TV SERIES REVIEW: LOST KINGDOMS OF AFRICA

Series Logo with Benin Bronze

My minister recently suggested to me the four episode series Lost Kingdoms of Africa, which is currently on Netflix. After watching the series he commented on how little civilizational development could be found on the Dark Continent. Curious, I decided to watch the series as well.

‘Lost Kingdoms’ is a good description of pre-European Black African society because, as the series painfully displays, all of the civilizations are still lost (because they don’t actually exist). The series is broken up into four sections: Nubia, Ethiopia, Great Zimbabwe, and West Africa. Each episode runs about 50 minutes. Although the series was probably imagined as a great display of organic Black-African culture and achievement I imagine that all of the creators of the program have now been converted to racial realism after failing to find any signs of Black African innovation on the second largest continent. My minister said that after watching the series he became absolutely convinced of Black-African intellectual inferiority (although he was already leaning in that direction).

I encourage everyone to watch the documentary because it actually manages to achieve the exact opposite reaction of what it was created to produce. After watching 200 minutes of endless speculation and fluff one will be utterly assured that Black-Africans never achieved anything in the course of human history. Lost Kingdoms of Africa was created to impress the audience with Black achievements; instead the series displays the complete lack of any Black innovation.

NUBIA

The first episode details the Nubian civilization located to the South of ancient Egypt.  Before I watched this show I had actually been under the impression that Nubia was far more impressive than it actually was. Pictures of the pyramids of Nubia jutting from the Sahara sand seem incredibly impressive, however, after the narrator walked up to some of the pyramids in real time I realized that the structures are actually miniscule. I imagine that given a year’s time, I could create a pyramid of the same size and quality working solo. The most impressive temples in Nubia are smaller then the average modern single bedroom apartment, and the hieroglyphics are poor copies clearly ripped off their Egyptian counterparts. The episode does not display a single element of uniquely Nubian cultural development. 

The program writers were so desperate to try to make Nubia something original that they attempted to claim that a frieze of cows makes Nubian civilization somehow more then a bad off brand version of Egypt. I was surprised that the program openly admitted that the ancient Egyptians always referred to Nubia as a miserable backwater kingdom that was only good for providing slaves (the word ‘Nubia’ is derived from the Egyptian word for ‘slave.’). No ancient source suggests that Nubia was ever known for anything other than being the last point of something resembling a real society before entering the vast savagery of sub-Saharan Africa. Even Lost Kingdoms acknowledges that the Nubians never developed anything resembling culture until after the Egyptians had imperialized their lands.

While it is true that one Nubian dynasty did overrun Egypt, the time of that invasion is long after Egypt’s glory days, and, in fact, the Nile kingdom had been in terminal decline for centuries. As the first episode clearly displays Nubia was not a Black African civilization, but rather a result of Egyptian imperial ambitions in their southern sphere of influence. Nothing of the ancient Nubian ‘achievements’ are uniquely Black, but rather are poor imitations of what these peoples saw from their Mediterranean Egyptian overlords.

ETHIOPIA

          The show devoted to Ethiopia is barely worth acknowledging because all of the Ethiopian cultural achievements discussed in this episode are the result of Christian/Islamic importation. The written language of the Ethiopian Church is a script created in the southern Arabian Peninsula and exported to Ethiopia through Yemenis imperialism. The episode shows off a castle constructed by an Ethiopian emperor, but also mentions that it was only constructed in the 1600s in the Islamic and Portuguese styles. The paintings covering the ceilings of imperial chapels are depictions of Middle Eastern/European saints with White faces. The monolithic stone churches of Lalibela are impressive, however, they are not particularly old (late middle ages), and the Ethiopians only built them with the help of northern Coptic outsiders who influenced the style of the buildings significantly. 

Haile Sallassie I

          Nothing about Ethiopia is uniquely Black African. Its entire culture, from religion to language, is a copy of Arab or Christian developments. Besides this, the Ethiopians cannot racially be considered purely Black-African. Ethiopians are almost entirely mixed with ethnic Arabs and, in fact, many groups of Ethiopians speak a Semitic language. Looking through portraits of the Ethiopian Imperial family clearly demonstrates this fact. Judging by pictures of the last emperor of Ethiopia, Haile Sallassie I, I would imagine he is only about 25% genetically Black African. It is hardly fair to consider Ethiopia a truly Black African kingdom if its population is not truly Black African, and neither is its culture.

GREAT ZIMBABWE

          I sat with some friends as I watched this episode. We spent the entire 50 minutes laughing at how horrible it was. There is so little civilizational development in southern Africa that the first half of the episode was devoted to an island off the coast of Madagascar whose population became Black only after foreign traders had imported large quantities of African slaves. The mosque on the island was built by Muslims with forced Black slave labor (hardly a Black accomplishment). There is no stone on the island so the traders constructed the mosque out of coral, which once again proves that lack of resources has almost nothing to do with civilizational advancement (a truly intelligent people will innovate through any disadvantage).

          The latter half of the episode details two settlements in southern mainland Arica that contain stonewalls. The program attempts to assert that these were constructed by Black Africans even though there is no known Black African artifacts found at the sites. Among the artifacts recovered were Arabic coins, Chinese items, and several strange carved birds. The narrator openly admits that foreigners were coming to the region to acquire ivory and slaves, but dismisses the obvious conclusion that the stone forts were constructed by outside traders as ‘racist.’ The assertion of Black construction almost becomes absurd when it is revealed that certain kinds of grazing grasses had been introduced around the settlements for use by foreign livestock types. The most obvious conclusion is that foreigners constructed the forts for trading, and brought cattle with them, thus necessitating the need to also begin growing grass in the region that their imported cattle could eat. There is no documented example of primitive Blacks domesticating any kind of animal, and even if they had, why would they import grass from another region of the world so that their native livestock could eat exotic plants? Furthermore, if a Black society truly did have the ability to construct such a large fortress isn’t it bizarre that this same society couldn’t manage to develop any other element of culture to leave behind?

