The Question of Race


Note: The following is largely excerpted from the book "Whoever You Thought You Were ... You're A Jew!"



The purpose of this Folder is to persuade those...those who still harbor lingering doubts, that is...that black people are people, and not just high-functioning animals.

Considering the fact that all modern-day politically correct rhetoric takes racial equality for granted, this goal may seem like a small goal. But it's not small at all. It's large. Very large.

Since I know, from many direct and frank discussions with people of all races, that few Americans are familiar with black history, including and especially the blacks themselves, I therefore also know that all the political rhetoric is hollow. Hidden within the breasts of most of our "liberal" politicians are age-old hatreds and prejudices. And hidden within the breasts of most colored Americans is a lingering suspicion that they may, perhaps, measure up as "inferior" in the final analysis.

In fact, a close examination of white liberalism reveals that it is basely motivated. There are real, tangible rewards for whites who pretend to love blacks; especially those whites running for elected office. But just try scratching below the surface -- you don't have to scratch much, in the great majority of cases, to expose views which are not far from those embraced by the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazi Party.

For Americans who fear colored people, and who fear their increasing numbers and growing influence, the truth about race will be positively terrifying.

But for those who believe in God, the truth will come as no surprise at all. For the truth is that God raises up whomsoever He wills to be raised up, and for as many centuries as whites have prevailed in the world, there were as many centuries before that during which whites were culturally inferior, and the world's centers of culture and learning were in Africa and Asia.


The end of slavery in America


Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves, but he did not change the minds of either the freed or of their former masters.

The so-called "justification" for slavery is partly Biblical, being based on Genesis 9:20-27. In this episode, Noah curses his son Ham, proclaiming that he will be a "servant of servants" to his brothers. Biblical genealogists consider Ham to be the "father" of the black races, and his brothers to be the "fathers" of the white and oriental races. Let us examine the Biblical excerpt directly:


"And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard.

And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.

And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.

And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.

And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant."


The meanings of the phrases "was uncovered" and "saw the nakedness of his father" are so obscure that it would be futile to speculate about them. But regardless of what they do (or do not) mean, one should note that the "curse" upon Canaan, the Biblical father of the black races, is a curse which was pronounced by Noah. Did Noah have the right to levy curses? That is, isn't there a difference between Noah saying "Thus says The Lord: cursed be Canaan..." and the actual Biblical quote, which is closer to "Thus says Noah: cursed be Canaan...". To be sure, Noah was a Prophet. But does a Prophet have the power to enforce his own curses?

Let us, however, play the "Devil's Advocate" (and rest assured, the Devil himself is the author of all this racial mischief). Let us suppose that Noah's curse was from God, and was therefore binding. What is the term of a curse from God?

This question was answered on Mt. Sinai. When God gave Moses the Ten Commandments, He succinctly defined the hereditary length of a Divine curse:


"I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me" (Exodus 20:5).


Are we to regard the phrase "third and fourth generation" as being a figure of speech, meaning "countless generations"? Not likely, although there might be some who would like to do so. Even in Biblical times, everyone could count to ten, and there is not a reason in the world to doubt that "third and fourth generation" means exactly what it says. Besides, any doubt about the hereditary length of a Divine curse must be dispelled by the prophecies of the Prophet Ezekiel. According to Ezekiel, the word of God is this:


"...say ye...'Doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father?' When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statues, and hath done them...the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him" (Ezekiel 20:19-20).


What this means is that any Biblical license for black slavery expired during Noah's generation, about 5,000 years ago. Any slavery since that time was, in all probability, an affront to God.

That notwithstanding, we must note, at the outset, that slavery was not invented by "the Jews", or by white people of any persuasion. It was, in all probability, invented by black people, who, during the Middle Ages, repeatedly prevailed over whites in battle, enslaving the losers in numbers which shall probably never be known. It is entirely possible that the circumstances prevailing at that time could come about again. For those whites who thought that the only important question about blacks was whether they should be merely socially oppressed, or rather returned to full slavery or burnt in mass-genocide ovens, the realization that blacks used to enslave whites ought to be thought-provoking. If you're white, and if you don't believe what you've read in this chapter so far, then read on. There's more to learn.


The "Dark" Ages


When white people are taught history, the period called the "Middle Ages" is often referred to as the "Dark Ages". It is portrayed, in white history books, as a period during which civilization in general, and the arts and sciences in particular, lay fallow.

That was true for whites, but not for coloreds.

In reality -- a painful reality that whites cannot bear to face up to -- the truth is that during the Middle Ages the great empires of the world were colored empires, and the educational and cultural centers of the world were African and Asian. White people were the lawless barbarians during that period.

How could a thing of such magnitude be kept secret? There is no shortage of volumes covering the history of Spain under the Moors, and covering the history of the great African Jewish and Islamic Kingdoms of the Middle Ages, but these volumes are simply not read, discussed, or taught in schools. But it's really not a secret. Like much of the world's truly important knowledge, it's lying there for all to see. The trouble is that no one looks.

The information in the following pages was drawn principally from two sources: "From Babylon to Timbuktu" by Rudolph R. Windsor, and "World's Great Men of Color", Vol. 1, by J.A. Rogers. Without a doubt, these authors are prejudiced. They are both black, and they both present black history in the most favorable of lights. The facts I have selected to report upon, however, have all been confirmed and re-confirmed (minus the enthusiasm) in "white" sources such as the "Dictionary of the Middle Ages", Vol. 2, the UNESCO series "General History of Africa", Volumes III and IV, and the Encyclopedia Britannica.


