The Two Seed Line Explained

[FrankDialogue]

Probably the best Identity preacher out there is Pastor Pete Peters, Laporte (CO) Church of Christ, who runs the Scriptures for America website and 24 hour listener financed radio network...Quite an interesting fellow, like a modern day John the Baptist...Built his own church, physically:



Scriptures for America

http://www.scripturesforamerica.org/

Plays the guitar and sings, too, and has some decent musicians to help him out....A successful rancher and formerly worked for US Department of Agriculture....Smart as a whip.

Not sure about 'seed lines'.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

If British Imperialism is a Jewish construct, then where does that leave Anglo-Israelism?

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

If British Imperialism is a Jewish construct, then where does that leave Anglo-Israelism?

In Canada?  :think:

[sullivan]

Serpent Seed heresy may sound good to anti-Judaics, but it is still heresy.

Says who?

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Serpent Seed heresy may sound good to anti-Judaics, but it is still heresy.

Says who?

Says the Bible, the Church, the Church Fathers.

CSR, your non answer is dismissive. Try again.

[GordZilla]

I don't know Timmy, the more you look at it the more it makes sense, but rather the more you look at the common Judaeochristian belief the less it makes sense.

I mean;

Do you think the Jews are the Israelites of the bible? I mean seriously???

Do you think when Eve took the apple of the serpent and begat Cain that Adam was the father? When God left out Cain's name, while extensively listing the generations of Adam, was that an oversight of His in your opinion?

Do you think Jesus didn't mean the words 'you are of your father who is the king of all lies' when addressing the Pharisees? (Jews openly admit to being of the same lineage of the Pharisees and Scribes of the bible...who in turn were of the Cainites) Or perhaps he meant just those few Pharisees He was addressing at the moment and not all of them in total, as He knew their father -personally- and he was indeed Satan ..I mean come on! He couldn't have been more direct, and He was absolutely accurate and still to this day!  He meant all the Pharisees and all that practiced the oral law.

'Jacob, you shall now be known as Israel and out of you shall come nations and nations upon nations ' so what did He mean by that? The one and only 'state' of Israel??

Do you think Jesus was a Jew? If so name one other Jew that even remotely represents the qualities of Jesus.

The Church used to fully understand that the Jews were not the 'Israelites' of the bible, and it knew this for hundreds, if not thousands of years only up to [relatively]recent distortions of the Word has this been changed ...hence the old term; 'British'.  

There are many reasons to believe the Jews are not who they  outwardly claim themselves to be, many reasons indeed. They know this themselves too, which is why the Torah is a book that is shelved by the Jews in favor  of their prized Talmud. In fact they  only claim to follow it to outsiders, they do not practice God's law - and NEVER HAVE! (this is their biggest trick; to convince all others that they are these same 'Israelites' of the bible, but clearly they  are not, clearly they are of a completely different nature, an evil nature - NOT OF GOD'S)

It's pretty obvious the Jews are not the Israelites of the bible, so who are? And also where are the Cainites now?

If you believe otherwise you are fooling yourself immensely. For they would have been created in God's image, and God is nothing like a Jew - on the surface alone one can clearly see this fact. If you do believe this ' the twelve tribes of Israel are clearly the Jews' b.s. than I am glad to be going to your version of hell, as it will be Jew free - in my version it is full of Jews and clearly lives up to its name; HELL.

'Says the bible'? - no, quite the contrary.
'The Church'?- only recently.
And 'the Church Fathers'? - also only recently.

'Do not take wives from the land of the Cainites' - He meant the same land as that of the Pharisees and Scribes - who now are known as 'Jews',  but back then were NEVER known as Israelites, as God was talking to the Israelites! Therefore that statement would make no sense.

Do you see the disconnect? It makes perfect sense when read in this light, which is why it fits so well, it explains the Jew's nature to a perfect 'T'  as opposed to claiming they are the 'Israelites' of the bible- which does not fit AT ALL!

Judeochristianity is not for me, and that appears to be what you believe. And if it is what you believe than, with all do respect brother, sorry about your luck but you've been had.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Gord, it's very simple. Christian Identity, like the Hussites, Taborites, Calvinists, etc before them, are still stuck in the Old Testament. There is no more chosen people of any kind. The Church is now universal, which was the Father's intention from the beginning. Believers are not chosen; they are the very Body of Christ. This is the very basic message of the New Testament. Have you even read the New Testament in its entirety? Judeo-Christianity and Christian Identity are fundamentally the same. You are delusional to think think they are not, perhaps because you don't really know what a Judeo-Christian is. Please, Gord, try to unwrap your mind from the Old Testament, because you are completely obsessed with it. And it is, by far, an inferior text next to the Gospels.

