It is no mistake that 2000 years ago, Christianity spread and was accepted by tribes of White Europeans as they encountered it. It is no mistake that for the last 1500 years Europe has been predominantly Christian. Christianity had spread not only to both Greece and Rome, but also to Britain and other points in Europe as early as the middle of the first century. Tribes in Gaul were converting to Christianity in the second century. By the third century, if not sooner, Germanic tribes of the Goths and Alans had accepted Christianity. All of this was long before the official acceptance of Christianity began with Constantine the Great, the Edict of Toleration and the Council of Nicaea.
To mock Christianity today is to mock a hundred generations of our ancestors. People who mock Christianity think they know something better about our past than their own ancestors, the people who actually lived in those times many centuries ago. The truth is that the people who mock Christianity know little-to-nothing about the world of the past and the circumstances under which their ancestors ultimately accepted Christianity.
There are many incongruities in the perception of the people who mock Christianity today. On one hand they claim that it is a “cuck” religion, and on the other they complain that their ancestors were forced into Christianity by Christians. So they admit that their own ancestors were weaker than the “cucks” they despise. On one hand they claim that Christianity is an effeminate religion, and a Jewish religion, but then they complain that their ancestors were forced into it by Christians. So they admit that their ancestors were weaker than effeminates and Jews. All the while, they proclaim the “might is right” mantra of their own neo-paganism, while professing that their weak ancestors, forced to subject to Christianity, were somehow treated unfairly! Those who mock Christianity are simply too stupid to realize all of these cognitive disconnects, and there are many more that we won’t get into here. We already presented them here a few years ago, in two podcasts titled White Nationalist Cognitive Dissonance.
The truth is that our ancestors accepted Christianity because they had tangible historical connections to the people of the Old Testament. The Jews are not those people. The Jews are mixed-race bastards descended from the few who were left behind. Look at modern America. In the 1960’s and 1970’s, non-White alien immigrants began pouring into American cities. In the North it was worse, as tens of thousands of Negros from the South had already moved into those same cities in the 1950’s and 1960’s. So we had White Flight, as millions of Whites abandoned the cities and moved out into the suburbs. But the Whites who were left behind, many of them are now mixed-race bastards, because their parents stayed in the cities and accepted and mingled with the aliens.
This same process happened in the Middle and Near East, and in Northern Africa, from as early as 2000 BC, and today we see the results. First it was Sumer, then Ethiopia and Egypt, and with the decay of the Byzantine Empire and the rise of Islam – a Jewish ploy – an entire White world became overrun and bastardized, and is now many different shades of brown. We, the survivors, may be the children of those who fled for refuge, but that does not mean that we should consign our inheritance to bastards. Either we are the children of God, and our God is the enemy of Jews, or the Jews are actually His people, and God is really a nasty old Jew.
The ancient world was a White world, and those White people who inhabited it had a common origin. In the first century BC, Diodorus Siculus embarked on his extensive and learned Library of History with an attempt to demonstrate how the Assyrian, Ethiopian, Egyptian and Greek cultures all had a relatively common mythological heritage. And of course, this is true, but it is poorly understood. All of these people were originally White, and they did indeed have a common heritage. But modern people usually dismiss Diodorus as a bearer of tales, because they themselves are ignorant of the facts that underlie his assertions.
Disregarding the Bible, Whites in Europe as a culture have about 2,700 years of accumulated literature. Sadly, we know of much more than what has actually survived the ages, however enough has survived to give us a clear enough picture of ancient history and the general development of our race into the earlier societies.
Today we can make one of two basic choices. If we accept the popular choice, we dismiss our own ancient literature and we mold our worldview from the findings of the so-called sciences, such as genetic science, archaeology and anthropology. These disciplines are all in the hands of our enemies. These sciences are subject to politicization, to the biased interpretations of people who start off with bad assumptions, ill-begotten premises, and agendas favoring the popular ideals of egalitarianism, multiculturalism and diversity. The second, and less popular choice, is to examine the ancient writings of our own people, to appreciate the fact that generations of our own ancestors felt that those writings were valuable enough to preserve, and to come to understand our ancient world according to these worthy witnesses of our own race.
Once we understand the Greek and Roman classics, then we can learn to reach back further, realizing that the Biblical literature represents an even earlier phase of that same tradition. The following is based upon an excerpt from a summary of part of our commentary on Paul’s epistle to the Hebrews:
… discussing Paul’s description of Moses and the events of the Exodus, we elucidated the fact that five ancient historians, four of them pagans, had accepted the accounts of Moses and the Exodus as being historical in nature. Three of these are Flavius Josephus, a Judaean, and the pagan Greek writers Strabo of Cappadocia and Diodorus Siculus, both of whom wrote before the time of Christ. None of these witnesses were Christians, and none of them, not even Josephus, were what we may fairly consider to be Jewish. Then from Josephus, we saw that a pagan Egyptian writer of the 3rd century BC named Manetho also accepted Moses and the Exodus account as being historical, and correctly dated it to the pharaohs of the 18th Dynasty. Finally, through Diodorus Siculus, we saw that another pagan Greek writer in Egypt named Hecataeus of Abdera had also accepted the accounts of Moses and the Exodus as being historical. Although the version of the Exodus account given by Hecataeus was more accommodating to the Egyptians, now we can say that so was the version given by Manetho, which is something that Josephus had overlooked.