The Moorish Empire


By the end of the seventh century the Muhammadans, having already conquered the entire Middle East, had swept across Africa, poised at either end of Europe and ready for further conquests:


Spain at that time was inhabited by the Goths; Arian Christians of Germanic origin. We have already seen that the Arian view of the "nature of Christ" was closer to the Islamic view than to that of the Catholic Church, which by that time had grown to be the undisputed reigning Christian power in Europe. That, however, hardly made the white Goths eager to be overrun by dark-skinned invaders from Africa.

Spain also harbored a substantial Jewish population, which, it seems, originally migrated up from North Africa. The Jews of Spain were dark-skinned, and it is evident that some of them were, quite frankly, Negro. By the time of the Muslim conquests, the Jewish community of Spain had come under persecution by the Christians of the nation. Many fled back to Africa, settling in relatively large numbers in Morocco. Thereafter, they were the allies of the Moroccan Muslims, both there and in Spain.

As soon as the Islamic conquest of North Africa was complete, Islam turned its eyes north toward Europe. The Muslims of Morocco, with Jewish support, planned an invasion of Spain. The first attempt failed, but in 711 AD, a Moorish army under a general named Tariq ibn Ziyad launched a successful amphibious landing on the Spanish side of the Pillars of Hercules.

Tariq was a devout Muslim, consumed by the desire to spread the religion of Muhammad to the European continent. Therefore, when his fleet arrived in Spain, he ordered that all the boats be burned! He made up his mind that if he could not glorify God by seizing Spain for Islam, then he and his army would never return home, but die fighting.

But he did not perish. His amphibious landing was a success, and within a very short time Muslim forces had conquered the entire Iberian peninsula.

In remembrance of Tariq's achievements, the European side of the Pillars of Hercules came to be known as the "Mountain of Tariq". In Arabic, this is "Jabal al Tarik", which the English, in their inimitable contempt for other people's languages, called "Gibralter". This was the beginning of the Moorish period of Spanish history, which lasted exactly from 711 to 1492.


Moorish Spain as Europe's Cultural Center


Although the white Christians of Spain deeply desired, during this entire period, to expel the "Blackamoors" from their country, it is nevertheless an undisputed historical fact that medieval Spain was the cultural, educational, and scientific center of Europe. The Moorish Kings lived in castles of highly polished marble, with elaborately carved walls and beautiful mosaic floors, while European Kings lived in cold, damp castles of unfinished stone; crude by comparison. The streets of Spain's capital city, Cordova, were well-paved and completely illuminated by public lights, at a time when the streets of London were dark and covered with mud.

The Moors possessed all the knowledge of ancient Greece, which was lost to Europe until the Renaissance. They made important contributions to philosophy, medicine, mathematics, chemistry, astronomy, and botany. There were academies for the rich, free schools for the poor, and libraries containing books from all over the world.

The Jews of medieval Spain, for the most part, coexisted very well with the Muslims, and for them, the sojourn in that nation is remembered as being the second most glorious period in their history, exceeded only by the glory of the reigns of David and Solomon in ancient Israel. Medieval Spain was the time and place of Maimonides and many of the other great Old Testament scholars whose works constitute the foundations of modern Jewish thought.

Throughout the Middle Ages, the white Christians of Spain endeavored to thrust out the Moors. It took them until 1492 to do that. When Isabella and Ferdinand finally defeated the last Moorish King in Granada (in the same year that they financed Columbus' trip to America), they immediately expelled all Jews who refused to accept Christianity. This is not at all surprising. Since the Jews had actively supported the Moorish conquests, the Christians were not about to take any chances on losing what had taken them 800 years to regain.

The day the last Moors and Jews were expelled from Spain was counted as a great day in Spanish history. But was it? It is true that Spain, largely through the strength of its navy, had achieved the status of a world power. But in less than a century, the Spanish Armada was defeated by England, and the nation went into a great decline.


Who was responsible for the glory of medieval Spain?


It is an historically undisputed fact that Spain, during the "Dark Ages", was the greatest nation in Europe, a status it has never regained. Two questions come to mind: "Who gets the credit?", and "Were the rulers of Spain really Negro, or were they Arabs, midway in color between 'white' and 'black'?"

The answer to the first question is this: Since medieval Spain was a nation of Muslims, Jews, and Christians, it would be impossible to identify a single ethnic or religious group to whom all credit should go. The credit goes to everyone involved. However, there can be no doubt about the nature of the "driving force" behind the establishment of that nation. It was Islam, and nothing else.

It is inevitable that whites will ask the second question. Were the rulers of Spain really black? The answer is that Islam has always (well, all right, usually) been a color-blind religion, whose followers were drawn from all races, including Caucasian. It is therefore highly probable that many of Spain's Moorish Kings were ethnically "Arab", but in the case of at least two dynasties of Moorish Kings, the blackness is beyond dispute.


The Almoravids


By the eleventh century, the Moroccan Islamic rulers of Spain had become decadent and soft, and they were conquered by the "Almoravids", a dynasty of Muslim sultans whose original home was Senegal, in the heart of western Africa, thousands of miles from Spain. These people were black -- very black. Their rise to power began when a pilgrim named Yahya (the Muslim name for John the Baptist) returned home from Mecca and founded a new religious sect. In the Muslim tradition, this new religious view quickly developed into a new military campaign, and the sect burst forth from Senegal to become master of all of northwest Africa. This all took place within the space of 50 years.

Across the Strait of Gibralter, trouble was brewing in Spain. Initially, Spain had been a province of the "Umayyad" government, the world-wide Islamic government which ruled from the Middle East. The Umayyad Court was originally in Mecca itself; later it was moved to Damascus. For three centuries, an Umayyad Caliph, loyal to Damascus, had governed Spain from the city of Córdoba.


