What I Think Ragnar Lothbrok Is Thinking Going Into Episode 8

Okay, considering that King Horik backed out on the agreement between himself , Ragnar and Jorl  Borg to raid together Ragnar didn’t trust him after that. It didn’t slip either one’s mind that after doing so they were going to be leaving an insulted and angry Jorl Borg behind where Ragnar’s town and family were going to be left alone, without Ragnar and his men. King Horik dissed Jorl Borg for that very reason. He knew that Jorl Borg would take revenge on Ragnar’s town and in turn Ragnar would take revenge on Jorl Borg. That was King Horik’s way of getting rid of Jorl Borg. At the same time that is exactly why Ragnar though forgiving his brother Rollo for betraying him and fighting against him with Jorl Borg, that is why Ragnar wouldn’t let Rollo raid with them. He was leaving Rollo behind to protect his family and by doing so giving Rollo a chance to regain some honor and self respect. Now King Horik had more in mind to his plan, him setting Ragnar up to have to return home from their raid in England to save his family from Jorl Borg he would be left to raid and plunder in Wessex, he isn’t really keen on Ragnar’s thoughts of making peace with King Eckbert to obtain land to be farmed. King Horik wants treasure and slaughter.

About Ragnar’s reaction when King Horik asked that the ‘Priest’ or Athelstan, at first I thought Ragnar felt betrayed by Athelstan when he agreed to stay behind to help King Horik. But thinking about how King Horik slit the throat of the monk standing next to the Bishop of King Eckberts after Ragnar made a deal and gave his word they wouldn’t kill any more Englishmen if King Eckbert would agree to talk which he did, Ragnar knew right there that King Horik wanted to raid and not to farm, not only did that act assure they would fight the King it also made Ragnar’s word no good, which very much mattered to him. Back to the Priest, Ragnar must have been concerned for Athelstan’s safety after seeing the cold heart of King Horik when it comes to killing unarmed men. What exactly King Horik’s reasons for keeping the priest their I am not sure of. Maybe to hurt Ragnar?

Anyway….we’ll see what Ragnar really does to or with King Horik after he kills Jorl Borg tonight…

Jesus: Humble, Kind, Loving and Forgiving or Arrogant, Oppressive and Intolerant

Too often when the cruelty of God is pointed out to Christians, they respond with statements like ‘we are New Testament people’  or ‘I follow the teachings of Christ’. Conservative Christians speak out against same-sex marriage or stand behind God’s condemnation of homosexuality there are always those Christians who get offended and defensive arguing that not all Christians share those judgmental and hateful beliefs. They will say that Christ was loving, tolerant and accepting of gay men and the disabled, diseased or deformed.  These Christians will also say that Christ wants ‘Peace on earth’ and teaches mankind to be compassionate, kind, unbiased and humble.Humility is emphasized. They most definitely are not speaking about the Jesus on the New Testament.

Matthew 10:35 – 39 35

35Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword.

36For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law ,against her mother in law.

37And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.

38He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

39And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

Luke 12:51 – 53

 51Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.

53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

That is not a peaceful or humble Jesus.

Romans 1:24 – 32

24Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts t impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,

25because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 

27and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 

29The were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips,

30slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,  

31foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

32Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

1 Corinthians 6:9 -10

9Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, no men who practice homosexuality.

10nor thieves,nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. I would say Jesus shares his father’s views on homosexuals and lesbians, including that their sin is punishable by death.

That is not an accepting or tolerant Jesus.

Matthew 15:4

4For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’

This is not a loving kind Jesus.

1 Corinthians 11:3 –  15

3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

Ephisians 5:22 -24

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

1 Timothy 2:9 – 14

9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

This is an oppressor of women, not a fair and just Jesus.


The Manhattan Declaration


First a note, I refuse to capitalize the words catholic, christian, christianity, bible or god. That being said….

I recently became aware of this document when researching the current Hobby Lobby Supreme Court Case. This document written by

Drafting Committee
Robert George Professor, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University
Timothy George Professor, Beeson Divinity School, Samford University
Chuck Colson Founder, the Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview (Lansdowne, VA)

This is a committee of the catholic church and evangelical christians.

is a vital document used in cases like the Hobby Lobby suit and the recently vetoed bill that made to Gov.  Brewer’s desk here in Arizona that looked to allow christian businesses to refuse services to gay customers.

Instead of stating all the obvious civil rights issues I am going to dissect this document using their bible to do it.

