Copied from the sermon notes of Pastor Don Elmore
July 11, 2021
Deuteronomy 14:21a:
21) “Ye shall not eat of any thing that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God.
Here is a short part of Chuck Baldwin’s interview with a sailor who was on the U.S. Liberty when it was attacked by the nation of Israeli. Do you agree or disagree with their conclusion?
Chuck Baldwin: That’s a very good point. What is your feeling about the State of Israel[i] now? Do you consider the State of Israel[i] an ally of the United States?
Ron K: No, I think that they—I’m talking mainly about the leadership in Israel[i]—are Zionists. Pastor, I’ll be really truthful on this. I’ve been involved with the church for many, many years. I played the piano for a church several times; I was on worship teams several times. And one of my biggest mistakes at a church right here in my hometown of Sheridan, Wyoming, was I told the story about the LIBERTY, and I told it truthfully. And I’ve got to tell you, things got pretty cold there at that church for me.
Chuck Baldwin: Amazing. So, you perceive that this infatuation that most Christians have with the State of Israel[i] is misplaced?
Ron K: I certainly do! I really don’t believe that physical Israel[i] has a thing to do with Biblical Israel at all. `
Chuck Baldwin: I totally agree with you, Ron. Has there ever been any of the crew that you’ve talked with—survivors of this attack—have you guys ever put your minds together and come up with anything that you could figure why Israel[i] attacked you like they did? We know it was not an accident. We know it was deliberate. We know that it was not only deliberate, but they intended to sink the ship.
[Chuck Baldwin and Ron K. both said that they agree that physical Israel and Biblical Israel are different. Are they correct? They are getting close to the truth!]
Let’s examine our introductory verse once again. Here are some other verses that depict that not everyone is the same:
--------------------------------------------------------
Deuteronomy 14:21a: “Ye shall not eat of any thing that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God.
There are three separate, diverse groups of people mentioned in verse 21:
- “Ye”, “thou”, “thy” or “holy people”: These are the seed of Jacob or the covenant people of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They had the LORD God as their king, until they requested that one of their own people be king instead of Him. They were forbidden to eat any animal that died of itself, but they were permitted to give the dead animal away or sell it.
- “Stranger” [#1616, Strong’s]: sojourner. To this group of people, the Israelites were told that they could give the animal that died of itself to them and then the people that they gave it to could eat it.
- “Alien” [#5237, Strong’s]: alien, foreigner, outlandish. To this group of people, the Israelites were told that they could sell the animal that died of itself and then the individuals that bought it could eat it.
Deuteronomy 23:20: “Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it.”
There are two groups of people mentioned in this verse that the people of God had to have distinction when they were considering using usury:
1.“Stranger”; the same word translated as alien in the previous verse [#5237. Strong’s]: alien, foreigner, outlandish. To this group of individuals, the Israelites were permitted to lend with interest.
2. “Brother” [#251, Strong’s]: kindred, like. To this group, they were forbidden to lend anything at interest.
Nehemiah 13:3 “Now it came to pass, when they had heard the law, that they separated from Israel all the mixed multitude .”
There are two diverse groups mentioned in this verse:
1. “Israel” [#3478]: “He will rule as God; symbolical name of Jacob, also (typically) of his posterity – Israel.
2. “Mixed multitude” [#6154]: A mixture, or mongrel race; “mingled people”; mixed multitude. This group of individuals were to be separated from Israel. They were not to live with them.
Hosea 5:7a: “They[Israel and Judah] have dealt treacherously against the LORD; for thy have begotten strangechildren;”
There are two different groups in this verse:
1. “They”: Verse 5 identifies who the pronoun “they” is replacing in verse 7. It is “Ephraim” and “Judah.”
2. “Strange” [2114]: To commit adultery; foreigner, stranger. Some of the Israelites bore strange or mongrel children. They could only do this by marrying strange wives.
Ezra 10:2 “And Shecaniah, the son of Jehiel, one of the sons of Elam, answered and said unto Ezra, We have trespassed against our God, and have taken strange [#5237] wives of the people of the land; yet now there is hope in Israel concerning this thing.”
There are two different groups in this verse:
1. “Our”: Ezra was speaking to the House of Judah.
2. “Strange” [#5237]: alien, foreigner, outlandish. Some of the men of Judah had committed fornication by taking strange or foreign wives.
And look at what it says in the next verse.