Your Christian Identity doctrine, based on Kabbalah, comes from Marrano Jews who flooded England after being expelled from Spain. They brought with them Jewish Magic, which bore Christian Kabbalism and Freemasonry. In England, Antwerp, and Geneva, the Jews shepherded and financed the Reformation. I suggest you research the foundations of the Protestant Reformation and see this very simple truth for yourself. You can start with E. Michael Jones' The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History.

Chritian Identity is a millennialist sect, much like its Zionist predecessors. The Taborites of Bohemia (Czech Republic) were one of the first millennialist sects. Millennialism is in itself Judeo-Christian, thus heresy. Don't let the name change of the chosen fool you.

[Michael K.]

Gordzilla,

The philosophical problem with the "two seedline" explanation is that it presupposes that in the world today there are two distinct races of men, one with serpent blood and the other without, whose traits are like those of Cain and Seth respectively.  Since this is not proven, but offered as a belief akin to Christianity, it falls in a gray area of ideas that are informative to contemplate, but ultimately not IMHO the essential truth.  

It is called a heresy because it changes the Christian narrative to something different. To its credit, contemplating the idea of the dual seedline one is led to face mankind's own mixed background and conflicting inner and outer natures.  

Dual seedline thinking places the facts inside an impenetrable context of materialism and the flesh.  Putting the context inside the spiritual relationship of Christ to the fallen world, we see that the essential conflict is the inner struggle against the temptation of the devil in our own lives!  Referring back to the flesh for answers leads to spiritual blindness.  The battle between Cain and Seth in this world is manifest wherever the Cain's city of Babylon is tempting a would-be Seth, or warring against him.  Seth is the good country life, Cain is the bad city one.

It's like Jesus said, "first remove the plank in your own eye, then you will be able to remove the speck from your brother's."  Unfortunately, I can't say that myself, but there it is because He said it.

If you become confident that your flesh's nature is good because it is from Seth and not Cain, then that confidence may lead to a fall with disastrous consequences.  Better to see yourself as Cain and make war with your own sins and pride, first.  That's better before embarking to rid the world of supposed-Cains, by means of a material form of warfare.  This is also what the Church Fathers teach us to do; struggle with our own sinful nature.

[GordZilla]

I do not assume that I am without sin ( I know I am full of sin), nor do I suppose that I am of the covenant, I only propose that the Jews are not. And that they are indeed of the seed of Satan, and even physically they are deferent from all other humans.

I don't suppose that I am superior in anyway, nor do I propose that there is only one religion (which may differ from your opinions), God said I am your Lord thy God, a God amongst  gods but the God of gods (which, yeah, is from the O.T. but never-the-less it's there), which to me means that the Native American's Great Spirit may be legit, Hindu Gods could very well be legit, Inca Gods etc. I have a very inclusive opinion about it actually.

It is in the Gospels that Jesus makes that statement, and if it's there only once or one hundred times, it makes no difference  ..it's still there! ...these 'people' are of a different father, that needs to be addressed.  So far it's been only ignored here. They are not 'Israelis' I don't know who is but it certainly is not them. That is what I am saying. I would like either of you to address that directly. What 'father' was Jesus referring to?

The 'plank from your eye' sermon can go both ways, certainly you realize that. I am certainly not confident in my opinions on this topic, which is why I am fishing for yours, but so far these direct questions have not been answered directly.

[FrankDialogue]

Both Mr. Fitzpatrick and Mr. Gordzilla make interesting points...I would only say, if you are both Christians, then do not fight, as this is the purpose of the anti-Christ Jews and their occult slaves.

Now, I am a baptized Catholic, and I share many of Mr. Fitzpatrick's views, yet I realize that we have an apostate Church as  headquartered in the Vatican...Certainly Ratzinger hurries to kiss the Jew ass, whenever they demand it...As an example of Catholic error, I have an elderly mother; a Catholic priest comes to give her Communion in the hospital...Afterwards, i thank him, but, for some unknown reason, he starts talking to me about 'the goodness of Jews'!  :shock: He even tells me 'You were baptized of a Jew'!...Well, I tell this nitwit 'First, do you understand that what you call a Jew is not the same as an Israelite?'...He starts to laugh...I tell him 'Father, you are misinformed'...Jesus was not a Jew, yet many Catholics believe this line of BS.

Yet, Christian Identity at it's worst leads to ventures like the Ku Klux Klan, which, like many CI fanatics, strike me as a poor man's Masonry...Many CI preachers still address our father in heaven as 'Yahweh', which is the goyim name for a Jewish god.

Instead, seek the truth, and remember that man seeks to press his interpretations on Scripture...Man, in this world, will NEVER understand the 'Alpha & Omega'...The closest we come is the words of our Lord Jesus, who says:

"I am the true vine, and my Father is the vine dresser."

John 15: 1

Our spiritual enemy is the eternally rebellious Jews, and their lapdogs.

God welcomes questions, although He cannot always supply us with answers that make sense to our mortal minds...So, inquire and debate, but remember that WE are His children.