This documents preamble begins with citing that theirs is a 2000 year old tradition of resisting tyranny. I stand firm that the worst tyrannical leader in history is god. They try to add to their self-righteousness by acknowledging, very vaguely, any past ‘indiscretions’ by some christian institutions, and claim a christian heritage from those that rescued discarded babies from the trash heaps of Roman cities, those who risked their own lives by helping those struck with the plague and those that rather than deny their faith died in the coliseum. They continue on to say that it was christians that saved not only their literature but that and the art of western culture after barbarians invaded Europe. They don’t however say when.  Here I must begin to interject. History very clearly tells us that the church burned unapproved art that got by their all-seeing eyes to be created in the first place. And the church is solely responsible for the book burnings of non christian literature all throughout history. They also claim sole responsibility for ending the slave trade in Europe. Next is the boast of the hundreds of societies that help the poor, imprisoned and child laborer. I stand alongside the late great Christopher Hitchens that christians have made a career out of the exploitation of the poor.They even go so far as to claim that it was the christians that challenged the royalty of Europe that made modern democracy possible. Really? Wow. But there’s more. They say they have a devotion to human dignity by working to end human trafficking and sexual slave trades. Next is one of my favorite claims. The work they do in Africa to help end Aids. Help? Sure with conditions. The church has conditions that if aids victims practice abstinence and monogamy they will receive their help. They actually claim scientific studies show that the use of condoms has not stopped the spread of aids AT ALL. They have the nerve not to distribute condoms because it promotes promiscuity and does nothing to prevent the spread of aids. They have that audacity to enforce their contraception beliefs on victims of aids.

Now for their declaration, they declare to fight for the rights of the unborn, the sick and the elderly. In other words against abortion, contraception, DNR’s  and assisted suicide. Then there’s the protection of the sacred institution of marriage where they don’t stop at same-sex marriages but continue marching on against divorce, against premarital sex, against cohabitation and against polygamy.

First they tear into stem cell research claiming that there will be mass production of embryos produced to be destroyed. This boils down to the when life begins debate and the actual ‘production’ of embryos. This is not conception from procreation.  And one could argue that the embryos are not destroyed they are transformed into new life as new cells. This is a practice that saves lives. It can prevent people from suffering cure a number of horrific diseases. They are being hypocrites. Their issue with this is really about science creating life instead of god. The argument that global warming can’t be true because only god can destroy the earth man cannot is behind this view, theirs is the view that mankind cannot create life only god can. Well obviously since the splitting of the atom and the industrial revolution mankind can destroy the earth, and obviously science has proved through stem cell research that we can also create life.

Medically speaking life does not begin until the embryo becomes a fetus. That’s my argument there.  Here though I must throw in my question as to who exactly is going to support all these unwanted children? Who is going to raise them? If women get abortions because they can’t care for them stopping the abortion isn’t going to change the fact that these children won’t be cared for. They will either be condemned to a life of abuse, neglect and poverty. But then again a life time of suffering is essential in christian dogma. And what about the pregnancies that are a result of rape and incest. I refuse to adhere to statistics that are supposed to reflect the number of these pregnancies because it is a fact that only a small percentage of rapes are reported let alone make it to court. That however is another issue but a directly related one. Now, if the christians could fix that problem…they can however fix the other problem of preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place by not fighting the use of contraception. Without contraception, even in the perfect christian delusional world where only married people have sex denying women the ability to control how many children they will have and when is condemning us to a life of legalized prostitution. This is the ultimate oppression of women, it results in a womans inability to obtain an education and to embark on a career or even have a minimum wage job in an economy where it is next to impossible to live above the poverty line without two incomes. And lets not leave out the fact that this ensures countless numbers of children that will be born into and live in poverty lapse of proper nutrition and education. Oh but wait, without the poor who would the christians exploit. Seems to be a little to convenient for their cause.

Now to assisted suicide. This is one of the most blatant forms of abuse there is. These servants of god who claim to spend their life putting an end to suffering are doing anything but yet again. Forcing a person to live in pain is well, fucked up. Speaking as a person who has chronic pain due to spinal stenosis and who has a family history of early onset Alzheimer’s they have no right to condemn me. If I inherit the Alzheimer’s gene, which it is a sure bet either me or one of my two sisters will, I have asked my family to either help me end it when I lose all moments of clarity or to look the other way when I decide it is time. How dare they say that they would be saving me by forcing me to live in a state of dementia and undeniable pain. How dare they impose that on me. And what right have they got to tell anyone that their lives would be of quality if they were only breathing because of artificial means. Aren’t they playing god here themselves? If god has ceased my breathing let me die, not that I believe god has that ability or uses it, who are they to play god?

