Top

The Heretics’ Hour: Interview with Ray Goodwin

June 7, 2010

Ray Goodwin

Carolyn Yeager & Ray Goodwin discuss:

  • Ray’s nationalism & association with The Barnes Review
  • The Neanderthals & monotheism
  • Elie Wiesel’s call to criminalize holo denial
  • Rizoli brothers update

About Ray Goodwin

Ray Goodwin is a writer, singer, political nationalist, and former college instructor of American history. He is on the Barnes Review Board of Contributing Editors, been guest speaker at several nationalist conferences, and has delivered talks to Sons of Confederate Veterans in San Antonio, Austin, Corpus Christi and Victoria, Texas. He is a life-long resident of Texas.

12 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 54 min.

Contact Carolyn:
carolyn carolynyeager.com

Comments

29 Responses to “The Heretics’ Hour: Interview with Ray Goodwin”

  1. A German on June 8th, 2010 8:09 am

    Carolyn you said you phoned Micheal Bradley, is it possible to bring him on for a discussion?
    Or did he already deny?

    And if he denies, would it be possible to bring someone on with a scientific background in anthropology?
    I think this Neanderthal issue has to be solved.
    Otherwise, if it’s false, it will be constantly present as “truth”.

    Perhaps it also would nice to bring on a scientific contra guy and a layman believer like John de Nugent.

  2. A German on June 8th, 2010 8:26 am

    Another thing,
    could The Heretics’ Hour please become The Heretics’ 2 Hours?
    Or 2 1-hour-shows in a week?

    It’s really the best and most interesting show on VOR.

  3. Carolyn on June 8th, 2010 11:50 am

    German,

    Thank you for your praise of my show. It’s also my favorite program on VoR. Ha. No false modesty for me. :-)

    Some weeks I could do two shows, but other weeks, no. So it’s best to stick with a once a week format. I have other ongoing projects that require lots of time that I don’t want to give up.

    I’m glad you posed the question of having Michael Bradley as a guest. I don’t think The Heretics’ Hour is the place to “solve” the Neanderthal issue. In addition, Bradley, while he is perfectly congenial and forthcoming, takes his time and wants to delineate his entire “vision” (my word), which he presents in several books. This does not fit my format or style. I was more interested in the cultural aspects of the Neanderthals than the genetic, which is too complex for my show and also beyond my own background. The idea that they were “monotheists” is what perked my interest.

    I suggest you and others go to his website http://www.michaelbradley.info and read his material … and share what you get from it here, if you like. He suggested his “Esau’s Empire” in four parts is what everyone must read. You’ll find it there.

    Other of my listeners have written to me that they are fascinated with his work, while some (prior comments) criticise it. I am certainly not going to decide it here; I’m satisfied with bringing it to other’s attention.

  4. Rob on June 9th, 2010 2:49 am

    I just read the front page of Bradley’s website, and he has definitely changed his tune since his original “Iceman Inheritance” book, where he focused on Europe as the neandertal cradle and blamed all evil on white men, and at that point was claiming that the true semites were actually benign people, and that it was the khazarian caucasus jews who were the primary “semitic” menace. Now he has focused away from Europe to what he refers to as the “toxic lozenge” which he sees as the middle eastern semitic homeland and the armenoid caucasus. He’s even promoting a new anti-neandertal/semitic movement with a swastika as it’s emblem, but says:

    “I definitely do not look to White Nationalists, White Supremacists or Neo-Nazis for this leadership. Their outlook is too parochial, racist and navel-gazing about “white victimization”. Yeah, right, try talking very long to Blacks, Asians and American Native People about so-called “white victimization”. ”

    Bradley is also pro-feminist, so I guess he doesn’t feel feminism has done enough damage to the white birth rates and relationships between white men and women across the west. On this point, I would definitely side with those dreaded semite-neandertals when it comes to their anti-feminist stance. Bottom line is, Bradley is himself a sephardic JEW, so who knows what this character’s agenda is. We’ll have to see what further clarification of the genetic evidence brings, but to me it seems that the idea that European whites evolved away as radically as they did from the emergent modern homo sapiens sapiens from Africa, without significant input from the indigenous archaic neandertal hominids of Europe, is far-fetched.

