Black Supremacy – Obama suggests Blacks are the ‘Chosen People’

PART I

 

 

 OBAMA AMERICA'S BLACK SATANIC MOSES 

 

https://warningilluminati.wordpress.com/hands-signs-signs-of-satan/

 

 

 

 

Obama celebrates Passover
in the White House

In his famous speech on race relations, “A more Perfect Union,” Obama made reference to supremacist black nationalist belief that blacks are the real Jews, the Chosen People. White supremacists, such as the Christian Identity movement have a similar race-based gnostic concept that whites are the biblical “Chosen People” and inherited the Jews’ covenant with God. This quote is excerpted from the text of the speech that you can read here.

In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:

“People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend’s voice up into the rafters….And in that single note – hope! – I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion’s den, Ezekiel’s field of dry bones. Those stories – of survival, and freedom, and hope – became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn’t need to feel shame about…memories that all people might study and cherish – and with which we could start to rebuild.”

Supremacist Cult Religion
Blacks are the divine, Chosen Race

A couple of hundred years ago, some black slaves in America began to identify intensely with the suffering of the Jews of the Old Testament and the captivity of the Jews in Babylon and in Egypt. The idea has been transformed into the basic belief of the the black nationalist cult religious movement. There are a number of black nationalist sects and various groups identify themselves as Muslims, Jews or Christians, but they are really not any of these and have more in common with each other than they do with the religions to which they claim to belong. Black nationalists maintain that they are “the real Jews” and that “white” Jews are apostate. They revile traditional Christianity as a religion designed to keep blacks (and other non-whites) enslaved and oppressed. It is not a church, but an anti-church.

That is what Obama refers to above. The Black Liberation Theology of Obama’s sect under Jeremiah Wright explicitly states that blacks are the “Chosen People” and that whites and America will face retribution for slavery. The following quote is from Black Theology and Black Power” by James H. Cone (1969), page 151, his first book on Black Liberation Theology.

Therefore, God’s Word of recon­ciliation means that we can only be justified by becoming black. Reconciliation makes us all black. Through this radical change, we become identified totally with the suffering of the black masses.It is this fact that makes all white churches anti-Christian in their essence. To be Christian is to be one of those whom God has chosen. God has chosen black people!

Obama prays to the God of Black Supremacy

Furthermore, Black Liberation Theology teaches that white society is the Antichrist and America’s democratic institutions, such as the Constitution, are the demonic tool of the “Antichrist,” used by the Antichrist to hold the non-white peoples of the world in oppression and servitude. This quote is taken from “Black Theology and Black Power” by James H. Cone (1969), page 135.

Because Black Theology is biblical theology seeking to create new value-perspectives for the oppressed, it is revolutionary theology. It is a theology which confronts white society as the racist Antichrist, communicating to the oppressor that nothing will be spared in the fight for freedom. It is this attitude which distinguishes it from white American theology and identifies it with the religionists of the Third World.

Black Liberation Theology, like the broader theology of black nationalism, is a bizarre, supremacist, cult religious belief system and Americans need to learn more about it, in order to understand Obama’s motivations. Obama often reveals his black nationalist beliefs in his actions as well as his words. Traditional Christianity was not taught at Trinity United Church of Christ and that is the only church that Obama ever joined.

If the foundation books on Black Liberation Theology by James H. Cone are compared to the doctrine of the broader black nationalist movement, you can see that Black Liberation Theology is just a more sophisticated version of the theology of the broader black nationalist movement. The books by Elijah Muhammad, available on Amazon, are probably the best description of the black identity theology of black nationalism. Read some of the books by or about Elijah Muhammad and compare the basic beliefs that the black race is God and the white race the devil to the basic beliefs of Black Liberation Theology, the doctrine of Obama’s black nationalist sect in Chicago.

Some have suggested that Obama is a psychopathic Narcissist, a psychological disorder endemic to politicians and cult leaders. Such people are attracted to cult doctrines like the religious doctrine of black racial nationalism, because it justifies their megalomaniacal feelings of having a divine mission in the world.

click on the link below and read this outstanding research paper 
COOPER P. ABRAMS III: The Origin of Race

This 52-page document goes into great detail as to how these individuals have incited a race war in America and Larry Klayman is not letting up.

FOR MORE DETAILS ON THIS CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT GO TO THE LINK BELOW:

Obama, BLM inspired Dallas massacre

PART II

Note: the following is an edited version of the below article. To read the unedited version, go to the link below

Rosemary W. Pennington · 14 March, 2015

 

Is it possible that the Black race is the 

 

most dysfunctional race on the planet? 

 

BLACK PEOPLE INVENTED EVERYTHING? 

THAT'S A BUNCH OF MALARKEY!

  Question: Why  are Blacks considered human? Why are Blacks and non-Blacks considered part of the same species? We could not look more different, act more different, or have more different personalities than them. There is a vast genetic divergence between Blacks and non-Blacks dating back 100,000 years. And even though Blacks and non-Blacks can have fertile offspring, biologically that has never been used as the exclusive standard for whether you belong to the same species or not.

Phenotypic Variations Between Blacks and Non-Blacks

Blacks have wide noses, kinky hair, black skin, high waist-to-hip ratios, prognathic jaws, long arms, and soulless, vacant eyes. Everything about them is ugly.
Blacks have the lowest IQ in the world (ignoring the equally disgusting and black-skinned Australian aborigines for convenience’s sake). The Bushmen clock in at around 50 IQ, the average Bantu achieves the mentally retarded level of 70 IQ, and the highly cultivated, well fed, well cared for, partially White African-Americans reach 85 IQ. IQ has an enormous impact on lifestyle, achievement, and behavior. IQ correlates to poverty, crime, mortality, and broken homes on one side — and education, wealth, human accomplishment, long life and stable homes on the other. According to IQ and the Wealth of Nations, a country must have a minimum average IQ of 90 to run a technological civilization. It is not a far cry to say it is IQ that makes humans better than the animals, and it is IQ that makes some humans better than other humans.

That’s not all though. Blacks are unique in that when we arrived, they had no written language, no wheel, no architectural works, nothing at all that would indicate they live a human existence. Whereas literature and palaces and cities existed in almost every corner of the earth, from the Incas to the Indians to the Persians to the Chinese to Stonehenge to Ankar Wat in Cambodia — nothing existed in Africa. For the past 100,000 years non-Blacks have been spreading across the globe, building pyramids and cities, developing new technology, domesticating animals and crops, covering themselves in finely decorated clothing, and living essentially human lives. Blacks, meanwhile, stayed nearly naked, self-mutilating, technology-less, with no domesticated animals, no written language, no wheel, no stone buildings, no metalworking, nothing.

Virtually every other non-Black group came up with an admirable or at least interesting religion or philosophy which was recorded and taught to a priesthood. Indians had the Vedas and the Upanishads, Chinese had Confucianism, Daoism, and various sects of Buddhism. Europeans had Virgil, Horace, and Homer to write down their pagan religion, with Plato, Aristotle, and numberless other greats to record their philosophy. Even the Aztecs had a corpus of literature which was, unfortunately, burnt and destroyed by the Spanish invaders. Shintoism was developed in Japan, the epic of Gilgamesh was recorded in ancient Babylonian times, and Egypt authored the Book of the Dead. Only Black Africa (and assorted primitives in Australasia) hadn’t recorded or created any official religion or philosophy. Blacks still rely on voodoo, witchcraft, black magic, and animism with no particular pantheon of Gods, no priesthood, not anything that could develop them past superstition and barbarism.

Today it is questionable what Blacks could achieve on their own, without the intervention of others giving to them all the things they could never produce or maintain themselves. Though we see Blacks walking around in business suits, speaking English, shooting guns, and making use of all sorts of non-Black generated goods and services and inventions and ideas and discoveries — none of them originate from the Black man. Without the continuous intervention of charity into Black Africa, it’s unknown whether they could even maintain what they have, or if they would simply regress back to mud huts the moment we left. All current Black civilization is in fact transplanted non-Black civilization. There is not as yet a single Black civilization on Earth that has independently developed and maintained its own technological and philosophical way of life. No Blacks have won any Nobel prizes in the hard sciences, Fields medals, or gotten any spot on a list of human accomplishment that would represent some major scientific or technological advancement for the world.
Geography can be no excuse, because Blacks today live all across the world. Blacks in France, the UK, and the USA are given preferential treatment and access to college educations, and yet they still produce nothing. At the same time, Whites who lived in South Africa and Zimbabwe made them into decent, First World nations without a problem. There is nothing about the African continent inimical to modern life, it is simply the fact that it is populated by Blacks.

Nor can some strange combination of bad luck and being separate from other civilizations explain Black under performance. After all, Blacks have been connected to the outside world since the 1400s. They have had centuries to modernize and improve themselves in Africa with full access to modern knowledge and technology. In contrast, it took Japan about twenty years to modernize from a feudal Samurai culture to a fully modern industrial state which then took on and defeated Russia in 1900. Blacks have had centuries in the USA to do all sorts of human activities, immersed in White culture, knowledge, and technology. Instead all they do is riot, rape, steal, sell drugs, and demand more handouts from the government. Germany recovered from WWII in just ten years, becoming yet again a prosperous, powerful, and leading-edge modern civilization. Africans meanwhile cannot recover from ‘colonization,’ ’slavery,’ or ‘discrimination’ after centuries. Haiti has been an all-Black, independent, free state since the Napoleonic wars, 200 years ago. Even so, its lifestyle and standard of living perfectly matches that of darkest Africa. In those 200 years it hasn’t progressed an inch. In fact it has probably regressed since that time. Their neighbors in the Dominican Republic have immensely better statistics than them in all fields. Instead of a failed state, the Dominican Republic takes care of its people, has a working government, and doesn’t need charity. The difference? Their population is non-Black. All of the old, tired excuses are refuted by geography and history.

The Black murder rate is nine times that of the White/Hispanic (combined!) murder rate. It is 36 times as high as the Asian murder rate. Blacks are the majority of AIDS cases and all other STDs, their STD rates are completely out of proportion to all other groups. Even homosexuals have a hard time keeping up with the Black STD rates. No ordinary healthy human has the sexual habits of the Black race. Whereas every other people on earth developed a family structure, Blacks still roam around aimlessly screwing everyone they meet and never staying to raise the child. Seventy percent of Black children in the USA are illegitimate. In Africa, women largely do all the work and raise the kids while the men commit crime or sit around chewing leaves or smoking something. Domestic violence among Blacks is atrocious. Rape is endemic. The human race does not act like this; their morals and habits are completely different.