'Great' Zimbabwe

          Even if, against all evidence, Blacks did construct the fortress settlement of Great Zimbabwe the structure is simply composed of stacked stones. The wall is not even particularly large, and is certainly not stylized or architecturally impressive.

          Despite a lot of biased guesswork no one knows when the fortress settlement was built, or by whom. The greatest southern Black African civilization is still simply speculation built upon speculation. My guess, it almost certainly never existed.

WEST AFRICA

          The West African episode is about nothing but the Benin Bronzes. The bronze friezes are admittedly interesting, however, they were only constructed in the late 1500s after the Portuguese inspired the locals to create them. The Black African natives melted down the Portuguese gold and fashioned some reasonably interesting figures. The Benin Bronzes are more the product of European contact then of any kind of Black African achievements. 

A Nation is a Home

Many people oppose the idea of racially based governments/nations. These people object to this form of government because it is ‘global segregation.’ What these people do not know is that they actually agree with the nation-state position even though they have an instinctive abhorrence of it inherited from their multi-cultural society.

In order to demonstrate their true beliefs to them one should ask three questions:

(1) Do you believe that families (Mother, Father, Children) should all live in the same house?

(2) Do you believe that families should have the right to make their own decisions without interference from other families (where to go on vacation, what color to paint their house, or whether to go to church on Sunday)?

(3) Why is it that you look more like other White people (insert whatever race they are) then Black, Asian, or Aboriginal?

The answer to the third question is: ‘You look more like your own race because you are more closely related to everyone within your own race then you are to anyone of a different race.’

The White race is just one big extended family. The Black race is just one big extended family. The Asian race is just one big extended family. Just as each nuclear family should live with one another, and make certain decisions on their own behalf, each race of people should live with their own ‘type,’ and make decisions that govern their own race, rather than the members of another family-race.

No man would ever think to march into his neighbors house one day and tell the members of that family that he was now living there, and going to consume the food, and redecorate the home. That would be ludicrous! However, many people believe that racial/religious minorities have a right to enter the United States, demand the vote, demand welfare checks, and demand equal religious representation.

The country is to a race what a home is to a family. The racially based nation-state is the most natural organic government because it arises from the family institution.

Can Blacks Sustain Western Civilization? Part III (Haiti & Japan)

 

HAITI

            Perhaps someone will argue, ignorantly, that Africa is poor because of its geography, perhaps someone will argue that Detroit is ruined because of some kind of American racism. The same arguments cannot be used for Haiti.

            Haiti has the highest percentage of Black people in the Western Hemisphere; it is also the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere… coincidence? I think not.

            No one can blame climate/geography for Haiti’s failures, as the island sits right next to Puerto Rico, the most developed and wealthy country in all of Latin America. Puerto Rico is the Caribbean’s wealthiest country; does it come as a surprise to anyone, then, that it also contains the Caribbean’s Whitest population (White Haitians: 1%, White Puerto Ricans: 75.8%)?

Although Wikipedia is not always reliant the online encyclopedia opens its article on the Economy of Puerto Rico:

‘Despite its relatively small geographical area and limited availability of natural resources, Puerto Rico's productivity is exceptionally high, having the highest nominal GDP per capita in Latin America,’

I quote Wikipedia not because I get my information from that source, but to demonstrate that anyone can go online and research this information for themselves.

            Haiti’s population is 3 times larger than that of Puerto Rico’s. Haiti’s land area is 3 times bigger than that of Puerto Rico. Why, then, is Haiti’s total economic output less than 1/11^ththat of Puerto Rico’s!?!

            Another argument used to excuse Africa’s poverty is that Black countries were under colonial rule up until the 1960s. If Whites had granted independence to Black countries earlier on than they would be better off today, so the argument goes. Haiti has been independent from colonial rule for 212 years. Puerto Rico has been free for 0 years! To this very day Puerto Rico is still ruled by a colonial power (United States), and yet it is light-years ahead of Haiti.

            One last note on Haiti. Haiti is a perfect example of how Marxist economics can’t be blamed for the failure of Black societies. Haiti has embraced the free market to such an extent that leftists routinely blame the countries poverty on capitalism, and yet the country remains in impoverished shambles.

 

JAPAN

            One might wonder what Japan has to do with Black people. The Japanese serve as a useful contrast to the stupidity of the Black race. Even though Blacks in America are still undeveloped 400 years after being introduced into civilized society, and Africa is still savage and chaotic even after being nurtured and instructed by the White man for over 150 years, the Japanese essentially recreated a version of Western civilization on their small island in the time between contact with the West and the era when the West could have conquered and colonized them.

            The Portuguese had been trading with the Black Africans for slaves since the 16^th century the Africans, however, never developed technologies or learned anything from the superior Europeans. Africans remain in the most primitive state of man up until this present day. In 1954 American Commodore Matthew Perry anchored his armored battleship off the coast of Japan and forced the Japanese to accept trade with the Americans. Upon seeing the mammoth warship the Japanese realized they were in trouble. They understood that if they didn’t modernize rapidly they would quickly be dominated by the superior Americans. Unlike the barbarian Blacks, who never had any idea of developing in pace with the Europeans, the Japanese (who possess an average IQ equal to that of Whites) rapidly modernized to the point that only 50 years later they were capable of defeating the Russian Empire in the Russo-Japanese War, and establishing themselves as a kind of colonial power in the Far East. They did all of this modernization despite few natural resources and a small geographical land area. Only racially superior peoples, like Asians and Whites, are capable of sustaining what we now know as Western Civilization. Blacks will hopelessly continue to live within the ‘heart of darkness,’ as they have since time immemorial.