  5. Rob on June 9th, 2010 3:01 am

    Another thing Bradley writes about neandertal-semites:

    “Physically, this subspecies is characterized by very great nasal development, extreme hairiness in males, long torsos and short legs, extremely high numerical and spatial intelligence, very little visual artistic ability, a low level of emotional stability, fanatical monotheism, anti-feminism and a predisposition to control, enslave or exterminate “ordinary humanity”"

    Aside from Jews who have signifcant white admixture which probably accounts for their significantly highter I.Q.s, I am not aware of any I.Q. tests that have indicated Arabs, Hamites, or armenoids from the caucasus as having “extremely high numerical and spatial intelligence.” Is anybody else?

  6. Carolyn on June 9th, 2010 3:48 pm

    Rob wrote:
    I am not aware of any I.Q. tests that have indicated Arabs, Hamites, or armenoids from the caucasus as having “extremely high numerical and spatial intelligence.” Is anybody else?

    Aren’t the Arabs known for their contributions to the development of mathematics? They are great builders, but their visual art consists solely of decorative patterns and “curlicues.” They don’t represent nature or images of people.

  7. Carolyn on June 9th, 2010 4:54 pm

    Rob wrote:
    Bradley is also pro-feminist, so I guess he doesn’t feel feminism has done enough damage to the white birth rates and relationships between white men and women across the west. On this point, I would definitely side with those dreaded semite-neandertals when it comes to their anti-feminist stance.

    You may not like the Liberal-Communist-Jewish feminism of our current times (neither do I), but what Bradley calls anti-feminism is just as bad. The Arab and Orthodox Jewish insistence on the submissiveness of women and girls; acceptance of sexual misuse of young girls, even children; little to no opportunity for education, forced early marriage … this may be in some degree acceptable to your male thinking, but from the female: once the bird is let out of the cage, it will not go back in again.

    You will never attract women to this cause (and we need them) by anti-women talk. Learn from what the National Socialists did: they encouraged women to be virtuous, beautiful, healthy and faithful by treating them well and with great respect for their ESSENTIAL contribution to the greater good. Women had all kinds of freedom to pursue their careers, but they had to excel to do so — it wasn’t given to them. The media didn’t encourage women to hate staying at home and raising a good-size family. When it came to employment, men came first; politics and military was considered “for men only;” but other than that women could do what they wanted.

    Women supported Adolf Hitler more than men did. Why?

    The National Socialists ,men were manly and brave enough to fight to drive the aliens out of their land and out of their government. [...] When men are men, women want to be women. That might sound trite, but it is tried and true.

  8. Carolyn on June 9th, 2010 4:59 pm

    Additionally, the difference between the height of a Cro-Magnon male and female was approx. 2 to 3 inches average. Contrast that to 11 inches for Neanderthals. This is very meaningful.

  9. Rob on June 9th, 2010 5:16 pm

    “The Arab and Orthodox Jewish insistence on the submissiveness of women and girls; acceptance of sexual misuse of young girls, even children; little to no opportunity for education, forced early marriage … this may be in some degree acceptable to your male thinking,”

    You’re way out of line trying to conflate what I wrote about feminism with the above. However, overall women should be subordinate to men who are the guiding force in any civilized society.

    “When men are men, women want to be women.”

    True

    “but from the female: once the bird is let out of the cage, it will not go back in again.”

    This is what all feminists, jews, blacks, white liberals, etc. would have us believe.

    [...]

  10. Rob on June 9th, 2010 5:32 pm

    “Additionally, the difference between the height of a Cro-Magnon male and female was approx. 2 to 3 inches average. Contrast that to 11 inches for Neanderthals. This is very meaningful.”

    Why is this supposed to be meaningful? I’ve read that the degree of sexual dimorphism is today still greater among whites than among other races. Unless you buy into Bradley’s theory that it’s because of the great difference between the sexes that caused so much mistrust between them. If this is the argument, then why is it sexually less dimorphous groups like east Asians are MORE patriarchal than white societies? No, I think the more apt question is, contra Bradley who asks why white men are so sexist, is what is it about white women that makes them feel so uncomfortable about being females that they’re so driven towards attaining “equality” with men? Granted, the jews have had a large part in instigating this, but it’s white females who seem to have really taken to it like fish to water, moreso than other women.

  11. Carolyn on June 9th, 2010 11:25 pm

    Rob,

    I don’t know a thing about you, have no idea who you are, but you know a lot about me since I have broadcast 14 or so programs here already.