Now I shall elaborate on this with a few passages from part of our commentary on the Book of Amos given here in February, 2013:
The Greek historian of the first century BC, Diodorus Siculus, mentioned Moses as a historical figure, and the Exodus as a historical event. He also accounted Moses as a founder of cities (Library of History, 40.3.3-8). He explained that Moses was a law-giver, and compared him to other famous ancient law-givers, such as the Cretan Minos, the Spartan Lycurgus, Zalmoxis of the Getae, the Egyptian Sasychia, and the Persian Zarathustra (Library of History, 1.94.2). Now while he considered some of the laws attributed to Moses to be barbaric [or misanthropic] and even xenophobic [or actually misoxenic, which is hostile to strangers], he nonetheless fully accepted their historicity (Library of History, 34/35.1.3), and from multiple historical sources of his own.
What is also evident, is that Diodorus Siculus accepted the Exodus account as a significant part in the greater story of the founding of what we would call Western Civilization. Diodorus quoted from the earlier historian Hecataeus of Abdera, the Greek historian and skeptic philosopher of the 4th century BC, who gave a strange account of the Israelite Exodus from an ostensibly Egyptian viewpoint, where he says that “the aliens were driven from the country, and the most outstanding and active among them banded together and, as some say, were cast ashore in Greece and certain other regions; their leaders were notable men, chief among them being Danaus and Cadmus. But the greater number were driven into what is now called Judaea … The colony was headed by a man called Moses, outstanding both for his wisdom and for his courage” (Library of History, 40.3.1-3).
Strabo, another Greek historian, considered Moses to be a historical figure, wrote about him at length, and described him as being a pious and devout founder of a civil society in Judaea, centered around Jerusalem (Geography, 16.2.35-37). Like Diodorus Siculus, Strabo also counted Moses among those of his own list of esteemed prophets, law-givers and philosophers whom he attributed with the beginnings of what we would again call Western Civilization, where he listed him notably among those of the Romans, Greeks, Assyrians, Persians, Getae and others (Geography, 16.2.39).
The implications of the descriptions of the Exodus by Diodorus Siculus are profound, once we truly absorb the importance of his words. Here is a man well-read beyond his peers, who selected what he thought were the best available accounts of antiquity, and endeavored to compile them into an overall narrative summarizing the history of the world up to his own time. So there should be no doubt that Diodorus was as educated as possible in the areas about which he wrote. And here we see him attributing the foundation of Greek society, in the figures of Danaus and Cadmus, to those who were expelled from Egypt with Moses and the Israelites. So it must also be noted, that a proud Greek such as Diodorus was not bothered by the connection of the dawn of Greek civilization to the Hebrews.
Danaus was the eponymous ancestor of the Danaans, the bearers of Mycenaean civilization and the warriors who conquered the Trojans. The Tragic Poets made satires of this legend, describing the Danaans as women fleeing the Egyptians. Cadmus was a Phoenician prince, the brother of Phoenix, Cilix (Cilicia) and Europa, the uncle of Minos and Sarpedon, and the founder of Thebes in Greece. These are among the earliest legendary founders of European civilization, in both myth and reality. The ancient Greeks described the Phoenicians as being fair and blonde, and the Danaans as being fair and golden-haired as well. And Diodorus connects them to Moses. But that is only the beginning, and we have many other connections, in both the Bible and Classical literature.
So if Cadmus and Danaus are who the Greeks believed them to be, and all early Greek writers are very much in agreement on these things, then Moses could not have been a Jew, at least as we know the Jews of today. But the truth is that the people of Judah were originally White, and the Jews of today are perverted mixed-race bastards who have taken White literature – which we know as the Bible – and have perverted all the interpretations of it into a twisted mess. What difference does it make? It makes a world of difference. We cannot surrender our ancient heritage to Jews, just as much as we cannot surrender our modern heritage to niggers. We have sufficient historical proof to demonstrate that these Jews are mixed-race Edomites, and they are by no means Judah.
The apostle James wrote an epistle which we have in our Bibles, which is addressed to “the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad”. This scattering began with the Exodus, and it did not end until the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem after 585 BC. Only a very small portion of two tribes ever returned to Judaea, and the historian Josephus, as well as the Biblical literature, fully agree. But Josephus also informs us that “there are but two tribes in Asia and Europe subject to the Romans, while the ten tribes are beyond Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by numbers.” That group of Israelites beyond Euphrates lived in Armenia and Iberia in modern Georgia, and they had for many centuries been migrating north through the Caucasus Mountains. Among them were the Alans and Goths who accepted Christianity long before Rome ever accepted it.
Several tribes of the Greeks, the Trojans, Illyrians and the Romans themselves, the Iberians of the West, the original inhabitants of Britain and Ireland, the Phoenicians of Northern Africa, all of these had descended from the people who fled Egypt or from the people who migrated west out of the seaports of the Levant in early times. Later, the Germanic tribes came from immigrations into Europe by tribes that passed through the Caucasus Mountains and the areas around the Black and Caspian Seas. There are many essays at Christogenea which provide all of the details of these migrations, and they are based on Classical Literature as well as the Bible and archaeology. What difference does it make? If the Bible is our heritage, we had better stop mocking our own ancestors for accepting Christianity, because evidently they were only fulfilling their God-appointed destiny by doing so.
