Special Notices to All Who Deny Two-Seedline, Part 18


Christogenea is reader supported. If you find value in our work, please consider donating to keep it going! See our Contact Page for more information.


  • Christogenea Internet Radio
CHR20170915-CAE-SpecNotice18.mp3 — Downloaded 4739 times

  

Special Notices to All Who Deny Two-Seedline, Part 18

Melissa and I have spent the past week at the home of Clifton Emahiser, and with the help of many friends, packing his library and computers in order to move him to Florida, and going through all of his papers in order to determine what items of import should be preserved. We hope to leave Ohio on Tuesday morning, and it will probably take three days to drive home as we do not want to subject Clifton to too many hours on the highway at one time. Clifton has had countless correspondences and unfortunately it is not feasible to save most of them. He also has countless books and pamphlets, and we are packing the greater portion of them. If I had to guess, we will be transporting a literal ton of books, which are already packed into many dozens of large cartons. At first I thought we could move only the essential materials with a single 6'x12' trailer, and now we have also rented a 15' truck. Of course, Clifton is well and we have his help with this endeavor even if he cannot pack the boxes himself.

One night earlier this week, going through some of the cartons of old ministry-related letters and papers which we brought up from Clifton's basement, I found a letter which Clifton had written to Ted Weiland in June of 1997. I somehow doubt that it is the first letter which Clifton had written to Weiland, and there were a couple of others, but this is the earliest letter which we found. Here, because it is related to this topic of two-seedline, and because Clifton has been addressing Weiland throughout this series, we are going to read Clifton's 1997 letter:

Saturday, June 28, 1997

Clifton A. Emahiser

1012 N. Vine St.

Fostoria, Ohio 44830

Mission To Israel

P.O. Box 248

Scottsbluff, NE 69363

Attn: Ted R. Weiland:

This is not a letter of cordial greetings – as a matter of fact, this is a declaration of war! Right out front, I want to brand you exactly what you are, A LIAR!!! All of this nonsense about "Did She, Or Didn't She?" I have listened to most of your presentation on this subject. Don't get me wrong, this is not an attempt to convert you for Yahweh has evidently blinded your eyes so Israel might see. Evidently you have been predestined of Yahweh (like Pharaoh, Romans 9:17-22) to be a "vessel of wrath." So, therefore, there is nothing I could do or say to convince you you are wrong! I had to tell another man last October, Scott Vaught, that he was a liar, and now I am telling you the same thing!

Of course, we are now persuaded that to be predestined as a vessel of wrath, one must be a bastard, and perhaps that may be what Clifton insinuated even back then. As for Scott Vaught, in 1996 Clifton had attended a Christian Identity event in Loudon Tennessee, where Vaught spoke. Vaught was traveling in the same circles as the now-deceased pastor Eugene “Buddy” Johnson, and “Troublemaker” Russell Walker. These were the three musketeers of what we called the Ephraim-Scepter heresy, and they also typically confuse the Jews for the tribe of Judah. Shortly thereafter, those two errors were addressed by Clifton in a privately-circulated paper titled The Lies of Scott Vaught, which has never been posted to his website. Many of Clifton's arguments were later refined and republished as a series of papers titled The Ephraim-Scepter Heresy. Returning to Clifton's remarks to Ted Weiland, he continues and says:

For your lies, Yahweh will judge. But it was a little too late for Korah and Achan when they found out they were wrong! Its too bad their families had to suffer too! Yahweh will show you you are wrong – maybe it will be only for a few seconds, but He will show you – and you will know!

Yahweh always warns! – I am sending you proof with this mailing that you are wrong on the two seed-line truth. When Israel finally recognizes the truth of the two seed-line, they will hiss at the name of Ted R. Weiland. I am sending you my notes of the presentation I gave on the "Trees Of Genesis" plus a postscript, an article I wrote, "The Problem With Genesis 4:1", George M. Lamsa's interpretation of the idioms of Genesis 2:9 and Genesis 2:17, a passage from Gesenius' Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon of the Old Testament, and a passage from The Protevangelion, 10:1-10 of the Lost Books Of The Bible and The Forgotten Book of Eden.

I want to warn you, I am not through with you yet! THIS IS A WAR!!! I will chew up this stupidity of "Did She, Or Didn't She?", and spit it out in little pieces! I will expose you for the damn fool (and I know the seriousness of this charge) that you are! I don't usually use this kind of language, but in your case, I will make an exception! I have warned you – your blood is off of my hands! May Yahweh use this letter and materials in whatever way He chooses!

