R U Woke? Part 2



Sermon notes by Jim Jester

October 31, 2021

Scripture Reading: Luke 10:17-20

And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.’ 18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.’ 19 Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you. 20 Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.’” (KJV)

Biden has said, “The greatest threat to America is White Supremacy.” No, the greatest threat is Democrats in control of the nation. Their voting policies imply that black people are “dumb” and white people are “racist.” Many political and religious leaders consider racism and white supremacy “unforgivable sins.” They are considered “woke” (their slang term meaning “awake to racial problems”). Are you woke? Christian Identity is already “woke,” i.e., awake to the racial context of the Bible. We challenge all judeo-Christians, and the public in general, to accept the reality of God’s Word on this subject.

Does the Bible have anything to say about “wokism” or “Critical Race Theory?” Well, it has much to say concerning critical race facts (and that is the purpose of this series). Those who are promoting CRT are the usual suspects, i.e., those of the satanic seed-line. Their purpose is a purely political agenda; not that they care about the plight of other races. Their religion is Covid, and their “vaccine” is the sacrament of induction to their cult.

NYC shrink tells Yale audience she fantasizes about shooting white people in head – Samuel Chamberlain, June 4

A New York City-based psychiatrist told an audience at the Yale School of Medicine in April that she had fantasies of “unloading a revolver into the head of any white person that got in my way.”

Dr. Aruna Khilanani spewed the race-hating virtual remarks — in which she also said she’d walk away from the shooting “with a bounce in my step” and that white people “make my blood boil” and “are out of their minds and have been for a long time” — at the Ivy League institution’s Child Study Center on April 6.

A flyer promoting the talk and posted online by Weiss titled the lecture, “The Psychopathic Problem of the White Mind” and included “learning objectives” such as “Set up white people’s absence of empathy towards black rage as a problem” and “Understand how white people are psychologically dependent on black rage.”

“We are calm, we are giving, too giving, and then when we get angry, they use our responses as confirmation that we’re crazy or have emotional problems,” Khilanani said. “It always ends that way, happens every time.” …

“Nothing makes me angrier than a white person who tells me not to be angry, because they have not seen real anger yet,” she said — before talking about how she “systematically” cut off most of her former white friends “around five years ago.” …

A New York City-based psychiatrist told an audience at the Yale School of Medicine in April that she had fantasies of “unloading a revolver into the head of any white person that got in my way.”. “It was also a public service,” she said. “I had fantasies of unloading a revolver into the head of any white person that got in my way, burying their body and wiping my bloody hands as I walked away relatively guiltless with a bounce in my step. Like I did the world a f**** favor.”

Later in the talk, Khilanani claimed that conversing with white people about racial issues was “useless because they are at the wrong level of conversation. White people are out of their minds, and they have been for a long time … White people feel that we are bullying them when we bring up race,” she said.

“They feel that we should be thanking them for all that they have done for us. They are confused, and so are we.”

“We keep forgetting that directly talking about race is a waste of our breath,” Khilanani continued. “We are asking a demented, violent predator who thinks that they are a saint or a superhero to accept responsibility. It ain’t gonna happen.”

“They have five holes in their brain. It’s like banging your head against a brick wall.”

Khilanani said, “Addressing racism assumes that white people can see and process what we are talking about. They can’t. That’s why they sound demented. They don’t even know they have a mask on. White people think it’s their actual face. We need to get to know the mask.”

[End of article]

We fought a civil war to end slavery in America at the cost of 850,000 people (if former slaves were included, it would be well over a million). That was “reparations” enough; we don’t need to pay them anything today. A war was not necessary because slavery was on its way out, as inventions were being developed to harvest cotton. Lincoln even had a deal on the table to allow slavery to continue nearly to the turn of the century. However, this was dropped after the breakout of the war.

Black folk have had “civil rights” since the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1962. Most Americans are not racist, yet blacks continue to push the narrative that they are being persecuted and even killed by white folk. Why all the violence? Because America is no longer a Christian land governed by Christian laws. Christian laws have a restricting effect on the sinful inclinations of all men, both black and white. During the civil war, in spite of Lincoln’s “emancipation proclamation,” the blacks, to their credit, did not rise up against their masters in the South. They had been quite civilized and Christianized due to southern culture. For example, General “Stonewall” Jackson even violated southern law by teaching black children in his Presbyterian Sunday school class. No doubt, he thought it a good endeavor to help the Negro in this temporal life; but most southerners realized that you can take a man out of the jungle, but it is futile to try to take the “jungle” out of the man. But in contrast today, Christianity has been attacked and discredited and no longer has the effect it once had upon the Negroes. Now they are easily manipulated by our enemies, and are more prone toward their animalistic instincts and over-reactionary emotions.

