And the man that
committeth adultery with another man's wife, evenhe that
committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall
surely be put to death.
Note that the words "another" and
"even he" are italicized, which means that they were added by the translators.
Lev 20:10
And the man376 that834 committeth adultery5003 with854 another man's376 wife,802 evenhe that834 committeth adultery5003 with854 his neighbor's7453 wife,802 the adulterer5003
and the adulteress5003 shall
surely be put to death.4191, 4191
Jeremiah 3:8
And I saw, when for
all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given
her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played
the harlot also.
If "adultery" in this sentence meant the
individual private act of men having sex with other men's wives, then it would have read:
"And I saw, when for all the
causes whereby backsliding men of Israel committed adultery I
had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared
not, but went and played the harlot also."
The fact that it refers to public actions by the
entire race suggests that it's not a private act of men having sex with other men's wives,
but rather miscegenation of that race with other races
The following is a reference to the Kingdom of
Israel, rather than individuals:
Eze 23:37
That they have committed
adultery, and blood is
in their hands, and with their idols have they committed adultery, and have also caused
their sons, whom they bore unto me, to pass for them through thefire, to devour them.
more than
Mat 12:39
But he answered and said
unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonah:
The Century Dictionary, Copyright 1911
1. Violation of the marriage bed; carnal connection
of a married person with any other than the lawful spouse; in a more restricted sense, the
wrong by a wife which introduces or may introduce a spurious offspring into the
family. In some jurisdictions the law makes adultery a crime, in some only a civil
injury. In England, formerly, it was punished by a
fine & imprisonment, and in Scotland it was frequently made a capital offense.
In Great Britain at the present day, it is punishable only by ecclesiastical censure; but
when committed by the wife, it is regarded as a civil injury, and forms the ground of an
action of damages against the paramour. Contrary to previous general opinion, it
has recently been held in the United States that a wife may have a corresponding action
against a woman who seduces away her husband. In England and Scotland the husband's
recovery of damages against the paramour can now be had only by joining him with the wife
in an action for divorce.
In case of divorce a mensa et thoro,
the law allows alimony to the wife: which Is that allowance which is made to a woman for
her support out of the husband's estate: being settled at the discretion of the
ecclesiastical judge, on consideration of all the circumstances of the case. This is
sometimes called her estovers; for which, if he refuses payment, there is (besides
the ordinary process of excommunication) a writ at common law de estoveris habendis,
in order to recover it.l It is generally proportioned to the rank and quality of the
parties. But, in case of elopement, and living with an adulterer, the law allows her no
alimony.
1. Who may be endowed. She must be the
actual wife of the party at the time of his decease. If she be divorced a vinculo
matrimonii, she shall not be endowed ; for ubi nullum matrimonium, ibl nulla dosh. But a
divorce a mensa et thoro only a Wilk. 75. . b Somner. Gavelk. 51. Co. Litt. 33. Bro.
Dower. 70, c Wright. 192. d Crag. /. 2. t. 22. �. 9. , c Hid. f Mod. Un. Hist, xxxii. 91.
S Bract. /. 2. c. 39. Co. Litt. 30. h Bract. I. 2. c. 39. �. 4.doth not destroy the
dower'; no, not even for adultery itself by the common law k. Yet now by the statute
Westm. 2'. if a woman voluntarily leaves (which the law calls eloping from) her husband,
and lives with an adulterer, she shall lose her dower, unless her husband be voluntarily
reconciled to her13.
Such emotions as spite, shamelessness, and envy have
no mean and are simply base, just as some actions are bad such as adultery, theft, and
murder. Such bad actions do not have a right time or manner.
Sexual relations by a married person with someone other than the spouse. Prohibitions or
taboos against adultery, written or customary, constitute part of the marriage code of
virtually every society. Indeed, adultery seems to be as universal and, in some instances,
as common as marriage.
The Code of Hammurabi (18th century BC) in Babylonia provided a punishment of death by
drowning for adultery. In ancient Greece and in Roman law, the offending female spouse
could be killed, but men were not severely punished. The Jewish, Isla mic, and Christian
traditions are unequivocal in their condemnation of adultery. The culpability of men as
well as women is more explicitly expressed in the New Testament and the Talmud than in the
Old Testament or the Qur'an.
The attitude toward adultery within different cultures varies widely. Whereas the
traditional Senufo (Senoufo) and Bambara of West Africa, for instance, tacitly condone the
honour crime of killing the adulterous female spouse and her companion, among the Kaka in
Cameroon, a man may have sexual relations with the wives of certain relatives with
impunity. Wife lending is part of Eskimo hospitality. Nonincestuous adultery is permitted
by many South Sea island peoples, and among certain Pueblo Indian societies adultery is so
common that it is tolerated if kept secret.
Under ancient Hindu law, marriage was an indissoluble sacrament, and not even a wife's
adultery could sever the legal tie and dissolve the marriage act. In the modern Hindu
code, divorce will be granted to either offended party, but not for occasional violations;
the spouse must actually be living in adultery with another.
In western Europe and North America, adultery is a ground for divorce. The diffusion of
this principle, as well as Western notions of egalitarianism and modern expectations of
mutual emotional support in marriage, has resulted in unprecedented pressure for equal
marital rights for women in traditional African and Southeast Asian societies.
In many eastern European countries, adultery does not in itself constitute grounds for
divorce; both partners must testify, under the principle of “general breakdown,”
that the offense results in the decline of those feelings of which marital unity is
composed.
ADULTERY, criminal law. From ad and
alter, another person; a criminalconversation, between a man married to another woman, and
a woman married to another man, or a married and unmarried person. The married person is
guilty of adultery, the unmarried of fornication. (q.v.) 1 Yeates, 6; 2 Dall. 124; but see
2 Blackf. 318.
2. The elements of this crime are, 1st,
that there shall be an unlawful carnal connexion; 2dly, that the guilty party shall at the
time be married; 3dly, that he or she shall willingly commit the offence; for a woman who
has been ravished against her will is not guilty of adultery. Domat, Supp. du Droit
Public, liv. 3, t. 10, n. 13.
3. The punishment of adultery, in the
United States, generally, is fine and imprisonment.
4. In England it is left to the feeble
hands of the ecclesiastical courts to punish this offence.
5. Adultery in one of the married persons
is good cause for obtaining a divorce by the innocent partner. See 1 Pick. 136; 8 Pick.
433; 9 Mass. 492: 14 Pick. 518; 7 Greenl. 57; 8 Greenl. 75; 7 Conn. 267 10 Conn. 372; 6
Verm. 311; 2 Fairf. 391 4 S. & R. 449; 5 Rand. 634; 6 Rand. 627; 8 S. & R. 159; 2
Yeates, 278, 466; 4 N. H. Rep. 501; 5 Day, 149; 2 N. & M. 167.
6. As to proof of adultery, see 2 Greenl.
Sec. 40, Marriage.
AVOWTRY, Eng. law. The crime of
adultery. [also called "criminal conversation"].
FORNICATION, crim. law. The unlawful
carnal knowledge of an unmarried person with another, whether the latter be married or
unmarried. When the party is married, the offence, as to him or her, is known by the name
of adultery. (q.v.) Fornication is, however, included in every case of adultery, as a
larceny is included in robbery. 2 Hale's P. C. 302.
SOLICITATION OF CHASTITY. The asking
a person to commit adultery or fornication.
2. This of itself, is not an indictable
offence. Salk. 382; 2 Chit. Pr. 478. The contrary doctrine, however, has been held in
Connecticut. 7 Conn. Rep. 267.
3. In England, the bare solicitation of
chastity is punished in the ecclesiastical courts. 2 Chit. Pr. 478. Vide Str. 1100; 10
Mod. 384; Sayer, 33; 1 Hawk. ch. 74; 2 Ld. Raym. 809.
4. The civil law punished arbitrarily the
person who solicited the chastity of another. Dig. 47, 11, 1. Vide To persuade; 3 Phillim.
R. 508.
The True Meaning of the word 'adultery' from the original Hebrew and Greek, by
Pastor VS Herrell:
The Sixth Commandment
In Exodus 20:13 (LXX), we find the sixth commandment 1, a commandment we find
repeated in the New Testament in Romans 13:9 and elsewhere (cf. Matthew 5:27,
Luke 18:20, Mark 10:19, Jacob (James) 2:11, et al.). So we immediately notice
that this commandment is explicitly stated in both the Old and New Testaments.
The reason is that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb.
13:8). With God, there is no variance or shadow of turning (Jacob 1:17).
Obviously, this sixth commandment is very important. In most translations of the
Bible, Exodus 20:13 and Romans 13:9 are translated: "Thou shalt not commit
adultery." In the literal translation of the Anointed Standard Translation of
the New Testament and in the true translation of the Ten Commandments in The
Truth Unveiled, these passages are translated as: "You will not mongrelize."
In many people's minds, there is a very great difference between these two
translations, though, as we shall see later, this is due primarily to the
purposeful degeneration of the etymology of the word adultery. At issue in the
Greek Septuagint and in the Greek New Testament are two Greek words: ou
moicheuseis.
In the Latin Vulgate, Exodus 20:13 was translated as non moechaberis and Romans
13:9 as non adulterabis. The Latin word moechaberis is an inflected form of
moechari, a transliteration of the Greek moicheuo, and is of little etymological
importance since what it means is merely dependent upon what the Greek word
means, which we will explore. However, what is important is adulterabis, an
inflected form of the word adultero, since this is the Latin word most often
used in the Vulgate and elsewhere to translate the Greek word moicheuo.
The Greek word ou and the Latin word non are simply negative particles,
translated not. Thus, the words that we need to define in order to determine the
correct translation of Exodus 20:13 and Romans 13:9 are the Greek word moicheuo
and the Latin word adultero.
First, in order to define the word moicheuo, let us turn to a commonly used and
commonly available dictionary, the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,
edited by Gerhard Kittel and translated into English by Geoffrey W. Bromiley.
Now let us note that Kittel was a well-renowned German Greek scholar and is held
in high-esteem by the scholarly community.
Under the entry word moicheuo, the following definition is given: "of the
intermingling of animals and men or of different races."2 This, of course, is
the classical definition of mongrelization. So the Greek of the New Testament
and the Greek Septuagint confirm that the translation You will not mongrelize is
correct.
So now that we have defined the Greek, what about the Latin Vulgate? Now we must
define the Latin word adultero, and we shall do so using the finest Latin
dictionary currently available and the standard among Latin scholars, the Oxford
Latin Dictionary: "To mix (a substance or kind) with another, adulterate: to
impair the purity or strength of, to give a variety of appearances to, change .
. . to corrupt, debase." Once again, when this is applied to people, we have
mongrelization. So we find age-old agreement between the Latin and the Greek.
Therefore, using two of the most respected reference works available regarding
Biblical Greek and the Latin language, and simply looking the words up, we find
that these verses in the Bible are in fact an explicit prohibition against
race-mixing.
To any intellectually honest person, the above definitions should be more than
enough to convince him that the Bible clearly and explicitly prohibits
race-mixing. This is exactly why the coalition of evil is so against a true and
literal translation of the Word of God. In fact, it may be stated that their
theology is little more than a justification system for the breaking of this
divine law of God. If the translation You will not mongrelize is wrong, then the
two reference works cited above, certainly two of the most prestigious works of
their type available, are also wrong. Any legitimate Greek or Latin scholars
would agree with these definitions; any one who would disagree with these
definitions have in fact turned their backs on legitimate scholarship and should
stop being hypocritical and admit that they do not believe the Bible instead of
trying to change what it and what legitimate scholars say.
Now, many people will simply go and find a dictionary that defines the above
words as adultery, and then ignorantly presume that adultery is defined as
marital infidelity and simply forget about the two definitions cited above.
To show the stupidity and intellectual dishonesty of these people, I have
previously written a work entitled Hidden Truth, now published under the title
The Truth Unveiled, which gave many more proofs of the definitions of the Greek
and Latin family of words commonly translated adultery, and examined in detail
every Biblical passage, both Old and New Testaments, where these words occurred.
That is not the purpose of this present work. The reader is encouraged to also
read the chapter regarding this family of words in The Truth Unveiled for a
complete Biblical analysis of this family of words. The objective herein is to
examine in detail the etymology of both the Greek and Latin words commonly
translated adultery, the ways these words were used in other Greek and Latin
literature and in key passages in the Bible, and to explore how the web of
deception regarding these words has been woven through the degeneration of
language. The information presented hereafter is indisputable and not a subject
of debate: one will either be intellectually honest and believe it or one will
suffer the fate of all liars and those who help make a lie.
1 This is the Sixth Commandment in the Greek Septuagint, but in the antichrist
Jew-corrupted, Hebrew, Masoretic Text it is the Seventh Commandment. For more
information on the Masoretic Text, please see the last section of this book,
'The Errancy of the Masoretic Text and the KJV', as well as The History of the
Bible by V.S. Herrell and The Septuagint vs. the Masoretic Text by David C.
Tate. |
2 In the German original, Theologisches W�rterbuch zum Neuen Testament, we find
the original words of Kittel: "auch von Vermischung von Tier und Mensch oder von
Mischung verschiedener Rassen."