Now let’s look at their views on marriage and divorce.  I have always defended the Westboro church, you know the god hates fags people, in that they are right. Not right in their actions but in that god does hate fags. The bible very clearly states that he who lies with another man as he lie with a woman shall be put to death. I don’t think there is any way to misinterpret that. This bullshit they spew about not hating the sinner just the sin, well that doesn’t and can’t apply here. God offers no forgiveness of options of repent and be forgiven on this one. This sin is to god so bad that when Lot offered up his virgin daughters to the men that wanted to rape the male guests in his house god destroyed the city of Gomorrah for that attempt of the sin of sodomy but spared Lot before doing so for offering his daughters rather than commit the sin of not protecting a guest in one’s house. That says to me pretty plainly which god sees as the greater sin. For that matter offering up daughters against their will is something god did from the beginning. He himself in a sense raped Mary, or at least his spirit did when it impregnated her without her consent. And I will use scripture against them as they are using scripture for their defense.

Throughout the book of Genesis alone there are numerous condoned, encouraged and even ordered occasions where barren wives gave maidservants to their husbands so that they could have children.  Sarah did it for Abraham,  even after he let the Pharaoh of Egypt take her after lying and saying that she was his sister so that the Pharaoh wouldn’t kill him so that he could have his wife. Sarah gave Abram a woman named Hagar. After Sarah regretted this decision Abram told Sarah she could deal with Hagar as she pleased and Hagar ended up fleeing from them. Well god directly intervenes by sending an angel to convince Hagar to return telling her that she will give birth to a son and promises her many more if she obeys. She does. Ismael is born. Then god decides that he will give Sarah who is not of the age that she has ceased to bleed, god gives back her bleeding so that she too can conceive and give Abraham another son. I must add here the fact that Sarah is also Abraham’s half-sister, they have the same father but different mothers. This decadence is what the christians claim will happen if they don’t put an end to same-sex marriages and sex out of wed lock. Abraham’s story is not over yet. He sent a servant to the house of his kindred to fetch a wife for his son Isaac. It is important to note that Abraham insists that his son marry a daughter from his father’s house. Abraham’s servant took an oath to take his master’s brother’s daughter to be Isaacs wife. In other words Isaac was to marry his first cousin. Out of this marriage comes a son, Jacob. Jacob wants to marry a girl named Rachel but to do so he must be her fathers servant for seven years, which he does. He ends up getting tricked into marrying the older sister Leah but asks to live seven more years as a servant to ‘pay’ for Rachel which he does. Well Leah bears Jacob children but Rachel is barren so Rachel gives him her handmaid Bilhah and she bears Jacob sons. Then when Leah could no longer bear sons she gave her handmaid Zilpah to Jacob to wife and conceive more sons. Their decadence goes even deeper but don’t relate here. Jacob is rewarded with wealth and lands for his fruitful multiplying. And we’re still in Genesis. This is the sanctity of marriage that christians are fighting to preserve?



Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham

Bill Nye accepted a challenge from Ken Ham to engage in a Evolution vs. Creation debate.  I gotta say Bill Nye proved to be a worthy anti – creation spokesperson.  By the same token, Ken Ham proved to be a worthy anti – creation spokesperson. Yes that was ironic sarcasm.

Even if you were neutral on this subject before watching this debate and Bill Nye failed to sway to the evolutionary side, Ken Ham definitely would have swayed you to the evolutionary side. He was very articulate on his points and clearly explained exactly what it was that he as a creationist believed. He was very informative and specific as too why he as a creationist believed that the earth was 6017 years old. He was able to quote scripture by book and verse which made the verification of his ‘facts’ easy. I use the word facts with a sarcastic tone because Ken Ham believes that The Bible is absolute factual and accurate historical time line of God’s Creation of Earth, mankind and all events which man has born witness to since his creation.

Ken Hams focal point of his argument is that Evolution cannot be proven because no one can or has observed the age of the earth. He used the example that one can see or observe that the earth is not flat, that is round but that no one can see or observe how old the earth is. He also referenced the Grand Canyon by saying that on can see or observe the many layers of fossils that are there but than no one can saw or observed when they getting there. This is what he calls being an Observational Scientist and not, as he coined Bill Nye as being, a Historical  Scientist.