Should we really think that our ancestors were too dumb to know what was going on in the world up to their own time? Should we really think that our ancestors were so weak in their own beliefs that they accepted a religion received from sand fleas and niggers? Those who mock or scoff at Christianity are pissing all over the graves of 80 generations of their own fathers and mothers. Only a few tribes were ever forcibly converted to Christianity. Among those were the Saxons. When the Islamic hordes invaded France, and the Christian ruler Charles Martel raised an army to defeat them, he had enemies to his rear. The Saxons were looting and pillaging the towns and villages of the Franks in the East. So for two generations Charles’ sons defended themselves against the Saxons, until Charlemagne finally defeated them and forced them to convert. From that time, the civilizing effect that Christianity had on the converted Saxons then gave birth to one of the world’s greatest societies, which we can probably reckon from the time of Otto I, who was born in the year 912. He in turn defended the West against the Slavs, and eventually the Slavs were conquered and Christianized by the Saxons, for very much the same reason. The pagans in these cases were the aggressors, and the Christians were tired of the aggression. We would assert, that Christianity was what our ancestors had departed from when they went off into paganism, and their return to Christianity was a fullfillment of Biblical prophecy, that they would eventually return to the real religion of their most ancient ancestors.
As James had written to the twelve tribes scattered abroad, so did Paul of Tarsus, who professed that his commission was to bear the name of Christ before “both the Nations and kings of the sons of Israel”, which we see in Acts chapter 15. Then later, after the Jews had him arrested, he professed that “I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers: Unto which promise our twelve tribes… hope to come. For which hope’s sake… I am accused of the Jews”, in Acts chapter 26. The twelve tribes, in the estimation of Paul of Tarsus, are therefore distinct from the Jews. Of course, one of those twelve tribes would have to be Judah, and even they are distinct from the Jews in the eyes of Paul. James wrote to twelve tribes scattered abroad, not to ten or eleven.
Paul saw Christianity as a fulfillment of the promises to the fathers. Paul never said that Christianity was for anyone who was not of those fathers. Christianity is not a religion. The apostles were not delivering a religion. Rather, Christianity is a racial covenant and an inheritance promised by God to a particular race, by which that race should abandon worldly religion. If our ancestors really accepted a Jewish religion, or a religion that loves niggers, then we all deserve to be slaves forever, because of their stupidity. But if we are actually the descendants of the people of that Book, as even the ancient Greek historians recognized to a great degree, then we had better honor our ancestors, because they made the right choice after all. That is what difference it makes. We choose to believe our own literature, and follow our own ancestors, or we surrender ourselves to the Jews and accept all of their lies. That is the difference it makes, and it is about time we got it.
Here I want to turn to an internal Biblical subject, and discuss why Moses was selected for the position which he was put into by God. And if we despise Moses, well, we have already shown that four of our own ancient pagan historians, whose works our ancestors preserved for many generations, did not despise him. Rather, they esteemed him as a law-giver and a founder of cities. If we despise Moses, we must despise Diodorus Siculus, Strabo of Cappadocia, and Hecataeus of Abdera, who were all pagan Greek historians who testified quite favorably of Moses. That same Strabo informed us in Book 16 of his Geography that in his own time, the Judaeans were all mixed up with the Idumaeans, or Edomites, and that they shared the same customs. Moses, who was from 1500 years before Strabo, was not one of those mixed Edomite-Judaeans.
If you believe that the Israelites of the Old Testament were Jews, then you are a victim of the Jews. In The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, which are the work of the Jews, we see the following boast, from Protocol No. 16:
WE SHALL CHANGE HISTORY
Classicism as also any form of study of ancient history, in which there are more bad than good examples, we shall replace with the study of the program of the future. We shall erase from the memory of men all facts of previous centuries which are undesirable to us, and leave only those which depict all the errors of the government of the GOYIM.
The Jews have controlled the printing presses for five hundred years. If you think that Jews are telling you the truth about the Classics, the Bible, and ancient history, you deserve to be their slaves. The Jews are giving you a narrative full of lies designed to enslave you to them, and you have accepted them because you believe their lies.
When Moses organized the Israelites into a kingdom, he set down in writing an agrarian calendar. Then he wrote out the laws, and an examination of those laws shows that they are opposed to all of the activities which the Jews have always favored, promoted, and engaged in for themselves. The laws are against usury, they are against pandering, they are against mercantile cheating and unfair exchange of goods, they are against divorce, homosexuality and fornication, which is race-mixing. They are even against pharmaceuticals, which are sorcery, and necromancy and things such as tarot cards and soothsaying. Everything the Jew represents, the law of Moses opposes. The Jewish Talmud and the Koran uphold pedophilia. The Bible does not even mention pedophilia, because to Whites pedophilia is practically unthinkable. If the Bible were a Jewish book, pedophilia and other perversions would emanate from every page.
As I often like to say, If Moses was a jew, the Torah would have been a banking manual rather than a code of law which enforces morality with the penalty of death. If Joshua and the Israelites were Jews they would have invaded Canaan with briefcases and pencils, rather than with axes and swords. If Jesus were a Jew, He would have done stand-up comedy instead of parables. The Bible is the LEAST Jewish book in print today, and one of the only books printed in large numbers which is opposed to everything Jewish.