Clifton A. Emahiser

Now this letter raises some questions which I shall answer here as best as I can. Clifton began his Watchman's Teaching Letters and his prison ministry in May of 1998, and it would still be some years before his papers would be regularly published on the internet. But here we see that Clifton was addressing Ted Weiland in 1997, 11 months before he began his ministry. When Clifton began writing his teaching letters, his first topic was a lengthy series on Judah – before he changed gears and did another lengthy series on Egypt, and then moved on to other subjects later. For the most part, Weiland was not addressed until the end of 2001 when Clifton began writing this series of Special Notices, although in late 1999 Clifton published a paper titled A King James Version Bible With A Good Center Reference Teaches And Proves Two Seedline.

Here Clifton also mentions a paper titled The Problem With Genesis 4:1, but this is not a reference to the paper by that title which is currently published on his website. The paper which is now extant was not written until June of 2003. Originally the 2003 essay was titled The Problem With Genesis 4:1 Reconsidered, because Clifton had issued a much earlier paper by the same title, which was also only circulated privately. It is that older paper to which Clifton refers here in this 1997 letter to Ted Weiland, and I have not found any copies of it as of this time. There are a few drawers and cabinets left to empty.

As for me, it was not until October of 1997 that I even learned of Christian Identity, and I did not become a correspondent of Clifton's until perhaps mid-1999. I began proofreading for him perhaps around January of 2000. Clifton could not have known in 1997 that he would even start a ministry of his own, as he wrote in the opening paragraph of his first Watchman's Teaching Letter in May of 1998 that “Anyway I hope I can get this teaching letter out once a month. I am in the process of starting a teaching ministry. Since I came down with a heart attack February 6, 1998, I have dedicated the rest my life (at least what there is of it) to full time writing for the Almighty.” We pray he still has some years left to write. So we see that not only was Clifton resolved to countenance the lies of Ted Weiland even before he started his ministry, but Yahweh then gave him the means to do it, and now his writings are featured on the two largest and most-visited Christian Identity websites on the internet, for nearly ten years running, which are Christogenea and Israel Elect. For the greater part of the Christian Identity community, Clifton certainly has fulfilled his promise to chew up the folly of Ted Weiland, and spit it out in little pieces.

With this we shall begin our presentation of Clifton Emahiser's

SPECIAL NOTICE TO ALL WHO DENY TWO SEEDLINE, #18

It is of the utmost importance that it once more be loudly proclaimed that WE ARE AT WAR. We have been since the account in Genesis 3; with verse 15 identifying the conflicting parties as the “children of the serpent” and the “children of the woman.” While we are at the very zenith of that battle, the anti-seedliners are actually aiding and abetting the enemy on the opposing side, and use some of the most outlandishly unrealistic arguments for their treasonous conduct.

And Clifton is not going too far here, because we as a race are embroiled in a war between Yahweh our God and His enemies, which is explained in Revelation chapter 12. When we ourselves engaged and mingled with those enemies, as it is described in both Genesis chapters 3 and 6, we assured our own participation in that war. When supposed Christian pastors refuse to identify those enemies, or acknowledge that they even exist, they themselves must be counted among our enemies. As Yahshua Christ had said, “he that is not with Me is against Me”, and “he that gathers not with Me scatters”. Clifton continues and says:

With this Special Notice, we will scrutinize their hypothesis concerning “telegony”, which is a superstitious belief that goes back hundreds of years. Before we get involved in this discussion, it would be helpful to see how the 1996 Webster’s New Unabridged Dictionary defines it. While sometimes it is advisable to refer to an older dictionary, in this case, with the many advances in the knowledge of anatomy [or rather, biology], a newer one would be more advantageous.

telegony ... n. a former belief that a sire can influence the characteristics of the progeny of the female parent and subsequent mates. [1890-95; TELE- + GONY] ...”

[Now Clifton provides another definition from] The Reader’s Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary (1986): “telegony ... n. Biol. The alleged influence of a previous sire on the progeny of the same mother from subsequent impregnation by other males. [< TELE- + GONY] ...”