Etymological Introduction
When using lexicons or dictionaries to define words or research etymologies of
Greek or Latin, it is very important to have an understanding of the development
of the modern lexicon or dictionary and other tools used in translating Greek or
Latin into English. For translating Biblical passages or researching Biblical
words, it is also very important to understand how the Catholic Church, through
the Latin language, has controlled how both Latin and Greek words are defined.
These facts are certainly no truer than in the case of the word adultery.
The history of modern Greek and Latin lexicography, especially wherein
Greek-English and Latin-English dictionaries are concerned, starts in about the
15th-16th centuries, a time when also the first English translations of the
Bible were being made (from the Latin Vulgate).3 At this time, the universal
language of scholars was Latin and the source of Latin knowledge was primarily
the corrupt Catholic Church. The purpose of the first English translations was
to bring the Bible to the common man who could not speak Latin. But Latin was
and remained for a very long time the common language of all scholars and
scholarly books.
Thus, the first Latin dictionaries did not have English definitions as a Latin
dictionary today might have, but rather Latin definitions. Known as Thesaurae,
these Latin-Latin dictionaries were much like current day English dictionaries
which have English definitions; they were intended for those already fluent and
skilled in Latin to better understand Latin words with which they might not be
familiar. The greatest of these was the Dictionarium seu linguae latinae
thesaurus, printed first in 1531 by Robert Estienne. Not surprisingly then, the
first Greek dictionaries were Greek words with Latin definitions meant once
again to help scholars already fluent in Latin understand Greek also. The
greatest of these was the Thesaurus graecae linguae, a 5 volume work first
printed in 1572 by Henri Estienne, the son of Robert.
We will examine the definitions of some of these types of lexicons later in this
present work. What needs to be understood at this point, however, is that when
Catholics like Wyclif first translated the Bible (again, from the Latin
Vulgate), the only Latin dictionaries they had were Latin-Latin thesauri, and in
later years when Reformation era translators began consulting the original Greek
texts, the only Greek dictionaries that they had were ones with Latin
definitions, prepared, of course, by Catholic scholars.
By the time the first Greek-English, Greek-German, or Latin-English,
Latin-German dictionaries were prepared, many translations of the Bible in
English or German had already been made, as well as of other classical writings.
In fact, after the invention of the printing press in the mid-15th century, many
non-Biblical Greek and Latin texts were translated into English for public
consumption, and nearly all of these documents were being translated either by
Roman Catholic priests or Catholic trained scholars or by Jews who controlled
many of the printing houses. The effect of this was that the translations were
heavily influenced on the one hand by Roman Catholics, who would not dare to
contradict any of the then current Roman Catholic teachings in any of their
translations, such as universal salvation, and on the other hand, by Zionistic
Jews who had their own agenda and motivations to hide truth.
By the time the first Greek-English and Latin-English lexicons were made, the
English definitions given were simply whatever English words were being used by
translators in the current translations, especially wherein the Bible was
concerned. This is much like the Greek Dictionary found in Strong's Exhaustive
Concordance which gives as definitions either the same word used in the King
James Version or a definition of the English word used in the King James
Version. Thus, the first Greek-English and Latin-English dictionaries contained
in them all of the theological prejudices of the Catholic Church and the
calculated corruption of antichrist Jewish printers, in the same way that
Strong's Concordance contains the calculated prejudices of the Protestant
English churches. Subsequent Greek-English and Latin-English dictionaries were
often mere revisions and expansions of previous dictionaries, with maybe a few
more textual references and a slight rewording of the same definition.
An example of this may be found in the current reference standard for the Greek
language: Liddell-Scott Jones Greek-English Lexicon. This edition, finished in
1940 (with a subsequent emendations volume being published) was a revision of
the eighth edition of the original A Greek-English Lexicon by Henry Liddell and
Robert Scott, edited by Henry Jones and Roderick McKenzie. The original Liddell
and Scott lexicon, published in 1843, was itself based upon the W�rterbuch der
griechischen Sprache by Franz Passow, printed in 1828, which was a revision of
the Handw�rterbuch der griechischen Sprache by Johann Gottlob Schneider.
Schneider himself based his lexicon on previous works in one fashion or another,
making great use of the Thesaurus graecae linguae first printed by Henri
Estienne II in 1572 and subsequently updated.
Thus, it is rare, if ever, that a Greek or Latin word has been given fresh
consideration, and even then it is often that errors still remain. To
demonstrate this, we will examine such an error regarding the Greek word
akeraios, which I have already dealt with in my previous book The Truth
Unveiled. This word has been translated pure-blooded and nonmongrelized in the
Anointed Standard Translation of the New Testament where it occurs in
Philippians 2:14-15, which reads:
"Do all things separate from murmurers and disputers, in order that you may be
perfect in our kind: pure blooded and nonmongrelized, faultless children of God,
amidst a race perverse and having been corrupted, among whom we appear like
luminaries in the orderly arrangement."
This Greek word is translated harmless in the King James Version, which is a
far-cry from pure-blooded and nonmongrelized. But reconciling this difference is
a perfect application of what we have learned about the history of lexicons. Let
us first look akeraios up in a pre-1830's Greek Lexicon, the Novus Thesaurus
Philologico-Criticus by John Schleusner, published in 1829. This was a
Greek-Latin lexicon printed in London. The first part of the definition of
akeraios reads: " [A keraizen], ... innocentem..." The first thing that we are
told in this definition is that akeraios is the opposite of keraizen, then it is
defined (in Latin) as harmless. Now it should be understood that when an alpha
was placed at the beginning of a Greek word, it often served to negate the word.
So what Schleusner and most lexicographers before him assumed was that akeraios
was the opposite of keraizen.
When we look keraizen up in Liddell-Scott Jones, we find that it means: "to
ravage, plunder." Or in other words to harm, so the opposite must be harmless or
inviolate, unravaged, untouched, etc. This was what was assumed at the time of
the translating of the King James Version and other early translations, in the
16th-17th centuries, and this explains why the term harmless was incorrectly
used in the KJV. Now, however, let us take careful note of the definition of
akeraios in A New Greek and English Lexicon by James Donnegan, published in 1839
(first printed in 1832). He gives the following definition: "unmixed, pure ...
unharmed, uninjured ... Some derive from [keraizo], but it seems merely another
form of [akeratos] and of [akerasios]. Th. a priv., [keranummi], [kerao]."
We notice three important things here. First, that Donnegan gives the definition
of unmixed and pure as the primary definition. Secondly, we notice that Donnegan
corrects the false origin of the word akeraios assumed by Schleusner and others.
The word is, in fact, the opposite of keranummi and kerao, which are the same
Greek word, and this word is defined by LSJ as: "to mix, mingle ... mixed half
and half ... mix, blend ... compound." Thus, the opposite of that word would
mean unmixed, unmingled, etc
The third important thing we notice about Donnegan's definition is that although
he had the courage and intelligence to realize that his predecessors were wrong
about the origin of this Greek word, still he failed to omit their definitions.
He still defines akeraios as unharmed and uninjured even though there is
absolutely no basis whatsoever etymologically for these definitions. This is an
example of how each lexicon is built upon previous lexicons and that even when a
mistake is found, it is not deleted but rather added to. So now Donnegan has
left the user of his lexicon with a choice of definitions to use, even though he
himself admits that one of the definitions is wrong.
Let us now look up akeraios in the LSJ: "pure, unmixed ... unalloyed ... of
persons, pure in blood ... II. unharmed, unravaged." Once again, although
Liddell and Scott were honest enough to admit that when the word is being used
of persons it means pure in blood, still they have preserved the erroneous
definition. In non-Biblical works, translators have no problem translating
akeraios correctly. For example, let us read Edward P. Coleridge's translation
of Euripides' Phoenician Women, 942-943:
"Now thou are our only survivor of the seed of that sown race, whose lineage is
pure alike on mother's and on father's side, thou and these thy sons."
Here Coleridge translates akeraios as lineage is pure. But translators and
lexicographers cease to be honest when it comes to the Bible and other early
Christian literature. For example, let us look at an accurate translation of
Barnabas 3:6:
"So then, brothers, the long-suffering One foresaw that the people whom He
prepared in His Beloved should be persuaded in racial purity..."
According to LSJ and Coleridge, this is an accurate translation, rendering
akeraiosune as racial purity. However, other translators, such as Kirsopp Lake,
use the word guilelessness, a totally absurd translation unsupported by any true
scholarship, but used only because the translators capitulate to political and
religious correctness. If these translators throw away their integrity on the
subject of race-mixing, then it is no large step for them also to endorse
homosexuality or other things at the expense of God's Word.
3 This of course excludes the Wyclif Bible, which was made in 1384, being
totally complete in 1397, thus missing the designation "15th century" by three
years. But, its scope and importance certainly lies in the 15th century and it
was the beginning of many of the problems that would come to be associated with
all subsequent English translations, since most were, in some way or another,
based upon those translations which came before. I highly recommend that the
reader consult my book The History of the Bible for more information.
Adultery and the Lexicons
With this understanding of the tactics of deception employed in our lexicons, we
are now prepared to examine the lexical evidence of the Greek and Latin words
associated with the common English translation adultery. We will look first at
the Greek evidence.
Any Greek word which contains the prefix moich- belongs to the family of words
usually translated adultery. When we look these words up in most any Greek
lexicon, all we usually find are definitions which contain the English word
adultery. What follows are a few important exceptions with comments.
LSJ (1940), for the verb moichao: "falsify." This definition is supplied by LSJ
to help ease the translation of the innumerable Greek passages which cannot in
any way be talking about marital infidelity, some of which we will look at
later. To falsify something carries the connotation of adulteration or
debasement or change.
A Patristic Greek Lexicon by G.W. H. Lampe (1961), for the verb moichaomai:
"adulterate." Here Lampe, whose lexicon is entirely concerned with early
Christian literature written in Greek, also has to admit that this Greek family
of words carried the connotation of adulteration and debasement. When we look up
moichao in Griechisches Etymologisches W�rterbuch, a Greek-German Lexicon by
Hjalmar Frisk (1973), he defines the word with the German "verf�lschen," which
means to adulterate. Adulteration is the process of adding something to
something else and debasing it or mingling things together. When we are talking
about people being adulterated in the physical sense, we can only be talking
about race-mixing or at the very least mingling family lines together and
causing confusion in the family regarding issues of paternity. In fact, in my
book The Truth Unveiled, the overall definition which is assigned this family of
words is, first, to mongrelize or to mix or mingle races, and secondly, to mix
or mingle and therefore corrupt seedlines. As we shall see later, however, the
idea of mixing or mingling is paramount to truly understanding the definitions
and etymology of this moich- family of words. In this definition by Lampe, we
see very clearly that early patristic writers understood that this family of
words was used for adulteration or mingling.
A Patristic Greek Lexicon by G.W. H. Lampe (1961), for the adjective
moichozeuktikos: "of or relating to an adulterous marriage." Again, we see that
some of the early Patristic writers spoke of adulterous marriages. The obvious
question is, If adultery involves extra-marital sex, then how can a marriage
itself be adulterous? Obviously, the emphasis is upon seedline corruption and
mingling, and all throughout Greek literature, we find that very often being
married is not an issue when the moich- family of words is used.
A Comprehensive Lexicon by John Pickering (1847), for the noun moichidios:
"bastard, spurious." This Greek word should correctly be translated as mongrel,
and a true understanding of the English language reveals that when Pickering, in
1847, used the word bastard, he too meant a mongrel. This was a common
understanding of the word in the mid-19th century and before, as we shall prove
later. Pickering was not the only one, however, to understand that the word
moichidios meant mongrel. In Lexicon Manuale by
Cornelius Schrevel (1796), the word moichidios is defined with the Latin word
"adulterinus." According to the Oxford Latin Dictionary, or OLD, adulterinus
means: "adulterated, impure." Lewis and Short add: "not full-blooded."
Leverett's Lexicon of the Latin Language: "begotten basely, not thorough-bred,
not full-blooded, adulterated." Most importantly, however, A Large Dictionary by
Thomas Holyoke (1672) states that adulterinus is equivalent (in the ancient
translations and commentaries) to the Hebrew mamzir, which according to Strong's
Hebrew Dictionary means "a mongrel." This dictionary also states in the same
definition that the Greek moichikos is equivalent to mamzir and also is
equivalent to the Greek kibdelos which is defined by LSJ as: "adulterated,
base." We will discuss Holyoke's definitions and the word kibdelos in more
detail later, but what is important to notice here is that all of these lexical
authorities agree that the Latin word adulterinus means "mongrel," and therefore
the Greek word moichidios, universally defined by this Latin word, also means
mongrel. Pickering's definition of bastard must be understood to have its
mid-19th century meaning of mongrel.