Good things can be said of virtually every group or civilization on earth. This is unsurprising, given the fact that everyone on earth is descended from the same small tribe that left Africa 100,000 years ago. East Asians are such decent, advanced people they are comparable to Whites. Unsurprisingly, they only diverged from the White race 40,000 years ago. There is only one group nothing good can be said about, there is only one group completely unrelated to the rest of the human race, and that is the Black African. There is enough genetic variation between Blacks and non-Blacks that any objective scientist, classifying us like they would classify various animal species, would label us different species. On one side humans, on the other Blacks. There is enough phenotypic, common sense variation, that again it is an insult to categorize Blacks among the human race. They are nothing like us and they never will be; they are worse in every way. Call them orcs, or trolls, devils, or whatever you like — they are not human.

PART III

Uncomfortable Truths: Are Africans lazy?

African development pales when compared to Western or Eastern development. There may be other reasons why this is so but the fact that we are not trying hard enough cannot be avoided.

By Tatenda Gwaambuka.

January 8th, 2017

In 2015, the Deputy Minister of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs in the South African cabinet, Mr Obed Bapela said of his countrymen, “South Africans do not want to get their hands dirty and rely on the government to provide them with free housing and free schooling.” He basically called them “a lazy nation”. A little while later, fake news websites peddled falsities of a Donald Trump speech where he said Africans are lazy fools only good at eating, lovemaking and thuggery. This speech was a hoax that served as click-bait and inflamed a lot of people but whoever created the fake speech simply exploited a widely held sentiment. Fast forward to June 2016, a Sandton pastor allegedly called black people lazy. Pastor Andrew Olivier is said to have told his congregants, “White people aren’t bad, it’s the black people that are lazy.”

Denial

Most African countries were colonized, that is a fact and no one should ever pretend that evil epoch never existed. However, colonization cannot be overstretched to then account for every failure in contemporary society. It is a problem when we become hardliners, unwilling to rationally consider all reasons Africa is not succeeding as much as it should. There are too many extreme and polarizing views and yet not as many rational answers for the continent’s plight. To put this into perspective, the believers of colonization being the reason for the current struggles will pretend it is the sole and exclusive reason. According to that thinking, every negative in contemporary society is a result of colonialism. This is denialism at its best. On the other end of the spectrum will be those who believe Africans are just lazy and want to reap where they did not sow. This breed will deny the existence of “white privilege” or the unfair global economics order choosing instead to attribute every problem Africa faces to the laziness of Africans and by implication, the West is privileged because of hardwork alone with no hint of exploitation. Both schools of thought apply in a world of absolutes but this current world is not that. There is a mix of everything and it is high time we confronted that mix. Colonialism, resultant self-deprecation, laziness, lack of capital and politics among many other things have played a part in keeping Africa behind. We will get emotional when we are told that we are lazy but it is time for introspection.

Laziness means we could have been doing more with what we have but we choose not to. From my observations, I have seen a lot more white people with an admirable working ethic than I have fellow blacks. This is no factual finding backed by statistical truths but the sentiment is echoed by how I see my fellows attempting to avoid companies or institutions which belong to fellow black people because of fear of poor service and excuses. In Zimbabwe, we call them “Museyamwa businesses” and these are not half as organised as they should be. They will churn out excuse after excuse for not delivering especially if the client pays before service is rendered. One may take this view to be a product of our own inferiority complex but the Museyamwa businesses are not doing a good job of getting the confidence of the people. They are the perfect encapsulation of laziness and sluggishness thus making it difficult to exclusively subscribe to the inferiority narrative. The inferiority complex cannot explain reprehensible behavior away. Small businesses in Africa should be the hotbed of innovation with governments sponsoring new inventions but the innovations are simply not coming. In many African countries, there are many learned people but this has amounted to nothing in developmental terms. It is as if we are learning so we can formulate better excuses for failing. Economies are still dependent on commodities thus driving us into recession whenever prices fall. Countries like Kenya where innovation is bein supported at every level and the people are working to create and contribute to humanity are the exceptions. Africa’s position in the world cannot be respected if it produces nothing the world cannot do without save for minerals and land. Even those minerals are being mined by the Chinese and the Europeans while we wait for them to give us jobs. We are becoming our own worst enemies.

African development pales when compared to Western or Eastern development. There may be other reasons why this is so but the fact that we are not trying hard enough cannot be avoided. Claiming we are still reeling from colonialism decades after is giving ourselves a convenient reason to relax and achieve nothing. Exploitation happened but our strength will be proved by creating and contributing to the advancement of humanity. The fact that Africa still has a lot to develop is in itself not a problem but a business opportunity. There is space for buildings to be built, concept cars to be created, smart cities to be built and new products to invent. Our space is not yet crowded and we should do more with it. Have we been lazy? Yes. Were we colonized? Yes. Is that enough to stop us from progressing? By no means!

 

The Rebuilding of the Third Jewish Temple

Rebuilding the Jewish Temple 


The Temple Mount Faithful are ready right now to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. But it will require a dramatic change of the political equation. 'Peace and security' must be fully assured for the Third Temple to be constructed on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. This rebuilding is prophesied to go forward. So who will have guaranteed the peace? And how will it have come about? Click on the link: Rebuilding the Jewish Temple below for more details.
Third Temple LOCATION FOUND!!! - Blogger

seraphimre.blogspot.com/...third-temple-location-found.html

HOW THE HUMAN RACE EVOLVED

THE ORIGIN OF RACE
By Cooper P. Abrams, III
*All rights reserved.

CONTENTSIntroduction.
What is Race?
Biblical Passages which have been Supposed to Indicate the Origin of Race.
The Role of Genetics in Race
Conclusion

INTRODUCTION.         An explanation of how the races came into being is quite puzzling for the average Christian. It is not uncommon to hear Christians responding to this question with explanations, which have roots in evolution and other unbiblical teaching. Many times we hear false explanations such as: the tanning effects of the sun on people who settled in Africa causing the development of very dark skin; or people in the Far East (because of a more moderate climate) resulting in the development of the yellow tones of Oriental peoples; or Caucasian peoples of the Northern hemisphere having lighter or white skin because of being exposed to a lesser degree of sunlight. Other explanations often offered as the origin of race are the curse on Cain (Gen. 4:10-15) and on Ham's son Canaan (Gen. 9:20-25). Such explanations are false and are not supported by the Bible, or by science.
         At some point in the life of every Christian we will be confronted with what is called the "racial problem." When this occurs, Christians and churches often respond in ignorance to the truth regarding the origin of race. The problem is compounded both by false interpretations of the Bible and erroneous teachings of evolution, which have caused many to doggedly support false ideas. In order to face the issue and make a correct biblical based response, the Christian first needs to understand what the Bible has to say about this matter. Secondly, he needs to supplement biblical knowledge with information from modern sound and unbiased scientific investigation.         It is the author's objective to present an explanation of how the races of man came into existence from a Biblical and scientific point of view. It is not the intent of this paper to deal with sociological issues or cultural influences, but to explore an epistemological route to the matter. A correct and unbiased explanation, of the origins of race, is actually quite simple.
WHAT IS RACE?      We first need to examine the definition of the word race. Race is commonly thought of as being three divisions of mankind; the Caucasian, the Mongoloid and the Negroid races. Webster's New World Dictionary provides the following definition:



 RACE:   Any of the major biological divisions of mankind, distinguished by color and texture of hair, color of skin and eyes, stature, bodily proportions, etc: many ethnologists now consider that there are only three primary divisions, the Caucasian (loosely ‘white race ), Negroid (loosely ‘black race ) and Mongoloid (loosely, ‘yellow race ), with various subdivisions: the term has acquired so many unscientific connotations that in this sense it is often replaced in scientific usage by ‘ethnic stock  or ‘group .”

     It is interesting to note that the above definition infers that the term is a loose one and that modern science is replacing with another definition, which is, essentially "race is determined by physical characteristics." Traditionally biblical scholars have concluded that the three races were the progeny of Noah's three sons, Shem, Japheth and Ham. ¹

 
    Japheth is the father of the Caucasian race; Shem of the Mongoloid race; and Ham of the Negroid race. Some have interpreted Noah's prophecies of his sons in Genesis 9 to be the Scriptural basis for discrimination of one race against another. Particularly, the supposed curse on Ham's son, Canaan, was purported to be biblical support for Negro slavery. We will deal with that later in this paper.
     Basically, race is a vague term and is difficult to define. If race is based upon the color and texture of hair by what guidelines are we to classify the different shades of hair from black to blonde? A look at any group of people indicates that hair color has little to do with what we think of as race. In any group of Caucasian people, no two hair shades are alike. Hair texture and a person's stature also differ between one individual and another. Although skin color appears to be an easier method of distinguishing one race from another, a closer look reveals that this too is only a vague rule of thumb. The problem lies in determining how to classify all the varying shades of color between black and white. In order to accomplish this, one must increase the number of races and list various subgroups. As the classification process continues it tends to make classification less significant and definable.
     Thus, the task of defining race is highly subjective and therefore, unscientific. We can consequently conclude that race is not clearly definable and is not a good term to use in describing variations among people.
     The question we must first answer is: "Are there races of men?" The difficulty of classifying man into races has been shown. Perhaps a better term would be "varieties" of man. Even evolutionary science concludes that all existing varieties of man are members of the same species.²   Inter-racial marriages are common and children are produced with no biological difficulties. Prominent anthropologist, Ruth Benedict in her book, "Race: Science and Politics" stated the peoples of the earth are a single family and have a common origin.³
     Once supposed biological differences, such as dissimilarity in blood, have proven to be incorrect. Blood is classified according to type, and all types are found within all supposed races of man. Blood transfusions are based on types A, B, AB, and O and are given without regard to race.⁴   It has also been supposed that different races have differing intelligence levels. This false and racist idea concludes that the Caucasian race is the most intelligent with the Negroid race being the least intelligent. This idea originated with Charles Darwin's false, inflammatory, and evolutionary idea that man is a descendent of primates. He concluded quite unscientifically that the Negro is more closely related to monkeys and apes because they look more like a primate. Since a Caucasian looks the least like a primate, Darwin said they were higher up on the supposed evolutionary chain and was more intelligent. Often the Oriental is portrayed as being the more advanced species of man because of less body hair.
     Modern testing of the races has shown that intelligence is not a measurement of race, because intelligence levels differ greatly with individuals within every race. Further cultural influence and advantages account for most supposed examples of differing intelligence. ⁵
    The next question is "Can race be Biblically defined?" The term race does not appear in the Bible. The Bible refers to differing peoples in terms such as family, tribe, people and nation. It groups people according to familial relationships and then into nationalities. An example of familial relationship is found in Genesis 10, where the genealogies listed are grouped by family and tribe. It should be noted that nowhere are the sons of Noah associated with race or color. An important passage on this matter is found in Genesis 10:5:

     "By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations" (Gen. 10:5).

