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.

 

Is 'Racism' a Sin?

Among Christian circles discussion of race and prejudice has been limited to denunciations of racial bias. White people are, throughout history, accused of being fake Christians and heinous sinners for holding slaves and thinking lowly of Blacks.

  

STERYOPTYPES / DESCRIMINATION

First we must ask the question: what is ‘racism?’ If racism means hating somebody just because they belong to a different race then I don’t think anyone will dispute that racism is wrong. However, I’ve yet to meet anyone who hated everyone from another race.

I once had a friend of a friend who claimed he hated Blacks. He talked about it all the time. He made jokes about hanging Black people on trees and lynching them and all kinds of awful stuff. Naturally, I assumed he hated people because of their race. A few weeks after I met him a Black guy came to one of our parties and the two of them became best friends. When confronted about it my racist friend of a friend said ‘well, he’s just different then most nig***s.’ So even my lynch happy friend of a friend turned out to not really hate people because of their race. I myself, even though I am writing this insanely ‘racist’ document, have many Black friends. But if hating members of another race isn’t racism, what is?

Most people in the media and popular culture define racism as some kind of bias against or generalization about another race (except white people, anyone can slam them and be ok). Usually, however, making a generalization about a race is only considered racist if it’s negative. So if I said ‘Asians are really smart’ that wouldn’t be racist, but if I said ‘Blacks are really promiscuous,’ that would be racist.

The Bible doesn’t say anything about this kind of language or thought. However, the Bible does USE this kind of language and thought. In fact, the sinless Jesus himself uses it. Consider Matthew 18:17: ‘If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the assembly. If he refuses to hear the assembly also, let him be to you as a Gentile or a tax collector.’ In this verse Jesus is telling people what they should do with a person that will not repent of sins. Jesus uses two negative generalization in this verse, he equates Gentiles, which is a term for a person that is not racially Jewish, to tax collectors, a group that everyone hated and viewed as robbers. So what Jesus says is: people who are not racially Jewish are just as sinful as people who steal money, and should be treated like an unrepentant sinner. Of course Jesus wasn’t saying that all Gentiles are miserable rotten people, but he was stating and confirming a negative bias founded upon race.

God acts upon racial generalizations commonly in the Old Testament. Probably the most famous example of this come from Samuel chapter 15:

‘This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’

God judges an entire racial group based upon the sins of the past generations.

   A similar situation occurs in Numbers chapter 5 when God orders the people of Israel to: ‘Treat the Midianites as enemies and kill them,’ because many of their women had misled the men of Israel into idolatrous worship. Rather than isolating particular individuals, however, the Lord singles out an entire racial group for punishment.

 

Another common definition of racism is that it occurs when a person shows favoritism towards members of their own race over members of another race. For example, if a Black person and a White person applied for the same job and a White store owner hired the White person because they were similar racially.

However, ethnic/racial bias shows up in Jesus’ ministry on earth. Consider Matthew 15:

‘Jesus went away from there and withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon. And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and cried, ‘Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely possessed by a demon.’ But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, ‘Send her away, for she is crying after us." He answered, ‘I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.’ But she came and knelt before him, saying, ‘Lord, help me.’ And he answered, ‘It is not fair to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.’ She said, ‘Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table.’ Then Jesus answered her, ‘O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.’ And her daughter was healed instantly.’

Also consider when Christ sent his apostles out to preach in Matthew 10: Jesus sent these twelve out, and commanded them, saying, ‘Don't go among the Gentiles, and don't enter into any city of the Samaritans [Samaritans are a group a racial mix of Jewish and gentile blood].’ 

Both of these verses from Jesus’ ministry demonstrate that Christ knew that it was at least sometimes necessary to demonstrate racial bias. Jesus even stated that he was not sent but to his own people, the Jews.

The fact that Christ grants the Canaanite women her request detracts nothing from his racial bias because, as he says, he is only sent to feed the children (ethnic Jews)… not the dogs (gentiles).