In Lexicon: Anglo-Gr�co-Latinum Novi Testamenti by Andrew Symson (1658), under
the entry "adulterer" for the Greek word moichos: "it maketh a confusion in
families, through an illegitimate brood." This is very similar to the definition
expressed in Latin in Critica Sacra by Edward Leigh (1662), who said of the
Greek word moichos: "nam familias confundit illegitima sobole," which translated
says, "for it mingles families with an illegal race." Both of these men
understood that the Latin words with the root adulter-, which were used to
define the moich- family of words in Greek-Latin lexicons meant to mix, mingle,
etc. They are therefore here trying to explain how the idea of mixing or
mingling relates to the idea of marital infidelity, and they have both defined
the word very closely to the true concept behind this family of words - that of
seedline corruption, both interracial and intraracial, and as we have said
before, the idea of marriage is very often not an issue in ancient Greek
literature where these words are used.
In A Greek and English Lexicon to the New Testament by John Parkhurst (1769),
under the definition for moichalis, we find this comment regarding Matthew 16:4:
"Dr. Doddridge interprets [genea moichalis] 'a spurious race degenerated...'" In
the Anointed Standard Translation of the New Testament, these two Greek words
are translated "mongrel race," which is equivalent to Dr. Doddridge's
translation, again understanding the archaic language of over 300 years ago. One
reason that only a few lexicons actually use the English word mongrel for
defining any Greek or Latin word is that the word mongrel was not commonly used
300-400 years ago. Since the lexicons are based upon one another, they preserve
many of the archaic terms used in previous lexicons. So instead of saying
mongrel, many lexicons use terms like bastard or spurious. The definitions of
both of these words have subsequently changed, but that does not erase what men
meant by these words when they were originally used several hundred years ago.
In any event, there is no doubt as to what Dr. Doddridge meant by the words a
spurious race degenerated, and it is also clear that Dr. Doddridge, an honest
scholar, understood the true definition of the moich- family of words.
Finally, we have the definition of Kittel already given for moicheuo: "of the
intermingling of animals and men or of different races."
As received:
The Unknown Martin Luther King, Jr.
King was hardly the greatest American.
By Benjamin J. Ryan
Forty
years after his death, the popularity of Martin Luther King
remains extraordinary. He is perhaps the single most praised
person in American history, and millions adore him as a hero and
almost a saint. The federal government has made space available
on the Mall in Washington for a national monument for King, not
far from Lincoln�s. Only four men in American history have
national monuments: Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Franklin
Roosevelt; and now King will make five.
Martin Luther King, Jr. With his wife Coretta.
King is the only American who enjoys the nation�s highest honor
of having a national holiday on his birthday. There are other
days of remembrance such as Presidents� Day, but no one else but
Jesus Christ is recognized with a similar holiday. Does King
deserve such honors? Much that has been known to scholars for
years � but largely unknown to most Americans � suggests
otherwise.
Plagiarism
As a young man, King started plagiarizing the work of others and
he continued this practice throughout his career.
At Crozer Theological Seminary in Chester, Pennsylvania, where
he received a bachelor of divinity degree in 1951, many of his
papers contained material lifted verbatim and without
acknowledgement from published sources. An extensive project
started at Stanford University in 1984 to publish all of King�s
papers tracked down the original sources for these early papers
and concluded that his academic writings are �tragically flawed
by numerous instances of plagiarism.� Journalist Theodore
Pappas, who has also reviewed the collection, found one paper
showing �verbatim theft� in 20 of a total of 24 paragraphs. He
writes:
�King�s plagiarisms are easy to detect because their style rises
above the level of his pedestrian student prose. In general, if
the sentences are eloquent, witty, insightful, or pithy, or
contain allusions, analogies, metaphors, or similes, it is safe
to assume that the section has been purloined.�
No one else but Jesus Christ has a national holiday on
his birthday.
King also plagiarized himself, recycling old term papers as new
ones. Some of his professors complained about sloppy references,
but they seem to have had no idea how extensively he was
stealing material, and his habits were well established by the
time he entered the PhD program at Boston University. King
plagiarized one-third of his 343-page dissertation, the
book-length project required to earn a PhD, leading some to say
he should be stripped of his doctoral degree. Mr. Pappas
explains that King�s plagiarism was a lifelong habit:
�King�s Nobel Prize Lecture was plagiarized extensively from
works by Florida minister J. Wallace Hamilton; the sections on
Gandhi and nonviolence in his �Pilgrimage� speech were taken
virtually verbatim from Harris Wofford�s speech on the same
topic; the frequently replayed climax to the �I Have a Dream�
speech � the �from every mountainside, let freedom ring� portion
� came from a 1952 address to the Republican National Convention
by a black preacher named Archibald Carey; and the 1968 sermon
in which King prophesied his martyrdom was based on works by J.
Wallace Hamilton and Methodist minister Harold Bosley.�
Perhaps King had no choice but to use the words of others. Mr.
Pappas has found that on the Graduate Record Exam, King �scored
in the second-lowest quartile in English and vocabulary, in the
lowest ten percent in quantitative analysis, and in the lowest
third on his advanced test in philosophy.�
Adultery
King lived a double life. During the day, he would speak to
large crowds, quoting Scripture and invoking God�s will, and at
night he frequently had sex with women from the audience.
�King�s habits of sexual adventure had been well established by
the time he was married,� says Michael Eric Dyson of Georgetown
University, a King admirer. He notes that King often �told lewd
jokes,� �shared women with friends,� and was �sexually
reckless.� According to King biographer Taylor Branch, during a
long party on the night of January 6 and 7, 1964, an FBI bugging
device recorded King�s �distinctive voice ring out above others
with pulsating abandon, saying, �I�m f***ing for God!��
Sex with single and married women continued after King married,
and on the night before his death, King had two adulterous
trysts. His first rendezvous was at a woman�s house, the second
in a hotel room. The source for this was his best friend and
second-in-command, Ralph Abernathy, who noted that the second
woman was �a member of the Kentucky legislature,� now known to
be Georgia Davis Powers.
Georgia Powers, one of King�s lovers.
Abernathy went on to say that a third woman was also looking for
King that same night, but found his bed empty. She knew his
habits and was angry when they met later that morning. In
response, writes Abernathy, King �lost his temper� and �knocked
her across the bed ...
She leapt up to fight back, and for a moment they were engaged
in a full-blown fight, with [King] clearly winning.� A few hours
later, King ate lunch with Abernathy and discussed the
importance of nonviolence for their movement.
To other colleagues, King justified his adultery this way: �I�m
away from home twenty-five to twenty-seven days a month. F***ing�s
a form of anxiety reduction.� King had many one-night stands but
also grew close to one of his girlfriends in a relationship that
became, according to Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer David
Garrow, �the emotional centerpiece of King�s life.� Still, sex
with other women remained �a commonplace of King�s travels.�
In private, King could be extremely crude. On one FBI recording,
King said to Abernathy in what was no doubt a teasing remark,
�Come on over here, you big black motherf***er, and let me suck
your d**k.� FBI sources told Taylor Branch about a surveillance
tape of King watching a televised rerun of the Kennedy funeral.
When he saw the famous moment when Jacqueline Kennedy knelt with
her children before her dead husband�s coffin, King reportedly
sneered, �Look at her. Sucking him off one last time.�
Despite his obsession with sex and his betrayal of his own wife
and children, and despite Christianity�s call for fidelity, King
continued to claim the moral authority of a Baptist minister.
Whites
King stated that the �vast majority of white Americans are
racist� and that they refused to share power. His solution was
to redistribute wealth and power through reparations for slavery
and racial quotas:
�No amount of gold could provide an adequate compensation for
the exploitation and humiliation of the Negro in America down
through the centuries. Not all the wealth of this affluent
society could meet the bill. Yet a price can be placed on unpaid
wages ... The payment
should be in the form of a massive program by the government of
special, compensatory measures which could be regarded as a
settlement.� Continued King, �Moral justification for such
measures for Negroes is rooted in the robberies inherent in the
institution of slavery.� He named his plan the Bill of Rights
for the Disadvantaged. Some poor whites would also receive
compensation because they were �derivative victims of slavery,�
but the welfare of blacks was his central focus.
King with his best friend, Ralph Abernathy.
King has been praised, even by conservatives, as the great
advocate of color-blindness. They focus too narrowly on one
sentence in his �I Have a Dream� speech, in which he said he
wanted to live in a nation �where [my children] will not be
judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their
character.� The truth is that King wanted quotas for blacks.
�[I]f a city has a 30 percent Negro population,� King reasoned,
�then it is logical to assume that Negroes should have at least
30 percent of the jobs in any particular company, and jobs in
all categories rather than only in menial areas.�
One of King�s greatest achievements is said to have been passage
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. At the signing ceremony on July
2, he stood directly behind President Lyndon Johnson as a key
guest. The federal agency created by the act, the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, now monitors hiring practices
and ensures that King�s desires for racial preferences are met.
Like liberals today, King denied racial differences. In a reply
to an interviewer who told him many Southern whites thought
racial differences were a biological fact, he replied:
�This utterly ignorant fallacy has been so thoroughly refuted by
the social scientists, as well as by medical science, that any
individual who goes on believing it is standing in an absolutely
misguided and diminishing circle. The American Anthropological
Association has unanimously adopted a resolution repudiating
statements that Negroes are biologically, in innate mental
ability or in any other way inferior to whites.�
The conclusions to be drawn from his belief in across-the-board
equality were clear: failure by blacks to achieve at the level
of whites could be explained only by white oppression. As King
explained in one interview, �I think we have to honestly admit
that the problems in the world today, as they relate to the
question of race, must be blamed on the whole doctrine of white
supremacy, the whole doctrine of racism, and these doctrines
came into being through the white race and the exploitation of
the colored peoples of the world.� King predicted that �if the
white world� does not stop this racism and oppression, �then we
can end up in the world with a kind of race war.�
Communism
In his public speeches, King never called himself a communist,
instead claiming to stand for a synthesis of capitalism and
communism: �[C]apitalism fails to realize that life is social.
Communism fails to realize that life is individual. Truth is
found neither in the rugged individualism of capitalism nor in
the impersonal collectivism of communism. The Kingdom of God is
found in a synthesis that combines the truths of these two
opposites.�
However, David Garrow found that in private King �made it clear
to close friends that economically speaking he considered
himself what he termed a Marxist.� Mr. Garrow passes along an
account of a conversation C.L.R. James, a Marxist intellectual,
had with King: �King leaned over to me saying, �I don�t say such
things from the pulpit, James, but that is what I really
believe.�... King wanted
me to know that he understood and accepted, and in fact agreed
with, the ideas that I was putting forward � ideas which were
fundamentally Marxist-Leninist
... I saw him as a man whose ideas were as advanced as
any of us on the Left, but who, as he actually said to me, could
not say such things from the pulpit
... King was a man with
clear ideas, but whose position as a churchman, etc. imposed on
him the necessity of reserve.� J. Pius Barbour, a close friend
of King�s at seminary, agreed that he �was economically a
Marxist.�
Some of King�s most influential advisors were Communists with
direct ties to the Soviet Union. One was Stanley Levison, whom
Mr. Garrow called King�s �most important political counselor�
and �at Martin Luther King�s elbow.� He organized fundraisers
for King, counseled him on tax issues and political strategy,
wrote fundraising letters and his United Packinghouse Workers
Convention speech, edited parts of his books, advised him on his
first major national address, and prepped King for questions
from the media. Coretta Scott King said of Levison that he was
�[a]lways working in the background, his contribution has been
indispensable,� and Mr. Garrow says the association with Levison
was �without a doubt King�s closest friendship with a white
person.�
What were Levison�s political views? John Barron is the author
of Operation SOLO, which is about �the most vital intelligence
operation the FBI ever had sustained against the Soviet Union.�
Part of its work was to track Levison who, according to Mr.
Barron, �gained admission into the inner circle of the communist
underground� in the US. Mr. Garrow, a strong defender of King,
admits that Levison was �one of the two top financiers� of the
Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA), which received
about one million dollars a year from the Soviet Union. Mr.
Garrow found that Levison was �directly involved in the
Communist Party�s most sensitive financial dealings,� and
acknowledged there was first-hand evidence of Levison�s
�financial link to the Soviet Union.�
Hunter Pitts O�Dell, who was elected in 1959 to the national
committee, the governing body for the CPUSA, was another party
member who worked for King. According to FBI reports, Levison
installed O�Dell as the head of King�s New York office, and
later recommended that O�Dell be made King�s executive assistant
in Atlanta.
King knew his associates were Communists. President Kennedy
himself gave an �explicit personal order� to King advising
against his �shocking association with Stanley Levison.� Once
when he was walking privately with King in the White House Rose
Garden, Kennedy also named O�Dell and said to King: �They�re
Communists. You�ve got to get rid of them.�
The Communist connections help explain why Attorney General
Robert F. Kennedy authorized the FBI to wiretap King�s home and
office telephones in October 1963. Kennedy, like his brother
John, was deeply sympathetic to King but also aware of the
threat of communism.
Mr. Garrow tried to exonerate King of the charge of being a
fellow traveler by arguing that Levison broke with the CPUSA
while he worked for King, that is, from the time he met King in
the summer of 1956 until King�s death in 1968. However, as
historian Samuel Francis has pointed out, an official break with
the CPUSA does not necessarily mean a break with the goals of
communism or with the Soviet Union.