He stated, and I quote, “There is only one infallible dating method and that is a witness who was there – who knows everything, who told us and that is from the word of God”. My argument to Ken Ham is this. First, Moses is credited as having written the book of Genesis, and Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Moses wasn’t born until 2368 years after the Biblical date of Creation. This, according to his own ‘rules’ is not an eye witness account. This is one man saying that everything in those first books of the Old Testament is what God told him, only him…

That being said. This is how Ken Ham explained was his proof that the Biblical account is the right one for how old the earth is.

- There was no death before original sin, this was the sin committed by Adam and Eve, Adam and Eve were ‘created 6017 hundred years ago so how can there be any let alone so many ‘dead things’ that are millions of years old?

Ken Hams argument against evolution is that, according to Darwin life has one point of origin, that all life is descended from the same point of origin.

-  God commanded Noah to build the ark and on put 2 of each kind of animal he clearly said one male and one female of each KIND….2 dogs, 2 cats, 2 elephants and so on not 2 of each species of dog or for example 2 St Bernards and 2 Pit Bulls and 2 Poodles and so on. That ‘each kind after its own kind not all kinds after one kind.

Ken Ham argues that Bill Nye believes that Human remains with evidence of disease like brain tumors or cancer for example can be dated to be hundreds of thousands of years old. He states this is cannot possible be true because

- The Bible specifically says what year God punishes mankind, again for Original Sin and condemned man kind to suffer from disease and suffering proving that there was no disease or things like brain tumors before Original Sin.

Ken Ham goes on to argue against Bill Nye’s dating plants with thorns, dating the age of human teeth, i.e. canines used to enable us to eat meat and Nye’s argument that all races descended from one point of origin of one race by stating the Biblical account of God not giving man permission to eat meat until after The Flood, of God preventing man from enjoying the fruits of trees by giving them thorns and finally that The Tower of Babel is when and where God gave man many different languages and this proves that there were many different races.

Ham also argues that though science may explain how we came to be here it fails to answer the age old question of why we came to be. He offers this as the reason why….

- God created everything to prove how powerful and almighty he is. That he created everything to make us see how infinite and all knowing his power is.

Sadly Ken Ham said that when he looks in wonder at the universe around him and the Earth beneath him he realizes how small and insignificant he is in the grand scheme of things. He emphasizes how remarkable God is to bother to take the time to create man, how is created man even though knew he would sin and be fallible and not only that but that he would step into history and died for those sins so that we might have salvation. (I must stop here and point out the obvious…..so was he saying that Jesus is the Creator of Mankind, or that Jesus is God and not God’s son)? He impresses upon us to express our undying gratitude for this and that we ‘owe’ God our absolute submission and absolute faith he will have mercy and show compassion for us simple creatures…that we should bow down and worship him for his ‘all power fullness’….

Finally Ken Ham argues against the belief that when we die that is it using God saying that through salvation we will have eternal life with Christ.

To further prove Ken Ham’s idiocy….he states and I quote “Energy and matter will not and can not produce life on it’s own.


Gen Groves Writes To Oppie About Safety

Groves to Oppie Letter about Oppies Safety

General Groves showing concern for Oppenheimer’s personal safety.

Engineering the Bomb Two Mile Mesa

Engineering the BombTwo Mile Mesa


The following documentation fulfills the tenns set forth in a memorandum of agreement (MOA) between the Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Los Alamos Site
Office (LASO) and the New Mexico Historic Preservation Division regarding the demolition of buildings TA-6-1, -2, -3, -5, -6, -7, -8, and -9 at Technical Area (TA) 6, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). As per the tenns ofthe MOA, finalized on November 13,2003, Volume I of this report includes a history and description of TA-6. Appendices to Volume I include historic building inventory fonns with selected photographs and building drawings (Appendix
A), maps showing TA-6′s construction history and the location of eligible and non-eligible properties (Appendix B), oral interview infonnation (Appendix C), and a listing of drawings on file at LANL for the eight buildings listed in the MOA (Appendix D). A set of indexed archival photographs of the MOA properties is included in Volume 2.

Einstien’s Letter To The President

Einstein Letter To President

He warns against the building of Atomic Weapons

Robert R Brownlee


This is the website of Dr. Robert R Brownlee.