But I digress. Returning to my subject, if we can answering the question as to Why Moses? It can help us to answer the question as to What Difference Does It Make?
The following is redacted from our presentation of Acts chapter 7, given here in June of 2013. In that chapter of Acts, the martyr Stephen offers a defense of the Christian Faith, and recounts the life of Moses, so he says:
23 “And as forty years’ time were completed by him, he put up in his heart to visit his brethren the sons of Israel. 24 And seeing one being done wrong he defended him, and made an avenging for him being subdued, smiting the Egyptian.
Moses was raised in the household of the Pharaoh, and must have had all of the privileges of a member of the royal family. Yet he risked his enjoyment of these worldly luxuries for the benefit of defending a lowly man, because that lowly man was one of his own tribesmen. For this, Moses had been selected by Yahweh as the man who would lead His people out of Egypt. Ostensibly, this is the point that Stephen is making, and which he hoped that his own contemporaries would learn from by example: That Moses, regardless of his high station, acted contrary to his own interests and stood against the institutions of his own time in favor of those of his own race, and Moses was therefore employed by Yahweh God as His instrument of their redemption from Egypt….
Paul, in Hebrews chapter 11, says of Moses in part: “23 By faith Moses, being born was hid three months by his fathers because they saw the handsome child, and did not fear the ordinance of the king. 24 By faith Moses, becoming full-grown, refused to be called a son of the daughter of Pharaoh, 25 rather preferring to be mistreated with the people of Yahweh than to have the temporary rewards of error, 26 having esteemed the reproach of the Anointed greater riches than the treasures of Egypt, since he had regard for the reward….”
Then Stephen continues to describe the life of Moses and says:
25 And he expected the brethren to understand that Yahweh through his hand gives deliverance to them, but they did not understand.
In this day Identity Christians wonder when our own people, who are locked in the paradigms of this world, will awaken to the fact that they are once again in bondage, and that their own attitudes concerning race and righteousness have been taught to them by the very ones who hold them in that bondage: the international Jews. The concept of political correctness which holds sway over their minds is an invention of the Jewish masters who rule over them, that they may retain that rule without difficulty. Here we see that an Israelite in bondage would despise another Israelite who delivered him, rather than be grateful for any relief he was granted from his oppressor. Our people are little different today.
26 Then the next day he appeared to those who were fighting and he reconciled them in peace saying ‘Men! You are brothers! For what reason do you do wrong to one another?’ 27 But he doing wrong to he near to him rejected him saying ‘Who appointed you ruler and judge over us? 28 Do you not desire to kill me in the manner that you killed the Egyptian yesterday?’
As it is today, it was then also, that the righteousness of the children of Israel was after the reckoning of man rather than of God, and this man was more concerned even for his dead oppressor than he was for the men of his own race. According to Stephen, Moses was already somehow cognizant of his mission to free his people Israel. However the people rejecting him, Moses would flee [from] Egypt, and it would be another forty years before he [returned and] fulfilled his mission. Our people have much the same attitude today, where because the churches teach them lies, when they are informed of their sins they respond, “Who appointed you ruler and judge over us?”
It is understandable, that the phrase “but he doing wrong [the Israelite aggressor] to he near to him [the Israelite being fought with by the aggressor] rejected him [meaning the admonishment of Moses]” is a little difficult to read, and would be easier to read if it were rendered “But he doing wrong to his neighbor rejected him”. The [usual] Greek word translated as neighbor in the King James Version is the adverb πλησίον (4139)… which literally means near or close to… [But in the Bible this does not indicate a closeness in geography, or the Egyptian would also have been a neighbor. Rather, it indicates a closeness in relationship.] The Hebrew word in the original text of the command that “thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”, which is found at Leviticus 19:18, is… reya’, a word… derived from [a root which means] … “… to tend a flock, i.e. pasture it; intransitive to graze (literally or figuratively); generally to rule; by extension to associate with (as a friend)…” and [therefore] it is apparent that if one is a member of the flock, then one’s πλησίον, or neighbor, can only be a fellow sheep! So we see that if one is of your flock, he is a neighbor. But if one is not of your flock, he cannot ever be a neighbor… Rather, he is an intruder.
The term for neighbor is defined in this same manner where it first appears in Leviticus chapter 19, and it says: “18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.” So we see that one’s neighbor must also be one of the “children of thy people”. Only the people of your own race can be your neighbor, as the Bible and the meanings of the Hebrew words certainly prove.
In our last Wednesday Night Bible Study, we discussed another episode where it is evident that Moses loved his own race even more than he loved himself, in Exodus chapter 32. Loving one’s race more than oneself is the ideal Christian principle, it is the premier example of Christ, and it is an ideal which every White man and woman should be happy to embrace. Moses loved his people even when they reached the dregs of existence in their sin, and of course that is also the example of Christ Himself.
In Exodus 32, Moses is on Mount Sinai with Yahweh, where he spent forty days recording the Law. But during that time the children of Israel incited Aaron to make the golden calf (which was also the pagan religion of Cadmus, Minos and Sarpedon) and they began to debauch themselves in sin. So upon that circumstance we read: “7 And the LORD said unto Moses, Go, get thee down; for thy people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves: 8 They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. 9 And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people: 10 Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation. 11 And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand? 12 Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. 13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever.”