Ezra 10:3 “Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law.”
The men of Israel who had sinned against their LORD God, said that they would make a covenant and put away their strange wives and mixed children that were born to them. Think about this. What would you do if you were in that situation? And if you are not in this position now, be prepared, for you will be in this position possibly in the future.
What if you had married a strange wife, like a mongrel-Jew, and had three mongrel-children and didn’t know that it was a sin, let alone a gross sin? When you learned that you had transgressed God’s law, would you put your wife and three children away? Why would a person be required to remedy this situation by doing this? Because there was no hope that his strange wife and children would “ever hear God’s Word.” It was despising the covenant to marry someone of another race who was not under this covenant.
Let’s ask another question that affects many of us. What if one of your children married a person of another race? What if one of your grandchildren, or niece, or nephew, or brother or sister interracially married? What would you do? I know several people who had to make this decision.
There are several options that you could take; some are what our God tells us to do; and others are what He tells us not to do. For example, we could do nothing. Do we not tell our brethren that one of our relatives has married someone of another race? Or do we keep it a secret? Do we continue to see both spouses; ignoring the sin that he or she has committed. Do we look forward to being with their mongrel children?
What if a preacher’s daughter married someone of another faith; like a Hindu? What if a preacher’s daughter is dating someone of another race? Should the preacher hide it from his congregation? Should he act like nothing bad had happened? What if he continued to see his adulterous daughter? What should he do?
Ezra and Nehemiah gave us the answer. You should disown the interracial couple. You should never see them again if they are married to the person of a different race that they have chosen to be their spouse. The same goes for their mongrel children.
That was why it was forbidden to marry a strange woman. It was because their offspring would be never be good – it would be considered as not being able to be a part of the covenant seed of God. Those who despised the covenant would stay married to their mongrel or strange wife and would keep their mongrel children with them. This happened many times in the history of the Israel people in the Bible.
WHO IS AND WHO ISN’T MADE IN THE IMAGE OF THE WORD?
To believe that every individual on the earth is in the same condition; the institutions that teach this view must state that ALL human beings, including all the different kinds of men, have a common beginning. They all teach that everyone on the earth must have a common set of parents. But did the giants have the same parents that you have? Or did the giants have Adam and Eve as their ancestor parents?
All the individuals who have the universalist beliefs, instruct that everyone on the face of the earth is descended from Adam and Eve, or someone else. They all proudly exclaim, “We are all God’s children.”
But…it is only Man [Adam] that is made in the image of the WORD – which is God. All two-legged creatures are not men. There are besides “men”:
- “Strangers”
- “Foreigners”
- “Aliens”
- “Giants”
- “Mixed multitude” (mulatos) in the Bible – do all these categories of individuals in the Bible have the same beginning? Do they all have the same ending?
They certainly are not equal. Who was Cain’s father? Who was the savage in the Amazon River basin’s father? Who was the people of India, who believe in reincarnation, father? Whose father would they have if an individual from another race married into the line of Cain.
Would they have Cain’s father too? If you had the father of Cain as your father, wouldn’t you try and hide that fact. Or would you identify yourself as being the son of the devil? Wouldn’t it be easier if you just identify yourself by who your mother was and not your father?
Genesis 1:27 “So God created man [Adam] in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”
Psalm 147:19-20:
19) “He showed His WORD unto Jacob, His statutes and his ordinances unto Israel.
20) He hath not dealt so with any nation; and as for His ordinances, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD.”
Man [Adam] is commanded to not allow “strangers” [foreigners] in their midst. Why is that? “Man, or Adam” [#120 Strong’s] and “stranger or foreigner” [#5237 Strong’s] are not synonyms for each other. They do not have the same beginning. They do not have the same ending. The Israelites were commanded to be a separatist nation. They were to live free from the “strangers” [foreigners’ #5237] that were upon the Earth:
Exodus 23:33 “They [Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites, and Jebusites] shall not dwell in thy land, lest they make thee sin against Me; for if thou serve their gods, it will surely be a snare unto thee.”
Are these same “strangers” or “foreigners” living in the lands of Israel today? Is this right or wrong? If it is wrong, isn’t our God going to punish us for violating His law? If it is correct, isn’t our God going to bless us? So, it is an important question.