I remember that when I first proofread this essay for Clifton, it compelled me to spend a great deal of time in the library researching the biological processes involved in the reproductive system to determine whether telegony was really a possibility. The first I had read of it was in 1997, when I read Dan Gayman's book The Two Seeds of Genesis 3:15. By this time I had already rejected the premise of telegony on Scriptural grounds, and when I researched it here in early 2003 I became confident that it must also be rejected on scientific grounds. I found it quite unfortunate that Wesley Swift, Dan Gayman and others had accepted the concept of telegony as being scientific, thereby giving clowns like Jones and Weiland ammunition to use in order to try to discredit Two-Seedline. This unscientific theory must be rejected.

Lately there have been discoveries that cellular material from former male mates has been found in the brains and other organs of women. This phenomenon has been labelled microchimerism. Microchimerism is “the harboring of small numbers of cells that originated in a genetically different individual.” However such microchimerism is suspected as a cause of certain diseases, and it is not a factor at all in changing the actual reproductive system of a woman, or the substance or quality of her eggs. Before the discovery of such microchimerism was widely published in non-scientific sources, Clifton wrote a paper in 2009 titled Telegony, Fact Or Fiction? We presented that essay in a podcast at Christogenea in February of 2016, and added a discussion of microchimerism at that time. Microchimerism is not proof of telegony, and in truth there is no identifiable biological process through which telegony can occur.

Now we know much more to refute the claims of telegony than Clifton did as he wrote this in 2003, but he refuted it then to the best of his ability, and he certainly refuted it well. So here he continues and says:

In his 1978 book The Babylonian Connection, Stephen E. Jones used “telegony”, along with many other spurious arguments, in an ambiguous attempt to discredit Two Seedline doctrine; thus, exercising his skills as a master of deception. At the time he was able to get by with that false premise, as it was just prior to the general awareness of startling, new technology coming on the scene. On December 3, 1967 Dr. Christiaan Neethling Barnard of South Africa pioneered the first heart replacement. By 1968, nearly 100 heart transplants had been performed throughout the world. Some years later, the general public became aware of the need for anti-rejection drugs when a recipient receives an organ transplant. This factor of “immunity” alone will destroy the “telegony” hypothesis, but there is much more evidence to show Stephen E. Jones’ conclusions on this to be flawed. Let’s take a look at his primary conclusion on page 85:

The reason for including telegony in this discussion has been to relate it to the sexual interpretation of Genesis 3. Those who teach that Eve’s act was to have had sexual relations with, and to have been impregnated by, a negro, Satan, or anyone other than Adam, cast doubt on the purity of Abel, or Seth, and indeed upon Eve herself. And thus we may even doubt the racial purity of the entire white race, including Jesus Christ Himself ...”

So Jones used the prospect of telegony to taint our view of our entire race if we insist that two-seedline is true. But telegony is a belief based on junk science, which is not even science. So Clifton responds and says:

Had one followed Jones’ scheming line of reasoning up to this point, one would have fallen disastrously headlong into his mental entrapment. Once he concocted his false premise he was able to “establish” a perilous, erroneous, misleading conclusion. Like pretzels and Swiss cheese, Jones’ thesis is twisted and full of holes. In order to impress his readers and make himself appear an expert on the subject of “telegony”, Jones quoted from various publications predating the modern discovery of DNA and the intricate world of chromosomes. Nowhere did Jones address the modern-day study of genetics relating to DNA and chromosomes. Anyone having a basic understanding of today’s developments in genetics can quickly detect Jones’ unmitigated lies.

In his book, pages 77-85, Jones cites Trofim D. Lysenko, Conway Zirkle, Scheinfeld and Herbert L. Cooper, C. L. Redfield, V. A. Zhelnin, and Dr. Austin Flint. In citing these men and their opinions, Jones uses some very biased quotations. I have before me the 11th edition of The Encyclopedia Britannica (1910), which has an unbiased account of “telegony”, vol. 26, pages 509-510 and vol. 13, page 354. This encyclopedia cites nearly the same men, incidences and observations on cattle breeding as Jones does but with many conclusions to the contrary. While cattle breeding wasn’t the exact science in the 1800s as it is today, with the knowledge of DNA and chromosomes, nevertheless, they carried on experimental breeding under controlled conditions, proving the theory of “telegony” to be false. Interestingly, many of the ideas about “telegony”, during that period were coming from Charles Darwin, the inventor of the theory of evolution. In this same encyclopedia, vol. 26, page 509, it says this:

Darwin says, ‘It is worth notice that farmers in south Brazil ... are convinced that mares which have once borne mules when subsequently put to horses are extremely liable to produce colts striped like a mule’ (Animals and Plants, vol. i. p. 436). Baron de Parana, on the other hand says, ‘I have many relatives and friends who have large establishments for the rearing of mules, where they obtain from 400 to 1000 mules in a year. In all these establishments, after two or three crossings of the mare and ass, the breeders cause the mare to be put to a horse; yet a pure-bred foal has never been produced resembling either an ass or a mule.’