"This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you."

John 15: 12

Thank you.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Gordzilla, you are taking Jesus' words out of context. Satan represents rebellion and sin, not some imaginary serpent seedline. When Jesus says Jews are of the devil, He obviously is referring to their rebellion and sin. Nobody is ignoring this, Gord, you just refuse to see it any other way. There can't be a serpent seedline because evil is not substance. Evil is the absence of good and truth. There is no creative power in evil; there is no life in evil. Natural Selection totally refutes the serpent seedline theory. The illogical conclusion of C.I. is that black is a colour. Satan is not a divine being. He is only a fallen angel. The C.I. theory tends to elevate Satan to the status of divinity, as high as God. Even so, Satan does not have a monopoly on evil, nor do Jews.

They are not 'Israelis' I don't know who is but it certainly is not them. That is what I am saying. I would like either of you to address that directly. What 'father' was Jesus referring to?

What you've just said is Zionism: the idea that there is still a chosen people called Israel. I have tried to explain this to you that there is no chosen people. The Church is universal. Any may partake in the life of the creator, because ALL come from the creator. The Law is fulfilled, the Temple is nor more, and the ultimate and final sacrifice has already been made. Your theory holds absolutely no water. It cannot explain why there are some decent and good Jews, much less how you can get something from nothing (light from darkness).

Frank, Christian Identity gets just about everything wrong. Christian Identity is materialistic and carnal, the opposite of the spiritual emphasis in the Gospels. Christian Identity are no better than Jews: they reject the Messiah and elevate their own seedline, be it Jew or Anglo, in His place. The Protestant Reformation taught us the harsh truths of returning to the vomit of Judaism. I hear what you are saying about the Vatican. The Kosherization of the Catholic Church occurred during the Renaissance and at the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s.

By the way, "Yahweh", the tetragrammaton, is used in Jewish magic (Kabbalah) and Freemasonry to invoke and command spirits, among other things. I am going to critique the use of the tetragrammaton in Christianity in an upcoming blog post. I have lots of information on that.

[ada]

Interesting discussion guys.Go on.
No need to fight but to be open minded is always a good thing.
Tim you just said it. Yahweh,yhwh,jehova are jewish names for their father.
Other names are baal (property owner) or molech, moloch, remphan and so forth.
I doubt that most Christians do realize that, or what do you think?
The name of our God is Jesus Christ, who is ONE with his Father and the Holy Spirit.
Yesterday i stumble over Ted Pike's article and discussion:
11-19-12
Civilization's Debt to the Old Testament
http://www.truthtellers.org/biblicalanswers.html

Well i can tell you by all the confusion between the OT and the NT and the resulting
misuse by military movements relying mostly on the OT like puritans,zionists and so on,
it is no wonder that even the truth seeker are confused.
It seems from the beginning the g_d of the jewish people honours or has at least a blind eye  on theft,fraud and extermination
from the so called poor and persecuted people.

Moses was a murderer,tricky abraham sold his wife as his daughter to the pharao,
jacob cheated his father, his brother and abimelech.
josef was a a greedy usurping money loving exploiter,
david send one of his best man to his certain death to get his wife, and he was gruesome..
2. samuel 30-31 KJV...

And solomon, was demon possessed and finally invented the kabbalah with others.

Sure there are many passages in the OT where the jewish people have been rebuked sharply,
for instance when they turn to other gods or when they ritual murdered their own children to molech
and so forth.

But the baal property owners are still supporting the jews even today.
You said evil is not a creative power.This is wrong.
The creative power of this world is real even if it is destructive and they are deliberately using
it to create chaos to get their opportunities.

Back to the seed line theory.

If have a question to you?

Who is the father of cain?

Please excuse by bad english.

[FrankDialogue]

The name of our God is Jesus Christ, who is ONE with his Father and the Holy Spirit.

Baal or 'property owner'.

If have a question to you?

Who is the father of cain?

The name of our God is Jesus Christ, who is ONE with his Father and the Holy Spirit.

Yes.



Baal or 'property owner'.

Who is the father of cain?

We know this answer...But where did his wife come from?

[ada]

Please before i answer, who is the father of Cain?
It is not Adam..Or am i wrong?

[ada]

Or were cain and abel really twins?