 

After reflecting upon history it is impossible to believe that any people group of Black racial ancestry is capable of sustaining White Western institutions, prosperity, and living standards. In three different situations: the modern post-White flight American city, post-colonial Africa, and colonial Haiti Blacks as a race have miserably failed to maintain White Western civilization. In every situation thriving and well constructed societies were simply given away to Blacks.

In the case of Detroit the entirety of arguably the most prosperous city within the most prosperous country was given away to the most prosperous Blacks in the world and within a couple of decades it has become a post-apocalyptic cesspool.

In Africa Europeans constructed entire workable modern societies from wild untamed wilderness (which wasn’t even listed on maps before the arrival of White colonizers). These White colonialists constructed something out of nothing and then gave what they had built back to the Black inhabitants as what one might rightfully call the largest free gift in world history. Within decades the Black populations, which were handed an entire continent, have all but destroyed Africa plunging it into chaos and forcing Whites to once again take up the dropped ball and feed billions of their starving children.

How can we imagine, after witnessing such catastrophic collapses of anything subjected to the Black races management, that any semblance of Western Civilization can be maintained by that people group?

Everywhere Blacks live they recreate Africa, whether its Haiti or Detroit. Giving our civilization over to the Blacks is like deciding that Africa (that nightmare) is the societal model of the future.

School children are always told that the reason they need to learn History is because‘those that do not know history are doomed to repeat it.’ The lesson of what White Westerners should not repeat has never been more clearly spelled out for them than when considering this situation. To leave America in the hands of minorities, and specifically Blacks, is nothing short of committing civilizational suicide.

            Their have been few people capable of summing up so neatly the threat that Blacks pose to American civilization than U.S. Senator Theodore Bilbo:

‘If our buildings, our highways, and our railroads should be wrecked, we could rebuild them. If our cities should be destroyed, out of the very ruins we could erect newer and greater ones. Even if our armed might should be crushed, we could rear sons who would redeem our power. But if the blood of our White race should become corrupted and mingled with the blood of Africa, then the present greatness of the United States of America would be destroyed and all hope for civilization would be as impossible for a Negroid America as would be redemption and restoration of the Whiteman's blood which had been mixed with that of the Negro.’

 

 

Can Blacks Sustain Western Civilization? Part II: (Post Colonial Africa)

AFRICA

In the late 1800s Africa was still a mysterious continent about which little was known. There were no civilizations there with which the European peoples communicated, there had never been any great armies that had marched out of the interior of that dark land, and there had never been anything on the other side of the continent that would warrant trade routes through it. Africa was largely viewed as a massive land obstacle around which the great European merchants had to travel to reach the wealthy and prosperous people groups of the Far East.

Africa was such a barbarous undeveloped area that upon reaching that continent by ship in the early 1400s the Chinese ceased world exploration because they concluded, after seeing the savage Blacks, that the entire rest of world was filled with naked brainless barbarians.

After squabbling for every other piece of the globe, however, the White empires of Europe had little where else to conquer but the continent to the south of them. Leopold II of Belgium took over the Congo region and consolidated it in 1890. The Scramble for Africa was on. Britain, France, Germany, and Italy began a decade’s long fight to establish their own imperial prestige in Africa.

The African natives were little more than a nuisance along the European path to controlling virtually the entire continent. Once in the hands of the empires of Europe those administrations set about to make the African colonies prosperous for the mother countries and their inhabitants. They built railroads, mines, plantations, and attempted to educate the native tribal peoples so as to make them useful in the new Western system that Africa had been thrust into. Africa was (and still is) practically bursting with natural resources like diamonds, gold, cobalt, oil, and timber that had never been used or developed by the uncivilized Blacks. The Europeans developed these industries and taught the natives how to utilize them.

Only in the 1960s did much of Africa gain its independence from the Europeans. When the African states launched into independence they were the subject of incredible interest. The United States and the Soviet Union attempted to gain influence over every newly freed state, considering each one an invaluable asset. However, after only a few decades of freedom the steadily increasing fortunes of the African peoples, since the days of the first European conquerors, were dramatically reversed as ruthless egomaniac dictators rose to power, AIDS ravished the continent, starvation set it, and civil wars ripped the region apart.

Today Africa is a far cry from what it was when the European empires released those new ‘nations’ into independence. Africa has nearly become synonymous with unfathomable underdevelopment, misery, and death.

I just recently went to my grandmother’s house and the topic turned to my great-uncle who has been a missionary in Ghana for decades. This uncle sends emails to my grandparents about life in Africa. Recently he sent an email about how the natives often times cook parts of chickens for a meal and then days later eat the leftovers by simply scraping the maggots off the carcass. My grandfather said: ‘I Just cannot comprehend how the people in Africa are so far behind?!’ My grandmother chimed in: ‘I just recently saw a website that was saying how many millions of people WE have to feed in Africa this coming year… I just thought ‘don’t these people ever get to the point of being able to sustain themselves?’ Why is it our job to feed them?’ My grandfather replied ‘I’ve come to think they just don’t have the discipline to do it for themselves.’

This family conversation was begun by a reference to the people of Ghana. Ghana was the most prosperous of all the countries when it embarked on freedom in the 1960s. If people in Ghana still eat maggot filled meat and boil giant rats to feed the village, it leaves one to wonder into what depths the rest of the continent has descended.

One Sunday the church I usually attend had a missionary group come in for a demonstration, and to request donations for their well digging projects in sub-Sahara Africa. The demonstration included the typical statistics about how many African children die every week from having no water and was intended to make everyone feel bad for living in a wealthy country. Apparently, African children have to drink out of contaminated creeks and rain puddles. The organization members explained how they had designed a special kind of pipe well that could be drilled into the ground rapidly and efficiently. Near the end of the demonstration my friend leaned over to me and asked something to the effect of: ‘I want so badly to ask him why the Africans can’t just dig traditional wells like natives do in the rest of the world. I mean, I feel like you and I with two shovels could dig a well in a couple of days.’ After I thought about this for a moment I decided I must ask about it… after all, even Abraham and Isaac of the Bible were digging wells, and that was 4,000 years ago.