In the course of time, the Umayyad government in the Middle East was overthrown. Not long afterwards, civil war broke out in Spain, and the Umayyad Caliphate was replaced by "Taifa" -- petty Kings who each ruled small regions of Spain from their own regional courts. There were at least 23 such petty Kingdoms before the Almoravid conquest.

The Taifa Kings had ushered in an age of brilliant Islamic cultural revival, promoting poetry, philosophy, natural science and mathematics. But they were politically incompetent. The various Islamic states were constantly at war with each other. They unhesitatingly turned to Christians for support against rival Muslim Kings. This lack of unity and inconsistency made them targets for the growing forces of the Christian re-conquest of Spain.

By 1085, the situation had become critical. The Christian King Alfonso VI had won so many military victories, and was collecting tribute from so many Muslim Kings, that it appeared that Islamic government in the Iberian peninsula was about to expire.

In that year, Alfonso had captured the important Muslim city of Toledo. The Taifa Kings were desperate. They swallowed their pride, and turned to the Almoravids for help.


Yusuf ibn Tashfin


The greatest of the Almoravid leaders was Yusuf ibn Tashfin, who conquered an Empire encompassing all of Northwest Africa, and ultimately Spain. It was Yusuf who defeated El Cid, one of Spain's most renowned and legendary folk heroes.

Yusuf was called to Spain by the Taifa King, Motamid. Motamid was quite aware that Yusuf might usurp his own throne if he was successful, but he had no choice. The Muslims of Spain were in big trouble. Alphonso VI had beaten them so severely that he was literally on the verge of driving the Muslims back into the Mediterranean Sea.

Yusuf was nearly 80 years old when he came to Spain, but he still had all the powers of a young man. Although he was outnumbered by the Christians three-to-one, his indomitable spirit prevailed, and he miraculously defeated King Alfonso at the Battle of Zalacca. At that famous battle, 70,000 Christian soldiers were routed by Yusuf's army of 25,000 Muslims.

Yusuf, in accordance with a promise he had made at the outset, returned to Africa. The local Taifa Kings heaved a sigh of relief. They had been saved, and their thrones remained intact. At least for the time being.

The relief did not last long, however. Within the space of two years, the Christians had rallied, and Yusuf had to be called back. This time he stayed. One by one, he defeated the Christian generals. El Cid was the last to fall, and when he did, virtually the entire Iberian peninsula was under Yusuf's control. Muslim rule in Spain had been restored.

Yusuf thus became King of an Empire that encompassed a large part of Africa, and most of Spain. There is no doubt about his skin color. He was black -- very black.


The Almohads


Muslims consider the greatest of all the medieval Kings of Spain to have been Yakub ibn Yusuf (1149-1199 AD). He was known as "Al-Mansur", which means "the invincible". It is said that he never lost a battle. His Empire was immense, stretching to the border of Egypt. At the time of his death, at the early age of 50, he was contemplating an invasion of Egypt as well, which would have made him master of half the continent of Africa.

He began as the leader of a coalition of tribes known as the "Almohads". These were strictly puritanical and fanatically monotheistic Muslims from the Atlas Mountains of Morocco. The name "Almohad" is easy to confuse with "Almoravids", but they were two different groups. In fact, the Almohads overthrew the Almoravids in Africa, then went on to establish yet a third Moorish Dynasty in Spain.

Al-Mansur's father was of mixed race, and his mother was a full-blooded Negro slave woman, from Senegal or Timbuktu. Thus, Al-Mansur was at least 75% Negro. It would be hard to find a black American who was "more Negro" than that. But this black man ruled Spain during its most glorious period.

Al-Mansur came to power, in Africa, during a period when the Christian re-conquest of Spain had once again gained tremendous momentum. The Almoravids, like the Umayyads before them, had become soft and decadent. The Almohads overthrew them, first in Africa, then in Spain. Al-Mansur thus conquered and began expanding the empire first established by the great Almoravid leader, Yusuf ibn Tashfin.

As in the past, however, the internal strife between Muslim sects played into the hands of the Christian forces of re-conquest. There was a feeling of chaos in the air, and the Christians intended to take full advantage. Feeling that their day had come at last, they assembled a vast army of 300,000 men at Alarcos, intending to put an end to Moorish rule in Spain once and for all.

But Al-Mansur sent emissaries over his vast North African domains, calling for every able-bodied man to come to the rescue of Islam. This they did -- people of all races and colors responding to the call. At Alarcos, Al-Mansur dealt the Christian forces a crushing defeat. According to Arab historians, the spoils of this battle were "beyond calculation".

Al-Mansur went on to re-take all the principle strongholds of Christian Spain. It would be nearly 300 years before the setbacks to Christianity were fully reversed, and the Moors finally expelled.

Al-Mansur was a military genius, but he was also a patron of the arts and a lover of justice. According to J.A. Rogers, when he came to power, the first thing he did was to distribute vast quantities of food to the poor. He freed all who were unjustly held in prison and reformed the laws to prevent others from being so held. He initiated a vast public works program, rebuilding the cities and erecting mosques, schools, hospitals, and aqueducts. Some of Spain's greatest Moorish architectural works, including the Alhambra, were begun during his reign.

A fourteenth century Islamic historian wrote of him that "his reign was remarkable for the tranquillity, the safety, the abundance, and the prosperity that reigned everywhere...his religion was sincere and deep; and he was a great benefactor of Islam".

Al-Mansur was known, to his subjects, as "The Black Sultan".

There can be no doubt that Spain, during at least parts of her most glorious period, was ruled by Negroes.




