Thursday, October 20, 2016

Review of The Deep South Says “Never” -- Part 2

Review of The Deep South Says “Never”
-- Part 2
Thomas Allen

    In Chapter 3, Martin describes the reaction of the Border States to the Supreme Court’s desegregation decision. They quickly surrendered unconditionally. [Such surrender did not lessen the frequency and intensity of racial strife and riots. If anything, surrendered encouraged them. During the 1950s most of the racial strife was Whites assailing Blacks. However, defeat after defeat eventually demoralized and cowed Whites while victory after victory emboldened Blacks. After Congress formerly joined the Communist integrationist movement in 1964 with the Civil Rights Act, Blacks began pushing and rioting in earnest. Thus, from the early 1960s to today most racial strife has been Blacks assailing Whites.] He focuses on Maryland, Missouri, and Kentucky and concludes with a discussion of Tennessee.
    To comply with the desegregation decree, Baltimore decided to allow “any child [to] attend any school in the city” (p. 80). [Later, courts would object to such a solution because allowing freedom of choice did not integrate schools as fully as judges desired.]
    St. Louis’ approach to desegregation was to redraw the boundaries of the school districts (pp. 84-85). [Later, federal judges would not accept this approach unless the borders of the school district were drawn to integrate schools sufficiently to satisfy the judges’ integrationist lust.]
    Martin quotes Philip Hickey, superintendent of the St. Louis school system: “We think we’re through it. It’s working even better than we expected” (p. 85). [Could Hickey have really been this naive or ignorant? They were only beginning. The worse was yet to come. Apparently, he did not realize that the long-run goal of desegregation was to bring down the White race, even if it also destroyed the Black race, and by that, bring down the United States, Western Civilization, and Christianity.]
    Kentucky offered more resistance than Maryland or Missouri. However, it also surrendered [to federal tyranny] (pp. 85-87).
    Martin presents some of the discussions between segregationists and desegregationists in some Kentucky towns. Some people argued that the Supreme Court had made a decision and the people should obey it (87ff). [The same thing has happened with the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize homosexual “marriages” and other pervert agendas. Obeying tyrannical rulings of the Supreme Court has brought the country to the edge of destruction. One or two more such rulings will push it into the abyss of no return.] The more religious integrationists declared that desegregation, integration, was God’s will (pp. 87ff). [It may be the will of their god, but it is not the will of the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible is a Segregationist. His prophets and even His Son preached segregation from beginning to end. (V.  Integration Is Genocide, False Biblical Teachings on the Races and Interracial Marriages, People of the Flood, “Review of Segregation and Desegregation,” “A Review of The South and Christian Ethics,” “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation,” and “Is Integration a Moral Law?” all by Thomas Allen.)]
    Martin cites Omar Carmichael’s, the superintendent of the Louisville school system, promotion of desegregation. Part of his promotion included “Negro and white school interchanged assembly program. At one a Negro choir sang The Battle Hymn of the Republic while a white choir simultaneously recited the Gettysburg Address” (p. 95). [Both of them are highly anti-South. The Battle Hymn of the Republic advocates stomping out the South. The Gettysburg Address is nothing but pure political hypocrisy (v. H.L. Mencken’s comments on it in “The War”)]
    Louisville’s desegregation scheme was redrawing school district boundaries without regard to race and then allowing students to transfer to schools in other districts if they so desired. Not unsurprisingly, the NAACP objected to Louisville’s approach (p. 97). [Like all other school desegregation schemes if some federal judge decided that people did not voluntarily integrate themselves to the satisfaction of the judge, he would reject the plan — and often impose his own plan.]
    [In his description of the Border States desegregating, Martin identifies no White leader who was pushing school desegregation voluntarily sending his children to Black schools. Thus, they were and still are all hypocrites. {Some Whites have been so brainwashed and are so full of self-hate and probably subconsciously hatred for Blacks that they go out of their way to send their children to predominantly Black schools.}]
    In Chapter 4, Martin discusses some school segregationists. They include:
    –    Sam Engelhardt, leader of the Citizens’ Councils of Alabama and chairman of the Citizens’ Councils of America (pp. 105ff);
    –    Asa (Ace) Carter, a Citizens’ Councils leader in Alabama and rival of Engelhardt (pp. 107ff);
    –    John Kasper, a segregation activist and Citizens’ Councils leader from Tennessee (pp. 119ff)
    –    Robert Patterson, founder of the Citizens’ Councils movement, head of the Association of Citizens’ Councils of Mississippi, executive secretary of the Citizens’ Councils of America (pp. 123ff);
    –    J.P. Coleman, Governor of Mississippi (he was a moderate [i.e., weak] segregationists) (pp. 134ff) [Coleman seemed more of a scalawag and a quisling although not as openly as Governor Folsom of Alabama];
    –    W.J. Simmons, editor of the Citizens’ Council (pp. 137-140);
    –    John U. Barr, retired rope manufacturer from Louisiana, former vice president of the Southern States Industrial Council, and organizer of the Federation of Constitutional Government (pp. 140-141);
    –    Leander Perez, corporate lawyer and district attorney (pp. 140-142);
    –    James Eastland, U.S. Senator from Mississippi (pp. 140-142);
    –    Herman Talmadge, U.S. Senator from Georgia (p. 140).
    Carter lost his job as a radio broadcaster because:
In the broadcast, made during Brotherhood Week, Carter compared the National Conference of Christians and Jews to the Communist Party and said it favored desegregation, the Genocide Treaty, “race mongrelization,” and “dictatorial federal law to enforce integration” (p. 108).
[Carter was right — at least in the sense that the National Conference of Christians and Jews (now called  the National Conference for Community and Justice) was promoting the same agenda that the Communist Party promoted. Both fostered desegregation, i.e., integration, a policy that leads to mongrelization. Both supported the Genocide Treaty, which prohibited the eradication of a race because of its race but allowed the eradication of a race for political reason.  {Ironically, integration, especially governmentally forced integration, is contrary to the Genocide Treaty (v. Integration Is Genocide by Thomas Allen)} The Supreme Court’s desegregation ruling did lead to “dictatorial federal laws to enforce integration,” of which most proponents of that ruling support.]
    Engelhardt urged Southerners in general and Alabamians in particular to “‘talk white, think white, hire white, buy white, and remain white’” (p. 110). [For the most part, Whites have failed to heed Engelhardt’s words of wisdom. As a result, they are on the verge of losing their country, culture, and civilization. Blacks have done a much better job of talking Black, thinking Black, hiring Black, etc. Unfortunately, they have failed at keeping themselves Black as they strive to breed themselves out of existence.]
    Engelhardt offered some more sage advice: “We can’t give one inch. If we let a crack in the door, that’s it” (pp. 111-112). [The South cracked the door. Now they are on the verge of losing everything: their race, homes, religion, country, culture, and civilization. They have already lost their liberty, but most do not realize this loss.]
    Martin summarizes a speech that Congressman Grant gave at a Citizens’ Council meeting:
Announcing that he had “no apology for being here” and that he was a “friend of the Negro race,” he reviewed the legal history of the Court’s school desegregation decision. He attacked the “authorities” on whose testimony the Court had based its decision as men who belonged to Communist or Communist-dominated organizations. (Senator Eastland of Mississippi made a full dress Senate speech on this subject; it has been widely distributed by Citizens’ Councils.) He praised American greatness. He accused the State Department of trying to change American social customs in order to persuade other countries to accept “billions” that America was “giving away overseas” to thwart Russia. He said the NAACP wanted to wipe out all segregation, not only in schools and buses. This brought him to miscegenation, and he quoted prominent Negroes at length as favoring it. He said even “some white people right here in the state of Alabama in the teaching profession” believe in miscegenation. A Senate filibuster was the only hope against current “vindictive” and “punitive” civil rights legislation (pp 113-114).
[Grant spoke truthfully, but most ignored him. Thus, it was “the night they drove old Dixie down.”]
    Commenting on changes taking place in the school system prior to desegregation, Carter asks, “Is the system of education preparing our children for a competitive, free America, where there are naturally frustrations, or is it preparing them for a non-competitive, integrated, communistic slave-state?” (pp. 118-119). [With 60 years of hindsight, we now know the answer. The educational system was changed to prepare children “for a non-competitive, integrated, communistic slave-state.”] He states that a school superintendent told him that the changes were being made to “remove the competitive system and prevent frustrations” (p. 118). [Apparently, people involved in setting educational policies, including people in the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, were convinced that Blacks were intellectually inferior to Whites. Therefore, the curricula had to be dumbed down to prevent Black frustration.]
    Patterson said, “If there’s no Nigras, integration’s beautiful. A fine thing. Everybody’s for integration — for the other fellow. Resistance to integration is directly proportionate to the Nigra population” (p.126). [Polls at that time supported Patterson’s claim. Whites tended to favor integration in proportion to the lack of Blacks in their area. That is, Whites in areas with few or no Blacks favored integration much more than Whites in areas with a large Negro population compared with the White population.]
    [Patterson points out the hypocrisy of Yankees.] Senators Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota and Wayne Morse of Oregon were the strongest advocates of integration. Yet their states hardly had any Negroes with whom to integrate. Minnesota had 14,000, and Oregon had 11,000. Patterson declared:
If the North really wants to be objective, let all the Northern states bring themselves up to the national average — let each state import enough Nigras to bring its Nigra population up to 10 per cent, the national average. Minnesota needs 284,000 Nigras to bring it up to the national average. We don’t want to postpone this problem. Why doesn’t Hubert Humphrey go to his people and say, “I want you to work to provide  284,000 accommodations — schools, houses and churches — for 284,000 more Nigras that I’m goin’ to  bring in  here.”  We  realize  Senator Humphrey wants to help us or he wouldn’t be making all this racket. We’re in a better position to tell him how to help us than anyone else is. And we’re not going to tell them how to handle those Nigras. We’re not going to advocate civil rights legislation. We’re just going to share the problem since they are so willing to share the solution (p. 126).