Everyone loses in a war; only the Rothschild bankers benefited from the War of 1861 (that is another story). Does any of this history matter to this mixed race psychiatrist from NYC?


Is White Supremacy in the Bible? Or, is there any kind of a superior position granted to a race? What say the Scriptures?

“The LORD had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and He chose their seed after them, even you above all people.” (Deut. 10:15)

“For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth.” (Deut. 14:2)

To whom do these verses apply? In admitting that some form of supremacy exists, then we must ask, whose supremacy is it? Does superiority belong to the Asians, the Blacks, the “Jews” or the Whites? You have to pick one: if the blacks are the chosen, then they have superiority; if the jews are the chosen, then they have superiority.

The Scriptures teach there is someone granted a superior position. It is God’s order of things. If Israel is the White race (and we believe history clearly proves such), then supremacy belongs to us. Since God is supreme (that no one will deny), then we, His children, are also granted supremacy in God’s arrangement of the cosmos.

Here is my premise for the “judeo-Christian” church — to deny the existence of White Supremacy is to admit that some other form of supremacy exists to take its place, for you must admit that God has a superior position for someone. The typical judeo may believe it is the jews, but jews do not fulfill the many prophecies about the Israelites.

Introduction of Satan

In chapter three of Genesis, Satan is on the loose (Oh, I thought I already introduced her — the psychiatrist, “KILL-anani,” who dreams of killing white people as a service to “humanity”). The very first verse mentions the opposition party: “Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.” We can see from the passage below that the personage of Satan has many names:

“And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, 8 and prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. 9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.”  (Revelation 12:7-9)

I have referred to the “personage” of Satan, or this serpent, because we know little about him and his origin. It is hard to prove who, or what, this mysterious entity is. From the passage above, we could deduce that this being is an “angel” (a fallen one). This is the popularly held position of most of Christianity. One thing we can be sure of is that this “old serpent” (old as the Garden) was very “subtle” (sneaky, clever, cunning).

Some have linked the fallen angel, Satan, with the name “Lucifer” (meaning, “shining one”). This likely is a mistake (although appropriate in meaning), because many rulers think highly of themselves. There are places in Scripture where the identity of Satan is clearly a mortal man, and the following is one of them. Many have viewed this as a symbolic picture of Satan, and point to it as proof of Satan’s fall.

“How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! 13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.” (Isaiah 14:12-14)

While this could be a picture of “Satan” (if “Lucifer” is Satan), this passage is from a “proverb” (or “parable,” q.v., Isa. 14:4,), likely even a song of rejoicing; because captive Israel was to be delivered from the king of Babylon in the future. Verse 16 says of this king, likely the Assyrian emperor, Sargon II, “…Is this the man [ish] that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms…” It is obvious, at least here, that a man is not a fallen angel, neither is he a highly powerful and supernatural “devil” as most of the Christian world has depicted him.

The point I want to make is, that whoever or whatever we think Satan to be, or even if he/she/or it still exists, we should not be granting the “devil” more credit than he deserves; the main point being, that he exists as a seed-line in the progeny of Cain. And, it is here that we have direct contact with him very often, by way of those people.

Jesus said: “I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven” (Lk. 10:18). This is the same kind of language we saw from Isaiah concerning the king of Babylon. The king had fallen from his place of authority or “high place.” Many times, the word “heaven” (a high place) is used to symbolize the place of authority and power, as well. This is the context of our Scripture text: “…even the devils are subject unto us through thy name” (v. 17); and, “I give unto you power to tread on serpents…” (v. 19). Jesus evidently read from Isaiah. Jesus also knew He came to intervene on behalf of His people: “For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil” (I Jn. 3:8). Praise be to God!

In this series, we are examining the issue of race from the Old Testament perspective. We are in chapter three of Genesis:

“And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. 7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.” (Genesis 3:6-7)

To “eat” is symbolic of a sexual encounter (unless context shows otherwise). Nothing is said here about who had sex with whom. That is left open to speculation; it could have been anyone of any “tree” (a family tree?), i.e., anyone capable of copulation, including the “serpent.” Their eyes “were opened;” they were awake (or “woke”); and knew they were “naked.” That certainly is a major clue as to what was going on in the garden. Indeed, the next passage is a testimony to this truth:

“And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. 14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed…” (Gen. 3:13-14)

Take note that Eve confessed what she did, and furthermore, God stated that the serpent had “done this.” It takes two to tango, does it not? This was Eve’s awakening. There was more going on than simply the serpent questioning God’s authority. They both participated in a sexual act. Also notice, that at this particular moment, it appears that Adam, is nowhere in sight. Verse 9 strongly implies this: “Then the Lord God called to Adam and said to him, ‘Where are you (NKJV)?’” Don’t you think God knew Adam’s location? Of course He did, He is God. But there are implications here for Adam, and for all husbands: where are you in your protective ability for your wife?