 

ETHNO-NATIONALISM

Although all kinds of ‘racism’ could be discussed I want to focus on one socio-political brand of it. Personally I endorse ethno-nationalism and I want everyone else to endorse it too. Is it a sin? Is it a sin to deny citizenship and political rights to groups of people based on their race? Is it a sin to found a nation based on a common racial group and therefore exclude immigrants/minorities that do not match that racial makeup?

The Anti-racism social justice Christian pests usually scream ‘yes!’ to all these questions and then, through the bull horn, recite Galatians 3:28: ‘There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.’ These multi-culturalist Christians start spouting nonsense about how we should all live together in perfect harmony and all the races should marry one another and live in Christian communism.

I don’t even have to come up with an incredibly complex argument to divorce Galatians 3:28 from the anti-racism cause because the passage accomplishes this on my behalf.  The verse says: ‘we are all one in Christ Jesus’… it doesn’t say: ‘we are all one in government, we are all one in society, we all one in where we live, we are all one race, etc.’ It’s quite easy for me to accept that I am one with some loin cloth garbed African in Nigeria when it comes to Christ. In fact, I’m quiet glad that all around the world there are people of all races and cultures who serve the same savior I do. If my religion was isolated to one race, and one nation, I might think it didn’t represent universal truth. Of course if I ever received the opportunity I would wish Christian’s from any part of the world Godspeed, and I would do whatever was in my power to help them physically and spiritually. However, I am not so stupid as to suspect that these diverse cultures and races could live peaceably in the same neighborhood as my culture and my race when we have so many irreconcilable differences!

I love many people, however, most of them I would not want to come sleep in my bedroom every night. On a social level, there are a lot of cultures and races I love, but I don’t want them to transport themselves to my community and local school. Any reasonable person understands that that is a recipe for utter disaster and chaos. Loving your neighbor doesn’t mean you want to marry and share your whole life with them (and it doesn’t require it). I might spiritually love Australian Aborigines, and yet, I have no desire whatsoever to go live with them.

Another part of Galatians 3:28 that everyone seems to miss is ‘male and female.’ According to the anti-racist Christians we  should interpret Galatians 3 to mean we shouldn’t base our decisions on race… so I guess that also means we shouldn’t make decisions based on gender seeing as how that is mentioned alongside race. I suppose we have to throw out everything that Paul said about women being subject to their husbands and being good mothers. I guess Paul was contradicting himself.  Of course this is all ludicrous sarcasm and I am only mocking to the absurdity of the social justice multi-cultural Christian creed.  

Now that we know that the multi-culturalist Christian’s best argument is total crap let’s move on to see if we can find a place in the Bible where God gives a ‘thumbs-up’ to ethno-nationalism. Oh wait… I have one… the entire Old Testament!

The entire Old Testament, save a few chapters about the creation of world in Genesis, is about the history and literature of the Nation of Israel.  The Nation of Israel is endlessly referred to as ‘God’s chosen people.’ Some of the most memorable stories in the Bible are those that involve God saving, blessing, and even cursing his chosen people. The Nation of Israel begins when God promises Abraham that someday the land of Canaan will belong to his descendents, literally his blood line, and through him all nations of the earth will be blessed. Over the course of centuries Abraham’s blood line grows into a great nation bound by a common genetic lineage. Finally God grants the land of Canaan to the Israelites and establishes the Hebrew nation-state. As the Israelites march into Canaan God gives them their command:

‘Only in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. But you shall utterly destroy them: the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the Lord your God has commanded you, so that they may not teach you to do according to all their detestable things which they have done for their gods, so that you would sin against the Lord your God.’

In the only political state that God ever personally designed he orders that there be absolutely no ethnic diversity, no pluralism, no multi-culturalism. God orders that entire races of people be wiped out or driven away. The Promised Land is intended for the Hebrew ethnic descendents of Abraham, and Yahweh worship, and for them alone.