    Thus said, you are being awfully touchy when you retort:
    “You’re way out of line trying to conflate what I wrote about feminism with the above.”

    I was not conflating this with what YOU said, but pointing out that ‘the above’ was what Bradley meant by anti-feminimism. This type of anti-feminism I don’t think any white man would be for.

    “However, overall women should be subordinate to men who are the guiding force in any civilized society.”

    Women should only be subordinate when they agree to be out of respect and/or love for the man, and most women, under normal circumstances, do agree to mild subordination. I am wondering what kind you have in mind? And I’m not sure that it makes for a more “civilized” society … that’s a questionable word.

    “This is what all feminists, jews, blacks, white liberals, etc. would have us believe.”

    So I’m a feminist for saying that? It happens to be true, no matter whether you like it or not.

    [...]

    Does it upset you to have woman’s perspective? And how could a woman’s perspective be any different?

  12. Carolyn on June 9th, 2010 11:50 pm

    Rob replied:
    “Why is this supposed to be meaningful? I’ve read that the degree of sexual dimorphism is today still greater among whites than among other races. Unless you buy into Bradley’s theory that it’s because of the great difference between the sexes that caused so much mistrust between them.”

    I mentioned the differences in height. Of course, that is meaningful. If someone is a foot taller than you, and much stronger, of course you’re going to be submissive. We’re not talking about whites and other races, but about male domination among different groups. You continue to imprint your own ideas onto my words.

    As to mistrust, I have not mistrusted the men in my life. Obviously, you experience mistrust with women; it speaks out in everything you say. I will say this though: I have always preferred and chosen men close to my own genetic heritage. I naturally trust them because they are like me and I have not been disappointed. This is why I believe in not only racial, but ethnically-based relationships, and why I’m a nationalist.

    German men are very nice to women. They are not over-controlling, and they are intelligent and cultured in a not-conceited way. We have no need for any of this Jewish bs about patriarchy that so many white nationalist men love to talk about. German men are pretty faithful, in general, and good fathers.

  13. Rob on June 9th, 2010 11:56 pm

    Madame, as typical it is for a woman to pick a fight and then blame it on a man, your crafty attempt at projecting your own touchiness onto me doesn’t fly. You enumerated a litany of shortcomings you feel inherent in orthodox judaism and islam, and then stated,

    “this may be in some degree acceptable to your male thinking,”

    This was clearly an unfriendly jibe. You instigated a confrontation where none was sought, at all, and I merely responded in kind.

    “but from the female: once the bird is let out of the cage, it will not go back in again.”

    “This is what all feminists, jews, blacks, white liberals, etc. would have us believe.”

    “So I’m a feminist for saying that? It happens to be true, no matter whether you like it or not.”

    No, it’s merely the opinion of someone who sounds like she’s internalized some feminist conditioning.

    [...]

  14. Rob on June 10th, 2010 12:05 am

    “We have no need for any of this Jewish bs about patriarchy that so many white nationalist men love to talk about.”

    Yup, a feminist.

    It was originally the Indo-Europeans who spread patriarchy across the ancient world. It’s our legacy, like it or not.

    Take care.

  15. Carolyn on June 10th, 2010 12:06 am

    Rob wrote:
    “No, I think the more apt question is, contra Bradley who asks why white men are so sexist, is what is it about white women that makes them feel so uncomfortable about being females that they’re so driven towards attaining “equality” with men? Granted, the jews have had a large part in instigating this, but it’s white females who seem to have really taken to it like fish to water, moreso than other women.”

    Did Bradley ask that question? By the way, I read his Esau paper, Part 1 and Part 4; he makes real errors in a few things that I knew about, so I have to assume he makes errors also in things I don’t know about and couldn’t catch. I don’t put that much store in him and I am not conducting an apologia for Michael Bradley.

    White women are uncomfortable about being female?? I don’t think so. What you are revealing, Rob, is that you want white women to “think” and “behave” like filipino women or asian women or mexican women, but look white.

    You want to define what women should be, so that they are EASY for you to deal with. Women are very responsive creatures, and they are responding to the Jewish media/culture that is setting the images. If men are the naturally dominant sex, as you say, it is their (your) job to take charge of the culture and change it. You can’t do it, you say? Is it the fault of white women?