A very interesting question arises from a consideration of the facts we have examined above. What was it like to be a white in a nation ruled by blacks?

I have found this question to be very difficult to answer. Light-skinned Christian Americans of Spanish ancestry to whom I have addressed it have little to say. It seems that the Spanish have very effectively suppressed the memory of their Moorish background.

The books I have had access to do not address the question, except in the negative sense. That is, I have not seen any books which suggest that Spain, under Muslim rule, was a place of misery for whites. This is not to say that whites were not discontent. On the contrary, white discontent was widespread and deeply-felt. But it appears to have been mainly a matter of injured pride, and not a matter of the sort of horrendous discrimination against minorities which characterizes America today.

The nineteenth century white American writer Washington Irving, best known as the author of "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow", had a deep and abiding interest in medieval Spain. He spent several years there, including a long period during which he actually lived within the famous Alhambra palace. His experiences during those years were recorded in two books: "Tales of the Conquest of Spain", and "The Alhambra".

If Washington Irving's descriptions of medieval Spain were accurate, then, based on his writings, it must be said that the sojourn of the Moors in Spain was a period of an almost magical fairy-tale quality; a time of general prosperity and happiness, albeit punctuated by periodic military-political upheaval. But the evils of racism, discrimination, and crime, such as are threatening the very fabric of America today, were apparently not anywhere near the magnitude that they are here. As a white American, I am somewhat embarrassed to report this, but I have, as yet, found no evidence to the contrary.

What I am saying is that it seems to have been better to have been a white living under black rule in medieval Spain than it is to be black living under white rule in America.




It has been the policy of military victors, since the beginning of time, to make slaves of some or all of their prisoners--of--war. Thus, it is not surprising to find that countless white Spanish Christians were taken to Africa as slaves after military encounters in which the Muslims prevailed.

I have discovered no reports of the conditions under which these white slaves lived, but I cannot imagine that it was a good life.

The only important lesson to be learned from this is that white Americans did not "invent" slavery; nor did "the Jews". Black Africans were taking white slaves for themselves many centuries before America was even founded.

Furthermore, enslavement of blacks by blacks was also a routine phenomenon in medieval Africa. Like the great cities of the Greek and Roman Empires, the legendary black city of Timbuktu was entirely dependent on slave labor. Few if any of those slaves were white.

No race has a "patent" on slavery.




Nowadays, the name "Timbuktu" is only used by white people as a joke. While most people have no idea where it is, it has come to embody the concept of the "farthest possible place" from civilization.

There was, however, a time when Timbuktu was not the "farthest possible place" from civilization, but was the very center of world civilization. Since Timbuktu is in the heart of "darkest Africa", this seems categorically impossible. How can such things be? But such things can be -- and, in fact, they were.

Jewish tribes seem to have been migrating into the heart of Africa since the dawn of recorded history. Ethiopia is mentioned in the beginning of the Biblical Book of Genesis, and there is no time in history when there were not Jews living there. From Ethiopia, they went west and south into the heart of Africa. Other Jews also migrated directly west from Egypt, entering Africa along the northern coast of the continent.

The roots of what eventually evolved into the greatest of all the African empires arose in the area which now constitutes the northwest corner of Nigeria. This was the Kingdom of Ghana; not the Ghana of today, which is a small nation to the south, but a large empire corresponding to the modern nations of Mauritania and Mali.

Starting about 300 AD, the Kingdom of Ghana began to be ruled by a dynasty of Jewish Kings known as the Za Dynasty. The founder of the Dynasty was a man named Za el Yemeni, who was descended from Jews of Yemen. He established his capital city at Gao on the Niger River, in what is now the nation of Mali.

This area was rich in gold and iron, the latter metal being of great value in the forging of weapons with which neighboring Kingdoms were conquered. Within the Kingdom of Ghana the first public buildings, canals, and irrigation systems in this part of the world were built.

According to the writings of Eldad the Danite, a famous Algerian Jewish author of the ninth century, Ghana was a Hebrew nation which followed the Law of Moses. The people of Ghana traced their roots to Jews of the First Diaspora of 600 BC, who were forcibly expelled from Israel by the Assyrians. In support of this, Eldad reported that the Ghanans possessed the Torah, which was compiled before the Diaspora, but not the Talmud, which was compiled in Jerusalem and Babylon much later, during the early centuries of the Christian era.

In the seventh century AD, the whole of Africa north of the Sahara desert was conquered by the armies of Islam. Subsequently, an extremely lucrative trade system developed with the Sub-Saharan Kingdom of Ghana. The commodities first traded were gold and salt. This led to the appearance of regular caravan routes across the Sahara Desert to various cities in Ghana. These cities became wealthy.

Shortly after the year 1000 AD, the Kings of Ghana converted to Islam. Initially, the conversions were mainly for the purpose of fostering trade with the powerful Muslim states of North Africa, and had little to do with faith. But once Islam took root in the area, its impact grew inexorably.

At about this time, the Kingdom of Ghana was invaded by the Moors, and it went into an irreversible decline. But in the middle of the 13th century, a tribe called the Mandingo, who had been subjects of Ghana, rose up and took control of the Kingdom. They expelled the Moorish invaders, and set out creating an even greater Empire. This was the Empire of Mali -- not the Mali of today, but a huge empire which eventually stretched from the Atlantic Ocean across Sub-Saharan Africa to Lake Chad -- an area the size of Western Europe. Like their predecessors, the Mandingos traded heavily with the Muslims to the north. Their Kings, like the Kings of Ghana before them, accepted Islam as the state religion.