John Barron argues that if Levison had defected from the CPUSA
and renounced communism, he would not have associated with
former comrades, such as CP officials Lem Harris, Hunter Pitts
O�Dell, and Roy Bennett (Levison�s twin brother who had changed
his last name). He was also close to the highly placed KGB
officer Victor Lessiovsky, who was an assistant to the head of
the United Nations, U Thant.
Mr. Barron asks why Lessiovsky would �fritter away his time and
risk his career ... by
repeatedly indulging himself in idle lunches or amusing cocktail
conversation with an undistinguished lawyer [Levison]
... who had nothing to
offer the KGB, or with someone who had deserted the party and
its discipline, or with someone about whom the KGB knew nothing?
... And why would an
ordinary American lawyer ...
meet, again and again, with a Soviet assistant to the boss of
the United Nations?�
Other Communists who worked with King included Aubrey Williams,
James Dombrowski, Carl Braden, William Melish, Ella J. Baker,
Bayard Rustin, and Benjamin Smith. King also �associated and
cooperated with a number of groups known to be CPUSA front
organizations or to be heavily penetrated and influenced by
members of the Communist Party� � for example, the Southern
Conference Educational Fund; Committee to Secure Justice for
Morton Sobell; the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers
of America; the National Lawyers Guild; and the Highlander Folk
School.
The CPUSA clearly tried to influence King and his movement. An
FBI report of May 6, 1960 from Jack Childs, one of the FBI�s
most accomplished spies and a winner of the Presidential Medal
of Freedom for Intelligence, said that the CP �feels that it is
definitely to the Party�s advantage to assign outstanding Party
members to work with the [Martin] Luther King group. CP policy
at the moment is to concentrate upon Martin Luther King.�
The march on Washington, 1963.
As Republican Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina concluded in
a Senate speech written by Francis, King�s alliance with
Communists was evidence of �identified Communists
... planning the
influencing and manipulation of King for their own purposes.� At
the same time, King relied on them for speech writing,
fundraising, and raising public awareness. They, in turn, used
his stature and fame to their own benefit. Senator Helms cited
Congressman John M. Ashbrook, a ranking member of the House
Committee on Un-American Activities, who said: �King has
consistently worked with Communists and has helped give them a
respectability they do not deserve. I believe he has done more
for the Communist Party than any other person of this decade.�
Christianity
King strongly doubted several core beliefs of Christianity. �I
was ordained to the Christian ministry,� he claimed, but
Stanford University�s online repository includes King�s seminary
writings in which he disputed the full divinity of Jesus, the
Virgin Birth, and the Resurrection, suggesting that we �strip
them of their literal interpretation.�
Regarding the divine nature of Jesus, King wrote that Jesus was
godlike, but not God. People called Jesus divine because they
�found God in him� like a divinely inspired teacher, not because
he literally was God, as Jesus himself claimed. On the Virgin
Birth, King wrote:
Model of the 2�-story statue of King that is to go up on
the National Mall. Chinese sculptor Yei Lixin made a
name for himself with heroic statues of Mao Tse Tung.
�First we must admit that the evidence for the tenability of
this doctrine is to [sic] shallow to convince any
objective thinker. How then did this doctrine arise? A clue to
this inquiry may be found in a sentence from St. Justin�s First
Apology. Here Justin states that the birth of Jesus is quite
similar to the birth of the sons of Zeus. It was believed in
Greek thought that an extraordinary person could only be
explained by saying that he had a father who was more than
human. It is probable that this Greek idea influenced Christian
thought.�
Concerning the Resurrection, King wrote: �In fact the external
evidence for the authenticity of this doctrine is found
wanting.� The early church, he says, formulated this doctrine
because it �had been captivated by the magnetic power of his
[Jesus�] personality. This basic experience led to the faith
that he could never die. And so in the pre-scientific thought
pattern of the first century, this inner faith took outward
form.� Thus, in this view, Jesus� body never rose from the dead,
even though according to Scripture, �And if Christ has not been
raised, your faith is futile.�
Two other essays show how King watered down Christianity. In
one, he wrote that contemporary mystery religions influenced New
Testament writers: �[A]fter being in contact with these
surrounding religions and hearing certain doctrines expressed,
it was only natural for some of these views to become part of
their subconscious minds ...
That Christianity did copy and borrow from Mithraism cannot be
denied, but it was generally a natural and unconscious process
rather than a deliberate plan of action.� In another essay, King
wrote that liberal theology �was an attempt to bring religion up
intellectually,� and the introduction to the paper at the
Stanford website says that King was �scornful of
fundamentalism.� King wrote that in fundamentalism the Trinity,
the Atonement, and the Second Coming are �quite prominent,� but
again, these are defining beliefs of Christianity.
Known and unknown
King is both known and unknown. Millions worldwide see him as a
moral messiah, and American schools teach young children to
praise him. In the United States there are no fewer than 777
streets named for him. But King is also unknown because only a
few people are aware of the unsavory aspects of his life. The
image most people have of King is therefore cropped and
incomplete.
In the minds of many, King towers above other Americans as a
distinguished orator and writer, but this short, 5�6�� man often
stole the words of others. People believe he was a Christian,
but he doubted some of the fundamentals of the faith. Our
country honors King, but he worked closely with Communists who
aimed to destroy it. He denied racial differences, but fought
for racial favoritism in the form of quotas. He claimed to be
for freedom, but he wanted to force people to associate with
each other and he promoted the redistribution of wealth in the
form of reparations for slavery. He quoted the ringing words of
the Bible and claimed, as a preacher, to be striving to be more
like Jesus, but his colleagues knew better.
King and President Lyndon Johnson.
Perhaps he, too, knew better. His closest political advisor,
Stanley Levison, said King was �an intensely guilt-ridden man�
and his wife Coretta also called him �a guilt-ridden man.�
Levison said that the praise heaped upon King was �a continual
series of blows to his conscience� because he was such a humble
man. If King was guilt-ridden might it have been because he knew
better than anyone the wide gap between his popular image and
his true character?
The FBI surveillance files could throw considerable light on his
true character, but they will not be made public until 2027. On
January 31, 1977, as a result of lawsuits by King�s allies
against the FBI, a US district judge ordered the files sealed
for 50 years. There are reportedly 56 feet of records � tapes,
transcripts, and logs � in the custody of the National Archives
and Record Service.
Meanwhile, for those who seek to know the real identity of this
nearly untouchable icon, there is still plenty of evidence with
which to answer the question: Was Martin Luther King, Jr.
America�s best and greatest man?
Benjamin J. Ryan is working toward a PhD in Church-State
Studies. For a fully footnoted version of this article, please
send us $3.00 and a self-addressed, stamped envelope.
Richard D. Fuerle, Erectus Walks Amongst
Us,
Spooner Press, 2008, 340 pp. (large-format soft cover),
$45.95 at Amazon.com, free download at
www.ErectusWalksAmongst.US
reviewed by Jared Taylor
Over
the past 10 or 15 years, it has become so much more difficult to
find mainstream publishers for race-realist scholarship, that in
retrospect the 1990s appear to be a period of great openness.
That was when commercial and academic houses accepted the
ground-breaking work of Arthur Jensen, Richard Lynn, Michael
Levin, Phil Rushton, and Charles Murray. Libraries stocked their
books and newspapers reviewed them. Today, there are still a few
specialized journals that accept dissident scholarship but book
publishers have grown markedly more timid, and in the new decade
even Arthur Jensen � one of the most respected figures in the
social sciences � has had trouble getting books published.
This does not mean race-realist scholarship has come to an end,
only that there is more self-publishing and the use of small,
specialty houses like Washington Summit Press. There may even be
more good work than ever, and in increasingly broad areas.
Richard Lynn continues to write seminal books on the role of IQ
in the success and failure of nations, and Michael Hart recently
wrote an illuminating account of human history that explicitly
considers racial differences in average intelligence.
Richard D. Fuerle�s Erectus Walks Among Us is another
example of race-realist scholarship that could not have found a
place in today�s mainstream. It suffers from the short-comings
of self-published books, but it is a remarkable excursion into
some of the more obscure and taboo corners of the social
sciences.
Erectus Walks Among Us
is several books in one, all written from a firmly race-realist
perspective. It is a primer on evolution and genetics, a catalog
of how populations differ, an introduction to sociobiology and
the concept of genetic interests, and a plea for white survival.
At its core is a sustained argument against the now generally
accepted theory that modern man appeared in Africa 50,000 to
90.000 years ago, and went on to replace the primitive humans
then found on the other continents.
Mr. Fuerle is not a paleoanthropologist � he is a polymath with
degrees in math, law, economics, physics and chemistry � but
this may be an advantage. He does not share the anti-racist
prejudices so common among social scientists, and he has written
a clear and engaging book that benefits greatly from generous
use of graphs and photographs, almost all in color.
Evolution
Because this book is about the emergence of the races of man, it
includes a good survey of what is known about our origins. Mr.
Fuerle notes that according to surveys, only 40 percent of
Americans accept the theory of evolution � a figure lower than
in any European country � but evolution is the book�s
fundamental perspective. Evolutionists generally accept that
perhaps the single greatest step forward in our lineage �
bipedalism � took place about 10 million years ago. When
proto-humans started walking on their hind legs it freed their
hands for investigating surroundings, making tools, and carrying
things.
Greater intelligence comes at a high price; the brain is
metabolically the most expensive part of the human body.
Australopithecus,
who lived about four million years ago, is considered the last
bipedal ape in our lineage, and he gave rise some two million
years ago to Homo habilis, the first member of the
genus Homo.Habilis made primitive tools and
may have had rudimentary speech. He, in turn, evolved into
Homo erectus, whose fossilized variants have been found in
Africa, Europe, and Southeast Asia. What may be a local variant
of erectus, the three-feet-tall Homo floriensis
or �hobbit,� may have lived on some Pacific islands as recently
as 18,000 years ago, overlapping with modern humans.
Mr. Fuerle takes a particular interest in the distant ancestors
of whites, among whom he includes Neanderthal man, who lived in
Europe from about 300,000 to 30,000 years ago. Neanderthal was
adapted to the cold, with a stocky, heat-retaining build and
short fingers and feet. He was also much stronger than modern
man, and well adapted for hunting large animals. His skull
capacity was greater than modern man, but he was less
intelligent because he had a less efficient brain. His skin was
white, and Mr. Fuerle argues that he could probably pass for a
burly, rough-looking European if he were to appear today.
A rough-looking European.
There is much debate as to whether there was intermixture
between Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons, the immediate ancestors of
Caucasians. The two groups coexisted in the same territory for
thousands of years, and Mr. Fuerle marshals evidence to support
the view that Neanderthal man contributed at least some alleles
(distinctive forms of genes) to modern Europeans.
Mr. Fuerle suspects that the two groups may have managed to
share territory for such a long time because their hunting
strategies may have been different, with Neanderthal hunting by
night and Cro-Magnon hunting the same animals by day. In a
one-on-one fight, the more powerful Neanderthal would have
routed the slighter Cro-Magnon, but the newcomers were smarter
and more generalized: less adapted to the cold and for hunting.
When the mammoths and other large animals went extinct,
Neanderthal went extinct along with them while Cro-Magnon found
other ways to survive.
This was a demonstration of one of a dozen or so rules of
evolution, which Mr. Fuerle explains with considerable clarity:
the significance of specialized vs. generalized populations.
When an environment is stable for a long time, species tend to
specialize, and when the environment is unstable they tend to
stay general. A tropical environment is both rich in energy and
stable throughout the year, and this encourages a large number
of specialized, even bizarre plants and animals that exploit
narrow niches. Temperate areas, where the seasonal differences
in temperature are the greatest, pose the greatest challenge to
survival, and animals tend to be generalists. Further north, the
environment is harsh but also relatively stable because it is
cold all the time. Here we find animals like the polar bear and
arctic fox that are highly cold-adapted and much more
specialized than their cousins in temperate regions.
Man is less specialized than his closest simian kin. He does not
have the long arms or massive teeth and jaws of apes, is not
covered with protective fur, nor can he swing through trees. His
foot, however, has become specialized for support only, and has
lost its ability to grasp things, which apes still retain.
Mr. Fuerle argues that human races also differ in levels of
specialization, with Africans adapted to the heat, Asians
adapted to the cold, and whites the most generalized. The skulls
of Africans, for example, are narrow, front to back, which makes
it easier to cool the brain whereas Asian skulls are more
spherical, thus retaining heat by offering less surface area per
unit volume. European skulls are intermediate. Africans have
wooly hair that wicks sweat away from the head, also helping to
cool the brain, and have dark skin to protect against the sun.
They are also long-limbed, which makes for better cooling.
Asians are stockier, for better heat retention, and have fat
evenly distributed around their bodies, which protects against
cold and gives them a �yellow� appearance. Again, Europeans are
intermediate.
Mr. Fuerle cites the general rule that it is much easier for
generalists to evolve into specialists than the other way
around. He says it would take much longer to breed a wolf from a
Chihuahua than a Chihuahua from a wolf. This is one of the
arguments he makes later against the Out of Africa theory: that
it would be unusual for heat-specialized Africans to have
evolved into generalized Europeans or cold-specialized Asians.