[FrankDialogue]

Adam was the father.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

I looked this over recently.  Keep in mind that Jews, yes that "cursed tribe"  primarily have carried down classical paganism into the modern Western world.  They do not promote Jesus Christ as the Lord Saviour and do everything in their power to corrupt everything from the Jesus-Apostles-NT.  More than most religions or faiths today, C.I. does thrust this directly under the light. Jews are the Children of the Serpent (whether physical or spiritual...as one believes).
---------

Serpent Seed

History

The Serpent Seed idea appears in a 9th century book called Pirke De-Rabbi Eliezer.[7] Rabbi David Max Eichhorn, in his book Cain: Son of the Serpent, traces the idea back through early Jewish Midrashic texts and identifies many rabbis who taught that Cain was the son of the union between the serpent and Eve.[7] Some Kabbalist rabbis also believe that Cain and Abel were of a different genetic background than Seth. This is known among Kabbalists as "The Theory of Origins".[8] The theory teaches that God created two "Adams"(Adam means MAN in Hebrew). To one he gave a soul and to the other he did not give a soul. The one without a soul is the creature known in Christianity as the serpent. The Kabbalists call the serpent Nahash (meaning serpent in Hebrew). This is recorded in the Zohar:

"Two beings [Adam and Nachash] had intercourse with Eve, and she conceived from both and bore two children. Each followed one of the male parents, and their spirits parted, one to this side and one to the other, and similarly their characters. On the side of Cain are all the haunts of the evil species; from the side of Abel comes a more merciful class, yet not wholly beneficial -- good wine mixed with bad."(Zohar 136)

In The Scofield Study Bible Scofield says, "The serpent, in his Edenic form, is not to be thought of as a writhing reptile. That is the effect of the curse (Gen. 3:14). The creature which lent itself to Satan may well have been the most beautiful as it was the most "subtle" of creatures less than man".[9] Scofield's notes are silent as to the idea of Cain being the serpent's seed, however in Genesis 6:2 his notes claimed that while it was an "error" to believe that the offspring mentioned were the product of supernatural unions, it was instead the intermarriage of the "godly line of Seth" with the "godless line of Cain" being referred to.[10] Advocates suggest that modern Christian translations of the Old Testament reduce emphasis on this concept, which they believe indicated the serpent had been an upright, human-like creature.

The foundational scripture for the serpent's seed doctrine appears in Genesis 3:15, which in the King James Version states "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Advocates interpret this literally to mean that an offspring of the Serpent via Eve would eventually lose in a mortal conflict with one of "her seed". Eve's son by Adam would have presumably been called "Adam's seed" so it has been suggested, since a woman does not naturally produce seed, that "her seed" is the first prophesy of an eventual human messiah produced by means of a virgin birth. Adherents believe this sets up the serpent's seed as an antitype to Jesus Christ.

Advocates also point out that in Genesis 4:1-2 it is mentioned only once that Adam "knew" his wife, yet twice it is mentioned that she "bare" sons (see, heteropaternal superfecundation). Advocates also believe an unmentioned act of infidelity is implied by reproductive and marital curses placed on Eve in Genesis 3:16, that otherwise seem inappropriate to merely eating a forbidden fruit. St. Paul seems to suggest as much in 2 Corinthians 11:2-3, where he may have implied that Eve was not a chaste virgin at the time Adam first had relations with her: "For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted..."

In the New Testament epistle of 1 John, ch. 3 v. xii it also states, "Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother." John also recorded in his gospel (8:44) that Christ said, "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." These passages, if taken literally as they are by advocates, seem to suggest that the New Testament writers believed that Cain, the first murderer, was indeed the serpent's seed.

The doctrine that Eve mated with the serpent, or with Satan, to produce Cain, has been taught in various forms for thousands of years, and it finds its earliest expression in Gnostic writings (e.g., the Gospel of Philip) and especially in Manichaean doctrines; however, it was soundly rejected by mainstream Christian theologians such as Irenaeus [11] in the 2nd century, and St. Augustine in the 4th century.

More recent variants are central to the beliefs of Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptists founded by Daniel Parker. Other variations occur in the Christian Identity movement. Some of these groups appear to use the doctrine as a rationalization for racist beliefs. One of the largest, but non-denominational, groups that believe in a form of the serpent seed doctrine are the followers of Branhamism who are documented to number over 1,500,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpent_seed

[ada]

Adam was the father.

Are you sure?

You may read again.And who is the lord in the context ?

http://www.wort-und-wissen.de/bibel/bib ... c=4&vr=kjv

Endless protection for a murderer to murder again..?


http://theopenscroll.com/cainsPaternity.htm

[FrankDialogue]

Adam was the father.

Are you sure?

You may read again.And who is the lord in the context ?

http://www.wort-und-wissen.de/bibel/bib ... c=4&vr=kjv

Yes, I read this translation and it says:

1   And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

I don't understand the question...Unless you are trying to make an argument for 'seedline theory', which I have stated I am not sure about...I will add that I lean against it because, as Christ would say, in paraphrase 'It would be easier to put a camel through the eye of a needle...'

As for the website author of the second link you post, he say:

"How can on this subject with confidence? Because the Lord showed me, and I know it. That was about 18 years ago, sometime in the winter of 1991/1992. I was really stunned when it happened. I really had no particular insight or special interest in this topic before the revelation came, but it came in a season where I was being prompted to ask lots of specific questions and subsequently led directly to the answers. Each answer had multiple confirmations following. After all the years since that memorable season I'm still learning what some of those answers really mean and how important they really are."