The Mandingos were a highly successful agricultural society, and their cities grew rich through the trading of grain with the north. Their chief cities were Gao, which was the political capital, and Timbuktu, which was destined to become one the world's leading educational and cultural centers.

Timbuktu, originally founded about 1100 AD, grew to become a city of great wealth and strategic importance. In addition to being favorably located with respect to trans-Saharan trade, it was also a major conduit for trade between Europe and the Orient. This was a period in history when Europe was a large collection of petty Kingdoms which were primitive and warlike. Travel across the European continent was dangerous, and movement of expensive goods was out of the question. Therefore, the trade route between East and West, a source of enormous financial profit, took a circuitous pathway.

Goods from the Middle East and the Orient were carried across the Sahara Desert by caravan to Timbuktu. The Africans then transported them nearly 1000 miles to their ports on the Atlantic coast. From there the goods were loaded onto ships bound for Europe.

The wealth of Mali was demonstrated by the famous pilgrimage of the Emperor Kankan Musa in 1326. He arrived in the holy city of Mecca with 60,000 mounted soldiers and 500 slaves, each one bearing a ponderous bar of gold, which he gave to the city.

It was during this time that the University of Sankore was founded at Timbuktu, and this city began to become one of the world's leading centers of academic learning. The city flowered during the period when the Empire of Mali came to be known as the Empire of Songhay (ca. 1470-1591).

This last, and greatest, of Sub-Saharan Empires began when a man named Sonni Ali, of the Songhay tribe, took it upon himself to attack and conquer the neighboring territories. Before long, all the territories of Mali were in his hands.

Sonni was the last of the long line of formerly Hebrew Za Emperors, tracing his roots back to Za el Yemeni, the founder of the old Kingdom of Ghana. Sonni was a great military leader, but he offended the Muslim clergy by his casual and even contemptuous attitude toward religion. He was nominally Muslim, but it seems that he, and all the other Emperors of the Za Dynasty, somehow maintained a loyalty to the Jewish religion while exhibiting an outward veneer of Islam for commercial purposes. When Sonni's successor, Muhammad Askia, seized power by force, the 1200 year-old Za Dynasty came to an end.

The greatest of the Kings of Songhay, Muhammad Askia ("the Usurper"), seized power in a military coup in 1492 -- the year Columbus set sail for America. Askia is remembered as a true and great champion of Islam, and of education. Not long after assuming power, he made his own Pilgrimage to Mecca, with the intention of outdoing his predecessor Kankan Musa. He brought gifts to Mecca, Medina, and to the Caliph of Baghdad which astounded everyone. Topping the list was an offering of 300,000 pieces of gold to the Holy Cities. His gifts exceeded all others, and left an indelible impression on the Muslims of the Middle East.

Songhay came to be known as the "Mecca of the Sudan" during the reign of Askia. By about 1500, this Empire in the heart of "darkest Africa" had become the center of the Muhammadan world, at a time when the Renaissance in Europe had barely begun.

The students of Timbuktu were sent out to the great Muslim Universities of Spain, North Africa, and Asia, and learned men of all races and nationalities were paid handsomely to come into Timbuktu to teach. The commodity which came to be the most profitable object of trade in Timbuktu was not gold, or silver, or grain -- but books! It is said that there were more books in the libraries of the University of Sankore than in all the libraries of Europe combined.

It is also said that the entire body of male free citizens was literate. Leadership and authority were vested mainly in the learned scholars of the city.

These facts concerning the Empires of Ghana, Mali and Songhay seem totally at odds with what modern day American whites think about black people. Aren't black people intellectually inferior? Aren't black people "innately violent"? Apparently they didn't know that in Timbuktu!

There was a legendary fourteenth century Muslim traveler named Ibn Battuta. Western historians often liken him to Marco Polo, although his travels actually extended even farther, spanning much of the known world from the Atlantic Coasts to China. Ibn Batuta paid a visit to sub-Saharan Africa during the time of the Kingdom of Mali. This is what he had to say about the people:


"The inhabitants had a greater abhorrence of injustice than any other people. Neither the man who travels nor he who stays at home has anything to fear from robbers or men of violence."

Thus we see that Timbuktu, a black city in the heart of "darkest" Africa, became a leading cultural and educational center, attained a literacy rate of nearly 100%, and was free of crime and violence.

The driving force behind these developments was Islam, and nothing else.


End of the Black Empires


What destroyed the black Empires? It was greed and lust for power. The Ummayad Dynasty in Spain was overthrown by the Almoravids, who were in turn overthrown by the Almohads.

In Sub-Saharan Africa, the Kingdom of Ghana was overthrown by Mali, which in turn was overthrown by Songhay.

Each of these Kingdoms comprised the same general territory as its predecessor, and the only real purpose accomplished by all this internal turmoil was the gratification of the desires of the leaders for supreme power.

Finally, during the periods when the Empires were not distracted by internal dissension, they attacked each other. With the rise of Christian power in Spain, and the decline of the economic power of trans-Saharan caravan trade, the Moors and Songhays went to war against each other, and wiped each other out. Thus, in the final analysis, it was black people themselves who destroyed the great medieval black Empires.

It was only after this self-destruction that white slave traders were able to establish a foothold in Africa.


The Ark of the Covenant


For those whites, especially those driven by misreadings of the Judeo-Christian Testaments, who still cling tenaciously to the belief that blacks are inferior by nature and held in low esteem by God, there is the delicate issue of the Ark of the Covenant.

It seems that in Jerusalem after the Civil War, during the bloody reign of the relapsed pagan, Manasseh (687-642 BC), the Ark was removed from the Holy of Holies in Solomon's Temple. It was replaced by a statue of the pagan deity Asherah.