Climate is undoubtedly the single most important environmental
influence on evolution, and it is commonly argued that the races
that evolved in the north were subjected to harsh requirements
that put a premium on high intelligence. The two most recent ice
ages were a particularly demanding test.
A huge eruption some 73,000 years ago of a volcano now known as
Toba on the island of Sumatra sent so much ash into the air that
it blocked out the sun and caused a sharp drop in temperature.
Evaporating sea water fell as snow that remained on land, and
this lowered sea levels. The resulting land bridges made it
possible for early man to migrate to areas now cut off by the
sea. The sudden drop in temperature also killed many inhabitants
of the Northern Hemisphere, especially in Europe, but had much
less effect on the tropics. This lead to a considerable boost in
the intelligence of the surviving northern populations.
Another ice age that lasted from about 30,000 to 12,000 years
ago had a similar effect: opening land bridges and severely
winnowing northern populations for intelligence. The effects may
not have been so catastrophic as the earlier ice age, however,
because by this time humans could control fire and make
clothing.
Mr. Fuerle points out that evolution � whether for intelligence
or for any other trait � is not a continual process. An organism
can evolve to a more or less optimal state, and if the
environment holds steady it need not change. Sharks, for
example, evolved into very efficient, even optimal predators,
and have remained essentially unchanged for millions of years.
Why don�t animals constantly improve? Because improvements are
not without costs. More of one trait means less of something
else. More fast-twitch muscle means more speed and power but
less slow-twitch muscle, which means less endurance.
Greater intelligence comes at a particularly high price; the
brain is metabolically the most expensive part of the human
body. Although it accounts for only two percent of adult body
weight, it uses 20 percent of the body�s energy, making it 22
times more costly than skeletal muscle. In an infant, whose
brain is already 25 percent of its adult size even though its
body is only 5 percent of its adult size, the brain consumes an
astonishing 75 percent of the entire body�s energy. Evolution
does not care about intelligence per se; only reproduction. It
gave humans enough intelligence to reproduce successfully, but �
within the broad limits of natural variation � no more than
necessary.
This is why other animals did not evolve huge, expensive brains.
A lion needs no more intelligence than it already has to catch
prey. Greater intelligence would mean a sacrifice in speed or
some other quality that is more important to lions than
intelligence.
Mr. Fuerle points out that intelligence can decline if the
environment changes in ways that make it less necessary. This is
thought to have happened to humans 12,000 years ago with the
beginning of agriculture. Hunters need cunning and prowess
whereas farmers need only steady effort, so although the
transition to agriculture led to a huge increase in population,
human intelligence and physical stature declined.
The same thing can happen in other species. When wild dogs were
domesticated their brains shrank because they could depend on
humans to feed them. Wolves and foxes, which must hunt for a
living, are smarter than domesticated dogs, and when cats go
feral they develop larger brains to cope with the challenges of
fending for themselves.
There is another reason why improvement is slow or even comes to
a stop in an ancient species in a stable environment. As Mr.
Fuerle explains, beneficial mutations are increasingly unlikely
because most of them have already been tried and retained.
Harmful mutations drop out of the population because their
carriers are less likely to survive and reproduce, but this
means they can keep recurring.
Race Differences
It is therefore the different environments in which the races
evolved that gave rise to racial differences in both physiology
and behavior. Mr. Fuerle has probably collected the most
extensive catalog of physical racial differences since Prof.
John Baker of Oxford wrote his magisterial work Race in
1974, and some of the most interesting have to do with the
skull. Africans tend to have heavy jaws and exhibit prognathism,
which means their jaws protrude forward. This is considered a
primitive trait left over from when our most effective weapon
was our teeth, which, in order to be effective, had to be able
to cut a swath that extended out in front of the face. Apes, for
example, have extended jaws that let them meet an enemy with
their teeth rather than their faces.
Prognathism (below).
Africans also have a larger post-orbital constriction than
whites, and that of Asians is smaller. The constriction is a
pair of left-right dents in the skull just behind the eyes that
leave room for jaw muscles. The larger the constriction, the
larger the chewing muscles and the more powerful the bite, but
less room is left for the forebrain. Africans also have eyes set
wider apart than Europeans or Asians.
Another racial difference is in the location of the foramen
magnum, the large hole in the skull, through which the spinal
cord attaches to the brain. Since man walks upright, the hole is
at the base of the skull, whereas in animals that go on all
fours the hole is at the back. Apes therefore have the foramen
magnum farther back in the skull than humans, and in Africans,
it is slightly farther back than in Eurasians.
The skull is made up of several large bones that join along
lines called sutures. At birth the sutures are not fully closed,
and they close earlier in blacks than in Eurasians.
There are important racial differences in soft tissue as well as
bone. The three outer layers of the brain are called the
supragranular layers, and they increase in thickness from the
lower to the higher animals. Mr. Fuerle reports that the
supragranular layers are 15 percent thinner in blacks than in
whites.
One important human characteristic is that the sclera of the
eyes (the area around the pupils) is white. This contrasts with
dark pupils and makes it easy to tell where a person is looking,
and eye contact is a subtle and important form of human
communication. Non-human primates have dark sclera. Some African
and Australian aboriginal populations are reported to have
yellowish sclera due to the presence of melanin.
High levels of melanin in tropical peoples are usually
attributed to the need to block harmful radiation from the sun,
but it may serve another purpose. It appears to act as a
bacteriocide and fungicide, which may have been particularly
useful in the damp of the tropics, and blacks are more resistant
than whites to skin diseases.
The light skin of Europeans is generally explained by the need
to process sunlight � which would be blocked by dark skin � to
produce vitamin D. Why, in that case, do Eskimos not have the
lightest skin? Mr. Fuerle explains that they get vitamin D from
fish, and that slightly darker skin protects from cosmic
radiation in the Arctic and from ultraviolet rays reflected from
snow.
One of the most obvious racial differences is in shape of the
nose. Narrow, long noses evolved where the air was cold or dry,
so that it could be warmed or moistened before it entered the
lungs. Asian noses are flatter to the face than European noses
as a protection against the cold. Apes have little of what could
be called a nose, and the nostrils open almost directly onto the
muzzle.
Mr. Fuerle points out that Somalis and Ethiopians are the most
Caucasian-looking of sub-Saharan Africans, and explains that
this is because the horn of Africa has long been easily
accessible to populations from outside the continent. He argues
that non-Africans entering from Asia mixed with the most
easily-contacted Africans, giving them less typically African
features.
Although this book is primarily concerned with differences
between the major races of man, Mr. Fuerle has interesting
observations about the traits of such sub-groups as Australian
Aborigines, Andaman Islanders, and Bushmen, including
speculation as to how those traits might have arisen.
Mr. Fuerle has compiled a tremendous amount of
racial/anthropological data but believes there is much more:
�Because research on racial differences, except where they are
medically important, has been effectively outlawed for at least
the last 50 years, there are no doubt thousands of other racial
differences that have not been discovered or published.�
Mr. Fuerle notes that despite the popular contention that race
is a myth, there is a magazine called Ethnicity and Health
that is devoted to racial differences in medicine. It has been
found, for example, that blacks get lung cancer at far higher
rates than whites even when they smoke the same amount. Mr.
Fuerle speculates that this may be because whites spent many
thousands of years living in smoky caves, whereas Africans
either did not need fire or could make fires in the open air and
therefore did not build up a tolerance for smoke.
The gorilla is prognathic
and its nose is mostly nostrils.
One of the chapters of Erectus Walks Amongst Us is
devoted to racial differences in intelligence and behavior. Mr.
Fuerle covers this ground capably and thoroughly, including such
details as the fact that American whites save 20 percent more
than blacks even when they have the same incomes.
Some of this book�s most provocative observations, however, are
about mating. An essential difference in the environments in
which blacks and whites evolved, writes Mr. Fuerle, is that in
the tropics there was so much food that a woman could, if
necessary, rear a child to maturity without the help of a man.
In the harsher north, a woman needed a hunter � a man � to
provide for her and her children. This led to pair bonding,
because children could not survive without it, and the tendency
to bond was passed to future generations. Africans, on the other
hand, evolved less pair bonding because it was less necessary.
In primates with little pair bonding, there can be much
promiscuity. Males therefore compete with each other not only in
the number of females they mate with but in the amount of sperm
they produce, because if a female has mated with several males,
the one that deposits the most sperm has an advantage. When
chimpanzee females are in heat they are extremely promiscuous.
As a consequence, male chimpanzees have evolved the largest
ratio of testicle weight to body weight of any primate.
Humans pursue similar strategies. In the promiscuous tropics,
men competed by producing more sperm. Africans, therefore, have
the largest testicles and Asians have the smallest. Mr. Fuerle
notes that testicles, like brains, are very costly, and
increased size in either leaves fewer resources for other
organs.
The fact that women in the tropics could support themselves and
their young may have had the sinister effect of making rape more
biologically adaptive. In cold climates, where women and
children could not survive without a man, the impulse to rape
was seldom passed on because any resulting child was likely to
die. In the tropics, where mother and child had a better chance
of surviving, it would have been maladaptive not to
rape. This may explain high rates of rape among African
populations.
Women have been selected for beauty
but now it may be men�s turn.
Self-supporting females in the tropics also meant that dominant
men could maintain more than one woman, whereas in the north, it
was beyond the abilities of most men to support more than one
woman and her children. In the north, because it was the sex
that hunts that could offer or withhold meat, it was men, rather
than the women, who were in a better bargaining position for
choosing mates. They selected for beauty, which is a good proxy
for health and fertility and this, according to Mr. Fuerle, led
to increased beauty in Eurasian women.
African men, on the other hand, chose multiple wives on the
basis of their ability to gather food or raise crops rather than
beauty. At the same time, polygamy meant that some men had no
wives at all, and the remaining, smaller number of women were in
a position to take their pick from among the men. Since African
women, unlike northern women, could support themselves, they
chose men, not according to whether they were �good providers,�
but according to their beauty. Thus, writes Mr. Fuerle, African
men are more handsome than African women. This may also explain
data that suggest African women have higher IQs than African
men: Since women selected men for beauty rather than ability,
there was not as much of a premium on intelligence.
Mr. Fuerle points out that Eurasian women who live in advanced
societies can now support themselves, and need not mate with the
men who can best provide food and shelter. This means they can
choose according to appearance � which means future generations
of Eurasian men may be more handsome but less intelligent.
Another racial trait that may have been influenced by
environment is the willingness to cooperate. In the north, men
had to work together to bring down big game and to establish
rules for sharing meat. Cooperation and respect for rules were
less necessary closer to the equator, and this may explain high
rates of crime and sociopathy among Africans.
Physical differences between human races are, in many
cases, vastly greater than the physical differences
between animals classified as separate species.
All these racial traits add up to considerable genetic distance
between Africans and other populations. Mr. Fuerle cites Frank
Salter [see �What We Owe Our People,� Jan. 2005.], who points
out some of the surprising consequences of this genetic
distance. The members of stable breeding populations are
genetically close to each other and have many alleles in common.
They are even closer to their immediate family members, but this
relation can be reversed by hybrid crosses between parents from
groups that are genetically far apart. Bantus, for example, are
so genetically distant from East Asians that the Asian father of
an Asian/Bantu mulatto would be genetically closer to a random
Asian stranger than to his own child. That is to say, he would
have more alleles in common with any member of his own people
than with his own hybrid child.
This is not good for such children. Studies have shown that
parents are more attached to children who look like them and
with whom they share the most genes. Abuse and neglect are more
likely when it is obvious that parent and child come from
dissimilar stock, which is usually the case with hybrids. A
preference for mates from one�s own stock may also protect from
infection, because genetically similar people are likely to have
the same antibodies and not carry exotic diseases.
Negritos from the Malay peninsula.
Mr. Fuerle points out that the physical differences between
human races are, in many cases, vastly greater than the physical
differences between animals that are classified as separate
species. There are species of birds, for example, that look so
similar they can be distinguished only by experts. They could
produce fertile young if they mated but in the wild they never
do. Chimps and bonobos are easier to tell apart, as are the two
species of gorilla, yet these pairs of species are closer to
each other genetically and physically than are the more distant
races of humans. It is not scientifically consistent to classify
gorillas into two species but lump all living humans into just
one. Mr. Fuerle makes the provocative argument that if there
were no living Africans � only their bones and DNA � scientists
would classify them as a separate species from Eurasians.
Mr. Fuerle argues that Africans and Eurasians are not only
genetically distant from each other but that the distance runs
in a consistent direction:
�[V]irtually all of the racial differences between Africans and
Eurasians are in traits that are primitive; there are few, if
any, African traits that are more modern than Eurasian traits.
The evidence comes from a large variety of very different
traits: hard tissue, soft tissue, physiology, behavior,
intelligence, accomplishments, and genes. And most importantly,
all of the evidence is consistent. It is not the case
that genes are saying blacks are modern and bones are saying
they are primitive. All of the evidence is saying the same thing
...�
African women.