Robert R. Brownlee has degrees from Sterling College, the University of Kansas, and Indiana University. His majors were principally in Astronomy and Astrophysics. With the exception of a year as Assistant Professor of Astronomy at UCLA, he spent his career at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, retiring in l992 to Loveland, Colorado. He was a navigator of B-29′s during WWII, and was on the island of Tinian in the Mariannas at the end of the war. His honors and awards include being a National Foundation Fellow, a University Fellow, a Swain Fellow, and having an Honorary Doctor of Science degree from Sterling College. He was given the Distinguished Associate Award of the Department of Energy in 1993. At Los Alamos, he was an Alternate Division Leader of the Nuclear Test Division, and the Division Leader of the Geosciences Division. He had many duties associated with the Joint Task Forces responsibile for nuclear atmospheric testing in the Pacific, and was the Scientific Deupty Commander of Joint Task Force Eight at the time of its inactivation in 1972. He was also a member of the US Delegation to the United Nations for the Geothermal Energy Program.


The Truman Papers

Russell to Truman telegram

Telegram, Richard Russell to Harry S. Truman, August 7, 1945  Senator Russell urging Truman to cease appeals to Japan for peace and to destroy their cities and bring them to their knees after what they did to Pearl Harbor.

Truman to Russell

Telegram from Truman to Judge Russell expressing Truman’s regret for having to wipe whole populations because their leaders were uncivilized and pigheaded.

truman notes

Handwritten notes by President Truman about making the decision for total destruction of the Japanese and how he justifies it.


.Notes regarding meeting

These are notes of a meeting where giving Japan a chance to surrender via threat of the bomb were discussed.

Henry Stimson to Harry S. Truman, with handwritten Truman reply
on reverse, July 30, 1945.

Stimson Ayers paper

Press release by Henry Stimson, August 6, 1945 Concerning the development of the bomb and it’s projected use.


Stimson was Truman’s Secretary of War, this correspondence was regarding a secret matter concerning foreign relations.

Truman and the A Bomb

This states that Truman had no knowledge of the Atomic bomb before Roosevelt died.

Truman and cravert

Correspondence between Harry S. Truman and Samuel
Cavert, August 11, 1945.  S Cavert belonged to the American Council of Churches and sent Truman a letter asking that Japan be given a chance to surrender before the use of the bomb, and Truman responded.


Detonator and Plutonium Recovery Research at Two-Mile Mesa Site (TA-6)

Engineering the BombTwo Mile Mesa

The following documentation fulfills the tenns set forth in a memorandum of agreement (MOA) between the Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Los Alamos Site
Office (LASO) and the New Mexico Historic Preservation Division regarding the demolition of buildings TA-6-1, -2, -3, -5, -6, -7, -8, and -9 at Technical Area (TA) 6, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). As per the tenns ofthe MOA, finalized on November 13,2003, Volume I of this report includes a history and description of TA-6. Appendices to Volume I include historic building inventory fonns with selected photographs and building drawings (Appendix
A), maps showing TA-6′s construction history and the location of eligible and non-eligible properties (Appendix B), oral interview infonnation (Appendix C), and a listing of drawings on file at LANL for the eight buildings listed in the MOA (Appendix D). A set of indexed archival photographs of the MOA properties is included in Volume 2.

Los Alamos Plutonium Workers Tell All

Plutonium Workers Share Experiences

This article from Los Alamos Science talks to Los Alamos Plutonium workers who have been involved in accidents with the element.

Living At Los Alamos

Living at la

Article about living in Los Alamos during the Manhattan Project.

X Lovato Field

overlooksports baseball

My dad, Xavier Lovato died in 1974. This is the softball field named after him in Los Alamos.

The letter from the Men’s Softball Association requesting the naming of the field to X Lovato Field.

X Lovato Field NamingX Lovato Field 2



Cost of Living In Los Alamos In 1943

Cost of Living in Los Alamos, 1943

This is the basis for charges for food, utilities, rent and such during the Manhattan Project

Arrival at Los Alamos Procedure

Arrival Procedure

This document is dated 1943

Manhattan Project Medical Facilities

Medical Facilities

This document discusses the facilities in Los Alamos in 1943 – 1944

Lack of Racism In Los Alamos


This article is an interview with a black man who worked in Los Alamos from 1945 through the early sixties. He talks about how he didn’t experience racial prejudice there.

Jack White

Jack, Jack and More Jack

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 504 other followers


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 504 other followers

%d bloggers like this: