The primary object of this paper is to bring to the fore the word “kind” as used of a race of people, and secondly, as that benevolent nature found inherent with a single lineage of people. You will notice I have used the word “kind” in both of these senses in the above title. The word kind is the root for the word kindred or kind-red. Oddly enough, the New College Edition of The American Heritage Dictionary Of The English Language shows the same root-word in its list of Indo-European word derivatives for both of these senses of meaning. Significantly, the Adam-kind #120 can take the life of most anything, but another #120 kindred man, Genesis 9:6. At Ruth 2:20 the translators chose both the English words “kindness” and “kinsman” in close proximity. The following are the definitions of the word “kind” as used as an adjective and secondly as a noun. Interestingly, both are derived from the same Indo-European root “gene-.”

“kind¹ (kind) adj. kinder, kindest. 1. Of a friendly nature; generous or hospitable; warmhearted; good. 2. Charitable; helpful; showing sympathy or understanding: a kind word. 3. Humane; considerate: kind to animals. 4. Forbearing; tolerant; charitable: very kind about the broken window. 5. Courteous; thoughtful: Thank you for your kind reply. 6. Generous; liberal: his kind words of praise. 7. Informal. Agreeable; beneficial: a soap kind to the skin. [Middle English kynde, kind, Old English gecynde, natural, innate. See gene- in Appendix.*]

“Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.”

We are now going to endeavor to determine what this passage is saying, and what it is not! There are several related Scriptures throughout the Bible pertaining to this same subject, and it is imperative that we understand their context in every instance. There is probably no other group of related passages taken so entirely out-of-context than these. It might appear, at first sight, that these passages are all-inclusive in a universal sense to include all the peoples of the world. Actually, the opposite is true as these passages are exclusive rather than inclusive. And to use the term “exclusive” is an understatement. But before we get into the gist of this thing we must investigate the previous happenings which led up to Peter referring back to the Abrahamic Covenant.

While Peter did quite well, for that period of time, he was not fully aware of who all true Israel was. Therefore, he at times addressed the wrong people by that name. He didn’t really begin to understand until Acts chapter 10 when he had the vision of a vessel being lowered down to him as a great “four cornered ... knit sheet” with all kinds of unclean creatures. Now, most of the inept pastors of our day use Peter’s vision as a license to eat unclean food to the detriment of their health. Actually, the unclean creatures which Peter saw were the lost tribes of Israel. It is important to note that it was a “four cornered sheet” that he saw. That “four cornered sheet” represents the four sided encampment when Israel was in the wilderness described at Numbers chapter 2, and Revelation 21:16, as the “city ... four-square.” The Greek word τετράγωνος at this verse means “with four equal angles” i.e. four-cornered. And when we read at Acts 10:15:

“And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.”

I am aware that this is very strong language, but sometimes a very strong antidote is needed to neutralize a very dangerous poison! Let’s examine the picture for a moment to see if Ted R. Weiland fits this title’s description. A serpent will usually catch the eye of its victim in order to hypnotize its prey before making its deadly strike. A serpent will coil and hold its motionless pose with its mouth wide open, with fangs extended and forked-tongue appearing. Then suddenly the serpent strikes out burying his fangs in the flesh of its victim and injecting its deadly poison. And if the proverbial shoe fits, then let Weiland wear it!

Let’s now examine the nature of the poison. To do this I will quote from Ted R. Weiland’s remarks on one of his audiocassette tapes entitled Some Basics, where Weiland apologizes for the other races by saying:

“... but that doesn’t mean that a non-Israelite cannot join himself to Yahweh, and partake – and why wouldn’t we want them to? Why wouldn’t we want the nations around to be serving our God?, and under His Laws? – so we could have commerce with those nations .... not only for my race but for their race as well ... I have come to appreciate the other races and their individuality more since understanding this [Identity] message than before I understood it. God created everything to be good ... have you ever noticed the media always say we call the other races ‘mud people’? I have never in my life ever heard the term except in the media. Not amongst the people I preach to ... so why wouldn’t we want to embrace others into this message? ... If anything, we should be absolutely ashamed of ourselves because of our past reputation and our past history as a people and what we have squandered because of who we are. We should be ashamed of ourselves and our forefathers more than the rest of the races. They are wallowing in their sin because of our sin. Let’s just face it ...”

Let’s See How He Does It

Though this is not the exact phraseology which Ted R. Weiland used in his July 14, 2005 letter to Tony Gonyer, this was the sum and substance of his pronouncement. One can be quite sure, had Ted R. Weiland been as skilled in the Word of Yahweh as he pretends he is, he would never have made such a ridiculous statement! Weiland’s words to Tony were: “I’m a racialist, not a racist. By racism, I am referring to white-supremacists and those who hate the other races simply because they are not white. Is that what you are? If that is what you are, I’m sorry, I denounce it.” One might describe it as unwittingly or unknowingly, but the results of Weiland’s words remain the same, for one must first comprehend that Christ Himself is a racist. Therefore, in denouncing racists, Weiland was denouncing Yahshua-Christ Himself as He also is a RACIST. Proofs of this are unquestionable being in Christ’s own Words and always spoken in hidden “parables.” Thus, in not knowing the true meanings of Christ’s Words and being unskilled in them, Ted R. Weiland denounces our Redeemer and takes upon himself an antichrist position.

This is a subject that I have been needing to address, and address it I will. For about the last two months I have been pondering how I might go about this, and a letter from William Finck to myself he laid it all out very appropriately. Bill has written this same thing to several others, and here is the general outline of those letters (except that the names of those promoting the moslem arabs as our friends are withheld, unless those persons become obnoxious). I will dispense with the usual quotation marks as Bill writes the following:

6th August 06, Dear Clifton, ... So that you know, this is what I’ve been writing concerning the situation in Palestine, which of course reflects my full position on the subject:

I’ve heard that there is some confusion, or even division, in the Identity community (what else is new?) concerning the current recent events in the Middle East. Allow me to discuss my opinions concerning this matter here. I will try to be brief.