     Note that familial and national division is shown, as well as division by geography and language (tongue). The significance of this will be discussed later in this paper. Nowhere in the Bible is prejudice based on what we determine as race; i.e. color of hair, skin, eyes or physical characteristics. When God commanded the children of Israel to be a separated people or to utterly destroy other peoples, it was always based upon the principle of separation from sin. The same principle of separation is presented in the New Testament when Christians are commanded to come out of the world and not be unequally yoked with the unsaved. (See 2 Cor. 6:14)
     In Scripture, there are several references to problems in which people with different racial backgrounds were involved. In each case, the instruction is clear that God made no distinction between races regarding salvation or blessing. In Numbers 12:1-16, Miriam and Aaron openly criticized Moses for marrying an Ethiopian woman. However, the issue was not racial, but jealousy over Moses' leadership, and the criticism was over marrying a foreigner, any foreigner, and not because she was an Ethiopian (see Number 12:2). In Acts 13:1 we read of "Simeon that was called Niger" and "Luis of Cyrene". Simeon was also referred to by his Latin name "Niger" ("Niger" translates as "black" in English).
     Lucius was from Cyrene (Cyrene was an ancient city in North Africa; ancient Cyrene the modern city of Shahhat, Libya Simeon and Lucius are therefore thought to be black men who had an active place in the church at Antioch. Their names and countries are the only clues given regarding their race. As we see here in Acts 13:1, and in other parts of the Bible, when God spoke of groups of people, it was always in the context of their nationality and not their race. The most notable reference to racial prejudice was the Jews unfavorable feelings for the Samaritans. The Samaritans were racially mixed people that the Assyrian colonists brought in order to settle Palestine, after Israel was taken captive and only a remnant of Jews were left in the land. The Jews who were left in the land inter-married with these non-Jews, which were forbidden in Israel. These groups not only mixed racially, but also merged their religions into a Judaistic cult which the orthodox Jews hated.
   The Jews also perverted their special position with God into a false national and ethnic pride that looked down on all Gentiles seeing them as "dogs." They considered themselves as superior to all other peoples, however, their ethnic pride did not come from God but from their sinful hearts. When God called Abraham, as Genesis 12:3 records, he stated that "In thee all the families of earth would be blessed." Genesis 22:18, says that from Abraham's seed ". . .all the nations of earth would be blessed." Both these passages are Messianic references to the coming of Christ, the Savior of the World as Paul explains in Galatians 3:6. God's offer of salvation was to the entire world (see Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 1:8; 10:1-11:18; I John 2:2).
    See the following classic passage in Romans 10:11-13:
     "For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Rom. 10:11-13).
     Both the Old and New Testaments show that God does not hold any significance to race. God sees all people as one people called "man." Physical characteristics are not a part of God's evaluation of man ". . .for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart" (I Samuel l6:7).
     God states clearly He is not a respecter of persons, and that includes race or nationality.. "Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But inevery nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." (Acts 10:34-35)
     Race, as defined by Webster's Dictionary, is not a Biblical term and nowhere can it be shown that physical characteristics of people are a reason or a guide to distinguish one from another.
BIBLICAL PASSAGES WHICH HAVE BEEN
SUPPOSED TO INDICATE THE ORIGIN OF RACES.
    The Curse on Cain
Genesis 4:11-15
     Often we hear the mark of "Cain" being related to the black race. To briefly deal with this erroneous idea it should be simply pointed out that the Hebrew word "oth" does not mean "mark" as an outward physical token or mark placed on Cain. Leupold says that the word is better translated "sign."⁶ Also, the text does not say that God set a mark "in" or "on" Cain and certainly does not even hint at the mark being related to his skin color or physical characteristics. The word used indicates God gave him a sign of guaranty, or an assurance that he would be protected. Ryrie says it was a sign to reassure him of God's gracious protection of his life.⁷ Furthermore, even if one were to take the position that Cain was given the mark of being black, all of his progeny died in the flood and since Noah's sons were Sethites (Genesis 5) the curse would have ended with the flood, rendering the issue moot.

The Curse on Canaan. 
Genesis 9:18-27
     One of the great tragedies of this erroneous biblical interpretation has been the interpretation by some of Genesis 9:18-27 bring related to a curse upon the black people. Specifically, some individuals have used the prophecy of Canaan being the "servant of servants" to mean that he would be the slave of Shem and Japheth.
     Leupold believes that the curse was on Canaan and did not include Ham's three other sons.⁸ If this is a correct interpretation, it would be difficult to relate the Negroes of Africa to the descendants of Canaan who settled in the Middle East.
     Henry Morris believes the curse was addressed to Canaan, but included all of Ham's progeny as well. He reasons that the prophecy seems to have worldwide implications and that if the curse was limited to Canaan and his descendants then historically the prophecy has not been properly fulfilled. He states that although the prophecy is addressed to Canaan, it was Ham who committed the sin.⁹    He explains that the servant of servant”  phrase does not mean slave of slaves” and in history this has not occurred among Ham's decedents.¹⁰
     A strong argument against this passage having any racial implications is the fact that Ham's descendants are not all black. Ham's progeny includes the Egyptians, Sumerians, and Ethiopians. Further, Canaanites who settled in the Middle East do not appear to be black. Morris also states that these three streams are not three races which is not what the Bible teaches, nor what modern anthropology and human genetics teach."¹¹
     No matter which view is held, the passage cannot be used to support the idea that the Negro or black people originated in the curse or that slavery is justified.

 
Genesis 11:1—9
     The search for a correct understanding of the varieties of man (races) is found within these passages. To begin, verse one states that all mankind spoke the same language. This is completely contradictory to evolution, which teaches that language evolved from animal sounds to speech, and finally to language. Because there was no language barrier, all men on earth conversed freely with all others. Just think of what that would do toward relieving international tensions today. Men could communicate with each other with full understanding; however, man lost that ability due to his sin.
     Such was the situation at the tower of Babel. The people congregated and built a great city which was in direct opposition to God's expressed command to scatter and populate the earth. (Genesis 9:1) Because of their disobedience, God "confounded" their language and scattered them over all the earth (Gen. 11:7-8). The scattering of these groups all over the earth, which created genetic isolation, is the real cause for the origin of modern races of people.
     The act of confounding the language of man records that many different languages were created and that each family of people had their own separate language. This division was not based on skin color or physical characteristics, but on familial relationships. Families or tribes of people were given a common language, and they separated from other groups speaking a different language. The passage also says that God scattered them over the entire surface of the world. It is important to realize just what was occurring in this incident. As the people began to group themselves together, based on their common language, they began to migrate in all directions away from Babel. At Babel, they were a homogeneous people, but with God giving them different languages, they separated and in time became heterogeneous.
     God did not indiscriminately change the languages among the people, because to do so would have broken up and confounded families. The genealogies in Genesis 10 extend beyond the time of confusion of languages so it would seem that God kept families together by giving them the same language. Furthermore, Genesis 10:5 states that God divided them by language, family and nations.
     At this point, it is very important to keep in mind that as these groups of people migrated further from the Middle East they became isolated from other groups. This separation caused isolation from other groups resulted in breeding within a specific smaller number people. Because of isolation, genetics then began to limit the physical characteristics of their offspring as the dominate genes began to emerge.

The geographical direction of different
families in accordance with Genesis 10.
     In the dispersion, families were grouped together and for the most part, migrated in one general geographical direction. To illustrate, the following is a selected list of names from the genealogies of each of Noah's sons with the general geographical location associated with each, from the historical record.

The Descendants of Japheth: The Indo-European of western Asia and of Europe. (Gen. 10:2-4)
Gomer: Probably the Cimmerians which are mentioned by Homer as the people of the far north (Odys. xl. 14). They are believed to be identical with the Cimmerians of Roman times and the Cymry of Wales.¹² Magog: Josephus and Greek writers generally relate them as the Scythians of Southern Europe. Also associated with the Tartars of Russia.¹³ Madai:  Medes who lived in area of Caspian Sea.¹⁴ Javan: Comes from the term Ionian which means Greeks.
The Descendants of Ham: The Egyptians, Ethiopians, Libyans and Canaanites. Gen. 10:6-20.
Cush: Peoples of central and Southern Arabia.¹⁵ &nbshp; The Ethiopians are shown as being inhabitants of both sides of the Red Sea. Furthermore, they had a skin of a different appearance. (Jer. 13:23) Pictures on monuments show that they were a mixed race, some Negro, some Semite and some Caucasian.¹⁶ This is a very important fact and will be referred to later. Mizraim: Refers to areas of upper and lower Nile River of Egypt thus a reference to Egyptians. Phut: Generally associated with the Egyptians and more specifically Libya.¹⁷ Canaan: The area settled by Canaan and his sons was west of the River Jordan. His first born Sidon (Zidon) name stood for the whole Phoenician coast.¹⁸
The Descendants Shem: The peoples of the Middle East and Southern Asia. Gen. 10:21-32.
Eber: Abraham was the sixth generation of Eber who settled in Mesopotamia in the area of Ur of the Chaldees (Gen. 11). Elam: Geographically the region beyond the Tigris River, east of Babylonia. The Elamites became a strong nation and were recognized as sovereign by the Babylonian states.¹⁹ Asshur:  The Assyrians of the head waters of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. Lud:  The Lydians of Asia Minor. Aram: Aramaeans of Syria and Mesopotamia.
     From these observations it seems that Shem's progeny settled in the Middle East, Ham's people went south into Africa, and Japheth's descendants migrated north into Western Asia and Europe.
     It is important to recognize that from the Bible and from history, specific statements cannot be made that Shem fathered all Orientals, Ham all black people or Japheth all white people. Note that the Ethiopians are represented as being all three colors. This is a good example which shows that Ham produced peoples of varying colors. This point will become more evident when one sees the importance of genetics and how it works.