[Of coarse, the North would never entertain such a solution. Deep down, Yankees despised Blacks; they just love them in the abstract. They did not and most still do not want to be around Blacks. To them Blacks were and are an abstraction, and not a concrete reality as they were and are in the South. Thus, they enacted the civil rights laws and related laws to encourage Blacks to stay in their place, i.e., to stay in the South. The plan worked for a few years until some renegade federal judges began enforcing the civil rights laws in the North.]
    Patterson adds, “Hubert Humphrey says we should integrate because of Russia and the cold war and the opinion of the Asiatics. So I’m to destroy my children here in Sunflower County in order to impress the Asiatics” (pp. 126-127). [That’s right! Actually, Patterson was to offer his children to bring down the Southerner. Humphrey was not going to do anything to harm the Soviet Union. He always sought to appease the Soviet Union and Communists. He was about as close as one can be to being a Communist without becoming a card-carrying member of the Communist Party. Moreover, he was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (v. “Council on Foreign Relations” by Thomas Allen) and a founder and vice president of the socialist American for Democratic Action. Humphrey promoted the New World Order with its one world government (Francis X. Gannon, Biographical Dictionary of the Left, I (1969), p. 374). {Also see, That Man from Minnesota by Joyce Press.}]
    Patterson notes that many people in the North believe in segregation. His proof is that they live in segregated neighborhoods. He adds, “It’s a pitiful thing in this nation when a man is not allowed to speak out for what he believes” (p. 127). [Such oppression has only gotten worse over the last 60 years. People have lost their jobs for speaking out.]
    Patterson remarks that changes in agriculture and the economy is making the Negro unwanted. Mechanization of agriculture and the conversion of cotton fields to pastures for cattle are driving the Negro from the land. Industrialization has not helped the Negro much. Manufacturers want skilled labor, not unskilled former farmhands. Moreover, desegregation is also making the Negro unwanted. As a result, Negroes are migrating northward. [Thus, the scheme of Yankeedom to keep the Negro in his place — in the South — has backfired.]
    About the Indians in Mississippi, Patterson says, “The Indians don’t want niggers in their schools. They’re proud their race” (p. 132).
    He remarks that the White schools that his children attend is not nearly as good as the Black school. Thus, he is a victim of prejudice (p. 132).
    Patterson thought that segregation would prevail and eventually spread to the Northern states. [Patterson was wrong. Within a few years all the schools throughout the South would be integrated. A few years after that, those in the North would be integrated. Integration did not stop with schools; it invaded every aspect of life.]
    In Chapter 5, Martin discusses how desegregation has worked in the Border States. [In short, the Border States surrendered completely and unconditionally with hardly any resistance to federal tyranny.] He discusses some problems that teachers and pupils, especially Black pupils, have had. The problems that Black pupils had were learning to behave and trying to perform at the same level as White pupils. Martin fills this chapter with praises for Black pupils and parents.
    The excuse offered by school officials and other integrationists for the lower achievement of Blacks is social and economic conditions and “inferior teaching in  the old all-Negro schools” (p. 148). [This excuse means that Black teachers are inferior to White teachers, and is, therefore, an insult to Black teachers.] For segregationists, the lack of Black achievement resulted from “inherent Negro inferiority” (p. 148). [This is the old environment verses genetics argument. The segregationists were right.  As many scientific studies show, genetics is a far more important determinant of intelligence than is environment. Genetics accounts for about 75 percent of intelligence. {V. The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray, The Inheritance of Mental Ability by Cyrll Bur, Man’s Racial Nature and Race and Politics: the Racial Controversy by H.B. Isherwood, Race Difference in Intelligence by John C. Loehlin, Major Findings from Twin Studies of Ability, Personality, and Interests by Robert C. Nichols, Racial Difference in Mental Growth and School Achievements by R. Travis Osborne. Race, Intelligence and Bias in Academe by Roger Pearson, Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective by J. Philippe Rushton, A Question of Intelligence: The IQ Debate in America by Daniel Seligman, and Integration Is Genocide by Thomas Coley Allen}
    Martin writes “[E]veryone except dedicated segregationists expect that in a few years Negroes will do as well as Whites” (p. 148). [Everyone except the dedicated segregationists were wrong. After sixty years of integration and dummying down the educational system for the benefit of Blacks, Blacks on average still lag behind Whites intellectually. Rigging the system for their benefit and to the detriment of Whites has not helped Blacks. However, it has hurt Whites and the country — thus harming Blacks.]
    Martin quotes a teacher saying, “I haven’t heard one say we’d been unfair” (p. 151). [How things have changed!]
    Martin notes how integrated sports teams destroyed resistance to integration (p. 151). [That goes to show that most people place sports above the preservation of their race.]
    In Chapter 6, Martin discusses the resistance to desegregation in the Deep South. He continues his discussion of the work of the Citizens’ Councils to prevent desegregation, the future of the Citizens’ Council, and opposition to the Citizens’ Councils. He remarks that “the Councils are essentially a middle-class movement, with a sprinkling of the top of society” (p. 155). Also, he discusses the rise of the Klan and the progress made to desegregate. Then he identifies three by-products of opposing desegregation: the rise of anti-Semitism, trouble in the labor movement, and abridgement of free speech.
    Martin writes, “Some Southerners, weary of being caricatured as a bunch of Claghorns and Kluxers and haters, wish the agitation would stop” (p. 155). [These Southerners invert the motto of North Carolina, which is “To Be Rather Than To Seem,” to “To Seem Rather Than To Be.” Their self-esteem is so low that it depends on what people whom they have never met and will never meet think of them. However, they are conceited enough to believe that these strangers will think about them. Moreover, they fail to realize that there are three types of people in this world. First are those who go with the flow, which is the majority, and do not matter. Then there are those who just want to be left alone and those who are determined not to leave them alone. As long as anyone in these two groups live, peace and harmony cannot exist.]
    Martin states, “Jews, themselves a religious minority, have traditionally tended to view sympathetically the plight of any minority” (p. 159). [One minority whom Jews do not view sympathetically and whom they have sought to destroy is the Southerner. {Many Jews in the South opposed integration and did not seek to destroy the South}Furthermore, Jews controlled the NAACP and many were Communists. Thus, segregationists gave the appearance of being “anti-Semites.” So many integrationists were Jews and so many Jews were integrationists that to oppose integrationists gave the appearance of opposing Jews per se. Furthermore, Martin errors when he refers to Jews as a religious group. They are not. They are an ethnic group, a nationality. Most Jews, probably a majority, are atheists, agnostics, or nonreligious {v. Zionism: A Brief History 1800-1949 by Thomas Allen}].
    Martin writes, “A third by-product is the abridgment of free speech. Preachers who opposed segregation lost their pulpits. Books were banned, professors fired.” [Any preacher who preaches against the clear teachings of the Bible ought to lose his pulpit. Moreover, proponents of integration, miscegenation, and amalgamation of the races have been far more effective at banning books and firing professors. Most people live in such fear of them that they always have to watch what they say so as not to offend easily and highly offended integrationists, miscegenationists, and amalgamators.]
    Martin quotes Roy Wilkins of the NAACP saying, “I didn’t expect murders, nor the petty, cruel persecution of ordinary Negroes who signed school petitions. This is the Hitler pattern, the Soviet Russia pattern” (p. 168). [Wilkins has it backwards. In Hitler’s Germany and Soviet Russia, the central government imposed tyrannical, despotic decrees on the people. In the South, the people were trying to protect themselves from a tyrannical, despotic central government imposing its decrees on them. Thus, the exact opposite was occurring in the South as occurred in Hitler’s Germany and Soviet Russia. Unfortunately, they failed, and the country is being destroyed by an ever-growing tyrannical, despotic government that is becoming more and more like Nazi Germany. Furthermore, Martin fails to mention that Wilkins was affiliated with at least seven communist organizations, and therefore, pro-Soviet Russia organizations. Thus, Wilkins was a front man for Communism and the Soviet Union {v. “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement” by Thomas Allen}.]
    Martin writes, “An expert, asked when he thought the Deep South would desegregate, replied, "Never. . . . Most Southerners agree” (p. 168). [Either Southerners then had a short time span for “never,” or they were extremely naive, or they were deliberately fooling themselves. Within a few years, all school systems would be fully interrogated. By the end of the Centennial in 1965, the South had been as thoroughly defeated as it was in 1865. Within a decade, the rest of the country would have been as abjectly defeated as the South.]
    Martin notes that Southerners were aware the possibility of the U.S. government using troops to enforce desegregation. Many expected that if it did, a civil war, or something close to it would happen. Simmons of the Citizens’ Council said, “To me it is inconceivable that the rest of the country would stand for the South to be put to the sword” (p. 170). [The U.S. government did use troops in Alabama and Arkansas. Not only did the rest of the country stand by and do nothing, parts of it cheered the tyrant on. To the detriment of the country, the South submitted and surrendered unconditionally to despotism and tyranny. Now the country is enjoying the fruits of the South’s defeat.]
    Martin asks, “How high a price is the South willing to pay to maintain its peculiar institution? And how high a price is the North willing to exact to destroy the institution?” (p. 172). [To the detriment of the country, the White race, Western Civilization, and Christendom, the North was willing to extract a higher price than the South was willing to pay. Thus, the North brought down the country, the White race, Western Civilization, and Christendom. Nearly all the problems of today can be traced back to the Supreme Court’s disregard for and destruction of the Constitution with its desegregation ruling of 1954.]