Some would claim that the “serpent” (or the fallen angel, Satan) is incapable of copulation, so this idea could not be true. Mainstream Churchianity will always quote Jesus: “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven” (Matt. 22:30). They will use this to dismiss the idea that an “angel” could possibly mate with a woman in the mortal world. But as anyone can see in Jesus’ statement, He is referring to “the angels in heaven”, not on the Earth.

Of course, in our verse concerning the “serpent,” we also know that literal serpents cannot talk either, so this serpent must have been much more than a typical reptile. So likewise, angels could very well take on other abilities when in the present, physical, mortal world order. Furthermore, there are passages of Scripture to show that angelic beings could take a human or a man like form:

“And the angel of the LORD appeared unto the woman, and said unto her, Behold now, thou art barren, and bearest not: but thou shalt conceive, and bear a son.” (Judges 13:3, KJV)

Now, we do not know when she conceived, but can only speculate. The International Standard Version put it this way: “…Though you are infertile at this time and haven’t borne a child, you’re about to conceive and give birth to a son.” Could this “angel” have impregnated the woman, or just healed her so she could conceive by her husband?

“Then the woman came and told her husband, saying, A man of God came unto me, and his countenance was like the countenance of an angel of God, very terrible [awesome], but I asked him not whence he was, neither told he me his name.” (Judges 13:6, KJV)

She was honorable enough to tell her husband, but the identity of the “angel of the Lord” was unknown. Here we pick up the narrative:

“Then Manoah intreated the LORD, and said, O my Lord, let the man of God which thou didst send come again unto us, and teach us what we shall do unto the child that shall be born. 9 And God hearkened to the voice of Manoah; and the angel of God came again unto the woman as she sat in the field: but Manoah her husband was not with her.” (Judges 13:8-9)

Could this have been the point at which she conceived by the angel?

“And the woman made haste, and ran, and shewed her husband, and said unto him, Behold, the man hath appeared unto me, that came unto me the other day. 11 And Manoah arose, and went after his wife, and came to the man, and said unto him, Art thou the man that spakest unto the woman? And he said, I am. 12 And Manoah said, Now let thy words come to pass. How shall we order the child, and how shall we do unto him?” (Judges 13:10-12)

These were the events surrounding the birth of Samson; who was greatly used by God in delivering Israel from Philistine bondage.

The next case to show that angelic beings can take on manlike capabilities is from the account of Lot in Sodom:

“And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; 2 And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night. 3 And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.” (Gen. 19:1-3)

“5 And they [the homosexuals of Sodom] called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them. 6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, 7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. 8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.” (Gen. 19:5-8)

So, the two “angels” are also referred to by the masculine appellations: lords and men. These men also needed food and rest. Isn’t it logical then to conclude, that these “angels” also had the same capabilities of mortal life that all men do?

Finally, the statement from God that the act of the “serpent” with Eve would result in two separate seed-lines (or family trees), of which will exhibit extreme enmity:

“And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” (Gen. 3:15)

There is something sexual going on here, is there not? It is slightly masked in symbolism, but the clues are obvious as to what has transpired in this chapter of Genesis. The “serpent” impregnated Eve.

Another thing is certain, there is more than one seed-line of descendants. Many want to avoid this truth. If it is true that all races came from one couple (Adam/Eve), as most theologians affirm, then why are there two seed-lines? Somewhere along the way, another seed was introduced. There are two possibilities: either from the “serpent” or from another race that existed before Adam, representing the serpent.

This may seem like a wild assumption. Theologians may claim that this is foolish; but it is more foolish to base the existence of other races on one couple. That is a genetic impossibility, and the Bible confirms this with its “kind after kind” principle. Otherwise, another race could only find its origin in evolution, or from a person of a different race. Adam and Eve could only produce descendants like themselves for “kind after kind” is God’s law.

Who Is Adam?

The Bible only records events since God created Adam and Eve. This covers nearly seven thousand years; it records nothing of the previous ages. Many books have shown evidence of the existence of the Oriental and African cultures before Adam’s appearance. The theory that all races came from Adam and Eve has no basis in Scripture. Therefore, this theory must be based on evolution (which is wrong).

