Bill White on Christian Identity

I don’t share Bill White’s respectful treatement of CI kooks, CI people tend to be low I.Q. dregs with whom I absolutely have nothing in common. CI theology makes Mormonism look like a credible, historical, level-headed belief-system. Whites need to ostracise them and not cosy up to these lunatics.

“Bashing” Yahweh
The Simple Truth Of The Jewish Tribal Deity

Recently, the American National Socialist Workers’ Party published
the March issue of our magazine, National Socialist, with the
headline story, “The Serpents: A History Of The Jews From Yahweh To
Leviathan.” As the magazines have been arriving in people’s homes, I
have been contacted by a number of individuals, most associated with
Christian Identity, who have wanted to discuss this article — I’ve
received two rational and polite phone calls and a lot of irrational,
angry garbage. Apparently, this article is not sitting well with the
Christian Identity crowd, who are spreading the word that “Bill White
is bashing Yahweh.” Nothing, I think, could be further from the
truth; the article was written, as best as possible, with the
sensitivities of Christian Identity in mind. However, I think the
controversy that is arising from this article shows some of the
weaknesses of Christian Identity doctrine, reinforcing what I have
always said about the faith — that it is an idiosyncratic and
ahistorical interpretation of the Bible that, while making some
interesting and valid points, appears to need substantial revision to
be brought into conformance with what is known about the world.

I don’t say this because I have strong feelings opposed to Christian
Identity; I do not. I do not hate Christian Identity adherents,
wish them to abandon their religion or convert, or wish to see them
led astray from their religious faith. I encourage them to hold
their religious views and I encourage them to express their religious
views. I would not want to see them silenced, no matter how much I
may disagree with something they may say, and I do not even always,
or, necessaily, mostly, disagree with them. I am not a Christian
Identity adherent because I do not accept Jesus Christ as “Savior,”
and I do not accept that because I do not believe I am in need of
salvation. As the direct descendent of a race of Gods who has
purged, as far as possible, the poison of modernity, I seek
transcendence and ascension to the Godhead, not mere salvation from
some imagined punishment. It is a very different religious view of
life, and not one I expect Christian to accept; It has always been
my opinion that those who are so wretched they need salvation from
themselves should actively seek Christ, and I do not mean that in any
particularly derogatory way.

However, a lot of Christians — not just Christian Identity
adherents — assert that history books and demonstrated historical
writings — archaelogical records and the like — can be completely
disregarded because, when they do not confirm their idiosyncratic
view of the world, they are tricks that have been placed in the world
by the Devil to confuse them. This is an irrational point of view
that is manufactured not because the Christian actually believes the
Devil has created tricks in the world to confuse them, but because
they are ignorant of actual historical reality, and, as such, are
unable to debate actual facts in any other manner. Presuming that
history is not an invention of the Devil designed to confuse people,
but that, instead, there were actual Jews and Israelites who wrote
actual books that became integrated into the Holy Books of the
Christian faith, any interpretation of the Bible has to accord with
historical fact. If it cannot accord with historical facts and does
not make sense in historical context, than that interpretation is
incorrect and any conclusions drawn from it are false. That is what
we are seeing with this controversy.

The article, in rough outline, says the following: That the Jews
were a-racial outcastes from Aryan India known as Chandala; that
they migrated across the Caucasus mountains as the Habiru or Apiru
and adopted the forms of worship of the pre-Aryan Levant; that, in
particular, they adopted worship of the Earth Mother, Asherah,
roughly equivalent to Ishtar or Isis, and her Sea God consort,
Yahweh; that Yahweh has been traditionally depicted as a serpent,
and is one of a general type of serpent and bull gods worshipped in
the Levant in conjunction with the sea; that these Earth-Sea
pantheons, known as chthonic or telluric, are opposed to the solar
Aryan spirit and have been depicted in Aryan myth as enemies of the
white race; and that this kind of telluric worship is linked to the
Jewish internationalism we known as multi-culturalism, anti-racism,
and Bolshevism.