It is often argued that crosses between genetically distant
groups result in an advantage called �hybrid vigor.� Mr. Fuerle
devotes a chapter to this question, in which he explains how
this works. When populations are thoroughly inbred, they have
similar sets of alleles, meaning that recessive traits � both
positive and negative � are likely to appear. Crossing with
another inbred population can mix up the alleles in a way that
is beneficial, but the effect lasts for only one or two
generations. It is because the benefit is short-lived that
farmers have to buy new kinds of hybrid seeds every year.
Hybrid vigor is almost never found in humans because the major
races are not nearly inbred enough to benefit from distant
crosses. On the contrary, genetically distant matches can result
in health problems due to subtle genetic incompatibilities that
stable breeding populations ironed out long ago. In the case of
black-white mixes, regression towards the mean draws hybrid
children�s IQs toward a point mid-way between the black and
white average IQs. Thus, the children of two white parents with
IQs of 100 will, on average, be smarter than the children of one
black and one white parent, even if they, too, have IQs of 100.
Out of Africa or Asia?
The central question raised in this book is whether the Out of
Africa theory is correct. Most scholars now agree that Homo
sapiens sapiens evolved in Africa about 150,000 years ago and
began to migrate out of Africa some 90,000 to 60,000 years ago.
He then spread to all corners of the globe, replacing the
variants of erectus that had arisen on different continents.
Racial differences therefore appeared after modern man evolved,
and the most recent common ancestor of all humans would have
lived 150,000 years or so ago. Mr. Fuerle argues strongly that
race began with Australopithecus and that racial differences
even predate the genus Homo. The most recent common ancestor of
all men would therefore have lived some three million years ago,
and modern man first evolved in Eurasia.
Shovel-shaped incisor from Modern Asian.
Readers will have to judge Mr. Fuerle�s many arguments for
themselves, but here is a sample. He finds it improbable that
modern man would have evolved in the least demanding
environment, namely the African tropics. He also doubts that the
migration out of Africa � 60,000 to 70,000 years ago � would
have begun just at the time of the Toba-eruption-induced ice
age, when northern populations were heading south, fleeing the
cold. Mr. Fuerle also emphasizes that Out of Africa appears to
violate one of the general laws of evolution: Heat-adapted
Africans would have been unlikely to become generalized, like
Europeans, and even less likely to lose their heat-adaptive
traits and evolve the cold-adaptive traits characteristic of
Asians.
Furthermore, modern humans coming from Africa are supposed to
have replaced erectus populations that had been developing in
their specialized environments for, in some cases, a million
years. Neanderthal man, for example, had been in Europe for
approximately 300,000 years and was well adapted to his niche.
Mr. Fuerle finds it hard to believe that Africans could have
displaced him, and points out that remains of early European man
show no characteristics that appear African or heat-adapted. In
any case, Mr. Fuerle does not believe that the innumerable
differences found in modern human populations could have arisen
in 60,000 to 90,000 years.
Mr. Fuerle also wonders how Africans managed to get all around
the world when they were unable to get to some of the islands
off the coast of Africa. Madagascar, for example, is less than
300 miles from Africa but it was first settled by Indonesians,
who had to sail thousands of miles to reach it.
Another well-known difficulty for Out of Africa is the fact that
Asian Homo erectus had incisor teeth of a distinct �shovel
shape,� and some modern Asians still have similarly-shaped
teeth. Mr. Fuerle finds it improbable that Africans would have
displaced Asian erectus and then evolved their own shovel-shaped
incisors. He considers it more likely that Asian erectus evolved
into modern Asians.
It is often pointed out that modern Africans have the most
genetic variety, which suggests they are the oldest human
population, since older populations have had more time to
accumulate mutations. Mr. Fuerle argues that the great genetic
variation of Africans is due to repeated incursions into Africa
of more modern lineages that evolved outside the continent,
leading him to conclude that �the African lineage did not so
much evolve as it did acquire.� He also argues that the ice ages
killed huge numbers in the north and that this artificially
reduced the genetic variation in some non-African populations.
Out of Africa theorists have replies to these arguments but Mr.
Fuerle is so convinced they are wrong that he accuses them of
bowing to egalitarian pressures to describe different
populations as more similar than they really are. This is not
altogether fair. Vincent Sarich of Berkeley and his occasional
co-author Frank Miele [see �Science Strikes Back,� AR, April
2004] are hardly egalitarian pushovers, nor are Richard Lynn and
Phil Rushton. They are well aware of the arguments, pro and con,
for Out of Africa, and conclude that it is the theory that best
fits the facts.
One�s position on Out of Africa need not detract from the
appreciation of this or any other section of Erectus Walks
Amongst Us. Indeed, whether the evolution of racial differences
took three million years or just 65,000 does not reduce their
number or significance � which is the question of greatest
concern.
Separation and survival
Naturalists appreciate nature�s diversity and go to great
lengths to preserve it. They separate animals in zoos so as to
avoid hybrids that would not occur in nature, and rejoice at the
rediscovery of any species that was thought to be extinct. They
show no such concern about humans, however, and condemn parents
as bigots � especially if they are white � if they want their
children to marry within their race.
The final section of Erectus Walks Amongst Us is a plea to
cherish human variation as much as plant or animal variation.
Mr. Fuerle writes of the unique alleles that have been sorted
out among the different races:
�[I]t takes only an instant of miscegenation to scramble them up
again. The selection of some of those alleles required the
suffering and death of hundreds of thousands of people who did
not have them, so the creation of racial differences was not
without great cost. To destroy this monumental natural creation
� us � so thoughtlessly and permanently, is akin to desecrating
graves, dynamiting ancient statues, bombing cathedrals, and
burning the library at Alexandria. What is the most valuable
possession populations have that they can pass on to the next
generation? It is not wealth or even knowledge. It is their
genome, their ability to reproduce themselves as the unique
people that they are. To squander that by miscegenation is the
ultimate betrayal of one�s heritage.�
�A homeland is so vital to survival that an ethnic group
will go to almost any length to have and hold one.�
Today, whites are the only major racial group that faces
oblivion through miscegenation and sub-replacement fertility,
yet whites are also the only race that welcomes racial aliens
into their homelands. This is a new phenomenon in human
evolution because, as Mr. Fuerle points out, it has always been
the rule that �a homeland is so vital to survival that an ethnic
group will go to almost any length to have and hold one.� He
adds that �if whites do not defend their homelands, they will
soon have no homelands, and not long after that, there will be
no more whites.�
As he explains: �The carrying capacity of the earth will
eventually be reached, and it has probably already been reached
in some countries. When that happens in white countries, our
descendants will be in a life-and-death struggle for survival
with the descendants of the non-whites that whites foolishly let
into their homelands ...�
What is more, most of the newcomers have relatively low IQs. Mr.
Fuerle writes that their arrival in large numbers will
eventually make it impossible to maintain modern civilization
and that the West will be hopelessly outstripped by East Asian
nations that have carefully limited immigration.
Today, any white who speaks out for the preservation of his
people or race is condemned as a �racist,� but it is only by
putting its interests first that any group survives. Mr. Fuerle
marvels at the mentality of whites who think it virtuous to
decline in numbers while others take their lands and inherit
what their ancestors built: �These white anti-racists don�t like
what they are. How could creatures evolve who are capable of not
liking themselves? Surely, such creatures would have been driven
extinct long ago by others of their kind who do like
themselves.� He adds: �Why so many whites eagerly embrace
white-hating, however, remains to be explained.�
A pioneer Mormon family from the time when
Caucasians were still good at making more
Caucasians.
Mr. Fuerle suspects the problem may be altruism run amok. Whites
rose to the top, not only through high intelligence but through
cooperation with and even sacrifice for others. When whites
sacrificed for other whites it promoted their genetic interests,
but today�s �promiscuous altruism� means sacrificing for
non-whites.
At the same time, aside from a few groups such as the Mormons,
whites have become unable or unwilling to reproduce themselves:
�Caucasians may be good at making discoveries in math and
science and at creating great works of art, but they aren�t so
good at making more Caucasians which, as far as evolution is
concerned, is all that matters.� Mr. Fuerle clearly cares deeply
about the fate of his people, and this book concludes with a
strong appeal to racial consciousness, without which whites will
disappear.
Erectus Walks Amongst Us
is stuffed with so much information and so many good arguments
it is a pity it suffers from several flaws. First and worst, the
title and cover illustration are so insulting to blacks �
implying that they are primitives just down from the trees �
that one can hardly carry this book around in public. The
writing can also be contemptuous of blacks and of people who
accept the Out of Africa theory. No book that flouts as many
orthodoxies as this one does can afford to aid its critics by
indulging in intemperate language.
Erectus Walks Amongst Us
also has an irritating stylistic peculiarity. It has more than
1,200 footnotes, most of which include additional information
rather than just a reference. The reader must constantly look
back and forth between the text and notes (which are mercifully
at the bottom of the page rather than at the back). Most of the
material in the notes should have been worked into the text.
These are some of the consequences of foregoing the help of
professional publishing, but these defects do not detract from
the vast collection of eye-opening information Mr. Fuerle has
gathered. �This book contains material I find absolutely
fascinating,� he writes in the Acknowledgements. Open-minded
readers will certainly agree.
It used to be bad form to name a school or public building after
a living person. Not now; many politicians have government
buildings and highways that bear their names. Usually,
presidents have had to wait at least until their terms were over
before having things named for them, but not Barack Obama. One
Long Island school has already changed its name to Barack Obama
Elementary � before Mr. Obama has even been sworn in. The former
Ludlum Elementary School in Hempstead, New York, is nearly all
black and Hispanic, with many children from Africa and the
Caribbean. During the campaign, students held a mock
presidential debate and election, and asked the district
superintendent if they could change the school�s name if Mr.
Obama won. On November 20, just two weeks after the election,
the change was official, and a photo of Mr. Obama now hangs in
the school office. �For me, we made history,� says Teonte
Jackson, 11, a fifth-grader who played Mr. Obama in the debate.
�I feel really proud to have an African-American president. I
don�t think it�s a racial thing. I think he will bring everybody
together.�
Ludlum is only the first school to be named for Mr. Obama. Clear
Stream Avenue School in Valley Stream, New York, plans to take
Mr. Obama�s name, as does a school in Portland, Oregon. The
Tacoma, Washington, school board changed its naming policy to
permit naming a school after a president who has not yet served.
In heavily-black Opa-locka, Florida, the city council is
considering naming a street after Mr. Obama, and the prime
minister of Antigua and Barbuda says the country will have its
highest mountain, Boggy Peak, renamed Mount Obama. [Christina
Hernandez, Long Island School Renamed for Barack Obama, Newsday,
Nov. 21, 2008. School Changes Name to Barack Obama Elementary,
McClatchey News Service, Nov. 22, 2008. Tacoma School May be
Named for Obama, AP, Nov. 25, 2008.]
Silver Lining
According to the National Statistics and Geography Institute in
Mexico City, the number of Mexicans heading north has dropped by
42 percent over the last two years, from 1.2 million in 2006 to
814,000. The study does not differentiate between legal and
illegal immigration and claims that by the end of 2007, more
Mexicans were going home than were leaving the country.
The decline is due to hard times in the United States and
stepped up enforcement. �There is no longer an American dream,
at least for the moment with the economic situation,� says
Victor Clark, director of the Tijuana-based Binational Center
for Human Rights. �In small northern towns, the news is that
there is no work for Mexicans in the United States.� He also
adds that �news of mass raids snowballs through towns that send
a lot of migrants.� The Border Patrol also says fewer illegals
are coming in, and that the number of apprehensions on the
border has dropped 39 percent since 2005.
Fewer Mexicans means fewer remittances, which are Mexico�s
second largest source of foreign exchange after oil. The Mexican
central bank says monthly remittances fell 12 percent to $1.9
billion in August, the biggest drop since record-keeping began
12 years ago. [Mexican Immigration to US Cut Nearly in Half, AP,
Nov. 20, 2008.]
Bias Against Tests
One hundred and forty-four police officers in Chesapeake,
Virginia, took exams in October to qualify for promotion to
lieutenant and sergeant. Thirty-two blacks and women took the
tests but none scored high enough for promotion. The 30 officers
who did were are all white men. The city said it would throw out
the test results, but backed off after lawyers for two police
organizations threatened to sue. Instead, the city hired a
consultant to review the tests for fairness. Michael Imprevento,
a lawyer with the Fraternal Order of Police, says that is not
necessary. �This test involved knowledge of policies and
procedures necessary to become a supervisor,� he says. �The same
policies and procedures are available for all to review as
police officers. It is my view that any invalidation of these
results would be based strictly on race.�
Last year, Chesapeake settled a lawsuit brought by the US
Department of Justice, which accused it of using a math test
that supposedly discriminated against blacks and Hispanics.
[Kristin Davis, Police Groups Say They�ll Sue if the City Tosses
Out Tests, Virginian-Pilot (Hampton Roads), Oct. 23, 2008.]