Now, what LORD was that?...The 'Jews' also claim to be the 'apple of God's Eye'!!!

Also, understand that there is much symbolism and poetry in the Bible.  

This is why I asked 'Where did Cain's wife come from?'...From the Bible, we don't know...We can only conjecture.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Consider the following two opposing point of views on the Jewish question, one from a racialist, the other from a theist point of view in the letters section of Culture Wars Magazine, November 2012:

Racialist point of view

I am tempted to let EMJ (E. Michael Jones) have the last word. After all, I cannot hope to best him in argument! Nor am I trying. Let me just make two short commends. Disconnected comments. Make of them what you will. First of all, what scientist would admit the existence of Logos? Can Logos be empirically proved? Would Richard Dawkins allow you to talk about the Logos in one of his classes where evolution is being discussed? I doubt it.
YOu have implicit faith in the Logos. So do I. But Dawkins doesn't. To him, and maybe to Kevin MacDonald, science cannot allow unverifiable metaphysical entities to form part of their discussion. Dragging the Logos or Plato's Universals into the discussion, they would claim, is a violation of Occam's razor. An unnecessary entity is being dragged into the discussion.
I happen to believe in the Logos, which to me is pretty much the same as the God of the great mystics, the Absolute that existed before the Big Bang: Brahman the Supreme. Of course the moral could would be found in Brahman, but so would everything—including good and evil, like and darkness, love and hate, peace and war, life and death.
Secondly, when I say that the moral code is inscribed in our genes and has survival value, you are astute enough to point out that I am guilty of flagrant contradiction. For the Jews who do not accept Logos obviously do not live by the same moral code as we do who accept Logos. As I said earlier, they get ahead by cheating. Here, then, is the apparent contradiction: if the moral code is inscribed in our genes and helps us to survive, how is it that the Logos-rejecting Jews survive so well without the moral code?
The answer I offer for this may not satisfy you, but it satisfies me. It is this. Unfortunately, it would be regarded as "anti-Semitic."
One argument you can advance to show that good Christians survive because they are good, and bad Jews survive even better because they are bad, is this: Jews are fundamentally different from the rest of us, as their own Talmudic rabbis tell us repeatedly, i.e., they belong to a different parasitic or predatory species : [her emphasis] as such, the moral code they subscribe to is the reverse of our moral code. It is a parallel "moral code"  derived from the Anti-Logos. This is the code that allows them to cheat: to regard every non-Jew in the world as fair game, as exploitation material, as put there by Yahweh solely for the Jews' advancement.
Is such a view anti-Semitic? Jews would naturally say no. Bu it's a view their own rabbis advance, especially in the Talmud: that the goyim are placed here on earth purely for Jewish exploitation. You can't say the Jews are acting "wrongly". They are acting wrongly only according to their own. Remember that their moral code is not derived from the Logos, which they reject, but from Anti-Logos.
This puts an entirely different complexion on matters. The assumptions we make when we subscribe to the Logos (e.g., that good is better than evil) are not axiomatic. The Devil, who subscribes to the Anti-Logos, doesn't accept the premise that good is better than evil. "Evil, be though my good!" Satan proclaims in Paradise Lost.
Jews who reject Logos, in other words, don't need the moral code as we know it to be inscribed in their genes in order to survive. They need the reverse of our moral code. To put it crudely, in order to survive, they need to be immoral. But remember this: what is "immoral" to us is moral to them. The Talmud makes this abundantly clear. Christian morality is turned upside down in the Talmud. As you yourself have already pointed out, these Talmudic Jews completely reject the Just War theory that insists on fair plan and proportionality. This Just War theory may be fine for Christians, they assert. But why should it apply to them? I can well understand why many people equate Talmudism with Satanism. I can see very little difference between these two anti-religions.
To summarize: Christian civilization, in order to survive, needs the Christian moral code to be inscribed in the genes of Christians; and this moral code is basically the wisdom of our Christian ancestors—a moral code, if you will, derived from the Logos. Jews, on the other hand, do not survive by subscribing to this Christian moral code. Their moral code is an entirely different code, also inscribed in their genes; and this Jewish moral code is basically the wisdom of their Jewish ancestors, specifically of their venerable rabbis—and this Jewish moral code is derived from the Anti-Logos.
Julius Evola expressed a similar viewpoint in his Preface to the Italian translation of the Protocols of Zion:
"To debase, to make all fixed points variable, to make all certainties problematic, to sensualise, to tendentiously exalt what is inferior in man, to spread a sort of terror...this is the true meaning of cultural Judaism. We do not think that there is a genuine plan here.... The fact remains that the whole, disorganised, unconscious influence is in perfect accord with the occult, integral, unitary influence of the hidden forces of the worldwide subversion. In order to recognize the existence of international Judaism, it is not therefore necessary to assert that all Jews are led by a genuine organisation, and that their whole action consciously follows a plan. The link is established to a large extent automatically, by nature.:
—Lasha Darkmoon, http://www.lashadarkmoon.com