The reign of Manassah and his son was the single great stain in the history of the Southern Kingdom of Judah, yet these rulers were so evil that even after the wrongs had been righted, God could not forgive the Jewish Nation (II Kings 23:26).

Manasseh's son Amon, who was as evil and as hated as his father, ruled for only two years. Then he was assassinated, and his own son Josiah became King. Josiah was only 8 years old when he came to the throne. Apparently, the priests had a large part in his upbringing, because in his adult years he rose to become the most devoutly Jewish, and the most highly revered of all the Kings of Judah.

Josiah called upon the Levites to return the Ark of the Covenant to the Temple (II Chronicles, 35:3), but there is no evidence that it ever did return. In the first place, the Bible contains no references to the physical presence of the Ark in the Temple after the reign of Manassah, and secondly there are numerous suggestions in the Bible of its absence. These, and all other aspects of the Ark story, have been persuasively argued in a lengthy and detailed analysis by Graham Hancock, in his book "The Sign and the Seal" (Crown Publishers, New York, 1992).

It is now known that there was a replica of the Temple of Solomon which was built on Elephantine Island, in the Nile River near Aswan, Egypt, around 650 BC. There is good, albeit circumstantial evidence that Jews fleeing from Manassah, who "shed innocent blood ... till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another" (2Kings 21:16), established a new center of worship in Elephantine, and brought the Ark there.

The existence and activities of the Jewish colony at Elephantine are well documented by papyri which have been preserved. It flourished until 410 BC, when the local Egyptians apparently lost their willingness to tolerate Jews in their midst. The Egyptians destroyed the Temple and scattered the Jewish inhabitants. This date, the beginning of the 4th century BC, coincides with the date which Ethiopian oral tradition holds the Ark to have begun its journey up the Nile River to their country. It stopped for a time in the city of Meroe (which has only recently been excavated), and then continued southward into Ethiopia, where it resided on an Island in Lake Tana for 800 years. There it found rest in the hands of the ancient Ethiopian Hebrew community.

When, in the 4th century AD, Ethiopia converted to Christianity, there quickly came a time when the Jews were overwhelmed by Christian military force. The Ark was seized and brought to the ancient capital city of Axum, where it remains to this day, in the hands of the Ethiopian Coptic Christian Church.

Anyone not familiar with the beliefs and rituals of the Ethiopian Coptic Church cannot imagine the depth of conviction associated with their belief that the object in their possession for these last two millennia is the Ark of the Covenant. Indeed, it is the entire focus of the nation's Christianity. Every Ethiopian Coptic church has a replica of the Ark in it, and awareness of the importance of the original in Axum permeates their very consciousness at all times.

There is a "Guardian of the Ark", a man who is selected upon the death of the previous Guardian. His entire life is spent in the rock church in which the Ark is kept. He lives a life of prayer, fasting, and meditation, never leaving the church unless the Ark goes out, in which case he accompanies it. It is not at all clear, however, that the Ark ever actually goes out; it may well be that "Timkat" (Epiphany), the once-a-year ceremony in which the Ark is thought to be seen being carried jubilantly through the streets of Axum, involves a replica.

The earliest known attempt to recover the Ark from Ethiopia was made by the so-called "Poor Knights of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon", more often referred to as simply the "Knights Templer" (whom we have mentioned previously).

The Knights Templer were intimately associated with the Crusaders who took Jerusalem from the Muslims in 1099. There was nothing "poor" about them. On the contrary, they were an extremely wealthy and influential order. They dug for the Ark unsuccessfully under the Temple Mount in Jerusalem for 7 years (1119-1126 AD). They were in complete control of this excavation. There was no one to answer to, and no one to inhibit the scope or extent of their work. That notwithstanding, they did not find the sacred relic.

When word came to them of the legend that the Ark had been taken to Ethiopia, they went there. But their attempts to seize it, by force or by guile, failed.

Graham Hancock's logic and scholarship are persuasive, and one is driven forcefully to the conclusion that the Ark is, in fact, in Ethiopia, no matter how unpleasent this may seem to whites in general, and to Judeo-Christian whites in particular.

Most devoutly believing Jews and Christians would agree that the Ark is the most precious religious object on earth today. And yet God seems to have entrusted its care not to Jews, or to white Christians, but to black Ethiopians. This single fact, even more so than the facts concerning the great black Empires of the Middle Ages, renders it a certainty that God loves black people as much as white people.

Hopefully not more.


Poor leadership in black America


The histories of Spain and Timbuktu in the Middle Ages prove at least one thing: that blacks can, and did, rule over great empires which excelled in all areas, including the arts and sciences. This occurred during a period of history which white historians refer to as the "Dark Ages". Perhaps we should think of the term "Dark Ages" differently. Instead of thinking of it as a time of "darkness" for the white races, we should think of it as a time of greatness and light for the dark races.

From medieval Spain we learn that the combination of inspired Muslims, Jews, and Christians working together in the same society created a great civilization at a time when culture and learning lay fallow in the rest of Europe.

In stark contrast to medieval Spain, America today, another land of mixed race, is gripped in the turmoil of ethnic strife. Our nation is characterized by violence and lawlessness. What did Spain have that we don't?

Moreover, why does America struggle vainly with an endless succession of ill-conceived social programs which don't work, when there already exist tried and tested models of black culture and civilization which do? Why have these successful models been totally ignored?

I have never once heard any of the black so-called "leaders" of America today make mention of the great medieval civilizations of Africa or Spain; not even in passing. I can think of no explanation for this other than the fact that in doing so, they would be hard pressed to avoid talking about God. They must, therefore, hate God more than they hate white people.