 THE TABLE OF NATIONS FROM GENESIS 10

THE ROLE OF GENETICS IN RACE
How genetics work.
     At this point, three things should be evident. First, race is a term which attempts to define physical characteristics of peoples, and seeks to group them together.
     Second, the physical characteristics appear to be closely associated with geographic locations. People who have the same combination of physical characteristics generally come from the same area on earth.
     Third, as in the case of Ham being the progenitor of white, black and yellow peoples; the same physical characteristics can appear within any group of people.
     The explanation of these seemly confusing conclusions is found in the study of genetics or the physical characteristic generator in man, the "gene."
    Webster defines gene as:



      In ‘genetics, any of the elements by which hereditary characters are transmitted and determined, regarded as a particular state of organization of the chromatin in the chromosome; factor: theoretically, each mature reproductive cell carries a gene for every inheritable characteristic, and thus an individual resulting from the union of two such cells receives a set of genes from each of its parents.”

  It can be seen from this definition that it is the gene which determines the physical characteristics of men. Each parent contributes his or her genes to their offspring, and the child is a product of both.    The father of genetics, Gregor Mendel made this observation:
"A gene may be recessive and, in the presence of a dominant gene, it becomes latent, not causing the formation of its trait. In a later generation it may occur, not accompanied by its dominant partner and so produce its characteristic trait.” ²⁰"
     When the male sperm fertilizes the female egg, the genes of each are mixed. Some genes are dominant over other genes and these predominant genes produce the physical characteristics of the offspring. The weaker or non-dominate genes remain in a regressed state and do not reproduce. An example would be a mother having brown eyes and a father with blue eyes. They could produce either brown-eyed or blue-eyed children. If the child produced would have brown eyes, it means that the genes which produce brown eyes won out over the blue eye producing genes and are the dominant ones. The blue eye producing genes are called "latent" and although they did not produce blue eyes in this mating, they are present in the child, and they could reappear in later generations.
     When we look around us today and see all the different physical characteristics in people and relate this to Adam, who was the first man. We can see that in Adam, the potential combination of genes was enormous. Francesco Ayala states that:


      On the basis of only 6.7% heterosis the average human couple could have ten children before they would have to have one child identical to another! That number is far greater than the number of atoms in the known universe!" ²¹

     Considering this fact, it is easier to understand how Adam produced all the varieties we see in people today. Furthermore, very important is the evidence that after a number of generations, there appears to be strong evidence of certain genes become pre and the variability of characteristics is limited.²² This does not mean that other genes are not present. However, it does mean some genes, once they reach a point, become dominant and continue to be dominant in future generations. This only occurs within breeding or selective breeding.
     An example was my FDS (Field Dog Stud Book) registered Irish Setter "Bryan's Red Sun" (we just called him "Sam"). He was the product of selected breeding over many generations. As a dog breeder, one basic rule, I quickly learned was that to produce an Irish Setter, I had to breed a male and female Irish Setter. This is where the term "pure breed" comes from. In other words, in Sam's historical blood line for several hundred years only dogs of the same family were bred together. No other breed of dog was allowed to "cross breed" into his blood line. The key to producing a particular breed with specific physical characteristic is in isolation from other breeds. The genes which produced the red-colored hair and general physical appearance of the Irish Setter have become dominate by selective breeding, and consistently produce the same characteristics repeatedly in every generation.
     Through the example of Sam, we see that isolation of a group of dogs from other groups of dogs produces what could be called "race." Note, however, that even within the "race" or "breed" called Irish Setter, there is still much potential for variation. My Irish Setter was a "field dog" bred for hunting. Although he had similar characteristics as other Irish Setters his appearance showed he was not bred as a "show dog." He was muscular and stocky not like the thinner show dogs. He was bred to be a hunting dog which the physical characteristics for hunting.
Isolation of peoples and genetics.
     In this paper, we have seen that the decedents of Noah's three sons were generally dispersed over all the earth. Furthermore, the physical characteristics of any of his sons were not exclusive to his progeny. Each could and did produce offspring with different characteristic.
     The most important factor in reaching an explanation for the origin of race is the understanding that as the migration from the Middle East proceeded, contact with other groups became less frequent, and in time each group became isolated from all others, and became smaller. Because of this isolation men and women married within their own group and breeding took place within an isolated group and between kin.
     An example of how isolation caused particular characteristics in a group of people would be the American Indian. DNA shows that the American Indian originated from oriental peoples who came across the Bering Strait which connected eastern Asia and Alaska. As they migrated south and east, they became isolated from the peoples of Asia. American Indians are considered to be Mongoloid people, but differ from Asian Mongoloids of China and Japan. isolated from their original tribes, caused the American Indian to be somewhat different from other Mongoloids of Asia. Their numbers were small at first and they married among their kin from within his group. The dominant genes of the group surfaced within a few generations and began to produce the general characteristics which are common to the American Indian today.
     Some groups moved further south into Mexico and South America, and they, too, became isolated. This isolation caused somewhat differing physical appearances in each group. Thor Heyerdahl, the anthropologist, studied the people of North America and the Pacific islands for years.²³ He has shown that the Polynesian people came from North America and migrated (in boats) to the Pacific Islands. The isolation of these people produced the Polynesian peoples.
     Without isolation, it is unlikely that "race" would have ever occurred. It is a vital part of understanding how genetics caused the different physical characteristics of isolated groups of people which we call races.

CONCLUSION      As Noah's decedents migrated from the Middle East after the Tower of Babel, their numbers grew smaller as they extended further out. As the groups grew smaller, close kin inter-married and the certain genes within the human gene pool became dominate, while others became latent. Within a few generations, these genes produced the skin color, hair color and texture, bone structure and other physical characteristics that made each group distinctive within its isolated geographical area. Generally, the people of northern Europe were white. Africans were black. People of the Middle East and the Far East were yellow. Of course there are variations of color in all these groups of people.
     This paper has tried to show that the findings of modern science in genetics have offered a reasonable and logical model, which when combined with Scripture, explains how the races came to be. I have deliberately ignored the evolutionary model of the origin of races in this paper, as my primary purpose was to present a biblical and scientific model. There is no empirical evidence for the hypothesis of evolution and it has never been shown that evolution happened in any degree. Evolution in all aspects, including theistic evolution, is contrary to the Word of God and true science. All of the empirical evidence supports the Creation Model. The lie of evolution has been the source of ethnic genocide since its inception. This false humanistic idea has been at the heart of the decline in morals of the once great United States. At best, evolution's explanation for the origin of race is silly and a child's fairy tale.
     The model or explanation or the origin of race as presented in this paper can afford the Christian with a basic understanding of how race came to be. It is easily understood when all the evidence is considered. Racial differences can never honestly be said to be the result of curses placed on people by God, or the nonsensical theories of evolution. Race occurred because of the work of the physical laws of human genetics that Almighty God instituted and race has no spiritual significance.
  

WHY BLACK LIES MATTER

PART I

BLACKS CREATED EVERYTHING?

THAT'S A BUNCH OF MALARKEY!

The Myths Blacks Believe: The Ancient Egyptians Were Negroes and Built the Grand Pyramids

May 16, 2014 Ambrose Kanes

Recently, I ruffled the feathers of a bunch of Afrocentric blacks when I criticized one of their upcoming documentaries, Hidden Colors 3, which tries to blame much of black dysfunction on white ‘racism.’ Every imaginable excuse is made in this film to rationalize black failure and the level of savagery that even white liberals are now having a hard time denying.
The craziest things were said by blacks who tried in vain to refute my short article. One of the more popular ones was that the ancient Egyptians were actually negroes who ruled the land of Egypt. The notion is preposterous to say the least. More than that, it simply doesn’t comport with the historical evidence that’s available.

Blacks or negroes were definitely around in ancient Egypt centuries ago, but that’s because they were slaves. They were low-level servants and most of them performed manual labor, rather than ruling some glorious kingdom as they very mistakenly assume. In some instances, they served as guards for the royal family or as soldiers. They built the pyramids alright, by carrying and arranging large boulders within it under threat of force!  
Contemporary blacks, including some of their white enablers, believe such nonsense because they are desperate to lift their image. Blacks, generally, have little to be racially proud of when so many of their people have served as nothing more than slaves throughout most of their miserable history, conducting menial tasks on behalf of their masters.
When one realizes that most Africans were living in the stone age up until about the mid 20th century, there’s little that’s genuinely encouraging when one considers their history. These are harsh words, admittedly, but that does not make them any less true. We must face the facts as they are and not as we might wish them to be. 

This doesn’t meant that some individual blacks haven’t succeeded and broken from the chains of poverty and ignorance. They are, however, the exception, not the norm.
In spite of many opportunities to advance themselves, including continual assistance from the West, blacks in Africa and throughout the entire world are known for characteristics and qualities that are less than positively uplifting, such as: Low IQ levels, an aversion to formal education, strong and abiding criminal proclivities, skyrocketing crimes levels – especially violent crime, a strong compulsion to rape women and young girls, impulsiveness, lack of self-control, volatile natures, an inability to control their sexual desires or exhibit sexual restraint, and great difficulty in adapting to first-world advanced civilizations.

Nicholas Wade, the New York Times science editor, in his recent book, A Troublesome Inheritance, argues strongly on this last point. He writes that blacks, due to genetic reasons, are not able to adapt to advanced societies as are whites and Asians. It’s a bold theory, no doubt, but the science behind has not been disproved. Moreover, has not every inner-city within America demonstrated that very point? 
Whites know this, and so do many blacks. They freely admit it among themselves, but rarely to whites so as to not threaten the pity, ‘assistance’ and freebies they get from naive, do-gooder whites.
Instead of facing their dysfunctional ways and seeking to reform their conduct, blacks make up the most bizarre and historically inaccurate things about themselves. These are nothing more than misguided attempts to make up for what is sorely lacking in them as persons and as a race of people.