Remember what we learned in a sermon that I gave recently. Patrisse Cullors, one of the three queer founders of Black Lives Matter Inc., said that her ancestors go back over 8,000 years ago. She thus admitted that she couldn’t be a descendant of Adam and that she has very strange gods in comparison to our LORD and Savior. She worships and is influenced by her ancestors and evil spirits. All strangers in the world, no exceptions, have strange gods.
“Strangers” or “foreigners” [#5237 Strong’s], like one of the founders of BLM, are not descendants of Adam and Eve. They were not made in the image of the LORD God. They are made in the image of their gods. If they both, Adam and his descendants and “foreigners” and their descendants, are integrated, who will serve whose God or gods? They both have different gods. Who will they serve?
“Man” [Adam] will learn the “stranger’s” ways and worship his gods, not the other way around. Do we celebrate Tabernacles or Christ’s Mass? Do we remember Passover or Easter? Does God choose His elect or does man have a part in who He chooses? Was the LORD God the literal king over the nation of Israel or was He the king over the whole world? Did the LORD God lead His people over their enemies in battles? Where there times when He said that battle is not yours, but Mine?
Do we have a practice of allowing false gods into our lives? This will cause “Man” [Adam] to turn against his own God and his God will destroy him [Adam] because of it.
Numbers 33:52-56:
52) “Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land [the Canaanite nations] from before you, and destroy all their stone idols, and destroy all their melted images, and demolish all their high places;
53) And ye shall dispossess the inhabitants of the land, and dwell therein; for I have given you the land to possess.
54) And ye shall divide the land by families; and to the more ye shall give the more inheritance and to the fewer ye shall give the less inheritance; every man’s inheritance shall be in the place where his lot falleth, according to the tribes of your fathers ye shall inherit.
55) But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then it shall come to pass that those whom ye let remain of them shall be barbs in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell.
56) Moreover, it shall come to pass that I shall do unto you, as I thought to do unto them.”
The “stranger” or “alien” or “foreigner” [#5237], arrives in Adam’s nations with his foreign gods. You can’t have one without the other. What the Arminian and Calvinists have failed to accomplish is that not only must they tell “Man” [Adam] about his own God, the WORD; but they must also tell “Man” [Adam] the danger of worshiping the gods the “strangers” or “foreigners” [#5237] have brought with them. Arminianism and Calvinism failed big time at this point. And this has helped lead our nation to its total destruction.
Answers in Genesis and the other universal religions fail to see this point too. They say that interracial marriage can’t happen, because there is only one race, i.e. the hu(e)man race. But they are wrong. Their conclusion is that God approves of interracial marriages if both spouses are “Christians.” But both interracial spouses can’t be true “Christians”, if they have different fathers, i.e. the first father in their seed line.
Adam was the original head of the Adamic race; Jesus the Christ was the final head of the Adamic race. What Adam lost for his race was restored in total, and then some, by the final head. It was restored to the Adamic race only. Jesus the Christ not only died for the sins of His race in the past, but He also died for the sins of His race in the future. Jesus the Christ, by His death and resurrection, restored eternal life to His covenant people.
WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO OUR CHURCHES?
What denomination did you go to when you were a youth? Was it a Southern Baptist, American Baptist, Independent Baptist, Landmark Baptist, Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox Catholic, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Methodist, Pentecostal, Church of Christ, Mennonites, Lutheran, Congregational, etc.? They all have changed drastically in the last half century on the major doctrines. And the change was toward more heresy, not less. Most of these former Protestant denominations do not teach much on God’s law; but it doesn’t really matter; for their members don’t follow the Laws anyway.
But there used to be more of an intuitive belief in God’s Law than now. Let me give you two personal examples.
My parents were raised in different denominations as children. My father was raised Methodist, while my mother was raised Southern Baptist. After they got married, they joined and became an intimate part of an American Baptist Church. This church taught that God’s laws were nailed to the cross of Jesus when He was sacrificed for His people. In other words, there was no law of God that remained for us to keep.
But my parents had an intuitive view of a part of God’s law. I do not know where they got it, unless God put it in their hearts. But they had it. I will give you two examples:
- We were all sitting around the kitchen table eating one of our daily suppers. The kitchen table was where we ate our normal, everyday meal. If we had guests, we ate at the dining room table.
There was my mom and dad, my older brother and my younger sister, Joyce. I don’t remember what the conversation was about, but suddenly, my father made this statement to all three of his children. My brother was around 14 years old; I was 12 and my sister was eight. He just said,
“If any of you brings home a person of another race to marry, you will be disbarred from this family.”