Copyright © 2016 by Thomas Coley Allen 

Part 1

Monday, October 10, 2016

Review of The Deep South Says “Never” -- Part 1

Review of The Deep South Says “Never”
-- Part 1
Thomas Allen

    This article is a review of The Deep South Says “Never” by John Barlow Martin (New York: Ballantine Books, 1957). My comments are enclosed in brackets. I have provided references to pages in his book and have enclosed them in parentheses.
    Martin favors desegregation, but is more sympathetic toward the segregationists than are most integrationists. Most of his book is a discussion of the struggle to desegregate schools in the South, especially the Deep South between 1954 and 1957. Most of his discussion is presented through the eyes of the Citizens Councils and its supporters and opponents. The Citizens’ Councils fought to keep schools segregated.
    In Chapter 1, Martin discusses the origins and expansion of the Citizens’ Councils. These Councils were formed to support the status quo of segregation and  to oppose the Communist organized and led desegregation-integration movement. (V. “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement” by Thomas Allen.) [Desegregation, which implies choice, is a euphemism for integration, which is force.]
    Robert Paterson was a founding member of and driving force behind the Citizens’ Councils (pp. 1-3). He declared:
We just felt like integration would utterly destroy everything that we valued. We don’t consider ourselves hate-mongers and racists and bigots. . . .  We were faced with integration in a town where there are twenty-one hundred Negro students and seven hundred white. We didn’t feel the Supreme Court had the right to come into the state and forcibly cause the schools which were supported by the taxpayers of Mississippi to be integrated and therefore destroyed (p. 3).
[His prophecy proved to be much more accurate than the proponents of desegregation (v. “A Review of The South and Christian Ethics,” “A Review of the Negro Revolution in America,” and “Review of Segregation and Desegregation” all by Thomas Allen). School integration did lead to the destruction of what most Southerners valued. Integration led to the flooding the country with non-White immigrants and aliens, both legal and illegal. Whites will soon be a minority in their own country. It led to the war on poverty, war on drugs, war on terrorism, among other wars, and the civil rights movement. These lead to the welfare-warfare state and the police state where the movements and communications of every inhabitant are tracked. Integration has led to the Supreme Court, President, and Congress making the Constitution irrelevant.]
    [However, Martin was a poor prophet.] He writes, “Today [1957] it seems unlikely that desegregation will be accomplished in the Deep South in the foreseeable future” (p. 4). [He does not define “foreseeable future.” If he meant a decade, he was wrong. Within 10 years of his writing not only did school integration rule the South, so did integration of just about everything else. With the exception of small, scattered, irrelevant pockets of resistance, the South had surrendered unconditionally to the Communist led civil rights movement. With the fall of Lester Maddox in 1964 nearly all resistance ceased. Even Maddox had  mostly surrendered by the time he became governor in 1967.]
    Martin shows that the civil rights movement trumped the Constitution: “And in West Virginia when mothers picketed a desegregated school a judge said if they didn’t stop: “I’ll fill the jail until their feet are sticking out of the windows” (p. 5). [This example shows the utter contempt that this judge has for the First Amendment. In matters of race, most federal judges have the same attitude toward Whites.]
    Martin notes that most schools in the Border States desegregated in 1955 and 1956 without court orders and without incident (p. 5). [Later, the courts would order many of these school districts to integrate because not enough Blacks chose to attend White schools and almost no Whites chose to attend Black schools.]
    He also notes that many of the Black pupils in White schools sat in segregated classrooms (p. 5). [Courts would soon intervene and order classrooms to be integrated.]
    Martin remarks that although schools in Northern cities were desegregated de jure, they were segregated de facto (p. 6). [In most areas in the North, school districts were drawn along neighborhood lines. As Blacks and Whites lived in different neighborhoods, they attended neighborhood schools, which were segregated. Courts ended this practice by ordering forced busing. As a result, protests by Whites in the North were often as violent, if not more so, than what had occurred earlier in the South.]
    As Martin points out, many Southerners saw the Supreme Court’s decision to desegregate schools as destroying the Southern way of life. It went far beyond schools and entered every aspect of life. Martin gives this description:
To Southerners the Court’s decision seemed to do far more than break down segregation in the schools; it rent the seamless garment of apartness. Apartness of the races is a black and white thread woven into the fabric of Southern life — its social, political, sexual, cultural, economic life. Apartness is like a vine which, rooted in slavery, never uprooted but merely twisted by the Civil War, flourished and by now entangles everyone and everything in a suffocating net from which no one, white or black, knows how to extricate himself. Its manifestations have an infinite richness and complexity (p. 7).
    He adds that in the South Blacks and Whites segregate mostly because of custom. Very few laws prescribed segregation (p. 7).
    Martin describes some of the actions taken by some Southern States in response to the Supreme Court’s desegregation decision. They included denying funds to desegregated schools, tuition grants to children to attend private schools, and empowering school boards to assign Blacks and Whites to different schools but not based on race. The South sought to fight the Supreme Court through lawful resistance (pp. 7-8). [Such an attempt was doomed to fail. Long ago the States, in disregard of the Constitution, had acceded to the Supreme Court the ultimate authority to decide what was lawful. Only the most naive would expect the Supreme Court to decide against itself. This resistance only delayed the inevitable.]
    Martin describes the Citizens’ Councils as follows:
From the outset, the Citizens’ Council movement forswore violence. It proposed to prevent desegregation by legal means. It sought the leadership in every town of only the most respected citizens. It avoided entanglement with former Klan leaders. It eschewed secrecy; its meetings were held in downtown public buildings and were open to the public (though policy was likely to be made at smaller private meetings in the leaders’ homes). Thus the Councils sought to enlist the support of professional men, clergymen, politicians, business leaders and the middle class (pp. 13-14).
[In short, Citizens’ Councils were not nefarious. They sought to counterbalance organizations like the NAACP to protect the White man’s interest — something most Whites have no desire to do today.]
    Martin discusses the spread of the Councils and some of the key members and their thoughts. He gives a synopsis of Judge Brady’s Black Monday, which reflects the thoughts and positions of the Councils (pp. 16ff). Judge Brady identifies the amalgamation of the races as the ultimate goal of desegregation. Brady declares, “The Negro proposes to breed up his inferior intellect and whiten his skin and ‘blow out the light’ in the white man’s brain and muddy his skin” (p. 19). [Marriage statistics support Brady’s claim of Blacks lusting to interbreed with Whites. Interracial White marriages increased 1518 percent between 1960 and 2010 while interracial Black marriages increased 1353 percent during that time. In 2010, 3 percent of White marriages were interracial compared with 0.14 percent in 1960. In 2010 14 percent of Black marriages were interracial compared with 1.65 percent in 1960. (V. “Interracial Marriages” by Thomas Allen.)] Martin continues his discussion of Black Monday by giving some of Brady’s solutions (p. 20). These solutions included:
    1.    creating a state to which all American Negroes could be shipped [American Negroes should be given an independent country so that they can be free of the White man’s rule and to thwart the White man’s self-destruction.];
    2.    adopting constitutional amendments to strengthen states’ rights [This is one of his best recommendations.];
    3.    electing Supreme Court justices and the attorney general by popular vote;
    4.    establishing qualifications for Supreme Court justices;
    5.    abolishing public schools if all else fails and refunding taxes to White parents to finance private education while letting Blacks educate themselves [Public education ought to be abolished in any event. The primary purpose of public schooling is to indoctrinate children to become obedient servants of the ruling elite. Why should anyone be forced to have his children, or anyone else’s children, taught doctrines and dogmas with which he disagrees?];
    6.    employing economic boycotts by Whites ceasing hiring Blacks and shipping the resulting destitute Blacks to the North [If all Blacks in the South were shipped to the North and put in the neighborhoods of the ruling elite, the Supreme Court would quickly rule that not only is school segregation required by the Constitution, but geographical segregation is also required.].
    Martin continues describing the growth and objectives of the Citizens’ Councils (pp. 21ff). He quotes from a leaflet titled The Citizens’ Council by Patterson. In it Patterson writes:
Maybe your community has had no racial problems! This may be true; however, you may not have a fire, yet you maintain a fire department. You can depend on one thing: The NAACP, aided by alien influences, bloc-vote-seeking politicians and left-wing do-gooders, will see that you have a problem in the near future. The Citizens’ Council is the South's answer to the mongrelizers. We will not be integrated (p. 22)!
[Patterson was both right and wrong. He was wrong in that the mongrelizers did force the South to integrate. He was right about the NAACP and its allies bringing the integration-Negro-“civil rights” problem to the North. Within a decade Blacks were rioting, looting, and burning throughout the North and in the West.]
    Moreover, “Patterson wrote: ‘If we are bigoted, prejudiced, un-American, etc., so were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and our other illustrious forebears who believed in segregation’” (p. 22). [Because Washington and Jefferson were segregationists and, worse, slave owners, Blacks and self-hating Whites are trying to eradicate their names from the country. Buildings and streets named after them, and other segregationists and slave owners, are being renamed. Soon the name of a state and the capital of the country may be changed because they are named after the slave owning Washington.]