Theistic point of view

First of all, I would like to being by saying that I am in complete agreement with Miss Darkmoon. Her claim that Jews "belong to a different parasitic or predatory species" is anti-Semitic. In fact, it is the classic expression of anti-Semitism and the opposite of what I believe. The fact that the Jews rejected Christ and thereby Logos did not change their DNA; it made them enemies of the human race, but it did not transform them into a different species. No, they are human beings like us, but human beings raised via the Talmud to hate Christ and the Logos in all of its manifestations, which means they are raised, as Heinrich Graetz pointed out, to take delight in cheating the goyim and all of the predatory behaviour which Julius Evola criticizes. If they were condemned to do this by their DNA, then we could not hold them responsible for what they do, in which case we would have no reason to be morally indignant. Logos is not some option for the elect; it is the operating system for all of humanity. Everyone must be held accountable for his actions, even if he is in rebellion against the moral order, as Jews are.
Similarly, if Richard Dawkins disagrees with me about Logos, he does nothing but substantiate my point, for he could not express his disagreement with me unless both of us participated in the very logos which he denies. "Even those who set themselves up against you," St. Augustine once said, "do but copy you in a perverse way." Anyone who argues against logos testifies to its existence.
The same is true of practical reason. As Miss Darkmoon points out, Satan himself, because he has been endowed by the God who created him with intellect and will, must substantiate the first principle of the practical reason, namely, "Good is to be pursued and evil avoided," when he claims, "Evil be thou my good." He has no choice in the matter. If he acts, he must choose what at least seems like a good thing. The moral law exists to educate us to choose real over apparent goods.
DNA is also part of God's Logos, but biological mechanisms, while they determine how fish spawn, do not tell us how to act. Intellect and will do that for us, as I tried to explain in my last letter. Confusing biology, which runs the brain, with mind, whihc needs the brain as its necessary condition, is part of the unfortunate legacy of Darwinism, and something which keeps Miss Darkmoon and Professor [Kevin] MacDonald from reaching their full potential as thinkers.
—E. Michael Jones, www.culturewars.com

[FrankDialogue]

I very much like some of E. Michael Jones writing, and I come from a bit of a similar background...However, he insists that Jesus Christ was a 'Jew' using one passage from modern translations of the Gospel of John, the story of Jesus and the Samaritan woman...He is wrong here, and these type errors in translation can confuse some people when reading the Bible...This is a bit off topic, but FYI:

Origin of the word Jew

"Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a "Jew" or to call a contemporary Jew an "Israelite" or a "Hebrew." The first Hebrews may not have been Jews at all," The Jewish Almanac (1980)

Many people suffer under the misapprehension that Jesus was a "Jew," moreover, that he was "King of the Jews." Thus, by inference, that the "Jews" were the "Chosen People" of the Holy Bible and so ancient possessors and modern inheritors of the Bible Covenants gifted by Yahweh to their forebears Abraham, Jacob and Judah. However, this is not the case. In fact, during Christ's Mission and Passion no such people existed called "Jews" nor indeed did the word "Jew." In short: Jesus was NOT a "Jew" nor was he "King of the Jews."

http://www.christianchatforum.com/bbs/archive/index.php/t-3428.html

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Gordzilla, I hope you read the above response from Jones on the seedline view. Serpent Seedline theorem actually absolves the Jews of their evil behaviour, because it holds that they are only acting according to their evil nature. In contrast, within the proper theological context of what defines a Jew, Jews are responsible for their behaviour as perfectly capable human beings who choose evil of their own free will. It actually makes their behaviour that more severe that many Jews consistently choose evil rather than out of necessity of their genes.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Hey TIm... keep in mind...

-------------

How does a flock of birds wheel and swoop in unison?
March 11, 2004

Dear Straight Dope:

I'm curious as to how certain flocks of birds seem to turn en masse simultaneously. All of them. In unison. I guess I've witnessed this for years, but only recently started really noticing and subsequently wondering. What the ...?! The whole dadgummed bunch of them - hundreds - just hang a Louie or pull back on the stick at precisely the same time. I've been too mesmerized doing the "flock gawk" that I can't even say what kind of birds they were; they could have been goony birds for all I know. R.S.V.P., as my employer is getting irritated with my avian aerial obsession.