  16. Carolyn on June 10th, 2010 12:32 am

    “this may be in some degree acceptable to your male thinking,”

    Yes, I did say that, but notice I said “in some degree.” As I said, I don’t know you from Adam and you sound very anti-feminine.

    [...]

    YOU may be talking about Neanderthals, but I am talking about excessive male domination and whether it is a Neanderthal trait, turned into a jewish/arab trait, as distinct from Cro-Magnon/modern European. That is, what is it’s origin and is it good or bad?

  17. Carolyn on June 10th, 2010 12:59 am

    By the way, Mr. Rob, you did say at 2:49 a.m.:
    “On this point, I would definitely side with those dreaded semite-neandertals when it comes to their anti-feminist stance.”

    That explains why I replied that you might agree in some degree with my examples of Bradley’s meaning of anti-feminism. So you are crafty yourself in then claiming I am instigating a confrontation where none was sought. I am just answering you and seeking clarification.

    I thought you perhaps wanted to discuss this, but see that you prefer to attack another “feminist” and go away satisfied that you have proved your point. But your movement will remain womanless until you are willing to listen to what women say. I for one have at this point given up trying to help.

  18. A German on June 10th, 2010 6:15 am

    In my perspective the ARYAN way was and is:
    Women have their place and should accept it.
    But that does not mean that they’re handled like slaves, like in semitic cultures.

    Look at the nationalsocialist family model, the man clearly was the head of the family, but the mother and wife also was a shadow head of the family by her soft power.

    Both were equal, but the women accepted their role, as the men did.

    In contrast to that, we’ve the modern feminism, where women don’t accept their role anymore and always want to sack men and do everything by their own. They want to break into every single man’s domain there is.
    And men become whining weiners. Or eternal childs, who also don’t want to play their role anymore.

    And by this behaviour we destroy our healthy family structure, which destroys our demographics for 40 years now, and at the end our whole race!

    That’s why the Jew is and was, from the beginning on, a champion of feminism!
    He favors everything what destroys the white race.
    Feminism, Multi Cult, immigration-invasion, the pill, abortion…
    But at the same time he wants the opposite for himself!

    We have to return to the old family model and gender model.
    The man is the top and the woman is his respected supporter.

    Nuff’ said.

  19. Carolyn on June 10th, 2010 2:03 pm

    German,

    You can’t expect that these “guidelines” will ensure that all families live in respectful regard with one another.

    I grew up with a best friend living across the street in a family where the father caused distress and misery for his wife and four daughters. He was just a bully, and carried on beating them all when the mood struck him, except his youngest daugher who was his “pet.” She was the least intelligent one, too. She was never blamed for anything. I saw it all the time and I was so grateful my father wasn’t anything like that. These people were Czech and he had bright red hair. Their relatives, who visited sometimes from a neighboring town, were nice people. it was just this guy who had one of those sick personalities.

    His wife, who had borne four daughters, managed to become a kindergarten teacher in the Lutheran School — I don’t think she was fully accredited — to gain a little bit of independence, and cash, because this guy was also extremely stingy. She went to work everyday in this old, old car that often as not had trouble starting, carrying piles of library books for her students, while he drove his company truck which he was given to use.

    On top of that, she also did all the cooking, cleaning, shopping etc. and had to sleep with that monster in a double bed every night. They argued a lot. Once, I was spending the night with my friend and we heard them arguing in their bedroom. Then he was actually hitting her; you could tell. It was dreadful. I think from then on she always came to my house for our “overnights.”

    Actually, they often went grocery shopping together at night so he could direct what she was able to buy and what not. They had food like “oleomargarine” and cheap boloney as regular staples. She endured this until her daughters were all out of school, except for the youngest, and she had saved up enough to put a decent down payment on a house, and she left that guy with no tears shed, keeping the youngest daughter with her. The word was she was now very happy to be free. I don’t think she ever tried to get a dime from him. In fact, I know she didn’t because she “snuck away” and she didn’t want him coming after her or harrassing her.

    He spent quite a few years living alone in that house and seemed to get along alright. Everyone said he was just fine.

    So we go from women being abused to women having rights, and then it goes too far in that direction, mainly engineered by political enemies. What is needed is to keep things in balance, not to take rights away from women, or make them dependent on male moods and personalities. Women in the Nordic-Teutonic-Scandinavian regions in pre-Christian times had plenty of rights. They were seen as equal partners, not as submissive sacrifices to weak male egos.