    In his leaflet, Patterson writes, “If we submit to this unconstitutional, judge-made integration law, the malignant powers of atheism, communism and mongrelization will surely follow . . .” (p. 22). [Again, Patterson proves to be a much greater prophet than the integrationists. The United States have been de-Christianized. The ten planks of the Communist Manifesto have been mostly implemented. Mongrelization is accelerating.]
    Patterson stated that if Southerners stood united against the integrationists they could defeat them. [Southerners did not stand. Too many followed the quisling and scalawag political, business, academic, and religious leaders who betrayed the South and the White race to the Communist led civil rights movement. (V. “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement” by Thomas Allen.)] To this unconditional surrender and integration-is-inevitable-and-we-can-do-nothing-about-it attitude, Patterson retorted:
Our Southland by every material line of reasoning should already be a land of mulattoes. Eighty years ago our unconquerable ancestors were beaten, in poverty and degradation, unable to vote and under the heel of Negro occupation troops. . . . Are we less than they? We are the same blood; white blood that was kept pure for you for 6,000 years by white men (p. 24).
[A major handicap that Whites face is that they are unable to unite like Blacks. Blacks are effective at uniting and acting en masse with voting, boycotts, etc. Whites seem completely unable to unite even save their race or country from mongrelization. The White ruling elite, who place the acquisition of wealth and power and serving Lucifer above all else, manipulate Blacks to act en masse to advance the causes of the ruling elite while they keep Whites divided. Thus, they are destroying the White race so that they can bring down America, Western Civilization, and Christianity.]
    Besides the Citizens’ Councils, Martin identifies several other pro-Southern organizations: the American States’ Rights Association, the National Association for the Advancement of White People, the National Association for the Preservation of the White Race, the Southerners, the Heritage Crusade, and the Southern Gentlemen (p. 26).
    Martin describes some of the tactics used by the Citizens’s Councils to forestall integration. Exposure was chief among them. Another was economic boycotts (pp 28ff). [Blacks would later use economic boycotts much more effectively than Whites ever did in the South.]
    [Just as President Obama’s rhetoric increase gun sales,] so did the Supreme Court’s desegregation decision increased the membership of the Ku Klux Khan (p. 32).
    Martin identifies some criticism levied against the Citizens’ Councils. They included displacing lawful authority of the courts, silencing their critics in churches, denying credit to their opponents, using economic boycotts, and driving people who disagreed with them out of the State (p. 32). [When Blacks organizations use the same or similar tactics to advance their cause, which are often nefarious, they are heralded as heroes overcoming oppression. When Southerners used them to overcome the oppression of despotic, tyrannical government, they were condemned.]
    Martin presents Governor Folsom of Alabama as a scalawag. [Most likely, he does so unintentionally.] Folsom sided with the despotic, tyrannical U.S. government in its war against the South and against the Whites of Alabama. He sided with the NAACP and against the Citizens’ Councils (pp. 37-38). [Martin does not state that Folsom acted so bluntly or overtly.  Nevertheless, this is the essence of what Folsom did. Perhaps Folsom’s appeasing action was behind the Communists and the NAACP and other Black organizations choosing Montgomery for their bus boycott (v. “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement” by Thomas Allen). Moreover, they could foment riots by enticing the police to batter protesting Blacks to gain sympathy and support — especially from reconstructionist Yankees who wanted to destroy the South and rebuild it in their own image (v.  “The First Reconstruction” and “The Second Reconstruction” by Thomas Allen). They got the riots.]
    Martin discusses the incident of a federal court ordering the University of Alabama to admit Autherine Lucy, a Negro, and how it greatly increased the membership of the Citizens’ Council (pp. 38-39).
    In Chapter 2, Martin discusses the poor Black farming communities of Clarendon County, South Carolina. He contrasts these Negro communities with the small town of Summerton, which is inhabited mostly by Whites. However, Negroes also live in this town where they own and operate their business (pp. 43-45). Then he discusses the involvement of Negroes of this county in a lawsuit that lead to the Supreme Court’s desegregation decisions of 1954 and 1955 (v. next paragraph) and some of the court’s proceedings and its decision. Next he describes Clarendon County, life there, and the schools. The three Black schools are newer than the one White school (pp. 52-62). Finally he discusses the reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision, which was to resist it. He also describes the response of Blacks and their attempt to overcome the economic boycott. The desegregation decision greatly strained race relation (pp. 61-77).
    This lawsuit was combined with several other similar lawsuits and brought before the Supreme Court. Thurgood Marshall of the NAACP represented the Negro plaintiffs (p. 48). [However, Martin fails to mention Marshall’s Communist leanings and his hatred of Whites (v. “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement” by Thomas Allen).] Martin notes that in parts of the South the desegregation decision would force many White children to attend Black schools (p. 50). [This situation contrasts sharply with the common perception and propaganda of the integrationists of that time that only a few Blacks would attend White schools. Integrationists seldom mentioned Whites being forced to attend Black schools. To his credit Martin is one of the few who does.]
    Martin quotes federal Judge John Parker as saying:
Whatever may have been the views of this court as to the law when the case was originally before us, it is our duty now to accept the law as declared by the Supreme Court. Having said this, it is important that we point out exactly what the Supreme Court has decided and what it has not decided in this case. It has not decided that the federal courts are to take over or regulate the public schools of the states. It has not decided that the states must mix persons of different races in the schools or must require them to attend schools or must deprive them of the right of choosing the schools they attend. What it has decided, and all that it has decided, is that a state may not deny any person on account of race the right to attend any school that it maintains. The Constitution, in other words, does not require integration. It does not forbid such segregation as occurs as the result of voluntary action. It merely forbids the use of governmental power to enforce segregation (pp. 53-54).
[One wonders what kind of drug this judge was on when he made this absurd statement. The Supreme Court would make clear within a few years that Parker was wrong. Federal courts would soon “take over and regulate” public schools, even to the point of levying local taxes and appropriating local funds. Moreover, federal courts would soon decree “that the states must mix persons of different races in the schools.” The Constitution may not require integrating, but federal courts certainly did. By 1865 the Constitution had ceased being the law of the land. Edicts, whims, of the U.S. government, primarily through the Supreme Court, had become the supreme law of the land. When parents did not voluntarily choose to integrate in sufficient numbers to satisfy some federal judge, the judge with the backing of the Supreme Court forced integration. To the surprise of and against the wishes of many Northerners, federal courts even forced integration of Northern schools. At least some poetic justice came out of the integration movement. Most Northerners were only too happy to impose integration in the South. However, when the monster that they had fed and encouraged turned to devour them, they strongly objected.]
    Martin notes that most Blacks in Clarendon County earned their living in agriculture, mostly working in cotton fields. However, mechanization eliminated many of these jobs. Moreover, the federal farm program that drastically reduced the acreage used for growing cotton cost many Blacks their jobs — probably more than mechanization (pp. 58-59).
    In a small gathering of Whites and Blacks, Reverend Henry Rankin said, “. . . about the fallacy of trying to get your rights by going to court. That’s not the way to get your social rights. It always leaves a bad taste in the mouth, no matter who wins” (p. 65). [Unfortunately, too few Negroes heeded his wise words.]
    Martin reveals the naiveness of far too many Southerners during this era (p. 72) [a naiveness that unfortunately still exists]. [They actually thought that federal judges would listen to reason and not impose integration. They failed to realize that the ruling elite wanted integration. Whites were going to integrate regardless. If Whites did not voluntarily integrate, the courts would force them to integrate, and the courts did. Whatever Whites or even Blacks thought about this matter was irrelevant.]
    Martin quotes Reverend Richburg, a Black minister. Richburg believed that White opposition to integration based on mongrelization was just an excuse. He said, “They pretend we’re just like a lion, going to jump on a white girl and rape her. Or going to marry her. It wouldn’t happen” (p. 77). [Unfortunately for Richburg, crime statistics (v. “The Dirty War: America’s Race War” by Thomas Allen) and marriage statistics (v. “Interracial Marriages” by Thomas Allen) prove him wrong.] [Like most Blacks,] Richburg accused Whites of prejudice (p. 77). [Prejudice as defined by pro-integrationist T.B. Matson means “a prejudgment, or judgment not based on knowledge or experience. It implies an opinion based on insufficient or irrelevant data.” This is a good definition. Having lived, worked, and associated with Negroes for more than 400 years, no group knows the Negro better than the Southerner. He has more than 400 years of experience with and knowledge of the Negro. Whatever caused Southerners to adopt segregation, it was not racial prejudice as Richburg surmise. However, racial prejudice may in part explain why sanctimonious Northerners, who are much less familiar with the Negro, segregated racially by custom.]
    Richburg was right about one thing: Whites in the South would not abolish public schools. If they did, it would be short-lived (p. 76). [In spite of all the bombast to the contrary, Southerners would choose the public school (public indoctrination) system over freeing themselves from governmental indoctrination. They chose to have their children indoctrinated with the “virtues” of integration and mongrelization among other perversions like the homosexual agenda. They chose to have their children taught a new religion instead of Christianity. Their children would now be taught to worship Martin Luther King and the Negro race. (In Islamic terms, the Negro is God and King is his prophet.) Moreover, they chose to suppress freedom of speech for the sake of political correctness (v.]