— Curtis Montgomery, Stoneboro, Pennsylvania

The highly coordinated movements of flocks of birds or schools of fish are among the most fascinating phenomena to be found in nature. The group seems to turn and maneuver as a single unit, changing direction almost instantaneously, leading some researchers to hypothesize that electromagnetic communication or even "thought transference" must be involved. In reality this behavior results from far less mysterious causes. Such movements are a prime example of emergent behavior: the behavior is not a property of any individual bird, but rather emerges as a property of the group itself. There is no leader, no overall control; instead the flock's movements are determined by the moment-by-moment decisions of individual birds, following simple rules in response to interactions with their neighbors in the flock.

First, I should mention why animals aggregate in flocks, herds, and schools in the first place. While there are many reasons, the most pervasive seems to be that it serves as a defense against predators. Having many eyes together ensures that at least some will spot a predator while others are feeding, snoozing, or looking in the wrong direction. Once the group takes flight, the predator may have trouble focusing on a single target and become confused. It may also be physically dangerous for a predator to plunge into a seething mass of prey. In some cases, larger or more aggressive prey species may be able to offer a coordinated defense and fend off a predator that would make short work of an isolated individual.

There can be other benefits of flocking, such as locating clumped food resources or ensuring accurate navigation on migration or to roosts and local feeding areas. Some species may also aggregate for social and reproductive reasons. In the special case of formation flying by large birds such as geese and pelicans, there is an energetic benefit, since following birds can take advantage of vortexes in the air produced by the ones ahead of them. (Although such formations clearly have leaders, these are temporary ones. Because a lead bird does not gain any energetic advantage from its position, it will drop back after a time while another takes the lead. Flock members probably do not do this on any regular rotation, although it's possible that larger and stronger birds are in the lead a greater percentage of the time.) However, none of these functions seems to come into play as generally as the anti-predator one.

When frightened by a flying predator, a flock of small birds such as sandpipers or starlings will bunch up and fly in as compact a mass as possible. A dive-bombing falcon will avoid plunging into such a crowd for fear of injuring itself in a collision, but instead will seek to pick off laggards or birds shearing away from the flock. The flock itself will veer and turn in erratic fashion, making it difficult for the predator to predict its movements.

Observation shows that there are no leaders (at least not for more than a few seconds at a time), since different birds will be at the front of the flock every time it changes direction. Research by Wayne Potts, published in the journal Nature in 1984, helped explain how flock movements are initiated and coordinated. Potts, through a frame-by-frame analysis of high-speed film of sandpiper flocks, found that any individual can initiate a flock movement, which then propagates through the flock in a wave radiating out from the initiation site. These "maneuver waves" could move in any direction through the flock, including from back to front. However, the flock usually only responded to birds that banked into the flock, rather than away from it. Since birds turning away from the flock run the risk of being separated from it and getting picked off by the predator, others will not follow them. Besides its obvious benefits for individuals, this rule helps prevent indecision by the flock and permits it to respond rapidly to attack.

Once one of these waves began, Potts found that it spread through the flock far more rapidly than could be explained by the reaction times of individual birds. A bird's mean startle reaction time to a light flash as measured in the laboratory was 38 milliseconds, but maneuver waves spread through the flock between birds at a mean speed of less than 15 milliseconds. However, the first birds to respond to an initiator took 67 milliseconds to react. Potts proposed that birds farther away from the initiation site were able to see the wave approaching them, and could "get set" to respond before it actually reached them. He dubbed this the "chorus line hypothesis," in analogy to Rockettes at Radio City Music Hall who can see and anticipate an approaching high leg kick when it is still well down the line. Films of human chorus lines show that rehearsed maneuvers, initiated without warning, propagate down the line at less than 108 milliseconds, almost twice as fast as the human visual reaction time of 194 milliseconds.

When flocks are not under attack, but instead leaving a roost site to go to a feeding area, they may also swerve back and forth apparently aimlessly, because random movements by single individuals can easily generate changes in direction. However, eventually a sort of consensus will develop based on the motivation of the majority of the flock members, and the flock will fly off to its destination in a fairly direct manner.

Because complex behavior can be generated by the application of simple rules, flocking behavior has been a favorite subject for computer modeling. One of the best known efforts of this kind has been the creation of "boids," generic flocking computer organisms, by Craig Reynolds in 1986. Reynolds' three fundamental "laws" of flocking are: (1) separation - steer to avoid crowding local flockmates; (2) alignment - steer towards the average heading of local flockmates; and (3) cohesion - steer to move toward the average position of local flockmates. Computer-generated flocks of bats and penguins based on boids were first used in the film Batman Returns in 1992, and have appeared in many films subsequently.

References

Potts, Wayne K. 1984. "The chorus-line hypothesis of coordination in avian flocks." Nature 24: 344-345.

Boids: http://www.red3d.com/cwr/boids/

(includes many additional references)

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/rea ... -in-unison

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

CSR, this is comparing apples with oranges. People and animals are very different. Jews and birds...sorry, but it doesn't fly. I re-iterate: if Jews are biologically programmed to suck blood, then we cannot hold them accountable since it's only natural for them to do so. This is a cop out. This contradicts all of the prophets in the OT chastising Jews for their behaviour, as well as God Himself casting judgement upon a whole lot of them in 70 AD.