Here it is apparent that upon the sins of the people, Yahweh is testing Moses. It seems that He is not really going to destroy them immediately, because He told Moses to go down to them. If He were going to destroy them immediately, He would have instead warned Moses to remain where he was, because there he was safe. But nevertheless, Yahweh tried Moses, offering for Moses himself to become a great nation if He should destroy the people. We can imagine that many men may be selfish, and beg Yahweh to do it, wanting to exalt themselves. But Moses was selfless, he disregarded the offer of his own magnification, and instead pleaded with Yahweh to preserve the people, on account of the promises to the fathers. We should all have the same care for our White brethren in the world, whether or not they are sinners. And because Moses was faithful to his people, his name is a household name among White Christians to this very day, and he was even famous among the pagan Greeks, as we see from Hecataeus, Diodorus and Strabo.
Now we are going to present an essay written by Inez Comparet. She was the wife of Bertrand Comparet. While I do not entirely approve of women writing and teaching, this is more of a message of encouragement than it is of instruction. Bertrand Comparet allowed, and must have encouraged, his wife to do this, and it was she who presented this message in his assembly. We do have such a history of women being permitted at certain times to do similar things, Deborah the Prophetess being one of the more notable of such women. The Song of Deborah in Judges chapter 5 is invaluable. We believe that the men of that time were slack in their obligations, and Deborah was raised up to be a reproach and an example to them. The men of this time are also slack in their own obligations, and that is why we have feminism, as a punishment and a reproach to such men.
The message is appropriate to our discussion, and it is actually the reason why we have had it, because it is a message of necessity and exhortation relative to our present circumstances. So we shall offer a criticism as we present:
Suppose We Are Israel, What Difference Does It Make?
by Inez H. Comparet, prepared from an audio recording and edited with notes by Clifton A. Emahiser. I do not have the original recording posted at hand, but there may be one in Clifton’s Library, which we hope to catalog one day soon.
She begins by asking:
What would you say to me if you knew I had discovered that I was the heir to a vast estate, great wealth and responsibility? [But] instead of rejoicing in the great privilege and turning to the work with all its great issues, I simply said, “Well, what if I am the heir, what difference does it make?” I know what you would think, even if you didn’t say it.
Yet, when we show from the Bible and from history and archeology that the Anglo Saxon and kindred people are the modern day descendants of the house of Israel, to whom Yahweh has pledged with His oath so many great privileges and blessings, many say indifferently, “what difference does it make?” They want only personal salvation. Now the man who has the blessing of personal salvation is the recipient of a marvelous gift of Yahweh through Yahshua. This doesn’t warrant his despising and rejecting the other birthright, the birthright of race.
I must interject, that the promises of personal salvation in Scripture are very narrow, and usually refer to temporal salvation. But the Scripture is replete with blanket promises of eternal salvation for the entire race of Adam, or the entire nation of the children of Israel. These are the promises upon which we should focus, because we should love our people, our brethren, more than we love ourselves. Inez continues:
The Bible as given by Yahweh, is a complete whole, it stands or falls in one piece. It declares the whole counsel of Yahweh and it requires nothing short of the whole book to declare it, otherwise much of it would not have been written. It is not for man to go through the book sorting and picking, deciding what he wishes to accept and then say about the rest, “what difference does it make?” To do so is the height of presumption.
This challenge we face all of the time, where the Scripture says “all Israel shall be saved”, or “in Christ all [Adamic] men shall be made alive”, and there are Identity Christians who simply do not want to believe it, so they go off on a rampage of picking and choosing. Back to Inez:
Yahweh in His wisdom, chose Israel to be used by Him in His great plan for the transformation of a lost world. He wrote a large portion of the Bible to tell us about Israel’s part in that plan. There was ample space allowed in the Bible for the presentation of the gospel to the individual. Yahweh wrote about 5/6ths of the Bible as His message to the nations. Related to almost every phrase of this revelation are the great nations of Israel, promised by Yahweh to Abraham.
Contemporary to Abraham, the phrase refers to the Adamic Genesis 10 nations. However Abraham’s seed was to inherit those nations, and inherit the earth. So prophetically, and the prophecy was fulfilled by the time of Christ, the phrase refers to the nations of the promise to Abraham, as Paul describes it in Romans chapter 4. She continues:
Infidel critics are busy all the time knifing the scriptures, cutting out a bit here and a bit there. But, the “What difference does it make?” folks throw away 5/6ths of the Bible in one lump, 5/6ths of the Bible is a lot to scrap!
They totally disregard the entire substance of the national message for Israel, which is just as active in the New Testament as it is in the Old. Continuing with Inez:
Actually, the Israel Identity truth is the key which opens up the Bible from the first promise made at the fall of Adam, until Yahshua delivers up the finished kingdom to Yahweh. It may be likened to a spiritual thread which runs through almost every chapter of Bible history, every doctrine, symbol, promise and covenant. The thread, which when found, makes possible the unraveling of most of the mysteries of the Word. This is why the people who see the truth have declared the Bible to be a new book, consistent, harmonious and satisfying to mind and soul.