Now I must say, that the only ass in this equation is Stephen E. Jones. The arguments presented in Britannica are typical of what happens when unknowns are judged on mere opinions rooted in speculation. Continuing with Clifton's citation from Britannica:

The prevalence of the belief in telegony at the present day [before 1910] is largely due to a case of supposed infection reported to the Royal Society in 1820 by Lord Morton. A chestnut mare, after having a hybrid by a quagga, produced to a black Arabian horse three foals showing a number of stripes — in one more stripes were present than the quagga hybrid. The more, however, the case so intimately associated with the name of Lord Morton is considered, the less convincing is the evidence it affords in favor of ‘infection.’ Stripes are frequently seen in high-cast Arab horses, and cross-bred colts out of Arab mares sometimes present far more distinct bars across the legs and other zebra-like markings than characterized the subsequent offspring of Lord Morton’s seven-eighths Arabian mare. In the absence of control experiments there is therefore no reason for assuming Lord Morton’s chestnut mare would have produced less striped offspring had she been mated with the black Arabian before giving birth to a quagga hybrid. To account for the stripes on the subsequent foals, it is only necessary (now that the principles of cross-breeding are understood [before 1910]) to assume that in the cross-bred chestnut mare there lay latent the characteristics of the Kattiawar or other Indian breeds, in which stripes commonly occur.”

[Now Clifton responds to this Britannica article and says:] This evidence is entirely opposite to what Jones tried to make it appear about Lord Morton’s horses. It is glaringly obvious from this last quotation that Stephen E. Jones has taken the same position as the infamous Charles Darwin. In turn, all of the other anti-seedliners, in reading and believing Jones’ book, (like Weiland and company) have followed suit.

This is to be expected, as Clifton has already shown several times throughout this series that all of these anti-seedliners merely mimic one another. At this early time, this Britannica article has refuted the concept of telegony using a balance of witnesses. Stephen Jones only employed select witnesses that supported his own side of the story, and ignored the others. However the sad part is that Wesley Swift, Dan Gayman and others also accepted telegony, and made up bigger stories explaining how it does not affect our entire race. We must put all of this childishness aside. Telegony does not give some horses their stripes, but it certainly is horse manure. Continuing with Clifton:

Returning to The Encyclopedia Britannica of 1910, 11th edition, on page 510, we read the following under the heading Telegony in Dogs: “Breeders of dogs are, if possible, more thoroughly convinced of the fact of telegony than breeders of horses. Nevertheless, Sir Everett Millais, a recognized authority [before 1910], has boldly asserted that after nearly thirty years’ experience, during which he made all sorts of experiments, he had never seen a case of telegony. Recent experiments support Millais’s conclusion. Two of the purest breeds at the present day are the Scottish deerhound and the Dalmatian (spotted carriage-dog). A deerhound after having seven pups to a Dalmatian was put to a dog of her own breed. The result was five pups, which have grown into handsome hounds without the remotest suggestion of a previous Dalmatian mate of their dam.”

Clifton then makes a parenthetical note that there are more such incidences cited by the article. So basically, controlled experiments looking for telegony could not find it occurring. By the best scientific methods of the time, telegony is dog poop as well as horse manure. Returning to Clifton:

Continuing [with the Britannica article] on page 510: “Experiments with cats, rabbits, mice, with sheep and cattle, with fowls and pigeons, like the experiments with horses and dogs, fail to afford any evidence that offspring inherit any of their characters from previous mates of the dam; i.e. they entirely fail to prove that a female animal is liable to be so influenced by her first mate that, however subsequently mated, the offspring will either in structure or disposition give some hint of the previous mate.”