 But wait, it gets even better with such wild claims in history as:

* Claiming the ancient Kenyans had calculated the speed of light
* That black Egyptians built the pyramids and invented electricity
* That Africans traveled to the Americas and taught the Aztecs everything they knew
* That various figures in Western history were actually black Africans
* That the Romans and Greeks were taught everything they knew by blacks
*Cleopatra was black
*Hannibal was also black.Jesus and his Apostles were black. Adam and Eve were black. Moses was black etc etc.
*And the favorite one, that Africans used to have the power to fly and built the pyramids by moving the stones with the power of their minds. I did some research about where all this started and found this quote:

"""While this is a very real, and very important, process of reclaiming history, there is such a thing as taking it too far. Last year, I heard a discussion of a new Afrocentric curriculum being presented to the Philadelphia school system. The "noted Afrocentrist" being interviewed, whom I had never heard of even though he was "noted" and I do make an attempt to keep informed of these things, He told the interviewer about how the ancient Egyptians were all black, the direct ancestors of all black-skinned persons in the United States today, and were the founders of every culture and every technological advance which had ever been given to the world anywhere. When the interviewer asked for specifics, the speaker told how the pyramids were built -- with special levitational powers that the ancient Egyptians possessed, allowing them to fly themselves, and other objects, around at will simply by using their minds. When pressed, the speaker admitted the Egyptians lost their ability to fly and all their other incredible powers when "the white man invaded."

"You honestly believe the ancient Egyptians knew how to fly and move pyramid blocks with their minds?" asked the interviewer. "And you want to teach African-American schoolchildren this?"

The speaker paused, then said: "Well, no, I don't really believe they knew how to fly, and I don't believe they had any special powers. But we've got to give these kids something good to believe in, don't we?"

Granted, not all blacks believe such lies, but a growing number of them do. Trying to intellectually and calmly reason with them, however, is like arguing with the wind. It’s akin to reasoning with defiant little children who are unable to focus on what you’re saying, who can’t follow carefully a logical argument, but who are determined to prove you wrong – regardless of what the facts 

actually indicate. 

 

visit the link below for more information

THE BLACK JEWS AND THEIR LIES 

PART II

Not Out of Africa
Was Greek Culture Stolen from Africa?
Modern Myth vs. Ancient History

by Mary Lefkowitz

Excerpted from her book: Not Out of Africa: How Afrocentrism Became an Excuse to Teach Myth as History

Why I wrote the book
In the fall of 1991 I was asked to write a review-article for The New Republic about Martin Bernal's Black Athena and its relation to the Afrocentrist movement. The assignment literally changed my life. Once I began to work on the article I realized that here was a subject that needed all the attention, and more, that I could give to it. Although I had been completely unaware of it, there was in existence a whole literature that denied that the ancient Greeks were the inventors of democracy, philosophy, and science. There were books in circulation that claimed that Socrates and Cleopatra were of African descent, and that Greek philosophy had actually been stolen from Egypt. Not only were these books being read and widely distributed; some of these ideas were being taught in schools and even in universities.
Ordinarily, if someone has a theory which involves a radical departure from what the experts have professed, he is expected to defend his position by providing evidence in its support. But no one seemed to think it was appropriate to ask for evidence from the instructors who claimed that the Greeks stole their philosophy from Egypt.
Normally, if one has a question about a text that another instructor is using, one simply asks why he or she is using that book. But since this conventional line of inquiry was closed to me, I had to wait till I could raise my questions in a more public context. That opportunity came in February 1993, when Dr. Yosef A. A. ben-Jochannan was invited to give Wellesley's Martin Luther King, Jr. memorial lecture. Posters described Dr. ben-Jochannan as a "distinguished Egyptologist," and indeed that is how he was introduced by the then President of Wellesley College. But I knew from my research in Afrocentric literature that he was not what scholars would ordinarily describe as an Egyptologist, that is a scholar of Egyptian language and civilization. Rather, he was an extreme Afrocentrist, author of many books describing how Greek civilization was stolen from Africa, how Aristotle robbed the library of Alexandria, and how the true Jews are Africans like himself.
After Dr. ben-Jochannan made these same assertions once again in his lecture, I asked him during the question period why he said that Aristotle had come to Egypt with Alexander, and had stolen his philosophy from the Library at Alexandria, when that Library had only been built after his death. Dr. ben-Jochannan was unable to answer the question, and said that he resented the tone of the inquiry. Several students came up to me after the lecture and accused me of racism, suggesting that I had been brainwashed by white historians. But others stayed to hear me out, and I assured Dr. ben-Jochannan that I simply wanted to know what his evidence was: so far as I knew, and I had studied the subject, Aristotle never went to Egypt, and while the date of the Library of Alexandria is not known precisely, it was certainly only built some years after the city was founded, which was after both Aristotle's and Alexander's deaths.
A lecture at which serious questions could not be asked, and in fact were greeted with hostility -- the occasion seemed more like a political rally than an academic event. As if that were not disturbing enough in itself, there was also the strange silence on the part of many of my faculty colleagues. Several of these were well aware that what Dr. ben-Jochannan was saying was factually wrong. One of them said later that she found the lecture so "hopeless" that she decided to say nothing. Were they afraid of being called racists? If so, their behavior was understandable, but not entirely responsible. Didn't we as educators owe it to our students, all our students, to see that they got the best education they could possibly get? And that clearly was what they were not getting in a lecture where they were being told myths disguised as history, and where discussion and analysis had apparently been forbidden.
Good as the myths they were hearing may have made these students feel, so long as they never left the Afrocentric environment in which they were being nurtured and sheltered, they were being systematically deprived of the most important features of a university education. They were not learning how to question themselves and others, they were not learning to distinguish facts from fiction, nor in fact were they learning how to think for themselves. Their instructors had forgotten, while the rest of us sat by and did nothing about it, that students do not come to universities to be indoctrinated --at least in a free society.

Was Socrates Black? I first learned about the notion that Socrates was black several years ago, from a student in my second-year Greek course on Plato's Apology, his account of Socrates' trial and conviction. Throughout the entire semester the student had regarded me with sullen hostility. A year or so later she apologized. She explained that she thought I had been concealing the truth about Socrates' origins. In a course in Afro-American studies she had been told that he was black, and my silence about his African ancestry seemed to her to be a confirmation of the Eurocentric arrogance her instructor had warned her about. After she had taken my course, the student pursued the question on her own, and was satisfied that I had been telling her the truth: so far as we know, Socrates was ethnically no different from other Athenians.

What had this student learned in her course in Afro-American studies? The notion that Socrates was black is based on two different kinds of inference. The first "line of proof" is based on inference from possibility. Why couldn't an Athenian have African ancestors? That of course would have been possible; almost anything is possible. But it is another question whether or not it was probable. Few prominent Athenians claim to have had foreign ancestors of any sort. Athenians were particularly fastidious about their own origins. In Socrates' day, they did not allow Greeks from other city-states to become naturalized Athenian citizens, and they were even more careful about the non-Greeks or barbaroi. Since Socrates was an Athenian citizen, his parents must have been Athenians, as he himself says they were.
Another reason why I thought it unlikely that Socrates and/or his immediate ancestors were foreigners is that no contemporary calls attention to anything extraordinary in his background. If he had been a foreigner, one of his enemies, or one of the comic poets, would have been sure to point it out. The comic poets never missed an opportunity to make fun of the origins of Athenian celebrities. Socrates was no exception; he is lampooned by Aristophanes in his comedy the Clouds. If Socrates and/or his parents had had dark skin, some of his contemporaries would have been likely to mention it, because this, and not just his eccentric ideas about the gods, and the voice that spoke to him alone, would have distinguished him from the rest of the Athenians. Unless, of course, he could not be distinguished from other Athenians because they all had dark skin; but then if they did, why did they not make themselves bear a closer resemblance the Ethiopians in their art?

Was Cleopatra Black?
Until recently, no one ever asked whether Cleopatra might have had an African ancestor, because our surviving ancient sources identify her as a Macedonian Greek. Her ancestors, the Ptolemies, were descended from one of Alexander's generals. After Alexander's death in 323 B. C., these generals divided up among themselves the territory in the Mediterranean that Alexander had conquered. The name Cleopatra was one of the names traditionally given to women in the royal family; officially our Cleopatra (69-30 BC) was Cleopatra VII, the daughter of Ptolemy XII and his sister. Cleopatra VII herself followed the family practice of marrying within the family. She married her two brothers (Ptolemy XIII and XIV) in succession (after the first died in suspicious circumstances, she had the second murdered). Her first language was Greek; but she was also the first member of the Ptolemaic line who was able to speak Egyptian. She also wore Egyptian dress, and was shown in art in the dress of the goddess Isis. She chose to portray herself as an Egyptian not because she was Egyptian, but because she was ambitious to stay in power. In her surviving portraits on coins and in sculpture she appears to be impressive rather than beautiful, Mediterranean in appearance, with straight hair and a hooked nose. Of course these portraits on metal and stone give no indication of the color of her skin.
The only possibility that she might not have been a full-blooded Macedonian Greek arises from the fact that we do not know the precise identity of one member of her family tree. We do not know who her grandmother was on her father's side. Her grandmother was the mistress (not the wife) of her grandfather, Ptolemy IX. Because nothing is known about this person, the assumption has always been that she was a Macedonian Greek, like the other members of Ptolemy's court. Like other Greeks, the Ptolemies were wary of foreigners. They kept themselves apart from the native population, with brothers usually marrying sisters, or uncles marrying nieces, or in one case a father marrying his daughter (Ptolemy IX and Cleopatra Berenice III). Because the Ptolemies seemed to prefer to marry among themselves, even incestuously, it has always been assumed that Cleopatra's grandmother was closely connected with the family. If she had been a foreigner, one of the Roman writers of the time would have mentioned it in their invectives against Cleopatra as an enemy of the Roman state. These writers were supporters of Octavian (later known as Augustus) who defeated Cleopatra's forces in the battle of Actium in 31 B.C.

Does Racial Identity Matter?
The question of race matters only insofar as it is necessary to show that no classicists or ancient historians have tried to conceal the truth about the origins of the Greek people or the ancestry of certain famous ancient figures. It has been suggested that classicists have been reluctant to ask questions about Greek origins, and that we have been so "imbued with conventional preconceptions and patterns of thought" that we are unlikely to question the basic premises of our discipline. But even though we may be more reluctant to speculate about our own field than those outside it might be, none of us has any cultural "territory" in the ancient world that we are trying to insulate from other ancient cultures.

