrender to the Negroes. Tell that to the people of Harlem, Rochester, or Philadelphia, who lived through it!

He brings up that always-recurring Satanic falsehood, "the oneness of the human family under God . There is nothing which the Bible repudiates more emphatically than that! In Leviticus 20:26, God Himself told the ancestors of the true Israel, the Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian and Teutonic peoples, "Ye shall be holy unto Me: for I the Lord am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be Mine." And again, in Deuteronomy 7:6, saying, "For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto Himself above all people that are upon the face of the earth.

Jesus Christ also confirmed this. In the 8th. chapter of the Gospel of John (8:31-55) --- a chapter you should frequently read ---those who were abusing Jesus Christ and His doctrines made this false claim of "the universal fatherhood of God and the universal brotherhood of man": they said, "We have one Father, even God. Jesus said unto them IF God were your Father, ye would love me: for I pro­ceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of Myself but He sent Me. * * it YE ARE OF YOUR FATHER THE DEVIL, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth because there is no truth in him. it * He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not because ye are not of God." How any man can twist and falsify that into any theory of universal brotherhood of man and universal fatherhood of God, is beyond me! Yes, I know that most of the clergy do preach that; but you can see how strongly Jesus Christ Himself repudiated it.

Finally, the author of that article gives his whole case away; he complains that the failure of the churches to follow these Marxist doctrines has been large­ly due to "biblical literalism"---that is, believing that the Bible was divinely inspired, and that God really meant just exactly what He said. Yes, that has been the greatest obstacle to the Marxist plan to destroy the White Race by mongrelization, as part of their plan for complete world conquest. It is an obstacle because the Bible is so clearly and strongly against it. If you stick to what the Bible says, you can't fall into any of these traps. The only way to reverse the two-thousand-years-old traditions of the Christian churches and substitute modern­ism is to get away from the Bible, and spout new, man-made doctrines and claim that they are the real Christian doctrines; but if any minister tells his congregation what is really in the Bible, he will blow all forms of modernism sky-high.

Never let anyone give you a false sense of guilt because you are proud of your race and want to preserve your race and the civilization it has created. In all human history, the world has never seen anything as good. Its defects are not fundamental, but matters of detail, and can be corrected where necessary without burning down the house to get a few ants out of the kitchen. Other races who will receive our instruction, not merely how to use our weapons so they can turn them against us, but how to cultivate their lands and grow better plants so as to feed their people more adequately than they have ever done In the past; how to clean up the filth and introduce sanitation, so as to be rid of the plagues which have per­iodically ravaged their lands; how to manufacture useful articles which they can trade with other nations or use at home for their own betterment; the races which will do this can receive many benefits from the Kingdom of God. But those who have never developed a civilization of their own in forty thousand years in their own lands should not, on coming here, expect to take over command of any phase of our civilization and reduce it to a level which they can comprehend; and above all, they should not expect to mingle with us in our living quarters and our churches until this reaches their real purpose: that of intermarriage until we are completely absorbed into the other race and then no danger exists of a White Race to civilize the world.

The attack upon our political principles was not successful until by infiltration and corruption of our churches they instilled a false sense of guilt in so many of our people that the will to resist was broken. It is carried on by many, some of whom are just dupes who do not realize how they are playing into the hands of the world-wide Communist conspiracy. They have been taught these doctrines, and they don't know any better. While this may diminish the blame upon the7, for what they do, it does not diminish the deadliness of its final result.

This does not mean that we want to oppress any other race. But it must be recognized that other races must eventually find the level their own ability can earn: the present agitation to put them in high places of power "to show that we are not prejudiced" is really prejudice in itself, for it urges this promotion purely on the ground of race, without requiring fair competitive tests for ability. But it is no part of God's plan, as revealed in the Bible, that the other races shall rule over you, even if they produce some clever men. God only mentions this as a severe punishment for our wickedness. Deuteronomy 28:1-13 says that if we obey our God, "The Lord shall make thee the head and not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath; if that thou hearken unto the com­mandments of the Lord thy God which I command thee this day, to observe and to do them." But if we disobey our God --- which we have done in our national life in most every way --- then the punishment is given in Deuteronomy 28:15:6 which mentions many troubles we will have, and among these we find, "The stranger that is within thee shall get up above thee very high: and thou shalt come down very low. * * he shall be the head and thou shalt be the tail." "Stranger" in this verse is the Hebrew word "nokree'", meaning an alien, one of another race, to Whom we are not related. This is always a punishment for disobedience to God: for In Deuteronomy 17:15 we are positively forbidden to do this ? God saying "Thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother'---and again the "stranger" is nokree"', one of another race. In short, it may be clever politics to buy the minority Bloc votes by defying God: but it is always wicked, and it always brings its own punishment. This is what the writer of that article should have told the people, if he wanted to claim that he was loyal to God and could speak for Christianity.