[Clifton now concludes:] Now that we have substantial testimony offsetting and overriding Stephen E. Jones’ fraudulent claims, let’s examine the process by which this hypothetical “telegony”, according to his book, is supposed to take place. Jones claims the following quotation is taken from “Applied Trophology.” This, in turn, was supposedly translated into English from Russian by a Bennett McCutcheon from Arizona State University. During the period leading up to 1978, when Jones was writing this book, exchange of information with the Soviet Union was rather scarce because of the imposed “Iron Curtain.” Thus, Jones was quite safe in presenting alleged documentation from that area, for who could check on its authenticity. After all, how many people are going to try to find a document on the topic of telegony in an inaccessible land written in a foreign language, and then have it translated into English? According to Jones, [on] page 80 [of his book], this article was marked “Circulation Restricted to Professional Use.” Generally, when a document is translated from one language to another, the flow of words are irregular and a bit difficult to read. Strangely, this alleged translation is very smooth and very easy to read. From his description, it is evident this article was never in any book or circulated by any recognized authority.

To Jones' credit, we did locate a facsimile PDF copy of the publication in question, and it is, in part, labelled as Jones had claimed. We discussed this topic at length in our presentation of Telegony, Fact Or Fiction? last year, but here we will only discuss it in brief. Applied Trophology was not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Rather, Applied Trophology was a public relations publication for a food supplement manufacturer called Standard Process Laboratories, a company which is still in business. Regardless of the nature of its articles, this is hardly a valid source for unbiased and academic scientific information. Now Clifton continues to discuss Jones' presentation of this spurious material, and rather reluctantly he says:

Anyway, this is what that reputed article allegedly said, [citing] page 82 [of Jones' book]:

In pregnancy the rapid cell division promotes the release of greater than normal quantities of protomorphogens into the blood from the embryo, and the maternal gonad becomes loaded up with embryo blueprints, as it were, which causes subsequent germ cells of the female to be contaminated with the blueprints of the father, for all embryo protomorphogens are one-half duplicates of the genes of each parent.

It is obvious, these protomorphogens circulating in the maternal blood influence repair and reconstruction to a tremendous extent.

It will be obvious that this presence of paternal ‘blueprints’ in the blood of a female who has had a child by one husband and subsequently remarries, the children of the latter marriage will be carrying characteristics of both male mates.”

Then, Jones comments on that quotation by stating: “When this newly-fertilized cell begins to divide itself and grow, they say, there is a subsequent release of some protomorphogens into the blood of the mother ... and thus the paternal genes could have a definite effect upon the mother herself and all subsequent offspring.” [emphasis CAE]

The word trophology is used to describe the study or science of nutrition, as it's Greek origin suggests. This is what I said in response to this in my 2016 presentation of Clifton's Telegony, Fact Or Fiction?:

Standard Process Laboratories does mention protomorphogens in some of their product literature. But these protomorphogens are “glandular extracts” which they market commercially with the claim that they are “necessary to direct the metabolic processes, growth and repair of all living tissue”, according to a website called rethinkingcancer.org. There is no indication that they have anything to do with reproduction, or that cell food can change the nuclear DNA of a cell. If that were true, we would all have become bananas or pineapples 7,500 years ago. The claims which Jones makes, or repeats, in this article are actually quite alien to current marketing materials for protomorphogens currently found at Standard Process Labs. Returning to Clifton, he responds to Jones's citation:

It’s at this point that Jones really blows his argument and exposes his ignorance. It’s common knowledge that there is no connection between the mother’s blood and the embryo or fetus. The fetus makes it own blood. The only use of the umbilical cord between the mother and fetus is for nourishment and oxygen in one direction and the elimination of waste products in the other. As the mother has an entirely different immune system than the fetus, the mother’s immune system would reject and destroy any part of the fetus, or the other way around. All this bull manure on the part of Jones is nothing more than conjecture, yet he finds those who agree and support his finagling! The Collier’s Encyclopedia, published in 1980, vol. 2, page 174, under “Anatomy, Human; The Reproductive System” says:

... There usually is no continuity between the mother’s blood and that of the embryo or fetus.” This is common knowledge and is found in many medical related publications. The definition of “continuity” is: (1) state or quality of being continuous, (2) a continuous or connected whole. The definition of “trophology” [here Clifton has] (trophoblast) [in parentheses] from the 1995 Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary is:

... n. Embryol. the layer of extraembryonic ectoderm that chiefly nourishes the embryo or develops into fetal membranes with nutritive functions.” Notice: it’s “fetal membranes” and not tissue of the mother. Jones and all those anti-seedliners use some of the most distorted arguments I ever heard!!!