Actually, almost everywhere Paul spoke of a mystery, he professed that he was explaining that mystery, and that is the mystery of the identity of the household of Yahweh, the identity of the true Israelites who were cast off centuries before Christ, who were being reconciled to God through Christ. Paul having made known those mysteries, they are no longer mysteries because he made them known, he announced their meanings. So Inez continues and says:
Centuries ago Yahweh made an unconditional, irrevocable covenant with Abraham, to increase and preserve his posterity throughout all generations. Now here we are, the many nations of Israel, right here on the planet after almost 4,000 years, doing the work that He said Israel would do. Psalm 105:8 promises, “He remembers His covenant forever, the word He has commanded to a thousand generations. The covenant He made with Abraham and His oath to Isaac. For He confirmed it to Jacob as a statute, to Israel as an eternal covenant”.
And not only, but the introduction to the purpose of Christ in the Gospel of Luke announces that He came “71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; 72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; 73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham, 74 That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear.” Then in Romans chapter 15 Paul of Tarsus professed that “that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers”, where Paul was a messenger to the Nations, the ancient cast-off Israelites who were no longer keeping the circumcision and were therefore called “uncircumcised”. We serve God by keeping His commandments and loving our brethren, as Christ explained in John chapters 13 through 15. But now when we attempt to serve and love our own brethren, the world attacks us and tries to make us fear. Exactly what we see that Christ is promised to deliver us from in Luke chapter 1.
And this leads me to another digression, which repeats what I have already said. Our remote Christian ancestors read these same passages, and had no problem believing them and assuming their identity in them for themselves. Should we imagine that our ancestors were too dumb to read? We have already proven, in the Book of Odes which is found in the Codex Alexandrinus, that early Christians formulated Christian Identity liturgy. It is the Jews who have “changed history”, as we read in the Protocols of Satan, and when we believe what they say we are believing a lie. And they did not start corrupting history in the 19th or 20th centuries. Rather, they have been corrupting it all along, everywhere they can infiltrate, for 5,000 years. Returning to Inez Comparet:
The writers of the four gospels constantly call attention to Yahweh’s faithfulness to Abraham. The apostles gloried in it, but you say, “What difference does it make?”
It made quite a difference to Esau who despised his birthright of race. Afterwards, he found no place for repentance, though he sought it with tears. The birthright of race made quite a difference to Ishmael, the son of the bond woman Hagar. The birthright of race also made quite a difference to the sons of Keturah.
The sin of Esau is plainly stated by Paul of Tarsus, who called Esau a profane man, and a fornicator, which is a race-mixer. The accounts in Genesis clearly show that Paul’s assessment is accurate. She continues:
Suppose we are Israel, then we are the descendants of Abraham through Sarah, Isaac and Jacob. There is a world of difference in the blessings of race, country, enlightenment and opportunity bestowed upon the descendants of these people, than that which was bestowed upon the others. Does the fact that a man is saved eternally preclude the possibility of his appreciating the civil blessings which he enjoys under the Abrahamic covenant in these Israel countries? A short stay in the lands of the dictators would show the difference and be quite convincing.
Actually all of the other peoples were eventually cursed, and even the other White nations were never blessed since the days of Noah. Now that our race has fallen into sin, the other races are being used to chastise us, and they appear to be blessed, but upon our imminent redemption they shall all be destroyed. That is the promise of the Word of Yahweh, and to attain it all we must do is repent. We will be punished until we repent. Inez continues:
In Isaiah 51:2 Yahweh says, “Harken unto me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek Yahweh: Look unto the rock whence ye are hewn and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged. Look unto Abraham your father and unto Sarah that bare you: for I called him alone and blessed him and increased him”. You that follow after righteousness are certainly the Christians and we see that Yahweh wants them to see that they are Abraham’s seed.
In Romans chapter 4, Galatians chapters 3 and 4 and 1 Corinthians chapter 10 Paul of Tarsus explained how the nations to whom he brought the Gospel were indeed the seed of Abraham, and the classical and archaeological records prove it. She continues:
In Genesis 17:7 Yahweh promises, “I will establish My covenant between Me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee”. Can it be possible that it means nothing to the believer to be chosen of Yahweh as an heir of that covenant, which in all of its ramifications Yahweh unfolds throughout the remainder of the scriptures?
This being among the promises to the fathers which Christ had come to fulfill, if we are not those people then our ancient ancestors turned to Christ in vain, and we being so stupid, we deserve to be ruled over by Jews. However if our ancestors knew what they were doing when they turned to Christ, then we are the children of God and it is time to repent and to rid ourselves of every Jew, and all of the other races as well, because our inheritance is unique and exclusive to our race. Returning to Inez Comparet:
Suppose we are Israel, then we are members of Yahweh’s kingdom here on earth, He established that kingdom at Sinai. Constituting that kingdom were the 12 tribes of Israel. Matthew 21:43 tells us plainly that He took the kingdom from the Jews and turned it over to a nation. The Greek word is ethnos. Don’t tell me it was given to a church, for the Greek word for church is ekklesia. That nation was to bring forth the fruits of the kingdom, those fruits were both political and religious.
