Talk:Christian Identity

Pelley in the early influences section

I took out the sentence about Pelley being influenced by British-Israelism. The section is specifically about the early influences on the development of CI. As it was describing Pelley being influenced by BI and is unrelated to CI's early development, it is out of place in a random, shoe-horned in there kind of way. Further, the source was very weak on connecting Pelley to any influence on CI. It makes one statement suggesting that "it could be argued" that his millenarian views were an influence, but leaves it at that - essentially making the off-the-cuff comment based on conjecture with no support. If this is going to be brought back in, it needs to make more sense in the relational context as well as needing stronger sourcing. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

That all being said, the source is good for the article on Pelley himself or the Silver Shirts, and undoubtedly, there was crossover with related individuals in CI - but that's more suited to those specific articles where it makes sense to explore those relationships. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Were any who actually know Christian Identity basic doctrine allowed to participate?

For example it keeps talking as if people just made things up from thin air like the "two houses" when the Bible emphatically mentions the house of Israel and the house of Judah as separate and distinct many times including the New testament as well. You are presenting a Jewish doctrine which I have easily debated and they have to almost immediately admit that they are wrong. That is, they teach that Israel and Judah came back together which directly contradicts the Bible which states they were enemies "to this day" for just one. It's in Kings and Chronicles, The Bible states that Israel only, not Judah, was taken by Assyria, why does this article make it sound like that is silly and made up? I would gladly debate anyone on the basic principles and facts of Celtic Israel in a proper forum. However that's not the object of those who contributed here. They have a huge movement including the ADL and SPLC to deliberately keep this knowledge hidden from white Christians, they are obsessed, and that obsession is all I saw here. They are always so worried people will find out yet these types of control of narratives create rage among some. In 35 years I've never heard anyone who knows the truth of Celtic Israel use the term "Aryan" either, seems to be one of a host of buzz words to vilify and keep people from listening. As is, it would be far better to just delete this whole article because it is and will cause rage. 71.213.2.131 (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Eschatology

In the eschatology section, it leads with Christian Identity eschatology is dispensational premillennialist, including a physical return of Christ to earth and the final battle of Armageddon. This is cited to the Aho source, which has a copyright date of 1990. Certainly, among the primary teachers of early Identity and the second generation, this would seem to be consistent. However, 35 years hence, this needs to be revised. First, Aho admits in a footnote that some writers suggest a postmillennial theology. Second, in reviewing modern Identity writers like William Finck, who writes "From the correct historicist view of Scripture, the thousand years has already transpired, and now we are in the time that Satan gathers all of the goat nations against the Camp of the Saints"[1] we can see that such an all-encompassing view would appear to no longer be the case. That's either a postmillennial or amillennial view (either could say that), depending on where he goes with it - either way, it's a "realized millennium" theology and would not align with Aho's 1990 statement that "all" Identity is dispensational premillennialist which is inherently futurist (i.e. "hasn't happened yet"). I haven't found any secondary sources that specifically cover Finck's eschatology, but as he is one of the more prominent voices of modern Identity, this subsection may need some revising to account for more than the specifically narrow interpretation it currently presents. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Butlerblog: I saw you had removed some material. While I agree with most of your edits, ie. James Mason's books weren't explicitly called CI, so, good call removing them. But in Sunshine's book it is told that Mason is a certified CI Minister, so I feel he has a place on the page, considering he's a major supporter of nazi terrorism. Any thoughts/feelings concerning this? Thanks.RKT7789 (talk) 11:14, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

There are two parts to this - Mason and Reynolds. My first concern is Reynolds. There's no indication in Sunshine that he was ordained as an Identity minister, and I don't find that in any other sources, either. What it does say is "In early 1995, Ed Reynolds was ordained as a pastor in two mail-order ministries" (Sunshine, p. 375). It's not clear what those mail-order ministries are, and this appendix section is discussing Masons movement around both Identity and Christianity, not simply Identity alone. Thus, it requires some synthesis here to arrive at Reynolds being an ordained Identity minister. The source doesn't say that, and as I noted, I don't see that in any other sources, either.

The second part is Mason's interest in Identity. The two sentences you have are both true statements when taken individually. However, they draw a connection that is somewhat tenuous and imply to the casual reader a direct connection between them. Mason essentially rejected Identity early on, but maintained connection to the network looking for recruits to his cause. But he had long since moved on from Identity by the time he got to writing Seige, and there's not really a direct link from Identity to Seige to Atomwaffen. I'm not saying there's no influence - there is certainly a lot of crossover between various extremist groups (what Richard Butler sought in partnering Aryan Nations with different groups being but one example). But there is a point where some of that steps outside Identity and simply becomes extremism. There's too much nuance necessary for inclusion of this here. There are plenty of solid examples of Identity groups that have connections to revolutionary violence (which are noted), but this isn't a good one. It is unlike the other examples listed here where there is a very solid direct link to specific Identity groups.

I'm removing the Reynolds part of it since it is not supported by the source. I'd ask you to review the above and consider removing the rest for the reasons noted. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@Butlerblog: Huh, you're completely correct when I re-checked Reynolds, so nice work there. But I'm afraid I don't agree with Mason bit, he has continued publishing CI works to this day (Sunshine p.454), "Out of the Dust" was published in 2022. Edit: Actually the book doesn't say they are CI, although they are, so poor argument on my part. The next part stands though:

And according to Counter Extremism Project, he holds those ideals to this day: "On December 1 [2021], the pastor, radio, and television evangelist Bob Larson debated neo-Nazi James Mason in a live stream on Larson’s YouTube channel. The debate was a sequel to a discussion in 1993 on Bob Larsen’s television/radio program, footage from which has been used in several pro-Mason propaganda videos. During the debate, Mason advocated antisemitic Christian Identity beliefs, denied the Holocaust, and advocated for acts of violence in the name of national socialism."

So, based on this, I don't think the Mason bit should be removed, but I am waiting for your thoughts.RKT7789 (talk) 03:13, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Half info on Identity

This article forgot to add the Identity’s perspective of the Two House Theology.

They forgot to add that certain Identitarians follow the view that “Israel AND Judah were driven out of Filastin by Assyria”, which blurs the distinction between Israel and Judah 2605:8D80:520:1477:BD6C:BFDB:255F:9122 (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Do you care to contribute a citable source for that? ButlerBlog (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)