Furthermore, with all the genealogical records found in the Bible, it would be logical that such an event as the creation of another race would have been mentioned, but it is silent. There simply is no event or miracle recorded where one race turns into another.

Those who believe in the young earth theory reject the evidence of science. Yet, ages of time before the events in Genesis do not conflict with the Bible, so why not accept the old earth hypothesis as provided by science.

Biblically speaking, “men” only refer to Adam-kind. Other races are not men; they are “hue-men” (hue means “color”), or “men of color.” This is how our word “human” came to be. It should be noted, that with few exceptions, the original Hebrew word for “man” is Adam! Furthermore, the Bible only records the history of Adam (the White race) and his nations. And, it as much says so: “This is the book of the generations [or “genealogy”] of Adam” (Gen. 5:1). The Bible is the history of no other race. It only mentions other races as they relate to Adam-kind.

Why does Christian Identity claim that Adam was White? Biblical scholar James Strong states that Adam is defined as “ruddy” (q.v., Strong’s Dictionary, word #120). This word aw-dawm’ comes from aw-dam’ (word #119) which means: “To show blood (in the face), that is, flush or turn rosy: be (dyed, made) red (ruddy).” The Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon, 1979, p. 10, confirms that this is true by defining Adam: “be red… ruddy… redden, grow or look red… emit redness.” This is a perfect description of the White race. The other races do not have the ability to blush. Adam was the father of those who later became known as the Caucasians. The Bible is the history of this family, nation, and race (these words have a common racial link in the Bible). The Word of God is not concerned with other races.

Many Christians have been taught that Genesis is telling the story of the original creation. This is not completely true, except for the opening statement of Genesis 1:1 (this “Gap Theory” was covered in the previous sermon). What follows after that opening statement is not a creation, but a re-creation or renovation. At this point, God inserts Adam, His special creation “made in His likeness” (a spirit man), who has the capability of knowing God. The fact is, God created every living creature that reproduced by the law of “kind after kind.” God said this was good:

“And the earth brought forth grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after their kind: and God saw that it was good.” (Gen. 1:12)

This was the same with Adam. Therefore, only one race came from Adam, not many. Adam was not a sort of “mid-brown” man, containing all the genetics to produce the other races; instead, Adam was the first White man at the hand of God’s covenant creation. God has begun something new in Genesis.


Modern churchianity always speaks about “the love of God,” and we in Christian Identity do not deny there is a special love that God directs toward his own. However, God also placed hatred, hostility and ill will on the Earth, for that is the meaning of the word “enmity” in Genesis 3:15, where the Almighty said to the serpent, I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed…”. Hostility is first between Satan and Eve, and then between Jesus Christ and Satan. Christ “shall bruise Satan on the head,” and Satan “shall bruise Christ on the heel.” This struggle continues down through the “seed” (or descendants/races) of each of the seed-lines, even up to this very day. In simplest terms, Christ would destroy Satan who had the power of death, while Satan brought about Christ’s death (with God’s approval) for the salvation of Adam-kind.

What is the meaning in Genesis 3:13 when Eve answered God by saying, “…the serpent beguiled me, and I did eat?” Strong’s Concordance shows the Hebrew word “nasha,” (translated, “beguiled”) rarely used in Scripture, means, “to lead astray, that is, (mentally) to delude, or (morally) to seduce.” My dictionary says of “seduce,” to “entice (someone) into sexual activity.” Is the Bible telling us that Satan had sexual intercourse with Eve?

Remember also, that after Eve and Adam had “eaten the fruit,” they both immediately were aware of their nakedness, and attempted to cover themselves. While the evidence is circumstantial, we are led to believe that Satan seduced Eve, and she then introduced sexual intercourse to Adam. Genesis 3:7 said, “the eyes of both of them were opened” so both of them were awake to carnal knowledge. This helps us understand why God chose pain in childbirth as Eve’s punishment. There is an association between her being seduced and her punishment.

All taken into consideration, there appears to be sufficient and reasonable evidence that the Serpent (whoever he was) did mate with Eve, which gave us two seed-lines in the world. Why cannot judeo-churchianity see this?

Like Eve, there was a time in our lives when we knew nothing about “the birds and the bees.” But, like Eve, we eventually found out the means of the procreation of our race; hopefully from the correct source. Eve learned the hard way (from the wrong source, Satan). Judeo-Christian, R U woke yet? Stay tuned to learn more of Biblical Race Theory.

   “…Rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.” (Luke 10:20)