    Is this a problem? At one time there was Matriarchy; then there was Patriarchy. Maybe something new is breaking through that combines the two in a more balanced way. Who will be the leader in that?

  20. Rob on June 10th, 2010 4:48 pm

    German, I wholeheartedly endorse your position regarding male/female relations, and in this respect, though some feminists here have expressed their displeasure with him, I totally agree with Evola’s view on male/female polarities. Man is the motionless mover- the rational and guiding light. Woman is like an electron magnetically attracted to and guided by the nucleus, which confers stability and direction upon the blind generative energy of the electron. This isn’t a matter of ideology, or what we wish it to be or not to be- it simply is a fact of physical and metaphysical reality.

    Those who would bring up individual exceptions to the rule, such as abusive spouses, do nothing but demonstrate their own irrationality. We clearly see where Teutonic-Nordic egalitarianism has led the modern Scandinavians today. It’s not something that should be esteemed or emulated, and we should have the courage to admit shortcomings where they exist. Not everything Germanic is perfect, and Schopenhauer himself wrote:

    “we with our Old French gallantry and insipid women-veneration, that highest flower of Christian-Germanic stupidity which has served only to make women so rude and arrogant”

    As to the national socialists in Germany, they most definitely DID endorse Evola’s patriarchal vision of Aryan civilization, though they disagreed with what they viewed as his monarchic reactionary ideological viewpoint. Herman Wirth, the first president of the Ahnenerbe, the Ancestral Research division of the SS, claimed the Aryans had come from a nordic polar civilization and that their religion was originally matriarchal. I’ve not been able to verify it, but one source I’ve read states that he was sent to a concentration camp later for advancing this matriarchal view. Anybody claiming that national socialist Germany was advancing some type of new progressive egalitarian post-patriarchal system has either imbibed a heavy dosage of feminist poison or is being willfully ignorant.

  21. Carolyn on June 10th, 2010 11:48 pm

    Rob said of me: Those who would bring up individual exceptions to the rule, such as abusive spouses, do nothing but demonstrate their own irrationality.

    Individual exceptions? There are tons of them! You want to keep to a metaphysical idea of male-female polarity, and expect women to jump for joy over being named the “blind generative energy” part of it. But of course, you’re not expecting that; you’re going to force them into compliance. Good luck. This is déjà vu for me – I’ve been in this conversation before.

    The SS department that was concerned with such things thought Julius Evola might have something to offer as far as his research into pagan traditions was concerned and gave him an SS uniform so he could come and go in their building to conduct his research. But he was never inducted into the SS. After awhile, they became less than satisfied and concluded he had little to contribute to their program. The idea that someone was sent to a concentration camp for his research on matriarchy is laughable. Evola was a man who never married, or even had a real girlfriend, and always lived in his mother’s house. He stupidly walked around during a bombing raid reflecting on his ideas, and became a cripple from it. This seems to be an inspiration for many of you.

    I am not aware that anyone in this comment section has “claimed that national socialist Germany was advancing some type of new progressive egalitarian post-patriarchal system.” Are you? You have misrepresented my position and my very words from the beginning, but that’s a clever use of words on your part, proving you are indeed a crafty slanderer. However, you don’t know much about National Socialism and even less about Adolf Hitler.

    But enjoy your Evola discussion group.

  22. Bud Frank on June 12th, 2010 2:12 pm

    I see my last comment was deleted. I understand. It was to the point, but perhaps impolite. For that I appologize.

    Its just that Rob seems to take a small difference of viewpoint on what is really an ancillary matter in the grand view of things and tries to gin it into an emotionally taxing conflagration.

    To me this seems, oh I don’t know, WOMANISH?

  23. Carolyn on June 12th, 2010 9:29 pm

    Bud,

    I highly appreciate your speaking up.

  24. Bud Frank on June 12th, 2010 10:12 pm

    Carolyn,

    your shows are intelligent and worthwhile. Of course, I don’t agree with every single statement or argument made by every single guest or by you, but I agree with the spirit and intent of your program.

    Dialogue and debate are important to any viable, healthy group or movement but nitpicking and character attacks are different. That kind of thing is destructive and really peaves me.