In support of this, we note the following: That the original
Biblical texts refer to God as “Elohim”, not “Yahweh”‘; that the
Jews worshipped a Brazen snake erected by Moses as a symbol of Yahweh
until the time of Hezekiah, who consulted Yahweh’s high priestess,
Huldah, before introducing the Yahwehist reform; that the revised
versions of Genesis and other books that appeared as a result of this
form refer to “Yahweh Elohim” instead of “Elohim”, and that this is
the first form of Jewish worship thatgives Yahweh primacy; that
after Hezekiah, Josiah and Jeremiah observe that the people return to
the worship of Asherah as the mother goddess, as they did before
Hezekiah’s reforms; that after the capitivity, only the Yahwehists
return to Palestine, and Ezra, of the Aaronids, leads a revision of
the Bible that completely deletes mention of Moses and makes other
changes that give Yahweh primacy which he did not have in the earlier
texts; that the Yahwehists take control of Judah, not Israel, and
that they conquer the Israelites and impose the worship of Yahweh on
them, whereas the Israelites had prefered to maintain the worship of
Asherah; that the Sadducees Hellenize the Old Testament and make
revisions to the Jewish worship, equating Yahweh with Typhon, in
accordance with Alexander’s Eleusian mysteries, which give primacy to
Isis-Osiris, and that the equation of Yahweh with Typhon equates him
with both the telluric Osiris and the Egyptian Seth; and that the
Maccabees refer to Yahweh as “Jah” and depict him as a serpent-
legged, chicken-headed God in accordance with the standard depiction
of him at that time.

I wrote the article, which is unsigned, and I spent several months
reading on the subject and broadening my understanding of it before
publication. I mention in the article some things, particular about
the dual seedline (there is a typo which reads “seed of Eve” instead
of “seed of Adam”), which introduce some themes common to Christian
Identity, and, in writing the article, asked myself what the reaction
would be from Christian Identity and how we could minimize any
offensive content. Unfortunately, historical fact is not friendly to
a lot of assertions currently common in the Christian Identity faith
regarding Yahweh, and my conversations with two Christian Identity
ministers confirm this. I cannot see the Biblical Yahweh, as he was
introduced into the Bible by Hezekiah and Ezra, as an Aryan deity.
Yahweh fits the mould of a pre-Aryan Levantine or Semitic Sea God,
equivalent in function to the various Baals that were worshipped
contemporaneously in the Mediterranean basin; to claim him as an
Aryan sky, sun or storm god is a stretch.

This does not mean that is the final word on the subject, and there
are some objections that can be made. Particularly, there is a way
of looking at this that conforms to the Christian Identity worldview
and which strikes me as perhaps worthy of future investigation, but
which I have not fully researched and am not certain can be
supported. Christian Identity generally believes the Jews to the be
the Biblical Edomites, or children of Esau. In 2 Chronicles
25:14, “Amaziah returned from slaughtering the Edomites [and] brought
back the gods of the people of Seir. He set them up as his own Gods,
bowed down to them and burnt sacrifices to them.” Amaziah is the
father of Uzziah, whois the father of Ahaz, who is the father of
Hezekiah, all of whom are part of the lineage of Jesus Christ in two
of the three Biblical accounts. There may be some argument that the
worship of Asherah that Hezekiah encountered was not, in fact, the
typical worship of Judah, but some Edomite imposition, but there are
problems with that argument as well: First and foremost, there is
the problem that Moses erects a brazen serpent, long before all this
happens, and that the serpent remains the focus of the worship of the
people of Judah and Israel from the time it is erected until
Hezekiah, which suggest that Levantine modes of worship predominated
among the people of Judah and Israel from their first adoption of the
faith. Second, one would have to assert that the Habiru were the
Edomites and not the Jews and Israelites, which is difficult, but
less problematic than the previous objection. Third, one would have
to show some evidence of some other point where the worship of the
Edomites became general among the population of Judah, and I’m not
sure the account of the conversion of Amaziah is sufficient.