Did ancient Greek religion and culture derive from Egypt?
The idea that Greek religion and philosophy has Egyptian origins derives, at least in part, from the writings of ancient Greek historians. In the fifth century BC Herodotus was told by Egyptian priests that the Greeks owed many aspects of their culture to the older and vastly impressive civilization of the Egyptians. Egyptian priests told Diodorus some of the same stories four centuries later. The church fathers in the second and third centuries AD also were eager to emphasize the dependency of Greece on the earlier cultures of the Egyptians and the Hebrews. They were eager to establish direct links between their civilization and that of Egypt because Egypt was a vastly older culture, with elaborate religious customs and impressive monuments. But despite their enthusiasm for Egypt and its material culture (an enthusiasm that was later revived in eighteenth and nineteenth-century Europe), they failed to understand Egyptian religion and the purpose of many Egyptian customs.
Classical scholars tend to be skeptical about the claims of the Greek historians because much of what these writers say does not conform to the facts as they are now known from the modern scholarship on ancient Egypt. For centuries Europeans had believed that the ancient historians knew that certain Greek religious customs and philosophical interests derived from Egypt. But two major discoveries changed that view. The first concerned a group of ancient philosophical treatises attributed to Hermes Trismegistus; these had throughout the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance been thought of as Egyptian and early. But in 1614 the French scholar Isaac Casaubon demonstrated that the treatises were actually late and basically Greek. The second discovery was the decipherment of hieroglyphics, the official system of Egyptian writing, completed by 1836. Before decipherment, scholars had been compelled to rely on Greek sources for their understanding of Egyptian history and civilization. Once they were able to read real Egyptian texts, and could disregard the fanciful interpretations of hieroglyphics that had been circulating since late antiquity, it became clear to them that the relation of Egyptian to Greek culture was less close than they had imagined. Egyptian belonged to the Afroasiatic language family, while Greek was an Indo-European language, akin to Sanskrit and European languages like Latin.
On the basis of these new discoveries, European scholars realized that they could no longer take at face value what Herodotus, Diodorus, and the Church fathers had to say about Greece's debt to Egypt. Once it was possible to read Egyptian religious documents, and to see how the Egyptians themselves described their gods and told their myths, scholars could see that the ancient Greeks' accounts of Egyptian religion were superficial, and even misleading. Apparently Greek writers, despite their great admiration for Egypt, looked at Egyptian civilization through cultural blinkers that kept them from understanding any practices or customs that were significantly different from their own. The result was a portrait of Egypt that was both astigmatic and deeply Hellenized. Greek writers operated under other handicaps as well. They did not have access to records; there was no defined system of chronology. They could not read Egyptian inscriptions or question a variety of witnesses because they did not know the language. Hence they were compelled to exaggerate the importance of such resemblances as they could see or find.

Did the theory of the transmigration of souls come from Egypt?
Because he tended to rely on such analogies as he could find, Herodotus inevitably made some false conjectures. Herodotus thought that Pythagoras learned about the transmigration of souls from Egypt, when in fact the Egyptians did not believe in the transmigration of souls, as their careful and elaborate burial procedures clearly indicate. Herodotus tells us that he wrote down what the Egyptians told him; but when they spoke, what did he hear? Since he did not know Egyptian, his informants could have been Greeks living in the Greek colony of Naucratis in the Nile Delta, or Egyptians who knew some Greek. How well-informed were his informants? On the question of origins, at least, it seems that neither group had any more than a superficial understanding of the other's culture. Perhaps someone explained to him about the Egyptian "modes of existence," in which a human being could manifest itself both materially, or immaterially, as ka or ba or a name, and that death was not an end, but a threshold leading to a new form of life. Belief in these varied modes of existence required that bodies be preserved after death, hence the Egyptian practice of mummification. Greeks, on the other hand, believed that the soul was separated from the body at death, and disposed of bodies either by burial or cremation. In any case, there is no reason to assume that Pythagoras or other Greeks who believed in transmigration, like the Orphics and/or the philosopher-poet Empedocles, got their ideas from anyone else: notions of transmigration have developed independently in other parts of the world.

Did Plato Study in Egypt?
Plato never says in any of his writings that he went to Egypt, and there is no reference to such a visit in the semi-biographical Seventh Epistle. But in his dialogues he refers to some Egyptian myths and customs. Plato, of course, was not a historian, and the rather superficial knowledge of Egypt displayed in his dialogues, along with vague chronology, is more characteristic of historical fiction than of history. In fact, anecdotes about his visit to Egypt only turn up in writers of the later Hellenistic period. What better way to explain his several references to Egypt than to assume that the author had some first-hand knowledge of the customs he describes? For authors dating from the fourth century and earlier, ancient biographers were compelled to use as their principal source material the author's own works. Later biographers add details to the story of Plato's Egyptian travels in order to provide aetiologies for the "Egyptian" reference in his writings. The most ironic anecdote of all is preserved by Clement of Alexandria: Plato studied in Egypt with Hermes the "Thrice Great" (Trismegistus). This is tantamount to saying that Plato studied with himself after his death. The works of Hermes could not have been written without the conceptual vocabulary developed by Plato and Aristotle, and is deeply influenced not just by Plato, but by the writings of Neoplatonist philosophers in the early centuries AD. In any case, whoever these teachers were, Plato seems never to have learned from them anything that is characteristically Egyptian, at least so far as we know about Egyptian theology from Egyptian sources. Instead, Plato's notion of the Egyptians remains similar to that of other Athenians; he did not so much change the Athenian notion of Egyptian culture as enrich and idealize it, so that it could provide a dramatic and instructive contrast with Athenian customs in his dialogues.

Was there ever such a thing as an "Egyptian Mystery System?"
Even after nineteenth-century scholars had shown that the reports of Greek visitors to Egypt misunderstood and misrepresented what they saw, the myth that Greek philosophy derived from Egypt is still in circulation. The notion of an Egyptian legacy was preserved in the literature and ritual of Freemasonry. It was from that source that Afrocentrists learned about it, and then sought to find confirmation for the primacy of Egypt over Greece in the fantasies of ancient writers. In order to show that Greek philosophy is in reality stolen Egyptian philosophy, Afrocentrist writers assume that there was in existence from earliest times an "Egyptian Mystery System," which was copied by the Greeks. The existence of this "Mystery System" is integral to the notion that Greek philosophy was stolen, because it provides a reason for assuming that Greek philosophers had a particular reason for studying in Egypt, and for claiming that what they later wrote about in Greek was originally Egyptian philosophy. But in reality, the notion of an Egyptian Mystery System is a relatively modern fiction, based on ancient sources that are distinctively Greek, or Greco-Roman, and from the early centuries AD.
In their original form, ancient mysteries had nothing to do with schools or particular courses of study; rather, the ritual was intended to put the initiate into contact with the divinity, and if special preparation or rituals were involved, it was to familiarize the initiate with the practices and liturgy of that particular cult. The origin of the connection of Mysteries to education in fact dates only to the eighteenth century. It derives from a particular work of European fiction, published in 1731. This was the three-volume work Sethos, a History or Biography, based on Unpublished Memoirs of Ancient Egypt, by the Abbé Jean Terrasson (1670-1750), a French priest, who was Professor of Greek at the Collège de France. Although now completely forgotten, the novel was widely read in the eighteenth century..Of course Terrasson did not have access to any Egyptian information about Egypt, since hieroglyphics were not to be deciphered until more than a century later.

Why claim that Greek philosophy was stolen from Egypt?
Perhaps the most influential Afrocentrist text is Stolen Legacy, a work that has been in wide circulation since its publication in 1954. Its author, George G. M. James, writes that "the term Greek philosophy, to begin with is a misnomer, for there is no such philosophy in existence." He argues that the Greeks "did not possess the native ability essential to the development of philosophy." Rather, he states that "the Greeks were not the authors of Greek philosophy, but the Black people of North Africa, The Egyptians." It is not hard to understand why James wishes to give credit for the Greek achievement to the Egyptians, even if there is little or no historical foundation for his claims. Like the other nationalistic myths, the story of a "Stolen Legacy" both offers an explanation for past suffering, and provides a source of ethnic pride.
But although the myth may encourage and perhaps even "empower" African-Americans, its use has a destructive side, which cannot and should not be overlooked. First of all, it offers them a "story" instead of history. It also suggests that African-Americans need to learn only what they choose to believe about the past. But in so doing, the Afrocentric myth seeks to shelter them from learning what all other ethnic groups must learn, and indeed, face up to, namely the full scope of their history.
What people on earth have had a completely glorious history? While we point to the great achievements of the Greeks, anyone who has studied ancient Greek civilization knows that they also made terrible and foolish mistakes. Isn't treating African-Americans differently from the rest of humankind just another form of segregation and condescension? Implied discrimination is the most destructive aspect of Afrocentrism, but there are other serious problems as well. Teaching the myth of the Stolen Legacy as if it were history robs the ancient Greeks and their modern descendants of a heritage that rightly belongs to them. Why discriminate against them when discrimination is the issue? In addition, the myth deprives the ancient Egyptians of their proper history and robs them of their actual legacy. The Egypt of the myth of the Stolen Legacy is a wholly European Egypt, as imagined by Greek and Roman writers, and further elaborated in eighteenth-century France. Ancient Egyptian civilization deserves to be remembered (and respected) for what it was, and not for what Europeans, ancient and modern, have imagined it to be.

What is the evidence for a "Stolen Legacy?"
James's idea of ancient Egypt is fundamentally the imaginary "Mystical Egypt" of Freemasonry. He speaks of grades of initiation. In these Mysteries, as the Freemasons imagined them, Neophyte initiates must learn self-control and self-knowledge. He believes that Moses was an initiate into the Egyptian mysteries, and that Socrates reached the grade of Master Mason. In his description of the Greek philosophy, he emphasizes the Four Elements that play such a key role in Terrasson's Memphis and Masonic initiation ceremonies. He speaks of the Masonic symbol of the Open Eye, which based on an Egyptian hieroglyph but in Masonry has come specifically to represent the Master Mind. As in the University/Mystery system invented by Terrasson, Egyptian temples are used as libraries and observatories.
What then are the Greeks supposed to have stolen from the Egyptians? Are there any texts in existence that be found to verify the claim that Greek philosophy was stolen from Egypt? How was the "transfer" of Egyptian materials to Greece accomplished? If we examine what James says about the way in which the "transfer" was supposed to have been carried out, we will find that that few or no historical data can be summoned to support it. In fact, in order to construct his argument, James overlooked or ignored much existing evidence.