Where did that come from? I never knew. It was the first time that I had heard my father speak on a racial issue. But my father was serious. I believe he would have kept this law.
It was the only time that he mentioned it. He only said this one time. He never repeated it. We never talked about it. He said it, and it was his law. But he made his point. We never even dated anyone of another race, except for my sister. She dated a Jewish fellow a couple of times. That should have been totally forbidden, but it wasn’t. My parents didn’t consider the Jews a different race. They were badly mistaken.
I went to a very large middle-high school. It had 3,500 students in the six grades. The student body was split evenly between Catholics, Jews and Protestants. There were probably less than ten individuals of other races than the ones I already mentioned that were enrolled in my school. But with integration, that swiftly changed.
- The second incident. My mother hired several “colored” women, one at a time, to come to our house, once a week, to help her iron, wash clothes and clean the house. My parents paid her a decent salary and even drove her home, if she missed her bus. They treated all their helpers very good. Two of them were with us for a long time. One about eight years; the other ten.
I don’t know of anyone who hires a helper (especially of another race) to help them clean on a regular basis. I suppose there are, but I am unaware of it. Times change.
WHAT HAPPENED?
The church that we went to, when I was a youth, was entirely a white church. Most of them were in those days. But as I got older, and went to college, when I returned to the church that my parents went to, they were beginning to have some “colored” people come. It was slow at first, but it had started.
The city of Cincinnati was changing very rapidly. The government was building the interstates, I-75 and I-71. Therefore, the city had to tear down blocks and blocks of low-income housing to make room for the interstate roads. And they had to tear down the professional baseball stadium – Crosley field, and replaced it with a new stadium in a new location by the river. Besides this, they decided to build a new football stadium too, as the Cincinnati Bengals had just arrived.
Much of downtown was changed. The low-income housing was torn down. Where were the people who lived in these homes and low-income housing developments going to live? Most of the people who lived in these low-income homes that were destroyed were where a lot of the “colored” races lived. It was mostly segregated at this time.
But the national laws were changing too. My school, after I graduated, very quickly went from predominately white students to mainly black students. Withrow, another white high school, did the same thing. Western Hills, another white high school followed in the same tracks. Within ten years, all seven high schools in Cincinnati were predominately black. There used to only one; Taft High School. And now, all seven of them were.
Now the whites either go to a parochial, charter or private school or move out of the city of Cincinnati. Even my parent’s church moved out from where they were. They sold the church building to a black church, and moved about ten miles to the north, where they are today. Even my parents moved. The poor had no choice. They had to stay.
OLIVER BROWN ET AL VS. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOPEKA HAPPENED
In my eighth-grade civic class, we had a very usual teacher. First, she was Jewish. And she was as eccentric as any teacher I ever had in her dealings with the students in her classes. She was a little elderly lady. One of her trademark moves was that she would throw a “wool” ball at students who were talking (when they were not supposed to). Another of her eccentric ways was that she would go into the boy’s bathroom if she thought there was smoking or other school violations going on. And most importantly, she said something that I never heard anyone else ever say, before or since.
The year was 1955. Something major happened the previous year. I didn’t think much of what she said until very recently. I totally ignored it. I had other interests at the time. I was in the eighth grade. I didn’t even understand what she was saying. But after almost a half century, I finally agreed with her. It is not many times that I agree with what a Jew says. But after over 50 years I agree with Mrs. Fine’s statement. She said:
“Brown vs. Board of Education was the most important Supreme Court decision in the United States up to this time (1955). This court decision will change the face of America forever. And practically nobody realizes it.”
Fifty-eight years ago, I saw on television the federal troops walk two black students to a major university. Facing federalized Alabama National Guard troops, Alabama Governor George Wallace ended his blockade of the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa. The date was June 11, 1963.
George Wallace, one of the most controversial politicians in United States history, was elected governor of Alabama in 1962 under an ultra-segregationist platform. In his 1963 inaugural address, he promised his followers: “Segregation now! Segregation tomorrow! Segregation forever!”
I should have known what my eighth-grade teacher had meant after this occurred. But I didn’t. The Supreme Court had declared the decision of the Brown vs. Board of Education case unanimously; 9-0. But when Fred Vinson, the chief justice was on the Court, the vote was 3-6 for. Shortly after he was murdered (to the main media he had a heart attack) the vote changed. What happened? The Supreme Court changed its vote from 3-6 to 9-0? That’s a change of six votes; that was almost impossible on the Supreme Court!