That’s just one suggestion. I have spoken to two Christian Identity
preachers at length recently, and both have made some suggestions,
one of which leads me to the Amaziah hypothesis, but neither of which
have been able to sufficiently address this problem with the
Christian Identity account of the Yahweh faith. Another problem was
brought up by a Christian Identity adherent which further confirms
our article on Yahweh, and that is that Seth, who, at least at some
point, is equated with the Egyptian Seth, is considered a product of
the seed of Satan who established Satanic worship. Given that Seth
is an African demon-figure that was adopted by the Egyptians, and,
arguably, is outside normal range of demons known to the pre-Aryan
Mediterraneans, the equation of Seth with the seed of Satan and the
equation of Yahweh with Seth is fully compatible with the
understanding of the Bible that sees portions of Genesis as products
of either a pre-Jewish influence or having been subject to Aryan
reinterpretation. Given that Ezra, coming from post-Aryan multi-
culturalist Persia, almost certainly introduced Aryan concepts into
the Jeiwsh faith when he rewrote the previous Bible, this equation of
Seth with Yahweh via Typhon, plus the integration of Sethian worship,
as detailed in Plutarch’s Isis and Osiris, into Yahwehism, also
gives significance to the on the surface contradictory equation of
Yahweh with the seedline of Satan.

At the end, all of this reveals several problems with the “Aryan”
interpretation of the Bible — the assertion that the entirety of the
Bible is Aryan in nature and has been since its origin. The Aryan
peoples migrated out of the Hyperborean homeland through Northern
then Central Asia, and then across the Eurasian continent. They
encountered, in the region of Palestine, pre-Aryan peoples who had a
different concept of religion from them. Modern Christianity is a
blend of Aryan and pre-Aryan religious concepts primarily because of
the interaction the Catholic Church had with the faiths of the
Celtic, Germanic and Nordic peoples it encountered in Northern
Europe. There is no question that there are some puzzling
references, particularly in Genesis, to clearly Aryan religious
concepts that seem out of place in the larger context of the Bible,
but to claim a general Aryan origin to the Biblical myth is simply
incorrect. Now, one could say this is because of the revisions of
the Bible that occured under later Jewish scholars, but to assert
that one needs evidence and a detailed look at the major revisions of
the Bible and how Aryan and Jewish concepts developed and changed in
the Old Testament. At this point, I have not yet seen that from the
Christian Identity community.

If I receive a well-done refutation of our article on Yahweh, I will
publish it. What I would be looking for is a discussion of Aryan and
Jewish Biblical concepts and their development through the various
revisions of the Biblical text, with additional information on the
lineage of the Biblical figures involved in the various revisions and
reforms, with a reasonable link between their heritage and its
expression in their religious views. A knowledge of Traditional
concepts and the contrast between Traditional and anti-Traditional
worldviews would be very helpful to an individual engaging in such a
project. Even a detailed discussion of the Edomites and their
history in light of known history of non-Biblical origin would
suffice, and would be right up the alley of a Christian Identity
preachers truly interested in refuting what we have had to say. I
would like to see it explained why Moses’ establishment of the brazen
serpent was not a reflection of a typical form of serpent worship
associated with the Earth Mother and why the worship of Asherah was
not normative for the people of Judah and Israel. If someone will
take a stab at it, I will give it press.

What I won’t accept are angry people shouting at me or asserting I
have some agenda in deconstructing or opposing Christian Identity, or
assertions that history which conflicts with a personal and
idiosyncratic interpretation of the Bible invalidates the historical
facts and not the personal and idiosyncratic interpretations. If
Yahweh was not a pagan Sea God and serpent-consort to the Earth
Mother Asherah, I would like to see me demonstrated wrong.

I know the more level headed Christian Identity pastors out there see
this as a challenge and as a theological discussion worth having, but
I am constantly disappointed by those who see these things as yet
another opportunity to either consider themselves oppressed, accuse
me of “bashing” them, or to create further divisions in the white
movement. Religious questions are of great personal interest to me
not because I have a dog in the fight over how the Bible is
interpreted, but because I have very strong beliefs about Aryan
spirituality and find all input into the understanding of the
development of that spirituality from its root to the modern world to
be of great value. I have published letters we’ve received asserting
that various Nordic Gods are black, and I will publish material
asserting Yahweh is Aryan, assuming that it is of the quality of
argument our magazine both expects and demands.