  25. Rob on June 12th, 2010 11:45 pm

    Character assassination? Excuse me, but if that were the case, it would have been my posts which were deleted, not yours.

    As to nitpicking, I was rebutting the inference that A) European Cro-mags have a completely separate evolutionary history from neandertals, and I was making the point that it is likely we, too, have neandertal genetics; B) Carolyn stated something about us not needing any “jewish BS about patriarchy”, the inference being that patriarchy is something peculiarly alien and unnecessary for whites, to which I responded that if anything, patriarchy was an integral trait of Indo-Europeans who are the ones thought to have spread patriarchy through their conquests. I countered salient points, and that’s nitpicking? The whole thrust of her argument was one of deconstructing patriarchy, something that usually only dyed-in-the wool feminists have such a vehement disdain for, and for that, I still maintain she is espousing feminist ideas. That’s my opinion. Period and end of story. I don’t subscribe to this notion we should all just remain deferential and silent on certain topics when women make such off-the-wall pronouncements because we don’t want to alienate them or appear divisive. Bear in mind, Carolyn did not care a wit about seeming divisive or alienating anybody when she took a swipe at some of Tom Sunic’s program topic choices. That’s all I have to add to this matter.

  26. Carolyn on June 13th, 2010 1:50 am

    Excuse me, Rob, but great parts of your posts WERE deleted (maybe you hadn’t noticed), as were parts of mine.

    The deletions included some of the things you have just mentioned again. Will they stand?

  27. Carolyn on June 13th, 2010 1:58 am

    “B) Carolyn stated something about us not needing any “jewish BS about patriarchy”, the inference being that patriarchy is something peculiarly alien and unnecessary for whites, …”

    I was clearly speaking of my relationships with German men. It’s still there in my post of June 9 at 11:50 p.m.

    “German men are very nice to women. They are not over-controlling, and they are intelligent and cultured in a not-conceited way. We have no need for any of this Jewish bs about patriarchy that so many white nationalist men love to talk about. German men are pretty faithful, in general, and good fathers.”

    I think Bud is right; you are just looking for something that you can attack me on because you’ve got “feminists” on the brain, and you’ve got a grudge against women. I sympathize.

  28. Ragnar on June 14th, 2010 7:06 am

    Great show. Thank you.

  29. Christopher Marlowe on June 25th, 2010 5:42 pm

    I was looking forward to hearing this show because I am fascinated by the Neanderthal mystery, and the possible relation to modern day Jews. I thought the proof of Neanderthal monotheism sounded weak, and I was similarly disappointed by Piper’s discussion of this topic on his show. I guess I might have to drudge up the Barnes review article and actually read it myself. ; (

    I don’t think it is fair to paint Christianity with the zionist brush. If you actually read the bible, it is Jesus who points out that the Jews have fallen away from God’s teaching, and that they follow their own made up laws. Mt 15:7-9: “Hypocrites, well hath Isaias prophesied of you, saying: This people honoureth me with their lips: but their heart is far from me. And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men.”
    Also Jesus called the Jews liars and the sons of satan. John 8:44: “You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.” Similarly the apostle Paul shows how the Jewish law is inferior to Christian Grace, and Paul says that Christians are not governed by Jewish laws.

    The current hijacking of the Churches by Christian zionists is a fake religion that is contrary to scripture. There is no such thing as “Judeo-Christian”. The Jewish Talmud defames Jesus and the Blessed Mother. How can there be any meeting of the minds between those faiths when Jesus, the central figure of Christianity is defamed by the main book of the Jewish faith?

    Christian zionism is a falsehood that is paid for by the Jewish bankers and promoted in the Jewish media. An example of this fake religion is demonstrated by the fake Christian minister John Hagee, who says that Jesus did not claim to be the Messiah.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7m6pPnQjn7w
    But see John 4:25-6 “The woman saith to him: I know that the Messias cometh (who is called Christ). Therefore, when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith to her: I am he, who am speaking with thee.”
    I probably don’t need to tell you that Christ was not Jesus’ last name, but rather that term means “anointed”. “Jesus Christ” means that Jesus is the Messiah. For someone to claim that he is a “Christian” pastor and claim that Jesus was not the Messiah is a contradiction.

    Promoting the wicked land of Jewish israel over Jesus is not Christian, but rather a sign of the Anti-Christ. I don’t think it is fair to confuse Christianity with the Its opposite.

Bottom