Ideology vs. Reality
One of the first things Lynne Johnson did when she became police
chief of tony, mostly-white Palo Alto, California, in 2003 was
to start a community outreach program to reassure blacks that
her officers never profile by race. She also had video cameras
installed in all patrol cars after an incident in which two
white officers were prosecuted for beating a black driver.
There has been a rash of street robberies by blacks in Palo
Alto, and in October, Chief Johnson explained at a public forum
how the department planned to solve those crimes. In remarks
that were recorded, she said she had told her officers that if
they were in an area where there had been a robbery, �and they
see an African American, you know in a congenial way we want to
find out who they are.� She also told officers to be on the
lookout for blacks wearing do-rags because one of the robbers
wore one.
The screeching started immediately. California state
representative Anna Eshoo said Chief Johnson had �demonstrated a
profound lack of judgment and leadership.� Palo Alto Mayor Larry
Klein said her remarks were �unacceptable, unconstitutional and
un-American.� Jeff Moore, president of the San Jose-Silicon
Valley branch of the NAACP, said, �This whole thing has just
exposed something we�ve been saying has been happening for
years, and her comments were hurtful and frightening. Racial
profiling happens to young blacks and Latinos all day long, all
over Northern California ...�
The chief apologized and claimed she was misunderstood. City
manager James Keene suggested she might keep her job if she
groveled: �The next steps for her are to work at repairing the
damage done by the misstatements. She needs to focus on
reclaiming the confidence of the community.� Chief Johnson duly
prostrated herself before the congregation of the black
Jerusalem Baptist Church but it was not enough. On November 20,
she announced her resignation, after five years on the job and
34 years on the force. Her critics aren�t satisfied. �The
department still has a lot of work to do,� says East Palo Alto
Mayor Patricia Foster. �We need to see the practice of racial
profiling by police stopped, please.� [Kevin Fagan, Police Chief
Denies Racial Profiling, Calls it �Immoral,� San Francisco
Chronicle, Nov. 1, 2008. Jessie Mangaliman, Palo Alto Police
Chief Retires after Firestorm on Racial Profiling Remarks,
Mercury News (San Jose), Nov. 20, 2008.]
The Facts Don�t Change
CQ Press used to publish lists of the �safest� and �most
dangerous� cities in America but stopped because cities didn�t
like being called �dangerous.� Now it publishes a list of cities
with highest and lowest crime rates. After adding up cases of
murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, theft, and
motor vehicle theft, CQ Press figured out the most crime-ridden
city: New Orleans, with 19,000 of the six crimes (including 209
murders) for a population of 250,000. It was followed by Camden,
New Jersey; Detroit; St. Louis; and Oakland, California.
Needless to say, CQ Press refrained from pointing out what all
these places have in common.
The least dangerous cities with populations over 75,000 are
Ramapo, New York (about 40 miles northwest of New York City) �
with only 688 crimes and no reported killings in a population of
about 113,000 � followed by Mission Viejo, California (in Orange
County); O�Fallon, Missouri (outside St. Louis); Newton,
Massachusetts (west of Boston); and Brick Township on the New
Jersey coast. [New Orleans Ranks Highest in Crime, Survey Finds,
CNN, Nov. 24, 2008.]
Standing Firm
Last summer, ten of California�s largest foundations agreed to
hand over millions of dollars to so-called �minority-led�
non-profits. This was the price they paid to stop state
legislation that would have required them to disclose the racial
composition of their boards, staffs and grant recipients. This
shakedown was so successful that the group behind it, the
Greenlining Institute, is looking outside the state. In October,
the institute invited representatives from America�s top 50
foundations to a meeting at its offices in Berkeley to discuss
�diversity in philanthropy.� It hoped to find out such things as
how much of the foundations� money was in the hands of
minority-owned money managers. Not one foundation showed up.
Undeterred, Greenlining now has its sights on Pennsylvania. It
lined up Pennsylvania State Rep. Jake Wheatley, a black Democrat
from Pittsburgh, as its front man to send letters to eight
Pennsylvania foundations, including Heinz Endowments and the
William Penn Foundation. �I believe that it is important to
start conversations early on what philanthropy is doing to
empower minority communities,� he wrote, and went on to ask for
�demographic� � i.e., racial � information on grant recipients.
Not one gave in. �We left blank the column they were really
looking for,� says Brent Thompson of the William Penn
Foundation, �and we have no plans to keep that data going
forward.� [The Latest Charity Shakedown, Wall Street Journal,
Nov. 5, 2008.]
The Machine was Racist
KKK in a box.
On April 9, Connecticut state police arrested a black Norwalk
resident, Tyrone Brown, for drunk driving. A breath analysis
test determined that Mr. Brown had a blood alcohol level of
0.188 percent, well over the state�s limit of 0.08. In November,
Mr. Brown�s lawyer, James O. Ruane, filed a motion to suppress
the breathalyzer results, claiming that the device used, the
Intoxilyzer 5000, discriminates against blacks. Mr. Ruane claims
blacks have 3 percent less lung capacity than whites, and that
research from Dr. Michael Hlastala, a lung physiologist at the
University of Washington, shows that the Intoxilyzer 5000 does
not accurately test the blood-alcohol levels of black men. �They
are KKK in a box,� he says. �We really have some racist machines
here.� [Daniel Tepper, Lawyer: Alcohol Testing Device is Racist,
Connecticut Post, Nov. 20, 2008.]
Diversity Rules
On November 4, 58 percent of Nebraska voters approved a measure
to end racial preferences in public employment, education, and
contracting, in yet another victory for black businessman Ward
Connerly�s Civil Rights Initiative (see �Why Michigan Needed to
Ban Preferences,� AR, January 2007).
In the run up to the vote, Linda Chavez�s Center for Equal
Opportunity released a study of discrimination against whites at
the University of Nebraska Law School. It found the school
rejected 389 white applicants to the entering classes of 2006
and 2007 even though they had LSATs and undergraduate GPAs
higher than those of the average black. Over all, blacks were an
astonishing 442 times more likely than whites to be admitted
with the same qualifications. �[T]he extremely heavy weight
given to race by the University of Nebraska College of Law is
off the charts,� says Miss Chavez.
Nebraska Law School Dean Steven Willborn says there is nothing
wrong with admitting non-white students if they have lower test
scores than whites, because they help add �diverse opinions to
classroom discussions.� [Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative Passes
Overwhelmingly, Center for Equal Opportunity, Nov. 10, 2008.
Nebraska Law School Dean Says OK to Admit Minorities with Lower
Test Scores, Fox News, Oct. 9, 2008.]
Euro-Cowardice
European lefties continue to fight nationalists in their usual
craven way by charging them with �racism� when they cannot
defeat them at the ballot box. The current number-one target is
Frank Vanhecke, former president of the Vlaams Belang (VB) and
member of the European Parliament. In 2005, the local VB
publication in the Flemish town of Sint-Niklaas published a
130-word article claiming that Muslims were vandalizing town
graves and that Islam was �a culture that has no respect for the
dead or for the symbols of a different faith.� The vandals were
later identified as Belgians, and the VB publication immediately
issued a correction, but the authorities still pronounced the
article �racist.� Mr. Vanhecke did not write the article, nor
did he see it before it was published, but the Socialist mayor
of Sint-Niklass brought charges of �racism� against him because
he was then head of the party.
Frank Vanhecke.
Belgian authorities could not prosecute Mr. Vanhecke immediately
because of his immunity as a member of the European Parliament.
The Belgian justice minister therefore lobbied the
Euro-parliament to strip him of immunity, which it did in an
overwhelming vote on November 18. Mr. Vanhecke can now be tried,
and faces up to two years in prison if found guilty of �racism.�
He could also be stripped of civil rights for five years, during
which time he would be barred from elective office. This would
be a great victory for the Belgian establishment; Mr. Vanhecke
was to be the lead candidate on the VB list for Euro-parliament
elections in June, in which nationalist parties across the
continent are expected to make solid gains.
Mr. Vanhecke can fight the charges on several grounds. Bruno
Valkeniers, current head of the party, points out that according
to the law, if the author of an offending text is known he must
be prosecuted before charges can be filed against a supervisor.
There is no secret about who wrote the article, and Mr.
Valkeniers also notes that Belgian prosecutors have admitted
that if the attempt to lift Mr. Vanhecke�s immunity had failed
they would not have charged the author. Their motives are openly
political. [Baron Bodissey, Open Season on Frank Vanhecke, Gates
of Vienna blog, Nov. 19, 2008. Racisme: Immunit� Parlementaire
Lev�e Pour Frank Vanhecke, Nov. 18, actu24.be]
Suzanne Winter.
Austria is putting a dissident politician through the same
tyrannical procedure. Suzanne Winter represents the Austrian
Freedom Party � one of Europe�s most dynamic nationalist parties
� in parliament (see �What Happened in Austria� in the previous
issue). During municipal elections in Graz last January, she
said that Islam was �a totalitarian system of domination that
should be cast back to its birthplace on the other side of the
Mediterranean,� that Mohammed had written the Koran during a
series of �epileptic fits,� and that by today�s standards he was
a child molester because he married a six-year-old. The
president of the Islamic Communities of Austria, Anas Schakfeh,
warned that Miss Winter had stirred up a �wrathful mood� among
Muslims and that he could not rule out violence. Indeed, Miss
Winter had to hire bodyguards when a threatening video appeared
on YouTube.
Miss Winter, who won her city council election, only grew in
popularity, and she won a seat in the Austrian parliament in
September. However, on November 26, under pressure from
prosecutors, her fellow members voted to lift immunity so she
could be charged with incitement, degradation of religious
symbols, and religious agitation. Miss Winter met the vote with
her head held high. She welcomed a trial, she said, because
�only through the considerations of an independent court can
clarification be obtained on this issue.� She denounced the
charges against her as �political hatred by confused,
self-proclaimed thought-guards,� and said that such a
prosecution could take place only under a �dictatorship of
conscience.� She faces up to two year in prison if convicted.
[Baron Bodissey, Susanne Winter Loses Her Parliamentary
Immunity, Gates of Vienna blog, November 27, 2008. Austrian
Politician Faces Jail for Remarks About Islam,
MilitantIslamMonitor.org, January 15, 2008.]
Wale of Tears
The Valley Race Equality Council (Valrec) in Wales wants to
protect the public from words it may find offensive. Forbidden
terms include �half-caste,� �Negro� and �British.� Why British?
�The idea of �British� implies a false sense of unity � many
Scots, Welsh, and Irish resist being called British and the land
denoted by the term contains a wide variety of cultures,
languages, and religions,� say Valrec�s guidelines. The city
council in Caerphilly, South Wales, has accepted the guidelines
and no longer uses �British.� Tory MP David Davies accuses
Valrec of propagating �narrow, nationalistic ideas,� adding,
�There is absolutely nothing offensive about describing people
as British. This is political correctness gone mad.� [Neil
Sears, Council Ranks Term �British� with �Negroes� and Bans It
in Case It Upsets Scots, Welsh and Minorities, Daily Mail
(London), Nov. 11, 2008.]
The contents of this website are copyright � 1990-2011
New Century F
ADULTERY AND ABORTION
American men don't ask much of their
women. They know that men constitute 95% of our ponderous prison population and
women only 5%, even though women are 58 to 234 times more likely to murder their children than fathers--but they do nothing. They know that the
high accident rate of women causes the deaths of an additional
6,200 men annually in traffic accidents, giving us a motor vehicle fatality rate almost
three times higher than England--but they do nothing. They know that women pilots are four times more likely than men pilots to
crash--but they do nothing. They know that women are five times more likely than men to be
acquitted of the same crime, that they are 16% less likely to
be convicted if tried for the same crime, that men receive prison sentences 2.7 times
longer than women for the same crime, that wives are twice as likely as husbands to
initiate a contract to kill their spouse--but they do nothing. They know that
American men are 1,000 times more likely than Japanese men or
Italian men or Greek men to be accused, tried, and convicted of rape, and that half of
those convicted don't even match the DNA evidence from the
"crime scene"--but they do nothing. They know that women own 65% of the
wealth in the nation even though men earn 43% more than women, and that men are 99.993% of
the battle deaths in the wars we have fought, and women only
0.007%--but they are content with that.
All they ask is that married women bear
their husband's children!
That's all!
But in the name of "women's
rights" they killed 40 million babies in the womb, 20 million of whom were females.
Observe the fingers of a baby in
the womb holding the finger of a surgeon, and then tell me about "my body, my
choice".
As bad as that is, far worse is
cheating on their husbands so frequently that 12.6 million children are subjected to the
shame, social pathologies, and stigma of not even being biologically linked to their own
putative fathers.
And worse than that? 12.6 million
men [not fathers] who were STUPID enough to trust women enough to marry them and believe
that their oaths to God to honor and obey them would be upheld, who were forced to pay to
raise their mailman's or gardener's children while they were robbed of their heritage and
their heirs.
If this 12.6 million adulterous women
were to be punished as the Holy Bible demands that they be and as they should be to bring
this practice to a halt, rather than men being 95% of two million prison inmates, women
would be 86% of the 14.6 million inmates--except that punishing wives who commit adultery
REDUCES crime, and prevents women from committing adultery, and would leave far less than
2 million men in prison.