After the demonstration I went forward and asked the seemingly obvious question. The demonstrator immediately turned sort of confused and vague. He informed me that Africans didn’t usually dig traditional wells because children were known to fall into them and drown, which would cause contamination, and that bats fly over and defecate in the water. All I could think was ‘is this real?’ Are African children really so stupid they can’t avoid falling into a huge hole and drowning? Are these children suicidal? Are the Africans really incapable of covering their wells at night? I posed all of these question to the demonstrator and he couldn’t give me any real answer other than ‘it’s complicated.’ The question must be asked: if Europeans and Mesopotamians can dig traditional wells for thousands of years, until they finally develop machinery, why can’t modern day Africans do it? Why didn’t European children fall into traditional wells and drown? Don’t European bats defecate? The problem is not with the situation… it’s with the people.

In 2005 the historian and expert on Africa Martin Meredith wrote a book about the history of African independence entitled: The Fate of Africa: From the Hopes of Freedom, To the Heart of Despair. The subtitle of this book is a pretty fair 10 word summery of the history of the African people’s ability to govern themselves. Just look at South Africa since the fall of Apartheid in 1995. The average personal income in that country has dropped around 40% since White rule ended. Today 25% of all of the men in that country admit that they’ve raped a woman! 50 murders occur in South Africa every single day amounting to more than 18,000 a year in a country with a population of around 48 million. Compare that to Germany which has around 2,000 murders a year with a population of 81 million!

The excuse for South Africa is usually that it was under so many years of ‘oppression’ by Whites. Yet Germany was twice destroyed in this century alone and half the country was looted and mutilated by the communists for decades before being absorbed into the other half of the nation. Germany today is one of the strongest economies in the world and, considering its place in the recent debt crisis, is in a position to once again dominate Europe.

Recently Barack Obama’s own brother, George Obama, wrote a book entitled Homeland: An Extraordinary Story of Hope and Survival, in which he documents the state of his own country Kenya. Within the pages he describes how Kenya is in disarray. George goes so far as to claim that Kenya would have been better off if the Kenyans had allowed the Whites to rule over them for a longer period of time:

‘…let me tell you something. Look at South Africa they were under the whites until the 1990s, and look where they are now. They’re practically a developed nation. The corruption there is nothing like it is here. So who is better off? Maybe if we’d let the whites stay a bit longer, we’d be where South Africa is today.’

Even a native Kenyon recognizes that White rule was the key to becoming a successful African state. Just think how horrible Kenya must be if George Obama can only dream of Kenya being more like South Africa!

One could fill many volumes with the tragedy that is post-colonial Africa (and some books no-doubt have been written): endless government instability, unheard of tales of corruption, genocides, poverty scarcely imaginable to the Western mind, uncontrolled diseases wiping out millions, never ending civil war, etc etc.

One particular incident that comes to mind is the former ‘emperor’ of the Central African Empire who loved to feed human flesh to foreign dignitaries and only inform them of the meals content after they had consumed it.

Such tales as those that come out of Africa, even from my missionary Uncle, seem too barbarous to be true. How can anyone deny that Africa, post White leadership, has turned into an entire continent of lawless disorder comparable to the American West of the 19^th century? In fact, it’s certainly far worse.

Consider the largest country in sub-Saharan Africa: the Democratic Republic of the Congo. This state (if it can be called that) has been more or less at war since 1997 with well over 5 million people left dead so far.

The next largest country in Black Africa is the Sudan. If it’s any indication of the stability of that region the country just split in half in 2011. That separation was the result of the Second Sudanese Civil War which started in 1983 and rages on even as I write these words. The Sudan has been more or less at war for the last 30 years (and counting)!

The third largest ethnically Black government in Africa is Chad. Chad is considered a ‘failed state’ by Fund for Peace. The United Nations has considered Chad to be in a ‘humanitarian crisis’ for the last 11 years. Various armed rebel groups roam around the country. In fact, the only reason that any government exists in Chad at all is that it is currently being artificially propped up by the French.  The country is making headlines recently because the latest band of roving Islamic thugs armed with pick axes and Kalashnikovs decided to destroy the ancient tombs in Timbuktu that were formally listed as ‘world heritage sites’ by the United Nations.

Although we could go on evaluating the catastrophe that is post European ruled Africa it would only become redundant. The whole sub-Saharan racially Black region is home to bands of roaming lawless armed tribes of thugs, rapists, and bandits unconcerned with order or stability. Even the officially recognized ‘leaders’ routinely rob their people and foreign aid groups for the sake of their own greed. The Council on Foreign Relations states on its website that Africa loses over $150 Billion to corruption every year. That number makes the $22.5 Billion that they receive (in the same amount of time) from Western generosity appear measly. One might even wonder why anyone would bother to throw their compassionate gifts down into the black hole that Africa has become. Black African governments currently steal more from their own people now that their free then the White Europeans colonialists ever did.

In Africa: A Biography of a Continent the author, John Reader, sums up the post-colonial post-White rule of Africa with this introduction to the final chapter:

‘The Dreams of Africa Becoming a continent of peaceful democratic states quickly evaporated [after independence]. More than 70 coups occurred in the first thirty years of independence. By the 1990s few states preserved even the vestiges of democracy. One-party states, presidents-for-life, and military rule became the norm; resources were squandered as the elite accumulated wealth and the majority of Africans suffered. Nigeria and Rwanda exemplify the nightmare; South Africa preserves a flickering hope of transforming dreams into reality.’ (pg. 663).