Copyright © 2016 by Thomas Coley Allen 

Part 2

Friday, September 30, 2016

Constitutional Money

Constitutional Money
Thomas Allen

    The April issue of The Gold Standard had an article about the governor of Arizona vetoing a bill that would have treated gold as money. When the governor vetoed this bill, he violated his oath of office to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. Likewise, all State and federal officeholders who stand in the way of gold being money have violated their oath of office. The Constitution recognizes only two things as money: gold and silver.
    Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the Constitution prohibits the States from making anything except gold and silver a tender for payment of debt. Therefore, States cannot constitutionally make federal reserve notes legal payment for debt. That any State has to consider making gold money is absurd and ridiculous and shows how far that the United States have degenerated.
    Moreover, for Congress to declare federal reserve notes to be legal tender money is also unconstitutional. In spite of what judges who base their rulings on political expediency instead of the Constitution may declare, Congress has no authority to issue paper money. Moreover, Congress has no authority declare anything legal tender; it can only declare what it will accept in payment of taxes. Under the Constitution, only States may declare an item to be legal tender. Thus, as the States may only make gold and silver legal tender, only gold and silver can be legal tender.
    Furthermore, Congress may not constitutionally delegate powers that it does not have. Thus, it may not authorize the federal reserve banks to issue legal tender notes. (Also, the Constitution grants Congress no power to create a bank. Therefore, it has no constitutional authority to create the Federal Reserve System.)
    The original draft of the Constitution contained a clause that allowed Congress to emit bills of credit (to issue paper money). The Constitutional Convention removed this clause and it was not part of the Constitution adopted by the States. When the Convention removed this clause, it was convinced that it had denied Congress the power to issue paper money and making paper money legal tender.
    Some argue that the prohibition against States making anything except gold and silver legal tender does not apply to the U.S. government. However, based on a Supreme Court ruling involving the Fourteenth Amendment, the restrictions that the Constitution places on the States are also placed on the U.S. government.[1] Therefore, since the Constitution prohibits the States from making anything  gold and silver a tender for payment of debt, it also prohibits the U.S. government for making anything but gold and silver a tender for payment of debt.
    The Constitution mentions three units of measure: the dollar, mile, and year. Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 grants Congress the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof. When the Constitution was adopted, people understood that the dollar meant the weight of silver in a Spanish milled dollar. Thus, when Congress regulates the value of money, it finds the weight of silver in a Spanish milled dollar and declares the U.S. dollar to be a monetary unit that contains this weight of silver. If Congress may change the well-understood definition of the dollar on a whim, it may likewise change the well-understood definition of a year from being one revolution around the sun to be 100 revolutions — and in effect give its members life terms.
    From the adoption of the Constitution until President Roosevelt suspended the gold standard, bank notes, which is what Federal Reserve notes are, were never legal tender. Only after the gold standard was abandoned did Federal Reserve notes become legal tender. The 1934 series of Federal Reserve notes was made legal tender for all debts, but it promised redemption in lawful money. The previous series, the 1928 series, was not legal tender and promised redemption in gold. The 1963 series declared itself to be legal tender with no promise of redemption in anything.
    Whenever a State considers anything, including Federal Reserve notes, other than gold or silver to be legal tender for the payment of debt, it is acting unconstitutionally. (A more detailed argument on the unconstitutionality of paper legal tender money is found in Reconstruction of America’s Monetary and Banking System: A Return to Constitutional Money by Thomas Allen.)