Did Aristotle raid the Library at Alexandria?
No ancient source says that Alexander and Aristotle raided the Library at Alexandria. That they do not do so is not surprising, because it is unlikely that Aristotle ever went there. Aristotle was Alexander's tutor when Alexander was young, but he did not accompany him on his military campaign. Even if he had gone there, it is hard to see how he could have stolen books from the library in Alexandria. Although Alexandria was founded in 331 BC, it did not begin to function as a city until after 323. Aristotle died in 322. The library was assembled around 297 under the direction of Demetrius of Phaleron, a pupil of Aristotle's. Most of the books it contained were in Greek.

Did Aristotle plagiarize Egyptian sources?
If Aristotle had stolen his ideas from the Egyptians, as James asserts, James should be able to provide parallel Egyptian and Greek texts showing frequent verbal correspondences. As it is, he can only come up with a vague similarity between two titles. One is Aristotle's treatise On the Soul, and the other the modern English name of a collection of Egyptian texts, The Book of the Dead. These funerary texts, which the Egyptians themselves called the Book of Coming Forth by Day, are designed to protect the soul during its dangerous journey through Duat, the Egyptian underworld, on its way to life of bliss in the Field of Reeds. Both Aristotle and the Egyptians believed in the notion of a "soul." But there the similarity ends. Even a cursory glance at a translation of the Book of the Dead reveals that it is not a philosophical treatise, but rather a series of ritual prescriptions to ensure the soul's passage to the next world. It is completely different from Aristotle's abstract consideration of the nature of the soul. James fails to mention that the two texts cannot be profitably compared, because their aims and methods are so different. Instead, he accounts for the discrepancy by claiming that Aristotle's theory is only a "very small portion" of the Egyptian "philosophy" of the soul, as described in the Egyptian Book of the Dead. On that basis, one could claim that any later writer plagiarized from any earlier writer who touched on the same subject. But why not assume instead that the later writer was influenced by the earlier writer, or even came up with the some of the same ideas independently, especially if those ideas are widespread, like the notion that human beings have souls?
James also alleges that Aristotle's theory of matter was taken from the so-called Memphite Theology. The Memphite Theology is a religious document inscribed on a stone tablet by Egyptian priests in the eighth century BC, but said to have been copied from an ancient papyrus. The archaic language of the text suggests that the original dates from sometime in the second millennium BC. According to James, Aristotle took from the Memphite theology his doctrine that matter, motion, and time are eternal, along with the principle of opposites, and the concept of the unmoved mover. James does not say how Aristotle would have known about this inscription, which was at the time located in Memphis and not in the Library of Alexandria, or explain how he would have been able to read it. But even if Aristotle had had some way of finding out about it, he would have had no use for it in his philosophical writings. The Memphis text, like the Egyptian Book of the Dead, is a work of a totally different character from any of Aristotle's treatises.
The Memphite text describes the creation of the world as then known (that is, Upper and Lower Egypt). It relates how Ptah's mind (or "heart") and thought (or "tongue") created the universe and all living creatures in it: "for every word of the god came about through what the heart devised and the tongue commanded." From one of his manifestations, the primordial waters of chaos, the sun-god Atum was born. When Ptah has finished creating the universe, he rests from his labors: "Ptah was satisfied after he had made all things and all divine words."
In form and in substance this account has virtually nothing in common with Aristotle's abstract theology. In fact, in Metaphysics Book 11, Aristotle discards the traditional notion of a universe that is created by a divinity or divinities, in favor of a metaphysical argument. If there is eternal motion, there is eternal substance, and behind that, an immaterial and eternal source of activity, whose existence can be deduced from the eternal circular motion of the heavens. The source of this activity is what is called in English translation the "unmoved mover."All that this theory has in common with the Memphite theology is a concern with creation of the universe. On the same insubstantial basis, it would be possible to argue that Aristotle stole his philosophy from the story of creation in the first book of Genesis.

Is there a diversity of truths?
There are of course many possible interpretations of the truth, but some things are simply not true. It is not true that there was no Holocaust. There was a Holocaust, although we may disagree about the numbers of people killed. Likewise, it is not true that the Greeks stole their philosophy from Egypt; rather, it is true that the Greeks were influenced in various ways over a long period of time by their contact with the Egyptians. But then, what culture at any time has not been influenced by other cultures, and what exactly do we mean by "influence"? If we talk about Greek philosophy as a "Stolen Legacy," which the Greeks swiped from Egyptian universities, we are not telling the truth, but relating a story, or a myth, or a tall tale. But if we talk about Egyptian influence on Greece, we are discussing an historical issue.
In historical and scientific discussions it is possible to distinguish degrees, and to be more or less accurate. As a classicist, I may overemphasize the achievement of the Greeks because I do not know enough about the rest of the Mediterranean world; Egyptologists may be inclined to make the same mistake in the opposite direction. We recognize that no historian can write without some amount of bias; that is why history must always be rewritten. But not all bias amounts to distortion, or is equivalent to indoctrination. If I am aware that I am likely to be biased for any number of reasons, and try to compensate for them, the result should be very different in quality and character from what I would say if I were consciously setting about to achieve a particular political goal.
Drawing a clear distinction between motivations and evidence has a direct bearing on the question of academic freedom. When it comes to deciding what one can or cannot say in class the question of ethnicity or of motivations, whether personal or cultural, is or ought to be irrelevant. What matters is whether what one says is supported by facts and evidence, texts or formulae. The purpose of diversity, at least in academe, is to ensure that instruction does not become a vehicle for indoctrinating students in the values of the majority culture, or for limiting the curriculum to the study of the history and literature of the majority culture. That means that it is essential for a university to consider developments outside of Europe and North America, and to assess the achievements of non-European cultures with respect and sympathy.
It is another question whether or not diversity should be applied to the truth. Are there, can there be, multiple, diverse "truths?" If there are, which "truth" should win? The one that is most loudly argued or most persuasively phrased? Diverse "truths are possible only if "truth" is understood to mean something like "point of view." But even then not every point of view, no matter how persuasively it is put across, or with what intensity it is argued, can be equally valid. The notion of diversity does not extend to truth.
Students of the modern world may think it is a matter of indifference whether or not Aristotle stole his philosophy from Egypt. They may believe that even if the story is not true, it can be used to serve a positive purpose. But the question, and many others like it, should be a matter of serious concern to everyone, because if you assert that he did steal his philosophy, you are prepared to ignore or to conceal a substantial body of historical evidence that proves the contrary. Once you start doing that, you can have no scientific or even social-scientific discourse, nor can you have a community, or a university.

Copyright © 1996 by BasicBooks All Rights Reserved

Mary Lefkowitz is the Andrew W. Mellon Professor in the Humanities at Wellesley College. She is the author of many books on ancient Greece and Rome, including Lives of the Greek Poets and Women in Greek Myth, as well as articles for the Wall Street Journal and the New Republic. She is the co-editor of Women's Life in Greece and Rome and Black Athena Revisited.

Not Out of Africa by Mary Lefkowitz - The book that has sparked widespread debate over the teaching of revisionist history in schools and colleges. Was Socrates black? Did Aristotle steal his ideas from the library in Alexandria? Do we owe the underlying tenets of our democratic civilization to the Africans? Mary Lefkowitz explains why politically motivated histories of the ancient world are being written and shows how Afrocentrist claims blatantly contradict the historical evidence. Not Out of Africa is an important book that protects and argues for the necessity of historical truths and standards in cultural education. Purchase from Amazon.com

 PART III

By Admin | August 30, 2014 | Culture War, DOMESTIC ISSUES:, Mob Violence, Race baiters, Race Relations in America, RACISM:

Our illustrious Attorney General Eric Holder once said that we’re a “nation of cowards” when it comes to talking about race. Is he full of crap or what?
Anyone who reads a newspaper, watches television, or scans the Internet for news of the day can’t escape discussions about race – that’s one of the things most prevalent in the news today. True, the current discussion was triggered by the shooting in Ferguson, but each time another incident with a racial component occurs; it causes the same kind of “discussion” over and over.
What the Attorney General is really saying is that blacks aren’t really equal enough yet, and the fault lies with Caucasians who are (still) treating blacks unfairly. He wants to talk about what whites can do to implement more flavors of affirmative action and to help blacks overcome conditions of their own making.
In no other aspect of life are events that ended 150 years ago used to coerce a majority to compensate a minority for the actions of long dead individuals. But they haven’t forgotten – references to “slaves” and the “plantation” can be seen in signs carried by black protestors even today. Some black “leaders” like Holder, Sharpton, and Jackson, refuse to let slavery die. They still maintain that, if not for slavery, blacks would be equal (or superior) to whites.
But, we are not equal.

Blacks are a minority and that means that we aren’t equal in numbers. Whites make up 77.7% of the population (U.S. Census est. 2013), blacks account for 13.2%. That number alone verifies that we aren’t equal; there are almost six times as many whites as blacks.
We don’t look alike; our skin color is different, our hair is different, our facial components are different – from birth, we are different.
Blacks complain that they aren’t treated equally, but over the past couple of decades blacks have intentionally distanced themselves from the white majority. That is, they are actively and intentionally contributing to becoming less equal, for example:

• Blacks have made it a point to name their children differently, with uniquely black-centric names.
• Many (especially young blacks) dress differently: wear pants around their knees, dreadlocks, cornrows, extremely long nails.
• They talk differently, intentionally, and chastise any black who “talks white.”
• They created rap “music.” Most of it is vulgar, violent, demeaning to women, and celebrates a gangster lifestyle – yet they embrace it as a uniquely black art form.
• They show disdain for traditional marriage and family. Seventy-two percent (72%) of black babies are born to unwed mothers (NBC News), Children of unmarried mothers of any race are more likely to perform poorly in school, go to prison, use drugs, and be on welfare. When will black fathers begin to take responsibility for their offspring?
• They vote as a bloc and refuse to admit any faults in a black office holder. Even now in July of 2014 (Quinnipiac poll), Obama still has the approval of 83% of blacks.
• They denigrate any black who doesn’t follow the prescribed black paradigm and demean them as “Uncle Toms,” “Oreos,” and other derogatory terms for “acting white.”
• They refuse to allow our justice system to follow its course and instead impose a guilty sentence on a white target – long before all of the evidence is public knowledge.
• They seemingly celebrate belligerence – displaying an “attitude” of intimidation and threat of violence when confronted.

Blacks have every right to do those things, they’re free to act, talk, dress differently – it is their right, but it is also the right of white folks to resent that blacks intentionally work at being different. There is a price to pay for being different.

But why would whites (in general) continue to keep a distance from blacks? One reason could be that blacks commit more criminal offenses, especially considering that they’re only 13.2% of the population.
According to Crime in the United States 2012 (FBI.gov), whites were arrested for murder in 48.2% of the cases, while blacks accounted for 49.4% of the arrests. Hold on – they’re close to equal – but no, not when blacks only comprise only 13.2% of the population yet still commit more of the murders than whites.
We aren’t equal when the minority commits more murders than the majority.
And how about robberies? Blacks accounted for 54.9% of all robberies, with whites arrested for 43.4%. Again, remember that only 13.2% of the population is black.
Not equal there either.

Blacks may say that they are more apt to be arrested simply for “being black.” Black men are six times as likely as white men to be in federal and state prisons (Pew Research Center, 2013). That means that they were convicted, not just arrested for crimes that warranted prison time. They stood trial, a jury and judge heard evidence, and they were convicted – that means that they were guilty.
And no other population group has as robust a record of rioting and looting when things don’t go “their way.”
So no, we’re still not equal.

But, they say that they’re disproportionately profiled. The national crime statistics prove that blacks commit crimes at a much higher rate (considering their population) so a certain amount of profiling is necessary.
Does it make sense for law enforcement to be looking for an elderly white woman when reports from the scene described the perpetrator as a young black man? Of course not. Since more crimes are committed by black men, it is only logical that they will be suspects more often. That means that we’re not profiled at the same rate – nor should we. Again, not equal.

Here’s a novel idea – if blacks don’t like being profiled, just account for fewer crimes. When black men (especially young ones) stop committing the majority of crimes in this country, the main reason for their profiling will disappear.

And yet blacks conveniently ignore how much they owe to whites.
White people gave the slaves their freedom and white people paid for their freedoms by dying (disproportionately) in war. There’s almost never any mention that the American men who have died in war for the freedoms we all enjoy were overwhelmingly white. Yet is there any appreciation shown?
Of course not. White men bought our freedom with their blood and it was decidedly not in equal numbers.
There’s never any appreciation shown to whites who foot the bill for housing assistance, SNAP program food stamps, “free” cellphones, etc. Since 41.7 percent of African Americans (Tax Foundation.org) will file a tax return with no liability (they’ll pay no federal income taxes), the money funding welfare programs was first taken from overwhelmingly white taxpayers. For SNAP programs (Pew Research), blacks get 31% of the funding, whites only 15%.
Not equal there either.

Blacks have embraced and imbedded into their psyche the concept of “us versus them,” where “them” are white people and they look at everything in life through a prism colored by that concept.
It is unfortunate that few blacks condemn what has become an increasingly confrontational attitude embraced by many black activists. It serves no useful purpose except to widen the gap between the races.
Please explain to me how that contributes to us becoming more “equal.”

PART IV

Black Lies Matter

 

Posted on December 28, 2014 by Bryce Buchanan

In Ferguson, Missouri, the evidence shows that, on August 8, 2014, “Big Mike” Brown committed several crimes in a very brief amount of time.  He committed a strong-arm robbery, assaulted a police officer, fought for the officer’s gun, refused the officer’s orders to stop, and charged the officer “like a football player with his head down”.  Actions have consequences, and the consequences of Mike’s choices and actions that morning were exactly what anyone of any skin color should expect.

Words also have consequences.  In the Brown case, or similar cases where violent behavior leads to tragedy, lessons could be taught that would be helpful to communities where violence is much too common. Our President is in a perfect position to intervene in a positive and helpful way.  There could be words about personal responsibility, respecting the rights of others, respecting law enforcement.  Anger and violence could be condemned.

Or, ‘leaders’  could lie about every aspect of the Michael Brown case in a way that would inflame racial divisions, create more anger and violence and increase hatred of the police.  They could concentrate on grievances in a way that is entirely destructive  –  an approach that has no chance of improving the lives of black people.   They could create a nationwide movement that would tear this country apart.  This is the path that was taken by large numbers of people in powerful positions.

The narrative chosen by the racial dividers is everywhere, but here are some examples of the lies used by black ‘leaders’ to create the angry mobs.
Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio, Black Caucus Chairwoman said, “This decision [grand jury] seems to underscore an unwritten rule that black lives hold no value; that you may kill black men in this country without consequences or repercussions.”
Missouri State Senator Jamilah Nasheed called the Brown case “an execution style murder”.  She was later arrested with a gun in one of the race mobs she worked to create.
Jesse Jackson, speaking to angry protestors, said, “The civil rights of Michael Brown was violated…    I would hate to think what would happen if you had black police maliciously killing white children in this way…  The forces of evil choose to undercut our dreams. ”
Our chief law enforcement official, Eric Holder, rushed to characterize the case as an unjustified killing by a racist cop.  While the grand jury was examining evidence, Holder was pronouncing a verdict. To nationalize the anger he said that the problems caused by racist cops “are truly national in scope”  and they “threaten the entire nation”.  He said, “Our police officers cannot be seen as an occupying force”.
Speaking at a University in Baltimore, Louis Farrakhan said that if the demands of those who wanted to lynch Office Wilson were not met, “we’ll tear this goddamn country apart!”  The crowd cheered.  Promoting a race-war Farrakhan added, “We going to die anyway.  Let’s die for something.”
NAACP President Cornell Brookes said the Brown case was a case of “police brutality” that is “commonplace in communities of color all across the country”.  He announced nationwide “Journey for Justice” demonstrations against police misconduct.
President Obama supported the race-baiter narrative.  He even brought up Ferguson at the the U.N. General Assembly, saying that this racist incident demonstrates how America has “failed to live up to our ideals”.  He invited the mob organizers to the White House on two occasions to express agreement with their grievances and to urge them to keep demonstrating, to “stay the course”.

You can know everything you need to know about Obama’s strategy on racial issues by knowing that the ever-despicable Al Sharpton is Obamas “go-to guy on race”.  Sharpton is a very frequent visitor to our White House, where he and Obama plan their strategies on racial issues.  Cornell West said Sharpton is, “the bona fide house negro of the Barack Obama plantation”.   Sharpton said of Obama, “He’s calculating… he gets the game”.
What is the game?  It’s different things for different players and it has nothing to do with honestly addressing the real problems of the black underclass.  It’s about power, money and the march toward leftist utopian dreams.
Most of the people on the streets are “useful idiots” who are pawns in the game.  Notice how easily the lies of demagogues can arouse a mob.  The “hands up, don’t shoot” myth was re-enacted by people lying in the streets, by legislators, by educators, by athletes, and by television commentators.  It’s a parade of angry misinformed fools.  Think of them as the Alinsky Army in training.  The deaths that have been part of this training operation are just collateral damage.  There will be more destruction.

Those who are directing the show are simply following these Alinsky’s rules:

“The organizer’s first job is to create the issues or problems,  …’The organizer ‘must first rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act.  . . . An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent.  …From the moment the organizer enters a community he lives, dreams… only one thing and that is to build the mass power base of what he calls the army. “

Obama taught and practiced Alinsky’s methods of community agitation.  After the premier of the 1998 stage play, “The Love Song of Saul Alinsky”, there was a panel discussion by the most noteworthy Alinsky radicals.  Barack Obama was on that panel.  Obama served on the board of the Woods Foundation with Bill Ayers from 1999 -2002.  They funneled money to the Midwest Academy, an Alinsky training institute.  Obama also had a close association with ACORN, another subversive Alinsky inspired group.

The Bill Ayers association relates to the current racial turmoil.  Instigating a race-war was an explicit part of the Weathermen’s plans to fundamentally transform “AmeriKKKa”.  The plan was for white radicals to trigger a worldwide revolution by instigating racial violence here.   If you think Ayers has changed his destructive plans, you would be wrong.
You can take his word for it.  At an Occupy Wall Street rally in 2012, he said, “I get up every morning thinking, today I’m going to make a difference. Today I’m going to end capitalism. Today I’m going to make a revolution. I go to bed every night disappointed but…I’m back again tomorrow.
In a radio interview in 2012 he said, “I think the people who practice white supremacy and who benefit from it are going to have to be stopped. And I think that’s a huge undertaking and I think it takes a revolution.”
Since Ayers has the same revolutionary goals “every day”, we can assume that he had those goals on the day that he hosted a fundraiser in his living room to launch the political career of Barack Obama.

You may be shocked and saddened by the choreographed violence in the street, but you must realize that there are those who are encouraged and excited by it.  Do not cede the moral high ground to these people.   The fundamental transformation they seek is utopia in theory but very real destruction in practice.  Do not under-estimate the danger that these people pose to your future.

PART V

 Do non-whites blame white people for all their problems?

 Jul 26, 2017

Matt Hunter, Former Aviator at United States Army National Guard

“In recent years, highly publicized controversies (such as the deaths of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown) have brought racial tensions to the forefront in America.

As a result of these events, accusations of racism are being hurled at white people (and other non-blacks) like socially divisive weapons of mass destruction on a frequently recurring basis. However, the resentments blacks have towards whites are not new; they've existed for decades. Thanks to social media and the 24-hour news cycle, the feelings of acrimony blacks have towards whites are now on full display.

Yet, despite the racial turmoil that currently plagues the U.S., the majority of white Americans are not racist; they do not harbor any hatred or feelings of superiority towards black Americans based strictly on skin color.

Furthermore, the majority of blacks are not (and never will be) the victims of systemic (or overt) racism. Moreover, black Americans are failing to take full accountability and responsibility for the many urgent problems (high crime, high teen pregnancy rates, etc.) that have infested their community because they are too busy casting out misdirected, unjustifiable accusations of racism. But if most white people aren't racist and most modern blacks aren't victims of racism, where are these accusations of racism coming from?

One key fact is instrumental in the formulation of these racial dissensions: Black and white Americans don't understand the difference between racism and culturism . If black Americans understood culturism , they'd no longer accuse white people of being racist. If white Americans understood culturism , they'd no longer be on the receiving end of those accusations.

More importantly, black Americans would begin taking full responsibility and accountability for fixing the problems that currently plague their community (instead of shifting blame).”

CLICK ON THE LINK BELOW AND READ & WATCH THE FOLLOWING:

Black Supremacy – Obama suggests Blacks are the ‘Chosen People