Here Clifton evidently defined the closest word he could find, which is trophoblast. Since trophology is a term that even now is usually only found in specialized medical dictionaries, we are certain he did not find it in the dictionaries he used when this was written. He nevertheless makes a correct conclusion, that the nutrition of mother or infant has nothing to do with the genetic character of either mother or infant. So in a rather exasperated tone Clifton says:

Well, let’s continue.

Again, Jones uses Darwinian logic on pages 83-84 [of his book The Babylonian Connection] where he quotes Dr. Austin Flint’s Textbook of Human Physiology, when Jones comments: “Dr. Flint then commented on the belief that when a man and a woman have been married to each other for a long period of years, they begin to resemble each other. This phenomenon is called saturation. Dr. Flint asked of telegony: ‘May we not have here the explanation of the fact, which has frequently been pointed out, that husband and wife show a tendency to grow like each other, both physically and mentally, the resemblance after a long married life being sometimes very striking?’”

Of course, this is an “old wives' tale”, an archaic term for what is now called an “urban legend”. Although it is possible for husband and wife to go through similar biological changes if they both have the same diet and habits. For instance, a couple who spend their time together eating junk food and watching television will grow fat together, and an active couple with a healthy diet will grow lean together. But couples do not really start to look like one another after any length of time, unless of course they are of closely related genetics in the first place, as it is fitting for them to be according to our custom. Now Clifton responds to Jones' ridiculous assertions and says:

Do you comprehend the inference of what is being said here? Both Flint and Jones are implying that gradually the genetics of the couple are changing until they are alike. Can you understand the implications here? Well, if we understand the mechanics of intercourse, surely, with this hypothesis, only the wife’s genetics could change to that of the husband’s. Or could it be that the husband is affected genetically by kissing?!?! Surely, Judah, being married to the Canaanite woman Shuah for several years didn’t take on her Canaanite features! This convoluted hypothesis suggests that the wife loses the genetics of both her father and mother and gradually changes to that of her husband. Now if that isn’t Darwinism, I don’t know what is!!!

For a moment, let’s take a look at what happens at conception. Science knows today that each single cell of the human body has two sets of 23 chromosomes, or a total of 46. I will now quote The World Book Encyclopedia, volume 9, page 192d: “Every human body cell contains two sets of 23 chromosomes. These two sets look very much alike. Each chromosome in one set can be matched with a particular chromosome in the other set. Egg cells and sperm cells have only one set of 23 chromosomes. These cells are formed in a special way, and end up with only half the number of chromosomes found in body cells. As a result, when an egg and a sperm come together, the fertilized egg cell will contain the 46 chromosomes of a normal body cell. Half of the chromosomes come from the mother, and half from the father.”

We can clearly see that every cell in our bodies contains these same 2 sets of 23 chromosomes. Further, one set is found only in the male sperm and the opposite set found only in the female egg.

Before continuing, I must add to this that while a male develops sperm throughout his lifetime, a baby girl is born with all of her eggs already developed in the womb, so all of the genetic material which produces her contribution to her children is already intact, and there is no known biological process which changes the genes found in each of those hundred thousand or more ova. Clifton continues and says:

In essence, both Flint and Stephen E. Jones are intimating that somehow one or both parties of this marriage lose the 23 chromosomes each of their parents contributed to their genetic makeup. Such a thing would only create greater complications, as conception starts with one united cell containing 46 chromosomes (23 from each parent). As these cells divide and redivide they are directed to become various tissue such as muscle, heart, brain, bone etc. In doing this, every cell making up the body has this same genetic code built into it as was in the original cell (half from the father and half from the mother). Are Jones and Flint trying to suggest there is some kind of device that goes to all the millions of cells and gradually changes their DNA makeup from their original genetic code, and does it in synchronization? I find that idea fantastically unrealistic! Does this device somehow trade the wife’s chromosomes she got from her two parents in exchange for the chromosomes of her husband’s two parents?!?! Well, this seems to be the impetus of their intent. If what Flint and Jones are implying is true, at what point does a man’s wife become his sister?; and at what point in time does that married couple discontinue having normal lawful sexual relations and start to commit unlawful incest? Surely, if a wife takes on the genetic makeup of her husband, she would be genetically equivalent to his sister!

