You are hereA Discussion with Brother Ryan

A Discussion with Brother Ryan

By wmfinck - Posted on 22 June 2014

I generally do not make videos. it is not that I can't, but only that I would rather write. Perhaps we are like oil and water, LOL. Therefore here I will answer the points in your video which I thought that I should answer.

Brother Ryan,

Of course I appreciate all of your support for my work, and all the things which you yourself have done that I have had opportunity to see.There is more than that which I deeply appreciate your having done in the past which I will not even mention here.

I wrote the article There Is No Political Solution about five months after I got out of prison, in response to some of the so-called Identity Christians who were really only quasi-racist Tea Party refugees and whom I felt I had to address in that manner. Before leaving prison I really did not expect seeing such people calling themselves "Two-Seedline Identity". Of course, I still stand firmly by the principles outlined in the article to this day.

One day recently I left a message on your website in reference to trying to get in touch with you, and wondering whether my being an ex-convict affected your behavior was only a sort of tongue-in-cheek way of kidding around. I really do kid around at times. I am not a stick-in-the-mud Bible-thumper, but actually a pretty down-to-earth and easy-going guy, or at least I like to think so.

The video I posted of you under the forum topic Brother Ryan on White Nationalism, was inspired by the program you had done with John Friend. I liked the video, I had hoped to be able to initiate a doalogue with you, and wanted to first introduce you to people who participate in discussion at Christogenea. When you were prejudged for your appearance and the content of some of your tattoos, I purposely left it alone. 

I did that because it was my hope that once those people see the real Brother Ryan who exists under the tattoos, they would realize that they were wrong in their rush to judgement concerning your appearance. Actually, you look not much different from most of the guys I hung out with in prison, and perhaps with my background I can better understand you than they probably could.

About Eli James, a topic I would prefer not to belabor: we actually did about two hundred podcasts together over a two year period. I know this topic well.

I did not make the decision to split with him rashly. Neither did I make the accusation of his being a universalist lightly. I can substantiate everything I say, but it takes more than a few minutes to do so. I have the proof to support my accusation, and it stands.

However I never intended to put you into that argument. I had words with Kersey and Truitt and Visser, the later two who consider themselves to be "Aryan Nations", because they put themselves into the argument. My attitude towards any of them has not changed.

I would agree with you in saying "Blessed are the peacemakers". I did a podcast and wrote an article on that topic, called Who are the Peacemakers? Here is one verse of Scripture which the article was based upon: “He that winks with his eyes deceitfully, procures griefs for men; but he that reproves boldly is a peacemaker” (Proverbs 10:10, from the Septuagint).

The real peacemakers make peace with God, and do not compromise with men. Real humility is submitting to God, and not kissing the asses of men. I have a lengthy discussion of that somewhere in a podcast also. I do my best to treat all men well, who agree with the Word of Yahweh our God.When men contend with the plain Word of Yahweh, I cannot get along with them.

Sure, there are little things we can disagree on, and of course we can still be friends. But there are big, important things that we cannot disagree on and yet remain friends. With Eli James, I ignored a long list of little things. But when he began to compromise on some of the big things, we had to split.

On the "hybridity thesis" (Eli James' term) and extermination theology. Swift and Comparet did not agree with me on Genesis, but I have made a full proof of my position.

However Swift and Comparet did teach that the other races were the "flood from the mouth of the serpent" and that they would all be destroyed in the end. I have posted the evdence from their papers in a thread on my forum.

Swift also taught that the "serpent seed" was mixed in with the other races, which is agreeable to everything which I have said. Even if he does not agree with me on their origins, he agrees with me on their nature! That is the important matter, for our perspective today. That too is posted, all with links and quotes from their own words:

I can honestly say that I have proof that Swift and Comparet agree with me on the fate of the non-Adamic races.

Eli James is teaching that bastards can be "good", judged for their works, and that they will not be destroyed - and I have that on tape as well. I know what he has said to you, but I also know that he has different words for different audiences. He has recently told Mexicans that they can be "Christians", and I have that entire segment on tape. If that is not universalism, then I do not know what is.

I have all of this in a program entitled The Universalism of Eli James, which includes long segments from his own podcasts.

We can leave Eli James on the back burner. I am not asking you to listen to what I have to say immediately, or make a decision on the matter. But if you ignore this, you will never understand why I have done and said what I have in reference to Eli.

As for my opinions on Genesis and the non-Adamic races, I would plead with you strongly to listen to my podcasts on this topic, which prove my case soundly. There are five which are a part of the new two-seedline series I have been doing, parts 17 through 22. There is also one which Clifton and I did a few years ago which is related.

They are not on a menu item of their own except as part of the two-seedline series, so I put them all together in one place for you here:


I agree with a lot of your statements concerning the ideas which you call Anarchism and non-Statism, but I would not use those precise terms to describe what you profess. There are reasons for that which are cultural and historical.Perhaps we can talk about those topics one day.

On the U.S. Constitution, I think you may have misunderstood me to a degree. I certainly admire the Christian men who wrote the founding documents of these united states, but I do not consider the Constitution a "holy writ". I understand its mistakes, and many of the historical reasons why they were made.

Perhaps the reason for my being misunderstood is because most of my work in this area has been to address the folly of those who so wrongly claim that the nation was founded out of some sort of satanic conspiracy. Those claims must be refuted.

Additionally, I admire Hitler for his understanding of race, nation and Christian principles. I do not admire "statism on steroids", as you called it, but Hitler had a different view of statism that I do set above others, and I do understand that his statism was necessary for his place and time. Hitler himself professed that National Socialism was only meant for Germany in his own time.We should not attempt to duplicate it here.

I have often taught that this period of democratic self-rule is indeed the "time of Jacob's trouble" for our people, and that we were destined to fail with it until we recognize that only Christ could be our King.

THAT is exactly why I called my book on the Revelation "ChristReich" even though the term was coined by someone else.

I won't comment on the AST or VS Herrell. However I have often told my fellow-workers that it is good to examine multiple translations of all the Scriptures. Therefore i do not attempt to bind anyone to my own.

of course I wish you well, and hope to speak with you one day soon.


Concerning technology: I am the guy to speak to, without doubt. I would indeed be willing to assist you with that. I can honestly state that I have the best tech in CI, LOL. No, I will not charge you a fee.