The answer lies in the justices’ knowledge that Fred Vinson had died because of his opposition to Brown. The other judges knew that tremendous pressure would be leveed against them if they didn’t switch their allegiance to the new Warren-Frankfurter Court. So, being cowards and traitors, or simply bribed, they changed their minds. They kept themselves from being murdered, but the Jews won; America lost.
For the NAACP, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People was not a black organization at all. Never has been. It was this organization that brought this case to the Supreme Court. But it was not a black issue. It was whether the United States would obey its covenant God or serve other gods.
The NAACP president was a Jew by the name of Joel Springarn and the entire budget of the NAACP was donated by Jews. These organizations included the Anti-Defense League, American Civil Liberties Union, the American Jewish Congress and other groups which had spent million of dollars to promote communist subversion in America.
The lawyer for the NAACP – a black named Thurgood Marshall, was a front for the legal brain of the NAACP who was the Jew Jack Greenberg. Marshall was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Lyndon Johnson, who had promised to appoint a negro to the Court. But there was no vacancy at that time. But Johnson forced one of the court justices to resign or his mafia connections would be exposed by the FBI. He was promised that his son, Ramsey Clark would be promoted to Attorney General of the United States as a result of his resignation. He resigned, and Marshall was appointed the new judge.
On and one it goes. There has been much more corruption in the United States ever since the Jews arrived. That is what Germany discovered in the 1930s, and that is what America will eventually discover too. For there is the same thing going on in America today that happened in the Weimar Republic just before the Nazis came to power. The Jews are naturally parasitic; that is one reason they, and they alone, had been kicked out of practically every city, county and country in Europe.
The Jews, not the blacks, destroyed the quality of education in all of America’s schools. Look at what Eustace Mullins wrote about the effects of BROWN VS. BOARD OF EDUCATION decision:
“America’s public schools have been corrupted. Generations of white American children have been destroyed, resulting in inarticulate, functionally illiterate, mumbling youth who are probably on drugs and who are incapable of caring about what is happening to themselves or to this nation. In these blackboard jungles teachers are warned not to wear any jewelry or to carry any funds except lunch money, and never to go into the hall or to the restroom alone. This chaos was deliberately created by the Supreme Court decision of May 17, 1954 in favor of BROWN VS. BOARD OF EDUCATION, which ordered Federal forced racial integration of every public school in the United States.”
This decision was a complete reversal of the position of the Supreme Court precedent on segregated schools which had stood for more than fifty years. The case lasted for over a year and had taken the place of PLESSY VS. FERGUSON which had stabled “separate but equal” doctrine of public education. It was not the power of the legal arguments which led to the anti-white decision on BROWN VS. BOARD OF EDUCATION, but a more direct and compelling force – the murder of the Chief Justice, Fred Vinson. This decision had turned the country upside down.
Ultimately, the Court embraced the delaying strategy, and ordered the cases re-argued in the following term. The Court ordered the parties to address five questions, largely drafted by Justice Frankfurter. By the time the cases were re-argued, Chief Justice Vinson was dead, and Chief Justice Earl Warren was sitting in his seat.
Chief Justice Fred Vinson, who supposedly died of a heart attack, was replaced by Earl Warren by President Dwight Eisenhower. The Earl Warren era of the Supreme Court began. The Constitution makes no provision for public schools. Not only are public schools an unwarranted intrusion into personal privacy, but they are the main thrust on the Federal Government’s unrelenting campaign to seize complete control over every aspect of the life of the individual.
This explains the Federal campaign to wipe out private schools all over the United States. The Supreme Court ruled that no private schools can “discriminate” in admitting pupils. This ruling not only wiped out all racial, moral, or religious restrictions, but it doomed the private schools economically. This Supreme Court ruling meant that no private school could refuse to admit any pupil even if he cannot pay one cent towards his education. Such a refusal would be “economic discrimination “under the terms of the Supreme Court.
My eighth-grade teacher was right!
SOUTHERN BAPTISTS CHANGE THEIR DOCTRINE
“Since at least 1995, the church has been publicly repenting for its history of racial discrimination. Arguably, it has made progress; minority participation in Southern Baptist congregations has blossomed. Yet after two decades, the public-policy arm of the church is still focused almost exclusively on conservative social issues, rather than topics like poverty and mass incarceration, which have a significant impact on racial disparities in America. As the demographics of the church change, the Southern Baptists will have to reckon with these issues—or, perhaps, face future decades of division within their churches.” – The Atlantic.