Martin A. Larson, The Federal Reserve and Our Manipulated Dollar, p. 269. Paul Bakewell, 13 Curious Errors About Money, pp. 92-93.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Tuesday, September 20, 2016


Thomas Allen

    In 1859, John Brown, the father of modern-day terrorism, led an armed invasion of the South. His objective was to promote a slave revolt. Prominent abolitionists financed his invasion. They included Thomas Wentworth Higginson, Dr. Samuel Gridley Howe, Rev. Theodore Parker, Franklin Benjamin Sanborn, Gerrit Smith, and George Luther Stearns. This group became known as the Secret Six for their involvement with Brown. Other leading New Englanders who aided Brown were Samuel Cabot and John Murray Forbes.
    Higginson was from a leading New England banking family and a national leader of American Freemasonry. He funneled money from British radicals to abolitionists in Massachusetts who agreed with his goal of abolishing the United States Constitution and dissolving the United States.
    Howe was from a wealthy banking family and husband of Julia Howe, who wrote the anti-Southern song the “Battle Hymn of the Republic.” Howe and his wife, Julia, founded The Commonwealth, an antislavery tabloid.
    Parker was a leading Transcendentalist and Congregationalist minister and an activist in the Masonic tradition. He married into the Cabot family. He was the chief organizer of the Secret Six to finance John Brown’s raid.
    Sanborn was a disciple of Parker and Ralph Waldo Emerson. In 1857, he became Brown’s chief agent in New York.
    Smith was the first to finance Brown. He was the son of John Jacob Astor’s business partner. He was the largest land owner in New York, holding more than a million acres. Smith also gave Mazzini, the Italian revolutionary and later the most powerful man in the Western world, at least eight million dollars.
    Stearns was the leader of the Free Soilers (the Free Soilers were antislavery agitators in Kansas). He provided Brown and his terrorist gang money and a farm in Kansas from which to operate.
    Cabot paid for rifles for Brown to use in Kansas. Later his bank, Cabot Bank, lent Brown money for his terrorist operations. Brown never repaid this loan, and Cabot made no attempt to collect it.
    The Massachusetts State Disunion Convention, which Higginson called in 1857, laid plans for the Harper’s Ferry raid. Its objective was to split the United States. This convention was little more than a continuation of the Essex Junto, except instead of New England States leaving the Union, the Southern States would be driven out of the Union. The Essex Junto was behind the secession movement in New England at the time of the War of 1812.
    After Brown was executed, he became a martyr of the abolitionists. Ralph Waldo Emerson, a Young America supporter, an agent of the British imperialism, and ideological leader of the abolitionists conspiracy, eulogized him and promoted him as a saint.
    Closely associated with the Secret Six was C.I. Scofield. They used their influence to get him admitted to the bar in Kansas although he never attended law school and did not seem to have attended any college. They got him appointed U.S. District Attorney for Kansas, but scandal soon forced him to resign. After he was convicted of forgery, he became a follower of J.N. Darby, founder of the Brethren Movement.
    The Secret Six believed that the only way that America could be converted to socialism was for Christians to abandon politics and the affairs of state. (Abolitionism, socialism, and Zionism come from the same source and have the same hostility toward Christianity.) Christians had to cease being militant advocates of God’s law and the Holy Scriptures. The First Amendment needed to be subverted. Instead of meaning that government could not interfere with religion, it came to mean that the Christian Church was to be silent in the affairs of state.
    Samuel Untermyer, who was a wealthy corporate Jewish lawyer, a Zionist, and a communist sympathizer if not an outright Communist, was a major supporter of Scofield and the Scofield Reference Bible. Scofield came forth to emasculate Christianity. Through his annotated Bible, he taught a futuristic eschatology: Christ will return in the last days and rapture Christians from planet Earth thereby saving them from the evils of Satan, his anti-Christ, and his one world government and one world religion. The world must become worse and worse. An absolute autocrat must arise and rule the world. Scofield taught Zionism, the establishment of a Jewish political state to supplant the Palestinians in Palestine. This Jewish state must come into being before Christ returned. The result of his work was to convert Christians to Zionists. He demoralized and neutralized Christians.
    Untermyer later got President Wilson to appoint Louis Brandeis to the Supreme Court. Brandeis, a Zionists and a lawyer for the Jewish bank Kuhn, Loeb and Co., was the first Jew to serve on the Supreme Court.
    Wilson’s enjoyment of writing love letters to married women made him vulnerable to blackmail. Untermyer offered to give Wilson the money to buy these letters from his blackmailer if Wilson would allow him (Untermyer) to select the next Supreme Court Justice. Wilson accepted the offer, and Louis Brandies became the first Jew to serve on the Supreme Court. Brandies also became Wilson’s advisor on the Jewish Question.
    When the British government became hesitant about giving the Jews Palestine as a homeland, Wilson came forward and pressured the British government in keeping the promise that it made in the Balfour Declaration. With the Balfour Declaration, the British promised Palestine to the Jews as a Jewish homeland if the Jews brought the United States into World War I on the side of the British.
    The Secret Six had supported John Brown and his war of terrorism. They also supported Scofield, who later received the support of Untemyer. These two got the Scofield Bible published, which greatly aided Zionism. Untemyer went on to get Wilson to appoint Brandis to the Supreme Court. Brandis became Wilson’s advisor on Zionism, and Palestine became the Jewish homeland. Following World War II, Jewish terrorism gave birth to Israel. Thus, the Secret Six are to some extent responsible for the turmoil occurring in the Middle East today.

Copyright © 1995 by Thomas Coley Allen

Sunday, September 11, 2016

Climate Change

Climate Change
Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: This article appeared as a letter-to-the-editor in The Franklin Times, September 1, 2016, in response to a letter by Citizens' Climate Lobby, which was asking for members.]
    I have never heard the promoters of global warming, now called climate change, answer three fundamental questions. (1) When was the last time that the climate was not changing? (2) What is the ideal climate? (3) How do we know that it is the ideal climate?
    Perhaps Citizens’ Climate Lobby can answer these questions. If it does not know the answers to these questions, how will it know that it has achieved its goal of defeating climate change?
    In the 1970s to the mid 1980s, the big climate fear was that the planet was entering another ice age. Then in the late 1980s, the big climate fear became global warming. Imagine that, a complete turn around in the climate within a few years. Now to cover themselves from any warming or cooling, they now use “climate change.” Also, the raw data show that the planet has been cooling for at least 15 or 20 years. Consequently, the government adjusts the raw data to continue to show warming.
    Whether the promoters of climate change know it or not, the real goal of the climate change movement is to transfer ever more wealth and power from the common folk to the rich and powerful.