[ada]

TF, yes some times they get chastised, but more often they had their free runs to exterminated and gruesome murder whole nations.
And always cheating,rakish life,wealth, money, plunder and usury was their main focus.And their g_d let them prosper very well till today.
Sometimes i wonder if the OT is one dialectical blueprint against mankind and the talmud and the zohar are just logical extensions.

The NT is very different and does not fit the way of the OT at all.

>we cannot hold them accountable since it's only natural for them to do so

But what do you do with an entity which has a predator mindset?Do you open up your church and house to offer them community?
This has been done, and the result is disastrous.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

The Catholic Church policy on Jews was the best option: limiting or restricting Jewish influence in high positions. This worked well, and it did not infringe on the Jews' basic liberties.

The OT is not a dialectic. The Old Testament is anti-Zionist as a whole. Some like to isolate certain pro-Zionist passages without taking in the larger context of the entire Old Testament.

[GordZilla]

You might not like William personally, but I think he is spot on here, and this is very relevant to the thread.  

 Rather than ignore the OT, William has a way to tie it into the NT and to me, anyways, it makes perfect sense. He's not the first I've heard to have this spin on the bible, probably won't be the last either. This take on the bible makes way more sense than the common (or should I say; modern) take on the bible does, the one most Christians currently adopt.  It fits, it  makes all the books make sense -without discarding any- and it describes -perfectly- what we are facing today.

And no; Cain is not fathered by Adam. And yes; Jesus is indeed suggesting the Pharisees are fathered by someone other than God.  William is absolutely right on both counts there, I know cause the bible says as much. You know, if you don't ignore those parts. (and others). God created this dynamic between us and our brother, and recreated it again for us in Esau and Jacob. Why? I don't know but there is definitely two seed lines. Frankly the fact that Jews themselves are genetically different from the rest us should speak volumes, in itself, to this fact - and seeing as they 'evolved' in the same places as we did ...well evolution cannot account for this either.  

Do yourself a favour and listen;

http://christogenea.org/content/christo ... chapter-12

[ada]

Gord,
but Fink endorses the name yahweh or jahwe in german whom of Theodor Fritsch said is the wrong g_d of the jews?!
http://archive.org/details/Fritsch-Theo ... lsche-Gott

Other books of Theodor Fritsch can be found here:
http://archive.org/search.php?query=sub ... Fritsch%22

And i found Dr. pastor Reckart very helpful to clarify this.
http://www.yahwehism.com/html/sacred-name.html
http://www.jesus-messiah.com/studies/ya ... -copy.html

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Ada, I will be posting a blog soon exposing the Yahweh/Tetragrammaton fraud on the Church. I like Reckart's work. I think he is right about a lot of things.

Gord, God is the creator of all things, including Satan. Jews are sons of Satan in a spiritual sense. There is no creative power in evil and darkness, none. British Israelism is a Jewish construct, Gord. E. Michael Jones has documented well the Jewish rise to power in England after their expulsion from Spain in the 16th century. It's quite obvious that Jewish messianism (Talmudism) was transformed into British Imperialism. There is absolutely no question that it is not only heresy but a completely Talmud-derived doctrine.

[Father Brown]

The Catholic Church policy on Jews was the best option: limiting or restricting Jewish influence in high positions. This worked well, and it did not infringe on the Jews' basic liberties.

The OT is not a dialectic. The Old Testament is anti-Zionist as a whole. Some like to isolate certain pro-Zionist passages without taking in the larger context of the entire Old Testament.

Excellent point. I wish there was a way to communicate this to Mark Glenn. But I see no easy way to email him. This is going off topic, but I am sick of the truth movement distorting the Old Testament.

Now his network has a couple of boobs on who dismantle the Old and New Testament. I won't hold my breath waiting for a show that dismantles the Koran. For someone who claims to be a Traditional Catholic (i.e. Mark Glenn), he sure doesn't sound like one.

I know many will disagree, but the Catholic Church was the only institution to ever keep the Jews under control. But these "truth movement" podcasts seem bent to dismantle Christianity in order to attack the Jew. It is sloppy and lazy.


Say what you will about Daryl Bradford Smith, but he never resorted to these tactics even though he is not a believer. But he actually was doing actual real time research.

I notice a lot of these guys, not Mark Glenn necessarily, are also new to waking up to the Jew.

I also don't believe that Mark Glenn visited or addressed Ahmadinejad. I heard him once say he was going to post a picture of him and Ahmadinejad. Still waiting.

Having said all that. I think the Church let go of their power when it allowed usury to begin about 500 years ago. Looking forward to reading Michael Hoffman's new book on usury which I just ordered the other day.