Reader wrote these words in 1998 only 3 years after South Africa’s rebirth as a Black ruled nation. The hopes he put in South Africa redeeming the continent would be misplaced. As we now know in 2012 South Africa has and currently is still descending rapidly down to the level of corruption, poverty, and chaos that characterizes its fellow Black ruled African states. The whole of the continent is being enveloped in the nightmare.

Can Blacks Sustain Western Civilization: Part I (Detroit)

Today the Left bombards us with pro-immigrant/pro-Black propaganda. The modernists have been letting huge numbers of Black African immigrants into the country. Within my home town in Ohio there is an entire section of the city that has been overrun with robe wearing Blacks that can’t speak a word of civilized language. The Multiculturalists expect us to believe that these bizarre darkskinned freakshows dressed like medieval jesters are the future of our magnanimous Western civilization. As citizens concerned for the future of our communities and posterity the question should be asked: can Blacks sustain White Western society with all its complex institutions and cultural expressions?

For anyone willing to look, there is a massive amount of information upon which to base an answer. The phenomenon of ‘White flight’ is well recorded in both North America and across the African continent. White flight is a social phenomenon observed around the world. It occurs when a certain number of non-Whites move into a formally White neighborhood or community causing the White inhabitants to pack their bags and flee.

DETROIT

Due to White flight vast areas of cities all around America have been abandoned to Black residents. The most amazing example of this situation is the city of Detroit. After WWII Detroit was one of the most prosperous cities in the world. It was even given the nickname ‘Paris of North America.’ In 1950 the city was the 5^th largest in the country, with a population of 1,849,568. At the very peak of the cities prestige, 1940, non-Hispanic Whites made up 90.4% of the population. Ever since the middle of the century the share of Detroit’s White European population has shrunk considerably, and with it the reputation and importance of the city.

Today Blacks make up 89% of the population of Detroit (a near complete reversal of 1940) and the city has diminished to 713,000 inhabitants. White flight caused, in just a few years, the almost complete handover of one of the most distinguished cities in the world from the White race to the Black. One of the significant reasons for the rapid exodus of the Whites from the city was Black violence. Negro crime was exemplified by the 12^th Street Riot, the second largest and most destructive riot in U.S. history. Whites, fearing for their lives, fled Detroit and left one of the most prosperous cities on earth in the hands of Blacks.

Consider the commentary offered by prominent Black economist Thomas Sowell:

‘Before the ghetto riot of 1967, Detroit's black population had the highest rate of home-ownership of any black urban population in the country, and their unemployment rate was just 3.4 percent. It was not despair that fueled the riot. It was the riot which marked the beginning of the decline of Detroit to its current state of despair. Detroit's population today is only half of what it once was, and its most productive people have been the ones who fled.’

Sowell concedes that racial violence didn’t break out because Blacks were in a terrible economic situation, in fact, the opposite was true. This point alone speaks volumes about multi-ethnic states, but that is another book unto itself. The importance of Detroit’s historical situation is that in the last 60 years of the history of that city we have a nearly perfect case-study of what happens when current levels of Western prosperity and institutions are handed over to members of the Black race. Detroit is exemplary in that it was not handed over to a degenerate brand of Blacks, but as Thomas Sowell said, the most prosperous Black people in the country (and arguably in the entire world).

The story of the decline and fall of Detroit is well known and anyone who is interested should be encouraged to research it. The collapse of Detroit following its White population’s replacement by members of the Black race is so dramatic as to be almost unbelievable. Detroit has fallen so far since the 1950s that today it is commonly cited as a post-apocalyptic environment. The landscape of Detroit is characterized by its remarkable similarity to a vacant dilapidated world in which humanity had once suddenly been struck by a cataclysmic event throwing society into anarchy and causing the deaths of millions of people.

In 2010 the History Channel aired a documentary called Apocalypse Man in which the host, Rudy Reyes, showed viewers how to deal with scenarios one might face after a catastrophic event suddenly ended civilization… the documentary was filmed in the ruins of Detroit.

Just recently an ingenious entrepreneur presented plans for turning the deserted dilapidated warehouses and neighborhoods of Detroit into a new kind of theme park called Zombie World (or ‘Z World’). He sold the idea with the words ‘everyone wants to live through a zombie apocalypse at least once.’ Several major news organizations (TIME, Detroit Free Press, LA Times, etc.) debated the plan with positive feedback. 

In an even more startling development it was revealed in 2012 that the city was in such bad shape that the Mayor unveiled a plan to bulldoze, just raze, 25% of the city! However, Detroit was so broke that the U.S. government had to give them 20 million dollars of federal stimulus money in order to start the demolition project.

In 2009 it was reported that the city had nearly run out of food, and that groceries were having to be unloaded under the surveillance of armed military fatigued guards. In fact, Detroit does not even have a single supermarket within it, which forces its residence to get food at corner stores or discount chains.

The real unemployment rate of the city is something near 50%.

Dave Schultz a Police Crime Prevention Examiner for the city recently had this to say about the state of law and order in Detroit 2012: ‘The city is a virtual war zone and the Detroit Police Department is helpless at this time.’ Shortly after that quotation was made the Black Detroit police Chief Ralph Godbee was forced to resign after it was proven that he had given out promotions in exchange for sexual services. It was reported that there was so much corruption going on that the Detroit Police Department had been turned into a ‘brothel.’ On October 8^th 2012 the Detroit police officers began handing out flyers to citizens that read: ‘Enter Detroit at Your Own Risk…Detroit is Americas most violent city. Detroit’s homicide rate is the highest in the country. Detroit’s Police Department is grossly understaffed.’ Commenting on the flyers police union attorney Donato Lorio said: ‘The DPOA believes that there is a war in Detroit, but there should be a war on crime, not a war on its officers.’

Even though Detroit spends thousands of dollars per student for its school systems only a dismal 50% of the population can read!