Sunday, August 28, 2016

Review of Putnam's Race and Reason -- Part 3

Review of Putnam's Race and Reason -- Part 3
Thomas Allen
    About the claim “that integration is part of the communist conspiracy in America,” Putnam writes:
The communists have made the integration movement a part of their conspiracy, although of course communism is not the only force back of integration. Communism is one phase of a disease, of which equalitarianism and socialism are milder phases, all of which stem from the general leftist overdrift (p. 73).
[For the most part, egalitarians and socialists are not formal Communists; they are communist sympathizers and fellow-travelers. They strive for the same goals and objectives. Their disagreements are ones of methods, not of substance.] Contrariwise, Putnam writes that:
[T]he equalitarian ideology, which presumes to justify integration, is playing into communist hands, not only by setting section against section in America, but by spreading the equalitarian virus, and thus weakening the body politic to a point where more dangerous phases of the disease are contracted (p. 73).
    Putnam comments on the connection between wealthy foundations and foundations supporting the Communist cause of integration (pp. 74-75). [V. “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement” and “Foundations.”]
    To the question “does not our democracy need to practice equalitarianism at home in order to fight communism aboard,” Putnam replies, “you do not fight a disease by contracting it” (p. 75). [In a sense, this is the theory underlying vaccination.] He adds, “[I]f a gangster offers your child opium to get him to join his side, you do not also offer him opium to keep him on yours” (p. 73). Then he quotes the humanitarian Albert Schweitzer:
        The Negro is a child, and with children nothing can be done without the use of authority. We must, therefore, so arrange the circumstances of daily life that my natural authority can find expression. With regard to the Negroes, then, I have coined the formula: 'I am your brother, it is true, but your elder brother.’
        The combination of friendliness with authority is the great secret of successful intercourse. One of our missionaries, Mr. Robert, left the staff some years ago to live among the Negroes as their brother absolutely. He built himself a small house near a village between Lambarene and N’Gomo, and wished to be recognized as a member of the village. From that day his life became a misery. With his abandonment of the social interval between white and black he lost all his influence (p. 76).
     Next Putnam writes, “[Black Africans] do not really desire or understand freedom and its responsibilities; they wish equality and the capture for themselves of the fruits of the intelligence and enterprise of others” (p. 76). He reminds us that liberals and churchmen demand that Europeans take over backward countries to end the cruelty and horrors practiced by the natives. Now they demand that  Europeans return these countries to the natives so that they can again practice these cruelties and horrors (p.77). [When Europeans turned over their African colonies to native Black Africans, Africans in most of them proceeded to hack up members of other tribes.]
    Putnam comments negatively on economic aid being able to help Africa (pp. 77-80). [Economic aid has made many African leaders wealthy beyond their dreams while doing little for the common people. As the saying goes, “foreign aid is poor people in rich countries giving money to rich people in poor countries.”] He questions the wisdom of granting independence to Africa countries. [Abandoning their colonies was more for the benefit of Europe than the colonies that gain their independence. The major mistake made, probably deliberately, was failing to redraw borders of countries to match tribal boundaries. Such an action would have made Africa a much more peaceful continent. Africa proves that diversify is not strength; it is a detrimental weakness. It only benefits the ruling elite because it increases their power.] Putnam saw granting colonies their independence as creating a vacuum for the Communists to fill. [It did create such a vacuum, and the United States often aided the Communists in filling the vacuum.]
    Next he comments on new African countries hating colonialism (pp. 80-81) and the White race being out numbered by two to one by the colored races (p. 81).
    Putnam explains that he and his philosophy are not authoritarian (pp. 82-83) or extreme rightist (pp. 83-84). [Egalitarianism, out of which comes integration, requires authoritarianism to overcome the natural innate inequality of humans.]
    About egalitarianism, Putnam writes:
[B]y a series of insidious steps the equalitarian virus produces that most disastrous of all diseases, the complete appeasement of evil. At some point, all ability to discriminate is lost, all resistance to wrong ceases, all indignation dies, all evil is met with sobbing pleas which evil most naturally greets with contemptuous laughter, and the red death of a Godless communism settles on the earth (p. 83).
    Putnam believes that the reason that the leaders of the major political parties ignore the Southern viewpoint is ignorance of its scientific validity. “But this ignorance they are inclined to cherish, and to avoid correcting, because of the balance of power held by Negro voters in certain key states” (p. 84). [The main reason is that the ruling elite wants integration because it increases their power.]
    Putnam comments on the economic backwardness of the South, which was caused by the War for Southern Independence and Reconstruction. However, the South retains much more of the country’s traditional cultural heritage than does the North (pp. 85-86).
    Putnam believes that the NAACP could do great work for the Negro, but it does not (pp. 88-90). [Marxist and other egalitarians founded the NAACP, and they have controlled it ever since {v. “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement”}. Its primary objective is not helping Blacks, but to destroy the White race — at least that has been the result of its actions.] He continues:
        In the long run, it does him [the Negro] only harm to encourage him to blame others for his own shortcomings. It is particularly harmful to encourage ingratitude, insolence and aggressive imposition on the whites of the South.
        Under equalitarian influence, with a strong assist from communism, it has become the fashion in the North to regard the Southern Negro as the victim of oppression, while the truth is that the Negro in the South is on the whole the product of a friendliness and helpfulness unequalled in any comparable instance in all history (p. 88).
    He contrasts the lives of Blacks in the segregated South with that of Blacks in the Black governed countries of Liberia and especially Haiti. Blacks in the South live “in greater luxury than many Whites in foreign countries” (p. 89). Putnam adds, “I know of no case anywhere in the world in which whites have lived with large numbers of blacks without segregation and avoided genocide” (p. 90).
    In response to the comment “that the Negro owes nothing to the white man except his troubles,” Putnam writes, “If the Negro likes what our white civilization has to offer, then he should remember that he owes that to the white man” (p. 90).
    To the suggestion that “the best way to elevate the Negro [is] to give him a chance to associate socially with white people,” Putnam replies, “Although such a procedure is basic to the equalitarian philosophy, the best way to lift the inferior up does not lie in pulling the superior down” (p. 90). He adds:
    In forcing integration upon the schools of the South, the equalitarians have chosen the most defenseless elements of the community — the children and their under-paid teachers — to carry a burden even the strongest should not attempt to bear. Under the circumstances it is not hard to understand the anger of Southerners, and why it sometimes becomes passion (pp. 90-91).
[When the North’s turn to integrate came, Northern parents in cities with a large Negro population reacted just as passionately as Southern parents, if not more so. After all, integration was just to be for the South and nowhere else so these sanctimonious Northerners thought.]
    Putnam notes that Southerners are far less prejudice than Northerners. “Prejudice is simply . . . judging before getting the evidence. The South has far more evidence, far more experience, concerning the Negro than the North. And hence it is the North that is pre-judging when it tells the South what it ought to do about the Negro problem (p. 91).”
    Putnam remarks that because “it is wrong to bully, humiliate or exploit a Negro, does not make it right to integrate him” (p. 91).
    He comments on the exceptional Negro. They are either mixed breeds or statistical outliers and are not typical (pp. 92-93).
    Putnam notes that the distinction between “desegregation” and “integration” is irrelevant. Desegregated schools will integrate. [Desegregation failed to cause schools to integrate fast enough. So, courts, Congress, and the President forced integration on the country.]
    Putnam gives an excellent response to the concern of second class citizens. He remarks, “Segregation does not make a second class citizen” (p. 94).
    About condemning a man because of his skin color, Putnam writes, “Skin color has no bearing on the matter. The Negro’s limitations are in the realms of character and intelligence, and the fact they are associated with a black skin is irrelevant” (p. 94).
    Putnam refutes the notion that segregation deprives Blacks of pride and self-respect, which some integrationists believe are essential in developing personality (p. 95). [Sellers argues that White pride is a primary cause of segregation (v. “A Review of The South and Christian Ethics”). Black pride must be good, and White pride, bad.]
    Putnam comments on discrimination and how egalitarians have corrupted the meaning of the word to the detriment of society (p. 95) and tolerance, which can be a virtue or a vice (p. 95).
    Next he responds to the comment Southerners are racial bigots (pp. 95-96) and concludes that “the Southern position on race [is] more reasonable by far than that of the North. The North is proving itself both irrational and blind” (p. 96).
    To the notion that segregationists are preaching hate instead of love, Putnam replies, “It is those who are forcing the Negro into an unnatural relationship with the white race that are guilty of hostile aggression. . . . The spirit of those back of the integration movement is not love” (p. 96). [How can destroying a race and a country be love, which is what integration does?]
    Putnam notes that the integrationists are far more emotional on school desegregation than Southerners (p. 96).
    He identifies problems and illegalities with the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment (pp. 97-98). He adds:
    [T]here was never the slightest suggestion on the part of Congress or anybody else that the Amendment was intended to apply to schools. Congress, having direct control of this matter in the District of Columbia, maintained segregated schools there from the beginning, which is sufficient indication of the intent of the body which proposed the Amendment (p. 98).
[Besides using it for forced integration, the U.S. government has used the Fourteenth Amendment as a cover for many of its other nefarious, power-grabbing activities.]
    To the comment “that the trend of previous decisions made integration decision inevitable,” Putnam replies, “A trend. which made the integration decision inevitable was a trend in the wrong direction. . . . If the trend be wrong, it should be stopped. If it be right up to a point, it should be stopped at that point” (p. 99). He adds, “Desegregation in a non-social situation is one thing. Integration in a social situation is quite another, A trend in one might be justified while in the other it should never be allowed to start” (p. 99). [What may be considered a non-social situation in one community may be considered a social situation in another.] Thus, he notes that the line “is sometimes hard to draw and is a matter which, under our federal form of government, should be left to local decision” (pp. 99-100).
    To the comment that the decision of the Supreme Court is the law, Putnam replies, “Unlike the Constitution which is the law of the land, a decision of the Supreme Court is ‘the law of the case,’ reversible at will by the members who handed it down, or by other members of the same court at any future date” (p. 100). [In 1954 the Supreme Court declared segregated schools illegal after previous Supreme Courts had declared them legal. Moreover, under the Constitution, only Congress can make laws; the Supreme Court has no such constitutional authority.]
    Putnam objects to the notion that opposition is hopeless and people should integrate and make the best of it. He was convinced that the fight had only begun (pp. 100-101). [Unfortunately, Putnam has been proven wrong. Within a few years, Whites surrendered unconditionally to the integrationists and are now on the verge of losing their country. Soon Turanians, primarily Latinos and East Asians, will control the country. Many of them hate Blacks with a passion greater than the stereotypical Klansman and will segregate Blacks who survive with an intensity that they have never known possible. Moreover, Turanians do not suffer from false White guilt, so Blacks cannot bend them {Turanians} to their {Blacks’} will as they do Whites. Blacks will rue the day when they conspired with Communists, Marxists, and other egalitarians, most of whom are self-hating Whites, to bring down the White race.]
    Putnam believes “that the best answer to the humanitarian integrationist is the even more humanitarian segregation . . .” (p. 101). He condemns the surrender attitude held by far too many Whites (pp. 101-102). [Integrationists use humanitarianism as propaganda to brainwash dulled Whites and Blacks into supporting them. However, the objective of the inner core is the opposite of humanitarianism. Their objective is to destroy the United States and the White race even if it means destroying the Black race. Over the last 60 years, they have made great progress and are close to achieving their goal.]
    Putnam comments on the “melting pot” fallacy (p. 104). [What he states that he opposes (p. 104) is coming to pass.]
    He poses nine questions, the answer to which shows the detrimental effects of racial integration with Negroes on the country, Whites, and Blacks (pp. 105-106).
    When asked “what is the solution to the Negro problem . . . other than integration,” Putnam answers, “It should be left to the sovereign states to solve in accordance with the way the issue is presented in each separate area” (p. 107). [Genocide — breed the races to extinction —is the solution offered by integrationists. The best solution is separation. That is, each nationality has its own nation-state. Thus, the races would govern themselves independently of other races. This solution preserves their integrity.]
    Putnam discusses the flaws of the Supreme Court’s school desegregation decision and ways to reverse it (pp 108-113). He concludes that educating “our” leaders is necessary. [One cannot educate people who do not want to learn. For the most part, “our” leaders do not want to be educated. They do not want their fragile egos to be bruised. Moreover, if they learn the truth, they may feel compelled to undertake corrective action, which makes them uncomfortable.]
    Putnam believes that the South should de-emphasize the states’ rights argument and focus on the limited racial adaptability of the Negro and convincing “the North that integration is morally wrong because it is destructive of the white civilization of the South” (p. 110). [Later, Northerners got to witness the integrationist destruction of the white civilization of the North. When their turn came, Northerners surrendered unconditionally after some ineffective protest just as Southerners had done. To do otherwise, they would have had to admit that they had been wrong, which is hard for people to do. Furthermore, by that time Whites had been taught to tremble in fear before the word “racist.” None would want to be labeled a “racist.” Only a “racist” could oppose integration and its destructive effects. Because Northerners failed to come to the aid of the South in the 1950s, the United States will cease being a White country around 2040. The primary blame for the death of America lies with Whites outside the South. White quisling leaders in the South who capitulated are also guilty.]
    In Chapter IV, Putnam presents his conclusions. He concludes:
The mulatto who was bent on making the nation mulatto was the real danger. His alliance with the white equalitarian often combined men who had nothing in common save a belief that they had a grudge against society. They regarded every Southerner who sensed the genetic truth as a bigot and used every tactic of deceit and every balance-of-power position to teach and vote a genetic fallacy. Here were the men who needed to be reminded of the debt the Negro owed to white civilization (p. 117).
    Putnam has written an excellent book supporting segregation. His book is full of wisdom and gems too numerous to present in this review.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen. 