So, rather than risk having to invoke the name of the Most High, they propose a different "stairway to success" to their constituents: They claim that the "white man" is a liar and a thief, and that the key to success is for "blacks" to become better liars than "whites". This, in itself, is a damned lie. But this vicious lie is continually expressed on television and radio, and in newspapers and magazines. It seems that the media follow, like dogs, after the very worse of black self-promoters, hustlers, trouble-makers, and sociopaths; giving them the microphone at each and every opportunity, to poison the minds of black and white listeners alike, and to maintain an evil status quo which is to no one's advantage.

That is why I believe that the black so-called "leaders" of America today were chosen by whites; wealthy and influential whites who remain anonymous. These are the people who desperately fear any change in the way Americans live, and who use their influence to prevent it.

Do not think that these people have considered the problem of race carefully, and concluded that the status quo is for the best. On the contrary, they haven't thought about it at all. They only know that they're well off and most other people aren't, and they fear change.


Poor role models for black Americans


In addition to having poor leadership, American blacks, at the grass roots level, have chosen (or at least accepted) poor role models for themselves. On the whole, they remain ignorant about black history. About the only African leader whose name seems to be widely known is "Chaka", the early 19th century Zulu warlord. Who was this man?

Chaka, without a doubt, was a great warrior and conqueror. He was also a Black Monster from Hell. As Rider Haggard said,


...this African Attila...slaughtered more than a million human beings. Wherever his warriors went, the blood of men, women, and children was poured out without stay or stint. Indeed he reigned like a visible Death, the presiding genius of a saturnalia of slaughter.


As a youth, Chaka's "specialty" was fighting two men at the same time. When he rose up to become chief of the Zulus, he arranged a more impressive show of bravado. He sat down on a hornets' nest, thrust his fist into it, and pulled out the angry insects without once rising up. If you've ever been stung by a hornet, then you know, as I know, that this was a man oblivious to physical pain.

He hated married men; so much so that he actually had them physically segregated into separate ghettos. He hated children also. When one of his rare sex partners (he never married, and rarely engaged in sexual activity) proudly showed him a newborn son, he smashed its skull in with one blow of his fist, and ordered the woman summarily executed.

The first thing Chaka did when he took office was to kill every one of his blood relatives who represented even the slightest challenge to his rule. Then he seized everyone else who had ever spoken or acted disrespectfully to him, from youth on up, and had them all executed. How's that for a good memory?

The rest of his career was a bloodbath. Starting from a tiny tribal enclave of less than a hundred square miles, he embarked on a continuous war of conquest. Within 4 years of his first campaign, he had created an empire larger than France, corresponding to today's South Africa. He accomplished this extraordinary task by trashing the entire Zulu traditional way of life, and replacing it with a de-humanized, mindless, soul-less killing machine. He instilled such a frenzy for blood in his soldiers that even after every conceivable enemy was dead, they still couldn't stop fighting. When there was no one left to fight, they turned on each other. These men must have had the personalities of starved pit-bull terriers.

After nine years of such insanity, the people could stand no more. Chaka was killed by a team of conspirators led by his own half-brother (who had somehow managed to survive the earlier bloodbaths). Chaka, like Norman Bates in the movie "Psycho", didn't feel that he deserved to die. "What have I ever done to you?" were his last astonished words to the conspirators. He received no burial -- his body was thrown to the vultures.


Decent role models rejected


I have presented brief descriptions of Tariq ibn Ziyad, Yusuf ibn Tashfin, and Yakub ibn Yusuf ("Al-Mansur"), each one himself a magnificent warrior. These men had boundless faith in God. They achieved great military victories, and left a legacy of decency, culture, and learning which persisted for centuries. Yet it's hard to find an American black who knows their names, or the names of any number of other great black African leaders who stood at the helms of cultured black nations.

But everyone seems to know the name "Chaka". Black Americans even like to name themselves after him. Chaka had bottomless faith also; faith in the pouring out of innocent blood, in the trashing of whole civilizations, and in the desirability of appropriating one's neighbor's property by military force. His legacy was centuries-long also: Apartheid.

Black Americans, take note! There are two paths before you; the path of boundless faith, which leads to enduring greatness, and the path of boundless violence, which leads to poverty and death. Do not wait for anyone to give you anything. You must choose for yourself, and then follow your chosen path tirelessly to its final reward.


What was the "secret" of black prosperity in medieval times?


If one examines the histories of medieval Spain and Timbuktu, one finds exactly and precisely One, and only One explanation for their prosperity: God.

The Empire of Ghana began as a Jewish Empire, evolving in the course of time into Islamic Empires of Ghana, Mali, and Songhay. Moorish Spain was Islamic from the start.

It was a love of God, and a fear of God, which lay behind all the heroic exploits and cultural achievements of these Empires. It is absolutely impossible to explain these things in any other way. You cannot raise up a great civilization in the heart of Africa by being a "better liar than the white man". Only the Truth can raise up a civilization. And the Truth is God.

The men and women who created the great black Empires of the "Dark Ages" were devout Jews and Muslims, often fanatically so. They feared God. This, and this alone, is what is missing in America.

When Americans of all colors turn back to God, through the Torah, and through Christ, and through Islam, then this nation will become the paradise which its founding fathers dreamed of. This is our "alternative", and our only alternative.


Who was the "greatest" black American leader?


Like most people of my generation, I grew up believing that Martin Luther King was the greatest of American black leaders. It seems, in retrospect, that he almost single-handedly won blacks the vote, de-segregated the Old South, and created the entire body of Civil Rights legislation.

