I'm not sure how it eats those people, since it apparently has no mouth. Maybe that's the reason for the stack of corpses: it picks up one human, remembers that it doesn't have any way to devour them, kills them in frustration and tosses them on the heap.
Anyways. As you can see, this is the cover of a short pamphlet, "A Corrupt Tree Bringeth Forth Evil Fruit" by one D. B. Red, who also wrote a pamphlet entitled "Race Mixing a Religious Fraud." I have been unable to get my hands on that, but according to Jane Dailey's "Sex, Segregation and the Sacred after Brown" therein he says that the Holocaust was a result of sexual mingling by Jews, which angered God, whose ultimate solution was "Totally destroy the people involved."
But back to the pamphlet that I do have.
If you wonder where your church is getting its ideas on the race problem you may be interested in the following quotations from the National Platform of the Workers (Communist) Party in 1928:"Demands
- Abolition of the whole system of race discrimination. Full racial, political, and social equality for the Negro race.
- Abolition of all laws which result in the segregation of Negroes. Abolition of all Jim Crow laws. The law shall forbid all discrimination against Negroes in selling and renting houses.
- Abolition of all laws which disfranchise the Negroes.
- Abolition of all laws forbidding inter-marriage of persons of different races.
- Abolition of all laws and public administration measures which prohibit, or in practice prevent, Negro children or youth from attending general public schools or universities.
- Full and equal admittance of Negroes to all railway station waiting rooms, restaurants, hotels, and theatres."
First off, I'd like to note that David Duke founded an organization called the NAAWP, or National Association for the Advancement of White People, but has since renamed it the National Association for the Advancement of Working People. Does this mean that Duke is a commie?
Second... couldn't anyone who was curious about where their church is getting its ideas on the race problem just ask them?
Since prehistoric times racial integration has produced about one-half of the population of the world and thereby girdled the globe and spanned the centuries with chaos, darkness and degradation. It seems that if God had planned this for the purpose of demonstrating the disastrous folly of racial integration He could scarcely have made the proof more conclusive. These integrated people not only endure a lion's share of the woes of and misfortunes of men, but their unhappy lands are little more than sitting ducks waiting for any conqueror who can get around to the job of taking them over.
I can't even begin to guess what he means here. Races developed because they were isolated and didn't intermarry since prehistoric times.
Then we get back to familiar ground. Red cites a large number of Bible verses which he claims prove that integration, and in particular intermarriage, are against God's will, and that God has ruined nations that violated these commands. Here's a list of the verses that he cites to prove his point:
- Gen. 26:34-35
- Gen. 28:1
- Deut. 7:3
- Deut. 23:7
- Joshua 23:12-13
- Ezra 9-10
- Nehemiah 9:2
- Nehemiah 13:3, 25, 27, 30
- Jer. 50:26, 37
- Jer. 51:9, 30
- Ezek. 30:4-5, 7
- Hosea 7:8-9
- Obadiah 18
- Acts 10:28
- Jude 7
And then there's the standard "Negroes never had it so good as when they were being treated as property!"
The South has served the churches better than any similar area has ever served them, and has served the black man better that [sic] he has ever served himself. There are many who would do well to meditate on the beauty of gratitude and on the folly of the man who killed the goose that laid the golden egg.
Emphasis in original. I guess that the goose in this analogy is the South, or maybe segregation, and its killer is the black man, or maybe integrationists in general, but I can't really figure out what the golden egg is supposed to represent. Bondage? Whippings? Come on, man, feel grateful that these overseers went out of their way to pay you special attention!
He later whines that integration is against the First Amendment:
The first amendment to the Constitution begins:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF." Why is it not a violation of this amendment to require one to in any way contribute to racial integration?
For the same reason that outlawing slavery and the stoning of adulterers for religious reasons is not a violation of this amendment. Your rights end when they infringe on other people's rights.
Then he goes around the world, picking out whatever peoples he thinks proves his point, claims that they are thoroughly mixed, and then announces a list of their supposed ills, which clearly must follow from racial integration. After all, where would the Indian practice of sati or their "pampering of sacred cows" have come from if not racial integration? I am also amused that he claims "racial integration has, in India and neighboring countries, had the most thorough trial" but on the opposite page says "[c]aste which is of ancient origin makes usual racial lines seem mild indeed" without trying to reconcile, or even recognizing at all, this apparent contradiction.
He goes on to brazenly title one of his sections "Integration Curses Five Continents", claiming:
From the Rio Grande, south, including the West Indies, the East Indies, southern Asia and the northern half of Africa, there are about one billion integrated people. Their governments are noted for plots and counterplots and revolution after revolution. They sent only three battalions of troops to Korea. The great masses of the people are submerged in ignorance and superstition. They are disease-ridden, poverty-stricken, and often bound by caste and torn by racial and religious strife.
And yet I thought God destroyed nations that practiced integration....
But it gets better! On the same page where he claims that "integration curses five continents", with "about one billion integrated people", he says that "A devotion to one's race or tribe with some degree of aversion to those of other tribes or races is most common." Except for half of the world, who apparently missed that memo.
After all this, he finally gets back to the commies.
It seems that the great havoc of which we have studied was wrought by plain old beastly, blundering integration. We are now offered a sort of glorified hybrid integration. In 1928 THE COMMUNIST PARTY WENT ALL-OUT FOR RACIAL INTEGRATION IN AMERICA. EVEN TO LIFTING THE BAN ON INTERMARRIAGE. A propaganda soon sprang up to induce us to swallow this Communist policy. Many churchmen fell for this even to the extent of presuming to make it a Christian doctrine and have borrowed the Mohammedan idea of enforcing religious teachings with the sword. While this was going on, the Communists swallowed much of the world. Will we now swallow Communist methods for enforcing this Communist policy while the Communists swallow large areas of the world where the resistance of the people has been destroyed by racial integration?
Recently a number of religious bodies condemned segregation. The largest of these bodies termed segregation as "an unutterable offense toward God to be tolerated no longer." Some 19 centuries ago, the Scriptures were completed and have been in the hands of segregated people all along. The great mass of Christian leaders either failed to discover that God was opposed to segregation or lacked the courage to voice their convictions on the subject. After the Communists (the avowed enemy of God) started the fight many years ago, and a strange propaganda got the fight off to a good start, we find that religious leaders have more and more joined in the fight to destroy segregation.
It is indeed a tragic day for the Cause of Christ when the leaders of the people have to wait for the enemy of God to discover the will of God and start the fight to have men obey His will. Let us remember that Christ was a firm and fearless leader who would not allow the powers of darkness to chart His course in any way.
He continues to complain about: integrated schools, Liberia, and Reconstruction... your typical racist-fodder. But he also brings up this, which is a variant of the "blacks never had it so good as in the South" argument that I haven't seen before:
About 12,000,000 were said to have been carried to Brazil where they were lucky to live as long as seven years. We got about 400,000 and treated them so well that they had grown to about 4,000,000 in 1860. If we assume that only 6,000,000 slaves were carried to Brazil we find that they have been multiplied by about three while ours have been multiplied by 35 or 40.
No mention of the numerous blacks who didn't even survive the trip across the ocean, I notice. Nor does he seem to realize that this amazing fecundity isn't a sign that we treated slaves well--after all, since the children of your slaves themselves became your slaves, getting your slaves pregnant was an easy and cheap way to increase your property holdings.
No comments:
Post a Comment