Some conservatives claim that the decline of Detroit is due to its liberal policy ideology rather than the ethnic group that now inhabits it. But if this is the case why is Pittsburg, Pennsylvania a city ravaged by the collapse of the steel industry still considered a great place to live? Pittsburg is overwhelmingly liberal. The answer to the question is obvious: Pittsburg is overwhelmingly White.

Why are the states of Vermont, Maine, and Oregon such stellar places to live although they are arguably the most liberal left wing pro-socialist regions in America? Because all of those places have predominantly White populations.

I have lived in Columbus, Ohio. Occasionally I get the ‘privilege’ of driving through the less pretty sides of town. What I see are once beautiful mansions built during the glory days of the city. Now they are miserable ruins obviously neglected for decades and the neighborhoods they reside in are predominantly Black communities (if community can even be used to describe them).

Some might retort that the ruined mansions of Columbus are old and this is why they have become dilapidated. To that I would respond that the oldest residential part of the city, German Village, is a thriving upscale neighborhood that is now inhabited almost entirely by Whites. German Village itself had been ransacked by Blacks for many years and had become little more than a ghetto slum, but through a gentrification process that pushed the Blacks out with higher living costs the area has been returned to its former era of beauty and prosperity - an era which corresponded precisely with the return of the White race.

This kind of experience has been repeated in different cities and suburbs all across the country. Anyone can open their eyes and see examples of Blacks being incapable of sustaining the civilization we have given them all across the country. Everywhere there is a Black majority there is crime, ruin, and economic disintegration. It would be a challenge (probably impossible actually) to name a single predominantly Black area that most people would feel comfortable sending their children at night? Much less a single Black area where the average middle class American would want to live? If there is one, this author has never heard of it.

The Truth About Martin Luther King

‘Dr.’ Martin Luther King Jr. is the greatest Black hero in history.  He is known around the world for his efforts to desegregate White society in the American South. There are statues of him in Westminister Abbey, Birmingham, and even on America’s national mall. He is the only Black to have a national holiday named after him. In Gallups list of most admired people of the 20^th century MLK was second only to Mother Theresa. He’s even considered a saint by some religious groups. The reality, however, is that Martin Luther King Jr. was a moral degenerate and a hedonist. Few people understand the breadth of King’s disgusting behavior, and the vile soul he really possessed under all his supposedly inspiring speech.

PLAGERISM

      Martin Luther King Jr. is often regarded as a ‘Doctor of Theology.’ He obtained this degree from Boston University and was one of the first Blacks to be honored in this way. However, years later after King was dead Boston University recognized the reality that King had plagiarized over 50% of his dissertation from another author. If you were to look up King’s dissertation in the archives of Boston University you would find a little note from the University’s academic committee explaining that half of the work is a downright lie.

Journalist Theodore Pappas reviewed Kings school papers and summed up Kings plagiarized sentences (which was widespread throughout his work) by saying they: ‘are easy to detect because their style rises above the level of his pedestrian student prose. In general, if the sentences are eloquent, witty, insightful, or pithy, or contain allusions, analogies, metaphors, or similes, it is safe to assume that the section has been purloined.’ Martin Luther King was nothing more than a stupid low brow fraud who didn’t even have the intellect to write his own school papers. King’s robbery of other people work was common throughout his life. Pappas goes on to explain how virtually everything King is known for today was the work of other people:

‘King’s Nobel Prize Lecture was plagiarized extensively from works by Florida minister J. Wallace Hamilton; the sections on Gandhi and nonviolence in his ‘Pilgrimage’ speech were taken virtually verbatim from Harris Wofford’s speech on the same topic; the frequently replayed climax to the ‘I Have a Dream’ speech–the ‘from every mountainside, let freedom ring’ portion–came from a 1952 address to the Republican National Convention by a black preacher named Archibald Carey; and the 1968 sermon in which King prophesied his martyrdom was based on works by J. Wallace Hamilton and Methodist minister Harold Bosley.’

COMMUNIST

      Martin Luther King Jr. was a communist. Many of his advisors were communist operatives including: highly ranked KGB agent Victor Lessiovsky, Aubrey Williams, James Dombrowski, Carl Braden, William Melish, Ella J. Baker, Bayard Rustin, Benjamin Smith, Stanley Levinson, and Hunter Pitts O’Dell.

MLK knew very well that he was associating with communists because President Kennedy himself confronted him on the issue. Historian David Garrow wrote about one of Kings conversations with the Marxist C.L.R. James:

‘King leaned over to me saying, ‘I don’t say such things from the pulpit, James, but that is what I really believe.’. . . King wanted me to know that he understood and accepted, and in fact agreed with, the ideas that I was putting forward–ideas which were fundamentally Marxist-Leninist. . . . I saw him as a man whose ideas were as advanced as any of us on the Left, but who, as he actually said to me, could not say such things from the pulpit. . . . King was a man with clear ideas, but whose position as a churchman, etc. imposed on him the necessity of reserve.’

King’s ties with Communist Party USA eventually led Robert Kennedy to authorize Jay Edgar Hoover to secretly wiretap him.

SEX ADDICT & ADULTUER

     Martin Luther King Jr. was a sex addict and adulterer. King was married and had several kids, but while off spewing his ideology to the masses he spent his evenings engaged in wild sex parties with random women he met after preaching the Holy Scripture.

Because of the wiretaps installed at Robert Kennedy’s approval the FBI recorded hours upon hours of his nightly sexual escapades.

On January 6^th 1967 one of the wiretaps captured the audio from a wild night long orgy in which at one point MLK screamed out ‘I’m F*cking for God!’

Martin Luther King’s best friend Ralph Abernathy recorded that King had sex with a member of the Kentucky State Legislature who is now known to be the first Black female member of that states governing body, Georgia Davis Powers.