In the Revelation, in its closing chapters, at the end of this world age, a city descends from God. The names of the twelve tribes of Israel are inscribed on the gates of that city. If you are not from one of those twelve tribes, you shall not enter into that city! The old Jerusalem did represent the kingdom of God on earth, but by the time of Christ it was a multi-ethnic cesspool. The Kingdom had to be taken from them, and all of that is also a matter of Biblical prophecy. Inez continues:
True to Yahshua’s assignment, the Israel nations lead the world in evangelistic work, missionary work, Bible translation, publication and distribution. The United States and the British Commonwealth hold the record for 90% of this work.
This is true, but it is not all good. There is no commission to take the Word of God to any other race, and any Bible verse which suggests such a thing is poorly translated, removed from its original historical context, and poorly understood. Again she continues:
It is not good Bible Christianity to hug the covenant of grace so close to our hearts that we have no room for Yahweh’s covenant of race, that spurns the honors conferred by Yahweh.
Actually, grace is first prophesied in Jeremiah chapter 31, where it is speaking of all of the Israelites who survived to go into Assyrian and Babylonian captivity, and it says: “ 2 Thus saith the LORD, The people which were left of the sword found grace in the wilderness; even Israel, when I went to cause him to rest.” So the most significant promise of grace in the Old Testament prophets is a national promise, and not merely a personal one. Inez continues:
It does not require much research to find many texts in which Yahweh reveals the exalted position given the chosen race. A few of them are:
Isaiah 43:1-4 tells us, “But now thus saith Yahweh that created thee, O Jacob and He that formed thee, O Israel, for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by My name, thou art Mine. Since thou wast precious in My sight, thou hast been honorable and I have loved thee.” I Kings 8:53 continues, “Thou didst separate them from among all the people of the earth, to be thine inheritance.” Psalm 135:4 says, “For Yahweh hath chosen Jacob unto Himself and Israel for a peculiar treasure.”
Deuteronomy 7:6 reads, “For thou art a holy people (meaning set apart), Yahweh thy God hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto Himself above all the nations that are upon the earth.” Note the honors that are conferred. He chose them, redeemed them, claimed them for His own, separated them, calls them precious, His peculiar treasure, His special people, His inheritance above all the people on earth. Think of any believer reading all of that and then turning upon his heel and saying, “Suppose we are Israel, what difference does it make?”.
If our White race are not the Israel of the Bible, then we are nothing, and it makes no sense whatsoever for the apostles of Christ to bring the Gospel of Christ to Europe. They never tried to bring it to niggers, street shitters or Chinamen. She continues in response to the question, “What difference does it make?”:
It rejects Yahweh’s comfort for the last days. Yahweh was anxious that His Israel people should have a clear vision of all that was to come to pass in these trying times. Consequently He sent prophet after prophet, telling of world conditions which we would experience in our day. But right with the cataclysmic upheavals that were foretold, there is always a word of cheer, consolation and encouragement to His people Israel. He wanted us to have the benefit of knowing what He is doing in the world, what the world events actually mean. How He is going to make it all work out to the good of His people Israel and through all that is happening, bring in the kingdom of Yahweh on earth. The kingdom of Yahweh is the one theme of the Bible, it is the theme Yahshua preached. In Romans 15:8, Paul tells us that Yahshua came to confirm the promises made unto the fathers.
If we say that Christianity is for everyone, then that is a denial of the words of the book from which we get Christianity. What sort of book is ever interpreted in a manner which is absolutely contrary to what the book actually says? And if we do not realize who we are, we will never know what to do when Babylon – the globalist mercantile system – finally falls, and we hear the call to avenge our enemies. Back to Inez, she asks:
What is the worth of our identity as Israel? It proves Yahweh to be unchangeably faithful, it proves the Bible to be literal and historically true. It proves Yahweh is working today, as the prophets have all foretold He would [work:] in, through and for His people Israel, Israel which is today known as the Anglo Saxon, Scandinavian and Germanic people. Lastly, but by no means least, it proves Yahshua did what He came to do, to confirm the promises made to the fathers.
In other words, if the Jews are Israel, which is a historical impossibility, then God is a complete failure, and we should not even care about our race, because there is no salvation or redemption. That is the very conclusion which the Jew wants you to arrive at, so that he can destroy you and you have no defense.
While we have already echoed some of his sentiments, here we shall present the
Critical notes made by Clifton A. Emahiser:
I will reiterate here that the woman, Inez H. Comparet (wife of Bertrand L. Comparet), puts a lot of men to shame for her insight. I still contend that if the men aren’t doing their job, the women must step in and do it for them. I say this because we have a whole myriad of male wannabe “pastors” and “teachers” today whose only pleasure is to see how out-of-context they can twist the Scripture. With this presentation by Inez, she shows her insight to be superior to that of many men. I know it is a woman’s place, under ordinary circumstances, to exercise a supporting role behind her husband, but today we are not living in ordinary times. There are three general categories into which these male wannabes fall (and many women wannabes as well). These three are “one seedline”, “no-Satan” and “universalism”. Inez made a very good point when she said, “It is not for man to go through the book sorting and picking, deciding what he wishes to accept and then say about the rest, ‘what difference does it make?’ To do so is the height of presumption.”