Or maybe even equivalent to his brother, since all of his genes contain male chromosomes rather than female, so even the sex of the wife must change! In that case, a man could not possibly avoid being a sodomite, so why would he ever stay married? Clifton continues and says:

Moreover, eventually by that hypothesis, one or the other of that couple could receive an organ transplant from the other without requiring anti-rejection drugs, which brings us [to] the subject of organ transplants. Before we consider that, let’s first look into DNA. Here is what the 1980 Collier’s Encyclopedia said 22 years ago in vol. 4, page 180: “The gene theory states that the characteristics of each generation are transmitted to the next by the units of inheritance known as genes. The genes are composed of deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA. The large complex molecules of DNA are made up of four kinds of subunits, called nucleotides, which are arranged in a double helix. The information in each gene resides in a particular order of these subunits. Since each gene is composed of 10,000 or so nucleotides arranged in some specific sequence, there is a very large number of possible combinations of nucleotides and therefore a large number of different sequences representing different bits of genetic information ...

The information in each gene is transmitted from one generation to the next by a code, called the genetic code, which involves the linear sequence of the four nucleotide units making up the gene. In each cell generation the gene undergoes replication, so that when the cell divides each of the two daughter cells gets an exact copy of the code. Also in each cell generation one or more transcriptions of the code may be made by which the genic [genetic] information is used to regulate the assembly of a specific enzyme or protein.” [emphasis CAE]

[Clifton now responds to his citation and says:] It is overwhelmingly apparent, the Almighty created us with a well regulated genetic code which can only be violated through miscegenation, and once defiled [it] can never be repaired. Our body cells are controlled by this “genetic code”, not telegony. Ladies, you’ll always be the genetic daughter of your father and mother, not your husband. Genesis 1:11 says the “seed is in itself ... after his kind.” In other words, our Creator has placed safeguards within us to protect that genetic code. That is why, when one receives an organ transplant, one must forever continue to take anti-rejection drugs to suppress one’s immunity. The subject of the “rejection process” is quite complex, but the following from the 1980 Collier’s Encyclopedia, vol. 18, page 219, under the topic of “Organ Transplantation” will serve for this discussion:

... When the donor and the recipient are identical twins or members of the same inbred line of animals, the procedure is known as isotransplantation ... Transplants performed between two individuals of different species or of the same species but not identical twins are subject to a process known as rejection. Identical twins, being derived from a single ovum, are exactly alike in all their tissues and therefore will accept tissue from each other without rejection ... According to present concepts, the immunological reaction is called forth by the exposure of the recipient to certain substances that are present in or on the living cells of the donor organ but are lacking in the recipient. These substances are called histocompatibility antigens. Histocompatibility antigens are determined by histocompatibility genes in much the same way as an individual’s hair color or iris color is determined: Each individual inherits a set of genes, basic units of heredity, and thereby antigens from each of the parents. Upon exposure to the donor’s antigens, the recipient responds by recognizing the tissue as foreign.” [emphases CAE]

Earlier in this presentation we discussed microchimerism. But just because genetic material from a prior mate may be found lodged in the tissue of a woman that does not mean that they remained alive. There is no evidence that the genetic material was from cells which survived inside the woman for long periods of time.

This data is sufficient to demonstrate, if any sperm cells survived from a former sire, and somehow found their way into the blood of the mother, they would be recognized as “foreign” and would be rejected by her immune system’s response to them. Secondly, if somehow the sperm cells of that sire survived in the blood and managed to find their way to her egg supply, they could in no way alter the genetics of those eggs. The 23 chromosomes of the male are paired to the 23 chromosomes of the female, and are directly opposite each other. Therefore, there is no way the male sperm could modify the 23 chromosomes of the female. Under such a hypothetical condition which Jones and Flint suggest, the chromosomes would be so mis-aligned and confused, if a next pregnancy were to occur, it would only result in a genetically deformed disorderly mass of twisted flesh. We only have to look at Down’s syndrome for comparison. For this, we will again use Collier’s Encyclopedia, vol. 16, pages 454-455:

MONGOLISM, now usually called Down’s syndrome, a development disorder characterized by mental retardation as well as by abnormalities of bone growth and other physical malformations ... The disorder is characterized by the presence of physical traits that are normal at an early stage of fetal development. Among these fetal traits are the narrow, slanting eyes which give such cases a superficial resemblance to Asiatic races ... Down’s syndrome actually has no racial connotations, but is a pathological condition that may occur in any human race ...