King is quoted as excusing his animalstic behavior by saying ‘I’m away from home twenty-five to twenty-seven days a month. F***ing’s a form of anxiety reduction.’ King’s private language with his friends was especially crude and degrading. One FBI tape caught King telling Abernathy: ‘Come on over here, you big black motherf*cker, and let me suck your d*ck.’ On the day of JFKs funeral King, the greatest Black spiritual leader in history, responded to Jacqueline Kennedys emotional collapse by saying: ‘Look at her. Sucking him off one last time.’ Martin Luther King Jr. was such a despicable animal that in seeing a wife mourn her slain husband all he could think of was a sex act. 

EMEMY OF CHRISTIANITY

      Martin Luther King Jr. wasn’t a Christian. The so called Baptist preacher denied Jesus’ resurrection, the Virgin Birth, and even the divinity of Christ himself. In his seminary papers he suggested that we ‘strip them [afore mentioned doctrines] of their literal interpretation.’ He wrote that Christ was only God in that people ‘found God in him.’ And said that the virgin birth could not be accepted. As he stated:

‘First we must admit that the evidence for the tenability of this doctrine is to [sic] shallow to convince any objective thinker. How then did this doctrine arise? A clue to this inquiry may be found in a sentence from St. Justin’s First Apology. Here Justin states that the birth of Jesus is quite similar to the birth of the sons of Zeus. It was believed in Greek thought that an extraordinary person could only be explained by saying that he had a father who was more than human. It is probable that this Greek idea influenced Christian thought.’

Of the resurrection he wrote: ‘In fact the external evidence for the authenticity of this doctrine is found wanting.’

No one can call themselves a Christian and deny the very doctrines upon which every tenet of that faith is constructed.

      There is no groundwork upon which Martin Luther King’s virtue can be founded. He was nothing more than an unbelieving, anti-American, fraudulent, debauched, adulterer. He was disloyal to Christ, his own wife and children, and the United States of America.

Subscript - While we’re at it we might as well mention that Al Sharpton has been recorded by FBI agents arranging a cocaine drug running operation into the United States. Jesse Jackson, a fellow civil rights ‘hero,’ claims to be a Baptist pastor but he also cheated on his wife and fathered an illegitimate daughter with one of his co-workers.

The Case for Secession

Hundreds of thousands of names have been submitted to the White House as Americans from all 50 states advocate secession. It’s about time for the Federal Government, and our ‘nation’s’ leaders, to consider how badly they’ve screwed this country up. In 1950 the United States of America was miles ahead of the rest of world in every possible measure: wealth, moral supremacy, education, etc. Fast forward to 2012 and the country is bankrupt, despised by the world, and has educationally fallen out of the top 10 nations (and every years sinks lower and lower).

The United States no longer produces anything, having shipped all of its manufacturing overseas. Middle class jobs are drying up and the wealth gap between rich and poor has increased extraordinarily in recent years. The intelligent Eurasian races now form a permanent upper class with Blacks and Hispanics forming a dysfunctional uneducated underclass. Consider that the average White family is worth 22 times more than the average Black family! The wealth gap will only amplify as racial diversity increases (which it most certainly will), a phenomenon that promises to pit race against race in a political process that will continue to be dominated by ethnic tension and class warfare. We cannot close the class/wealth/racial divide because we cannot make Blacks more intelligent and we cannot make Whites more stupid. If the present situation continues it is only a matter of time until the silent simmering race war explodes out upon our everyday lives.

The solution: split the country up along racial/ethnic/cultural lines. White Christians, centered in the South, no longer share a single thing in common (from food to religion to dialogue) with a Black resident of New York. Nations arise from a community’s interest in establishing political structures that will protect the values they cherish. It is not the job of the government to make us all ‘get along,’ or to force value systems down upon the very people who created it. The United States government has been in the business of engineering a multi-cultural society that none of its citizen’s desire. People want to live and associate with like minded people. Factions are always the cause of violence and conflict. Immigration and Civil Rights has destroyed the common heritage of the American people.

The Founding Father John Jay wrote that Americans were blessed to be: ‘a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs.’ Obviously, that condition has changed. Today none of the similarities that John Jay cited can be considered true. Americans today are divided by every possible measure. Christianity no longer dominates our system of laws and fewer and fewer Americans self identify by that religion. Millions of Americans speak Spanish, with no working knowledge of English, and soon Puerto Rico may become a Spanish only state. In 2042 America will have no majority race… much less majority ethnic group. Americans no longer clamor for small government, but rather 1/4^th would have the government provide for them from cradle to grave.

Multi-culturalism was an admirable experiment, but recent science has rendered it absurd. It has been discovered that the races are not equal in intelligence and disposition. History has demonstrated that ethnic factions produce unbelievable genocide and power struggle. In recent years throngs of Blacks have begun attacking Whites and flash mobbing convenience stores. Trayvon Martin demonstrated that 5 decades after Civil Rights ended racial tension hovers beneath the surface ready to explode. It’s time to accept that ethnic/religious factions must form their own governments and stand sovereign over their own affairs. Pluralism is a losing proposition. It’s time for Western society to swallow its pride and accept that the human impulse towards ethno-nationalisms is a scientific reality that cannot be subdued.

- I. J. Talour

Is Slavery Evil?

Last month I was sitting in a class about America’s culture heritage when upon hearing about the faith of the founding fathers a less than intelligent Black girl who calls herself a Christian proclaimed in an infuriated derogatory tone: ‘I don’t see how those men could have been true Christians because they owned slaves!’

The professor was either delusional or too cowardly to stand up to this accusation of racism from the loud mouthed girl because he admitted that our founding fathers must have been flawed or really were hypocrites because no one could follow the golden rule and still have slaves. The other Black girls in the class began to grunt and howl in approval becoming stimulated to animation by the drum beat of a fellow Black preaching the gospel of Negro righteousness at the hands of the White man.