But I do not give Inez a 100% appraisal on this subject either. Your evaluation may differ from mine. I can only point out where I disagree with some of her statements, and I’m sure that her commentary mirrors some of her husband’s views. Mrs. Comparet said: “The birthright of race made quite a difference to Ishmael, the son of the bond woman Hagar.” To this I would reply: It is very possible that the bond-woman Hagar may have been White (or almost white), but today’s Ishmaelites show a distinct countenance (physical appearance) of being mixed, which the term arab means.
Clifton is correct, that Comparet was somewhat confused as to the identity of the Arabs, and sometimes mistook them for Ishmael. But Ishamel himself was White, and all of the Arabs are bastards. No bastard can truly be of Ishmael. But here Clifton interpreted Inez Comparet’s statement contrary to how I have interpreted it. I would say that the birthright of race made a difference to Ishmael because he was excluded, not because he had any hope to ever be included. Clifton apparently did not consider the possibility that the birthright of race makes a difference to those who are on the wrong end of the equation as well as to those who are chosen.
Nevertheless we will continue with Clifton’s note, which has value because many in Israel Identity are indeed confused with the nature of today’s Arabs:
In my brochure Both Jews And Arabs Are Serpent Seed. I stated: One cannot fully comprehend the racial makeup of the arabs and jews unless he understands the history of Egypt from A.D. 639 until the time of Napoleon I in 1798. The history of Egypt during this period is essentially the history of the entire Middle East. Genghis Khan in his exploits left a mongol genetic flavor to the population wherever he conquered new territory. Egypt, during this period found herself under various rulerships. In A.D. 639 the arabs invaded Egypt and came to power. Next were the Fatimids in A.D. 909. After this came the Ayyubids in 1174. Then in 1517 A.D. came the Mamelukes, followed by the Ottomans when Egypt was governed from Istanbul. If you don’t understand the history of the Middle East during this period, don’t pretend you know all about the arabs and jews [of] today!
Jeremiah understood the mixed genetic nature of the Ishmaelites when he said at 25:24: “And all the kings of Arabia, and all the kings of the mingled people that dwell in the desert …”
This is a Hebrew parallelism. The “kings of Arabia” and “kings of the mingled people” are one and the same group. The word arab, as Clifton explains, means mixed.
From the 1980 Collier’s Encyclopedia, volume 2, page 398, under the topic “Arabs”, we read the following:“The people of the Arab world have no single origin. Although Arab culture was associated in early times with the Arabian Peninsula, over the centuries many different peoples have become Arabized through adoption of the Arabic language and other features of Arab culture. For nearly all Arabization was through Islam, the major religion of the Arab world. The Arabs are as diverse physically as they are in ethnic origin. There is no Arab ‘racial type.’ Some Arabs do fit the stereotyped picture, lean and ‘hawk-nosed,’ with darkish skin and black hair, but these features are in no sense typical. Negroid Arabs are similar in appearance to sub-Saharan Africans, and light-skinned Arabs are physically indistinguishable from most Europeans.” [emphasis mine]
Actually, many Europeans are Arabs, and it seems that Inez Comparet did not realize that fact. The Arabs have made incursions into southern Europe for many centuries. Greece and areas in and around the Balkans were held by Islamic Turks and Arabs for over four hundred years. Siciliy and southern Italy were settled by many Arabs in the Middle Ages, and Arabs held most of the Ibertians peninsula for 700 years. They also managed to settle into parts of southern France. And actually, the process of Arabization in Arabia began in the third millennium before Christ. The peninsula was inhabited by an assortment of Adamic tribes, descendants of Shem and Ham, but also by various other groups, the Kenites, Rephaim, Canaanites, and several tribes listed in Genesis chapter 15 whose origin is unknown. Add to this the Edomites, Ishmaelites, Midianites and other children of Keturah, and the Moabites and Ammonites, and by the end of the Hellenistic period most of these people, who all intermingled over many centuries, were so mixed up that they had lost any sense of their original identity. To compound the issue, Persians, Greeks, Romans and others moved into the area over the 500 years before Christ. But once the dawn of Islam came, which was contrived by Jews that had been ostracized from the Byzantine empire, other elements, Negros, Turks, and Mongols, were introduced as Clifton describes it here. And religious Jews as well as the original Arabs, the ancient Canaanites and Edomites, mixed themselves with all of these along the way. Islam, the most significant religion of bastardization, ruled over the entire Middle East for over twelve hundred years.
So anyone who thinks that the modern people of the Middle and Near East are the same as the ancient people of those regions is just stuck on stupid. Clifton continues:
In the 1200’s, Genghis Khan sold a company of slaves to the Sultan of Egypt made up of turks and Circassians (people who inhabited the Caucasus, not to be confused with the white Caucasians) to become the Sultan’s body guards, and were also trained as soldiers. Soon the Mamelukes overthrew the Egyptian Sultan and put their own sultan in power. The Mameluke sultans then overran Asia Minor, Syria, and the island of Cyprus. In the wake of all these arab and turkic exploits, the population was left with a multiracial flavor. I could go on quoting a great deal more evidence showing the racial makeup of the arabs today, but space here will not allow it. [Note: I don’t capitalize names and terms that don’t deserve it.]
Also, Inez well stated: “The Greek word is ethnos. Don’t tell me it (the kingdom) was given to a church, for the Greek word for church is ekklesia.”
This concludes our presentation, and anyone who considers what we have said should be able to answer by now, what difference it does make.