At one time the Southern Baptist Church, and most churches, were basically if not entirely white. Billy Graham was the preacher who was chosen to eliminate this racial imbalance.
But what about the Temple, the House of God, in the Old Testament? There was a large separate area that was referred to as the Court of the other nations. It was called this because the other foreign nations who visited Jerusalem, were forbidden to go any further than the outer court. They were excluded from entering any of the inner courts, and there were warning signs written in both Greek and Latin that were placed near the entrance giving strict warning that the penalty for such trespass was death. The Romans permitted the Judean authorities to carry out the death penalty for this offence, even if the offender were a Roman citizen.
Here is what the sign said:
“NO FOREIGNER
IS TO GO BEYOND THE BALUSTRADE
AND THE PLAZA OF THE TEMPLE ZONE.
WHOEVER IS CAUGHT DOING SO
WILL HAVE HIMSELF TO BLAME
FOR HIS DEATH
WHICH WILL FOLLOW.”
Question: If in Israel’s history there was no foreigner allowed to enter the inner court of the House of God, why in Israel’s history today are foreigners allowed to enter the churches?
But the Atlantic magazine totally ignored the Jew’s role in slavery in the United States. Both in bringing it here and in keeping it. And they ignore the fact that there were 3776 black slave owners who owned 12,907 slaves in the United States. It doesn’t fit their agenda.
“But the issue of racial reconciliation always loomed. In 1995, Land [President of the Convention] orchestrated the Convention’s first official apology for its role in perpetuating slavery and racial discrimination in America. ‘We lament and repudiate historic acts of evil such as slavery from which we continue to reap a bitter harvest,’ the resolution read. ‘We apologize to all African-Americans [even those who owned slaves?] for condoning and/or perpetuating individual and systemic racism in our lifetime.’ The resolution was timed to coincide with the 150th anniversary of the denomination’s founding—and intended to mark a turning point in Southern Baptist history.” -- The Atlantic.
What will they say to the descendants of black slave owners in America? The same thing that they said to Vice-President Kamala Harris. Nothing. But will they say to the black descendants of the black slave owners that they should, nevertheless, receive reparations for their slavery even though they were owned by blacks? They just assume that this situation never existed.
And to test your knowledge of black slavery we will ask you a simple question: What percentage of black slaves, that were taken from the continent of Africa, entered the southern states of America? Many entered Brazil and other South America countries; the Caribbean Islands as well as the southern states. The answer?
- Over 75%
- Between 50% and 74%
- Between 25% and 49%
- Between 10% and 24%
The answer will be given shortly.
But the Bible teaches that the Israelites were slaves many times in their history: Egypt, Syria, Assyria, Edom, Babylonia, etc. The Arabs and Jews were/are the biggest slave traders in the world. As Louis Farrakhan teaches that it was the Jews who were the main slave boat owners and controllers of the usury banks that perpetuated bringing slaves from Africa to other places in the world.
Do you know that the Nation of Islam believes that the blacks should be a separate nation? That black people should be able to form their own nation. And that interracial marriage and race mixing should be prohibited. They are much more correct than the average Protestant church of today.
Now, the answer to the slave question. All the possible choices were wrong. It was only 3.8%. There were 12.5 million black slaves captured and put on boats to be shipped to different destinations. There were 10.7 million slaves that survived. And only 388,000 entered the southern states of America. And it was Jewish control of the ships and interest on their loans to certain countries that demanded that slavery be continued in these different destinations.
CONCLUSION
Why did the Jews support Oliver Brown in his lawsuit? It is because integration of the schools is one of the early steps in the destruction of Jacob. Along with integration of the armed forces, professional sports, businesses and where the different races would live; they would all lead to racial intermarriage which violates God’s commandment. God promised that he would destroy those Israelites who violate these laws. The result of following this evil way would cause God to destroy Jacob/Israel without Esau having to fight him. If miscegenation goes on for too long, there will be no pure seeded Israelite left. And that is the goal of communism.
Nehemiah 13:3 “When the heard the law, they separated from Israel all the mixed (mongrel) multitude.”
Blessed be the LORD God of Israel.