STRONG'S CONCORDANCE
The Strong's definitions of the Hebrew word "na^'aph" and the Greek word "moicheuo�"
from which the English word "adultery" was translated reveal the real meaning:
H5003
na^'aph
naw-af'
A primitive root; to commitadultery; figuratively to apostatize: - adulterer
(-ess), commit (-ing) adultery, woman that breaketh wedlock.
G3431
moicheuo�
moy-khyoo'-o
From G3432; to commitadultery: - commit adultery.
Main Entry: adul�tery
Pronunciation: &-'d&l-t(&-)rE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural-ter�ies
Etymology: Middle English, alteration of avoutrie, from Middle French, from Latin adulterium,
from adulter adulterer, back-formation from adulterare
Date: 15th century : voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his
wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband; also:
an act of adultery
Note that the etymology of the word "adultery" is
the Latin word "adulterium":
Adulterium, adulteri(i), N, adultery; blending/mixing fo different
strains/ingredients; contamination;
uncommon, mixed, adulterated; produced by crossbreeding; of mixed
descent/origin;
If "adultery" means sex with someone outside of marriage,
why would a Latin word meaning "contamination" with an etymology from
"crossbreeding" be used?
Main Entry: 1adul�ter�ate
Pronunciation: &-'d&l-t&-"rAt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -at�ed; -at�ing
Etymology: Latin adulteratus, past participle of adulterare, from ad- +
alter other -- more at ELSE
Date: 1531 : to corrupt, debase, or make impure by the addition of a foreign or inferior
substance or element; especially: to prepare for sale by replacing more
valuable with less valuable or inert ingredients
- adul�ter�a�tor /-"rA-t&r/ noun
And if "adultery" were supposed to mean "sex with a
neighbor's wife", and if you were restricted to only ten laws, then why would the
Tenth Commandment repeat itself?:
"You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You
shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey,
or anything that belongs to your neighbor."
"Thou shalt not covet your neighbor's wife" by
itself is all that's required to get the message across.
"Thou shalt not commit adultery" means "thou shalt not polute the White
Christian Israelite Race".
adultery adA.lteri. Forms: 4-5 avowter, avowtrie, -tri, -tery, avouterye;
4-6 avoutrie, -try; 5 avutrie, avoutri, -trye, -terie, avowtrye; adultery, -trye (only in
Sc. and north. writers); 5-6 advoutrye, -tery, -terye, advoultrye, 5-7 advowtry, -trie,
advoutrie, -try, 6 advoutri, -treye, adoutry, aduoultrie, -try, adoultry, 6-7 adultry,
-trie, -terie, 6- adultery. [a. OFr. avouterie, avoutrie, earlier a�uterie, a�lterie, n.
of condition f. avoutre, a�utre:-L. adulter, see -y; found alongside of avoutire, earlier
a�utire, a�ltere:-L. adulterium, occas. also in Eng. as avowter. In 14th c. Fr. a
learned form adult�re was formed afresh on L. adulterium, and gradually superseded the
popular avoutire and avouterie; under the same influence the Eng. avoutrie was
progressively refashioned as advoutrie or aduoutrie, aduoultrie, adoultry, adultry,
adultery, thus ending in a direct Eng. repr. of adulterium, and practically a distinct
word from avoutrie, though connected with it by every kind of intermediate form. This
latinized type had also been used by Scotch and northern writers as early as 1430.
Advowtry survived to 1688.]
1. Violation of the marriage bed; the voluntary sexual intercourse of a married person
with one of the opposite sex, whether unmarried, or married to another (the former case
being technically designated single, the latter double adultery).
1366 Maundev. 249 3if ony man or woman be taken in Avowtery or Fornycacyoun, anon thei
sleen him.
C. 1370 Wyclif Agst. Begging Friers (1608) 31 Fryars suffren mightie men, fro yeare to
yeare, live in avowtrie.
1386 Chaucer Parson's T. 766 Thilke stynkynge synne of lecherie that men clepe auowtrie
(v.r. avoutrie, auouterie, advoutrie2, aduoutre).
1400 Apol. for Loll. 78 If �e first woman may not proue her contract, �an �e secound
schal be his wif, bi resoun of avowter;
C. 1418 Pol. Poems (1859) II. 247 So overset with avutrie.
C. 1425 Wyntoun Cron. vi. ii. 87 Bot a wykkdy wyf had he Dat levyd in-til Adultery.
C. 1460 Cov. Myst. (1841) 10 A woman..The whiche was taken in adultrye.
1485 Richard III in Paston Lett. 883 III. 317 Doughter unto Dame Katryne Swynford and of
her in double Avoutry gottyn.
1491 Caxton How to Die 6 The woman that was taken in aduoultrye.
1525 Ld. Berners Froissart xliii. II. 139 She was but a bastarde, and borne in aduoutrye.
1533 Elyot Castel of Helth iii. xii. 67 Hym, which had committed adoutry with his
mayster's wyfe.
1541 Barnes Wks. 1573, 187/2 That you shal depose a kyng, bycause hee lyueth in aduoultry.
1570 Ascham Scholem. (1863) 81 Knightes that do kill..and commit fowlest aduoulteres.
1611 Bible John viii. 4 This woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. [Wycl. avoutri,
Tind. advoutry, Cranm. aduoutry, Genev., Rhem. aduoutrie, Gen. 1590 adulterie.]
1641 W. Cartwright Ordinary iv. v. (1651) 75 There shall be no Advowtry in my ward.
1648 Herrick To his Book Wks. 1859, 409 She'l runne to all adulteries.
1660 R. Coke Elem. Power & Subj; 194 Deadly sin, of Fornication, Avowtry, and such
like.
1677 Baxter Let. in Answ. Dodwell 114, I heard, when I was young, of one, or two, that for
Adultery stood in a White Sheet in the Church.
1688 Pol. Ballads (1860) I. 265 As long as you've pence, y' need scruple no offence, For
murder, advoutery, treason.
1835 Thirlwall Greece I. viii. 327 Adultery was long unknown at Sparta.b. Extended in
Scripture, to unchastity generally; and by various theologians opprobriously used of any
marriages of which they disapproved, as of a widower, a nun, a Christian with a Jewess,
etc. ( interpretative adultery). Also fig. in Script. to giving the affections to idols,
idol-worship; and in Eccl. writers to the enjoyment by any one of a benefice during the
life-time of the legal incumbent, or to the translation of a bishop from one see to
another ( spiritual adultery). See Chambers Cycl. Supp. 1753, s.v.
1388 Wyclif Jer. iii. 9 Bi li3tnesse of hir fornicacioun sche defoulide the erthe, and
dide auowtrie with a stoon, and with a tree.
1590 Bible (Genev.) Matt. v. 28 Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath
committed adulterie with her already in his heart.
1611 Bible Jer. iii. 9 Shee defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with
stockes.
1753 Chambers Cycl. Supp. s.v. A kind of second marriage, which was esteemed a degree of
adultery.
1872 Freeman Hist. Ess. (ed. 2) 17 He is rebuked by Saint Dunstan who pronounces the
marriage to be mere adultery.`Used in ancient customs for the punishment or fine imposed
for that offence, or the privilege of prosecuting for it.' Chambers, Cycl. Supp. 1753,
whence in subseq. Encyclop�dias and Dicts. But Spelman, who is quoted for it, gives it
only (and that erroneously) as a use of the L; adulterium.
2. Adulteration, debasement, corruption. Obs.
1609 B. Jonson Epicene i. i, Such sweet neglect more taketh me, Than all th' Adulteries of
Art.
1673 Lady's Calling ii. iii. Sect.20. 92 Nor must she think to cure this by any the little
adulteries of art: she may buy beauty, and yet can never make it her own.
The question isn't what the English word "adultery" meant in Shakespeare's
time. The question is what the original Hebrew word "naaph" meant, and
what Christ meant when He referred to the Israelites.
The Holy Bible is the history of the Israelites' struggle for survival, all the way
from Adam, to the scattered Twelve Tribes of Israel at the time Christ was born, to the
descendants of the Israelites today.
Racial purity was so important to the Israelites that they "put away" their
own children, when an Israelite married a non-Israelite. It was so important to
Christ that he continually admonished His Twelve Disciples to go only "to the
lost sheep of the house of Israel":
"These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go
not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter
ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye
go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matthew 10:5-9
He said in reply, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
Matthew 15:24
Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and said about him, "Behold, an Israelite
indeed, in whom is no deceit!" John 1:47
I ask then, Did God reject his people? May it never be! For I also am an Israelite, a
descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin, Romans 11:1
"who are Israelites; whose is the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving
of the law, the service, and the promises; of whom are the fathers, and from whom is
Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God, blessed forever. Amen", Romans
9:4-5
"Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel," he said, "Because He has not
forgotten His people but has effected redemption for them", Luke 1:68
With this emphasis on racial purity, it's inevitible that one of the most important ten
laws to the Israelites would have been a proscription against intermarriage. iow, it
makes no sense that the Ten Commandments would have repeated the proscription against
"coveting your neighbor's wife" twice, while completely ignoring this
most important Israelite law, one that appears to be even more important than several of
the other Ten Commandments.
This Oxford English Dictionary definition for "adultery" isn't
convincing. It raises more questions than it answers. When the jews replied to
Jesus' charge that they were not descendants of Abraham, they replied: " We be
not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God". So it's clear that it's
the word "fornication", not "adultery", which means to have sex
outside of marriage, otherwise they would have said " We be not born of adultery; we
have one Father, even God":
G4202
p???e?�a
porneia
por-ni'-ah
From G4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest);
figuratively idolatry: - fornication.
The jews above weren't claiming that they weren't born of harlotry. They were
making a direct reference to the state of the marriages of their ancestors. So why
would two different Greek words mean exactly the same thing? If they did mean
exactly the same thing, then why it wouldn it have been repeated twice in the
following:
Gal 5:19
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery, fornication, uncleanness,
lasciviousness,
Here, "adultery" is translated from the Greek word "moicheia":
G3430
moicheia
moy-khi'-ah
From G3431; adultery: - adultery.
It's the word "porneia" which means "sex outside of marriage",
which means the word "moicheia" must be a proscription
against interracial marriages:
Mat 5:32
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving
for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her
that is divorced committeth
adultery.
THE SOCIAL COSTS OF ADULTERY
"Some physicians doing
tissue typing for organ donations estimate that maybe 20% of people are not genetically
related to the men claiming fatherhood" Barbara Rothman,
"Recreating Motherhood", page 225
Take some time to think
about the implications of that single paragraph.
"Some physicians doing
tissue typing for organ donations estimate that maybe 20% of people are not genetically
related to the men claiming fatherhood"
Since Roe vs. Wade was passed against
the majority will of the American population, against the good senses of the 253 million
Christians in this country, contrary to common sense and decency, against God's will, in
violation of the teachings of the Holy Bible and every Pope for the last two millennia,
against the principles of most other world religions, in contradiction to the preachers
and pastors and priests of this country, and to the delight of the mental health workers
and abortion doctors whose businesses skyrocketed:
130 million Ameican women have gotten
pregnant.
40 million American women have had
"abortions" [read: murdered babies in one of the most sacred environments known
to man].
90 million have given birth.
27 million have given birth to
children out of wedlock.
63 million have given birth to
children in families.
12.6 million wives have given birth
to children who are not the biological offspring of the husbands of those families.
THAT bears repeating: 12.6 million
wives have given birth to children who are not the biological offspring of the husbands of
those families.
12.6 million wives have given
birth to children who are not the biological offspring of the husbands of those families!
The monetary cost of raising a child from birth to 18
years of age, not including investments of time and emotion, not including the social
trauma to both children and fathers who eventually discover the treacherous act of
adultery which led to this situation, not including the cost of the social pathology laid
on the rest of society by increased imprisonment, psychiatric and health care, and
educational devolvement, is conservatively $86,400 ($4,800 per year). Some sources
estimate that one third of American children aren't the biological offspring of the
husbands of those "intact families", but using a figure of only 12.6 million,
the monetary cost of adultery to fathers themselves (not including the portion of their
tax dollars which are funding this social pathology) is $1.1 trillion.
Compare this to the economic loss due to the 728,313
homicides in the US in the last four decades. Using the guideline that civil
engineers use (if a project is estimated to cost more than $50,000 per potential life
saved theb it's not economically viable), homicides over this period of time cost $36.4
billion, meaning that the monetary cost of adultery exceeded that of homicide by 30 times.
In addition, at least a quarter of those 728,313 homicides, or 182,078 can be
traced directly to this high rate of adultery and illegitimacy.
Upholding adultery laws, as most other Christian,
Buddhist, Muslim, and Hindu nations do, would have two major benefits:
It would reduce this high illegitimacy rate in intact
families by perhaps 90%, reducing this monetary cost by $990 billion,
Over the next four decades, at least 182,078 American
lives could be saved from homicide, saving another $91 billion.
Join the forum on the history of American adultery laws.
This Web Site is dedicated to the elimination
of fatherlessness.