After the Jewish state was founded the laws of the land openly favored Jews over other ethnic peoples. A Hebrew could not keep a fellow Hebrew as a slave for more than 7 years, but he could keep a foreigner or even a non-Hebrew residing in the land of Israel as a slave for their entire life, and even pass them down to their children as inherited property.

The Lord ordered that certain races of people could never enter his assembly and could never be the partner of Israelites in treaty:

‘No Ammonite or Moabite or any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, even down to the tenth generation. For they did not come to meet you with bread and water on your way when you came out of Egypt, and they hired Balaam son of Beor from Pethor in Aram Naharaim to pronounce a curse on you.’

Deuteronomy 23 makes it very clear that God is discriminating based upon genetic racial inheritance by being very specific in prohibiting cooperation with certain people based on their lineage (‘to the tenth generation’). In this passage God is creating a socio-political law that openly discriminates against a race of people based on the sins of those individuals’ ancestors. God leaves the enforcement of this law in the hands of the Israelites; he tells them to openly discriminate by race. How many more sins must Blacks commit against our society before we hand down a similar proclamation?

The Nation of Israel was founded upon a common racial blood line and upon a common religion and language. Nowhere in the Bible is multi-culturalism endorsed. Nowhere in the Bible is modern ‘racism’ condemned. In fact, racial bias is found throughout the entirety of the Holy Scriptures from Abraham to Jesus Christ.

If God was opposed to the creation and maintenance of ethnically and religiously homogenous countries, than why did he choose to save the human race by creating and utilizing one? The Old Testament is arguably the most ‘racist’ document ever concocted. The idea that only one small ethnic group held the key to the spiritual salvation of mankind for thousands of years, at the exclusion of all the other people groups on the globe, is the most prejudiced belief system yet devised. It is very nearly impossible to exhaust the number of ways in which it can be communicated that the Old Testament is profoundly racist. Today sensible people are denounced for holding the opinion that the White race is intellectually superior to the Black one. Today the same sensible people are blasted for not hiring in such a way in which all the races and ethnic groups in America can be represented equally. Schools enact affirmative action programs so that everyone has representation. Today Blacks and Muslims and Mexicans can all vote for how our country is run so that ‘all will have a voice.’ If you oppose such ideas of equality than you are a sinful racist, but God ‘one-ups’ such racists. In fact, God makes today’s racial realists look tame. Consider for a moment that out of the 40 some authors of the Bible every single one was ethnically Jewish. If there was ever a time for racial equality don’t you think that the writing of mankind’s sacred book would be that time? Apparently, God didn’t receive the equal representation memo because he decided to deliver his divine will through a group of White Jewish males.

There is one more comment I want to make about ‘racism.’ The Bible states that if a man will not provide for his own family he is worse than an infidel. What is race except for an extended family? Just like the Nation of Israel consisted of individuals that were genetically linked back to Abraham modern races are just really large family groups. For example all Anglo-Saxons in America are related to one another. If you doubt this consider that I grew up in Ohio and upon moving to Alabama I began attending a new church. Soon after, I discovered through ancestry.com that I was 6^th cousins with my minister’s wife and daughters. We shared 2 different grandfathers who lived in the 1600s.

Consider a world where no one showed bias towards their own family… what if a father decided that he didn’t want to be biased toward his own kids, just because they were genetically related to him, so he bought an equal amount of food for every kid in his neighborhood including his own children. His offspring would soon starve.  No one would suggest that genetic bias is wrong when it applies to your own household and yet the same people that would scorn such an idea openly argue that being biased towards ones broadly extended family (i.e. race) is somehow an open abomination against Christianity. Every thinking human being knows that bias is a good thing, as it relates to family, and yet their all too dumb to see how that principal can be extended. These people are unthinking brainwashed idiots. If one takes 5 seconds to think the entire thing through one wonders how ‘racism’ ever became a sin.

Author: I. J. Talour