The professor saw that he had to appease the now bellicose mob of African furor that had been whipped up on his watch. He proclaimed the White man’s guilt by challenging any of us to consider whether we would choose to be slaves, and if the answer was ‘no’ than slavery was surely a sin. All I could think was ‘If you asked anyone whether they would choose to be a king or a serf they certainly wouldn’t choose to be serf but that doesn’t mean the King is disobeying the Golden Rule by enforcing his authority over the serf.’

Of course 90% of Blacks would not understand such an argument because they have no conception of complex government, maybe one in a thousand could deliver a good definition of a serf.

American slavery is held to be an abomination that no Christian could possibly endorse. However, most biblical scholars down through history have not taken this position. Consider the great restoration preacher Alexander Campbell who said: ‘There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral.’

Campbell had it right. The Bible only ever seeks to regulate slavery. God established slavery in the only society he ever explicitly designed: the Nation of Israel. Leviticus 25:44-46:

‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you [non-Israelites] and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.’

Notice that God allows Israelites to treat non-Hebrews differently than fellow Israelites simply based on what ethnicity they belong to.

Sure, it’s immoral to beat your slaves and starve them, the same as it’s immoral to beat and starve your best friend, but slavery is only a socio-economic institution and thus it cannot be wrong in and of itself. God had no problem outlawing all kinds of evil behaviors in ancient Israel, but he explicitly allowed for the Hebrews to own slaves. A person who says that slavery is inherently evil also states that God committed an evil act by instituting slavery. All the arrogant moderns these days may be perfectly content with condemning God for slavery, but personally I don’t want to be the one to reach the pearly gates and tell God he was a terrible racist for letting the Hebrews own slaves.

I can already hear the cries of protests: ‘God allowed it in the Old Testament, but in the Church he abolished it!’ Let’s just pretend for a second that this absurd last minute cop-out argument is legitimate.

Usually this argument is based, at least in part, on the verse where Jesus states that divorce and remarriage wasn’t what God wanted in the Old Testament, but he tolerated it. Thus the story goes that God tolerated slavery in the Old Testament, but didn’t want it. This line of thinking, however, is totally undermined by the fact that nowhere in the Old Testament does God look positively on divorce and remarriage. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is the verse the Israelites were using to justify divorcing a wife, but that verse only gives a husband the right to divorce if there is somehow sexually defiled ( committed adultery or lied about being a virgin). The lesson, then, is that the Israelites had distorted God’s original teachings, which Jesus reestablishes. Even in the Old Testament divorce has always been seen as an abomination to God. With slavery, however, God actually established that institution among his chosen people and never expressed any distaste for it.

Consider that 1/3^rd or 33% (that’s a conservative estimate) of the entire population of the Roman Empire in the first century consisted of slaves. 1 out of every 3 people you laid eyes on walking down the sidewalk of Jerusalem on your average Sabbath was in bondage to some other person, and yet NEVER is slavery condemned in the New Testament!

In fact, not only is slavery never condemned some of the only times its ever mentioned are in a positive context. The apostle Paul opens the book of Romans by saying: ‘Paul, a bond-servant [literally slave in Greek] of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God…’ Jesus doesn’t hate slavery… he’s a slave holder!

While all that scriptural evidence is well and good most people are so indoctrinated by the anti-slavery propaganda that they refuse to accept that God could ever allow for slavery. So it’s utterly hilarious to bring up the book of Philemon and watch anti-slavery Christians trip over themselves in all kinds of bizarre antics to explain why Paul never tells Philemon to release Onesimus. The book of Philemon is about how the apostle Paul sends a runaway slave (Onesimus) back to his master (Philemon) because it was unacceptable for Onesimus to run away in the first place. Despite the entire topic of the book being slavery Paul never condemns the institution and never even condemns the idea of a Christian master owning a Christian slave. In characteristic fashion God through Paul seeks to regulate slavery by telling Philemon to treat Onesimus like his fellow Christian brother even though he is also his slave. The New Testament position on slavery correlates exactly the Old Testament position on it: slavery is just one more neutral human institution.

The old ‘lean-to’ argument for anti-slavery Christians goes something like this: ‘because slavery was such a pervasive institution in the 1^st century the Christians didn’t want to condemn it right off the bat for fear that the Romans would really come after them. So instead they left the issue alone even though they thought it was sinful.’ Allow me to rephrase this argument in clearer wording: ‘the Apostles were too cowardly to stand up for the truth, because they feared the government, so they let early Christians go on living in sin.’ Consider that almost 100% of all Romans were idolaters and the emperor was even revered as a type of god, yet the New Testament writer’s blast pagan religion as sinful across every page of the Bible. So let me get this straight… the apostles were too wussy to tell the truth about slavery, but they had no problem attacking the entire rest of the world and even the position of the emperor himself? Sounds like a totally legitimate argument [sarcasm].

Just like slavery, marriage was also instituted by God in scripture. Just like slavery marriage can be turned into an abusive arrangement. I’ve seen statistics that estimate 25% of all marriages are abusive, and yet no one but the lesbian butch feminists would ever suggest we just rid the entire world of marriage.

A bunch of multi-culturalist fanatics have spread the lie, through movies like Roots (which itself was a lie), that ‘every slave in the antebellum South was brutally whipped within an inch of his life, and was forced to undertake hard labor under scorching hot conditions until he fell down dead in the cotton field.’ In reality, slave holders treated their slaves relatively well because they were actually worth A LOT of money. I may own my car, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to smash the windshield every time it doesn’t start up on the first try.

I’m not suggesting that slave holders treated their slaves well just because they cost too much to damage, but I am suggesting that just looking at the situation from an economic stand point the myth of the commonly abused negro is totally absurd. In general, I think it can be said, that Southern plantation owners treated their slaves in a Christian manner.