Dr. King, of course, did not work alone, but he most assuredly stood squarely at the center of all those activities. I cannot, however, help but note that he was the son of a Christian minister: he was born a Christian, and he died a Christian.

There was one in America who took a longer journey than that.

My source of information about this other great American black leader was the movie named after him: "Malcolm X". If the movie was in error, then so am I.

Malcolm X was born apostate, and raised a hoodlum. He rose to "prominence", if it could be called that, through his activities as a pimp and a thief. He got caught. But while in prison, he encountered and embraced Islam. Through his new-found faith, he rose up from his life of crime. He became a decent citizen.

He did not stop there. He went on to rise up through the ranks of the so-called "Black Muslim" movement to become one of its leaders. But once a man like Malcolm began to rise, there was no stopping him. He perceived the movement to be less-than-perfect, and he spoke out against the abuses he saw. It was not enough for him to be merely involved in religion; he wanted his religion to be perfect.

In time, Malcolm's efforts to reform the Black Muslims made him the enemy of certain of the movement's leaders. They actually threatened his life, but he refused to stop his efforts at reform. He meant to rise up -- all the way -- even if it meant death.

Toward the end of his short life, he made the Hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca which is required of every Muslim. There he saw other Muslims; literally millions of them, from every corner of the world -- black, Arab, oriental, and.....white. He saw, and he understood.

He had now finally risen up -- all the way up. He realized that there were no "black" Muslims, only Muslims. In fact, he realized that in the ultimate analysis, there are no "black" men -- only men.

As an enlightened man of God, he was now perceived as a mortal enemy by those Black Muslim leaders whose personal agendas were contrary to true Muslim principles. So they killed him.

Martin Luther King was born a Christian, and he died a Christian. He was a great man. But Malcolm X was born a thief, and had to raise himself up, even to become a Black Muslim. Then he raised himself up further to become a leader of the Black Muslim movement. Finally he dispensed with the "black" altogether, and became simply a Muslim -- a true Muslim, all issues of race and color having been subjugated to a fervent desire to serve God. Then, he gave his life for that cause.

If the movie is to be believed, then Malcolm knew he was going to die on the day he was murdered. He had a speech to make, and he refused to hide. He made his life an offering for the faith, and died a martyr's death.

It was Christ who said


"joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance".

Luke 15:7.


That's why I, who also love joy, say that the greatest black American leader was not Martin Luther King, but Malcolm X.


Should medieval history be read as a warning?


Before leaving the subject of black skin color, one further point must be made. The period of colored dominance in the western world, fueled by Jewish-Islamic fervor, was fully established between the years 700-800 A.D. It was dealt its first major blows during the years 1100-1200, the first century of the Crusades. It lingered for centuries more after that, fading gradually, but not dying out fully until the 17th century.

Therefore the period of unchallenged colored greatness, before the Crusades, lasted about 400 years.

The period of white greatness, unknown during the entire Middle Ages, but firmly established since 1600 AD, is 400 years old. Suppose these things are cyclical? It that's true, then whites may already have had their 400 years of unchallenged supremacy, and may have already entered into another period of sickening decay and decline. Must history always repeat itself?

The lesson to be learned from the Moors and from Timbuktu is a lesson which has been taught so many times, one cannot help but wonder just how many times it needs to be taught before people will finally pay attention. The lesson is this: It is God who raises up people and nations, not skin color or anything else. And it is human greed and lust which brings men and nations down.

This lesson has been taught by Jews, Muslims, Christians, and Buddhists since the beginnings of their histories, but it just doesn't seem to sink in.

How can people avoid endless cycles of being dominated, being "liberated", and in turn dominating others, having learned nothing from their own miserable experiences?

The answer is through "brotherhood". But not the "brotherhood" of the Civil Rights era of the 1960's, when slogans such as "all men are brothers" were taught as free-standing secular humanist pillars of "wisdom". We were told, back then, that such pillars of "wisdom" were derived by pure logic, without reference to God, and that it was self-evident that they were true. That, however, was a lie. It is because it was a lie that all the years of vainly preaching "all men are brothers" have lead only to more violence, and not less.

The brotherhood which will elevate man above racial suffering is the brotherhood spoken of by Christ, when he was told that his family wished to see him. He motioned to his audience and said:



...whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

(Matthew 12:30)



























"...Third Or Fourth Generation...
How Long Is That?"


It has been suggested that certain specified periods in the Law of Moses are indeterminate in length, due to the fact that mathematics was not highly developed in that nation at that time.

Well, mathematics as we know it today may not have been "highly developed", but the implication that Hebrews "couldn't count past 4" is preposterous. First of all, they had just come out of Egypt, where they sojourned for 400 years with the Pyramid Builders themselves, and something must have rubbed off. Secondly, the Hebrew language has words for "hundred" and "thousand", and numbers in the millions are expressed in the Bible by the language "ten-thousands of ten-thousands". So, whatever mathematics they did or didn't have, they could certainly count past 4!

In Deuteronomy 23:3, we see the following:


"An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD forever."


This suggests that the "curse of ten generations" may be a figure of speech for the word "forever", but, then again, here the word "forever" is included, so that there's no guess-work.

In any event, it seems unlikely that "3rd or 4th generation" has any meaning other than the face-value interpretation thereof. Don't be offended by the apparent vagueness; it's characteristic of the way Moses talked!

For example, in the case of any serious crime, he forbid a sentence to be passed except upon the testimony of "2 or 3 witnesses" (see Deut. 19:15 and elsewhere). That's just the way he was, and that's quite evidently the way his LORD wanted him to be.