Causes. Although many factors have been proposed as causes of Down’s syndrome, it has now been established that persons with this disorder typically have 47 chromosomes instead of the normal 46. The occurrence of the additional chromosome results from an abnormality in the process of reproductive cell formation. In the normal process of reproduction cell division, one member of each chromosome pair goes to each cell ... In Down’s syndrome, the failure of one specific chromosome pair to separate (non-disjunction) results in the occurrence of that particular chromosome in triplicate in the offspring ...” [Clifton comments on this phenomenon and says:] If only one misplaced chromosome can cause that much havoc, consider the complications that would develop under Jones’ imagined concept.

Here we have it. The unfortunate occurrence of Down's syndrome in people reminds us of how fragile and dependent upon perfection the process of the birth of an entire child from a single sperm and egg combination really is. And if some catastrophic occurrence somehow mutated the genetics of every single egg in any particular woman, we can imagine that the consequences for her offspring would be far, far worse than a case of Down's syndrome. Clifton continues and says:

For further proof that Stephen E. Jones was using Darwinian theory in his The Babylonian Connection, pages 77-85, endorsing the hypothesis of “telegony”, I will now quote a paragraph from The Etiology of Racism in Europe from [an official] website [of the Turkish government, but the page is no longer available (http://www.mfa.gov.tr/grupe/eg/eg17/04.htm)] saying: “Later, when racist theories took hold of the ‘scientific community’, the racial inferiority of the Semites [sic Jews] was explained by the long-term adverse effects of their religion on the blood. This went so far as to revive telegony which implied that the fetus engendered by a mongrel male in a pure blood female modified the mother in its image in such a way that the latter descendants of the same mother were also condemned to impurity. It is noteworthy that this idea was forwarded by Spencer and found support in many writings of Darwin. Hence the source of Hitlerian laws prohibiting mixed marriages. [This we would dispute - WRF] Another consequence of Darwinian science was the reinforcement of heredity, promoting it to the rank of a universal law, and greatly contributing to racist theories and practice.”

While we can agree to a small degree with this last quotation, we must differ somewhat with the last sentence, for Darwin was interested to a greater degree on environment affecting future generations rather than heredity. The reason for including it here is to show the Darwinian connection and his unproved theory of telegony. On one occasion Darwin, because he couldn’t account for the many various features of a particular breed of cattle, said it was due to “spontaneous variations.” Based on modern DNA genetic science, it would be ridiculous to account for any variations in man or animal [as] somehow happening in such a haphazard way. Evidently, Darwin, like today’s anti-seedliners, never read Genesis 1:12 “after his kind.” That’s comparable to saying all the races came from Eve. Inasmuch as the anti-seedliners love Darwin’s theories, wait ‘till they start spreading that one. From all this you can see that when Stephen E. Jones spouts Darwinism loudly, the rest of the anti-seedliners, like an animal in heat in mating season sniffing at the air, couples with [or] believes it strongly and purchases Jones’ “Brooklyn Bridge.”

In conclusion, Clifton discusses the rather hare-brained opinions of Wesley Swift on this topic. Swift accepted telegony as fact, and made up a tale to cover for two-seedline beliefs once telegony was to be accepted:

There are many in Israel Identity who point out that a woman must go through seven gestations after relations with another race in order to purify herself. I don’t agree, as it insinuates that the first six children, although [of] Adamic (or pure) parentage, are no good. This is not true, and neither is there any evidence of there being six children between Abel and Seth. I would rather believe a waiting period would be necessary to see if any venereal diseases developed as a result of such a union.

Here we conclude our presentation of part 18 of Clifton's series. If we as a race really seek to come to the truth, we must dispense of dog poop, horse manure, and every crazy scheme that is not supported by our Scripture. The telegony theory is one such scheme, and both seedliners and anti-seedliners alike are responsible for the proliferation of a belief in such garbage through.

Two-seedline is true, telegony is bullshit, and the anti-seedliners are in bed with the enemy. Stephen Jones and Ted Weiland had better watch that their noses aren't growing as they cuck for their husbands the Jews, or perhaps that their genes are not changing as they sleep with their husbands the Jews.

CHR20170915-CAE-SpecNotice18.odt — Downloaded 138 times