Part 2

Saturday, August 20, 2016

Review of Putnam’s Race and Reason -- Part 2

Review of Putnam's Race and Reason -- Part 2
Thomas Allen

    In Chapter 3, Putnam presents some comments that he received on his open letter to the Attorney General and his responses.
    Putnam notes that Southerners “talk of states’ rights when they should be talking anthropology, and they do so out of instinctive human kindness” (p. 35). [That is, Southerners used a weak argument against integration because they did not want to hurt the Negro’s feelings.]
    Putnam writes, “In forcing integration upon the South, the North is demanding that the South do what the North itself in similar circumstances would not do. It is an established fact that white people favor integration throughout the United States exactly in proportion as they do not need to practice it.” [On integration, truer words have never been written. When the North’s turn to integrate came, Northerners in areas with a large Black population, e.g., Boston and New York City, resisted as vigorously and as futilely as Southerners. If they had stood with Southern segregationists in the early days, they would not have had their cities torn asunder by integration. As many Whites who could flee fled and, thus, turned some major cities into Black ghettos.]
    Putnam cites several reasons why Southern White children should not be forced to go to school with Blacks. One is that their parents do not want them to. More important, the two races are biologically unequal in their capacity to advance (p. 36). [Integration has done little to overcome this biological inequality.]
    Putnam quotes from a letter to him from a professor of physiology: “School integration is social integration, and social integration means an ever increasing rate of interbreeding. As a biologist I see the process as a mixing of Negro genes in our white germ plasm, a process from which there can be no unmixing” (p. 37). Then Putnam asks “the Northern integrationist by what authority he claims the right to gamble with the white civilization of the South, against the will of its people, while he personally sits secure with his children in all white schools, or in schools with negligible percentages of Negroes. To me this appears as one of the worst examples of hypocrisy and brutality in all history” (p. 37). [Is there no end to Yankee hypocrisy?]
    Some correspondents recommended that White absorb the Black population by interbreeding (p. 37). [Thus, they wanted to breed Blacks to extinction, which is nothing more than genocide (v. Integration is Genocide). This is the Billy Graham solution. Resorting to genocide of the American Black to solve the race problem shows how much these people hate Blacks.]
    Many pro-integrationists, especially the Negro leaders pushing integration, agree with Putnam: Integration leads to more interracial marriages and breeding (pp. 38-37). [One must ask why these Black leaders hate their race so much that they want to breed it out of existence. Contrariwise, do they hate Whites so much that they are willing to destroy the American Black to bring down the White man. Integration has led to a significant increase in interracial marriages. In 1960 0.4 percent of White marriages were interracial, and 1.7 percent of Black marriages were interracial. In 2010, 3.0 percent of White marriages were interracial, and 14.0 percent of Black marriages were interracial. Thus, interracial marriage is far more destructive of the Black race than it is of the White race.)
    Some attacked Putnam with the argument that “many individual Negroes are superior to many individual whites” (p. 42). To which, Putnam replies:
In dealing with matters of race, we must either compare average with average or best with best; we cannot logically compare best with worst. When the chart of the Caucasoid race as a whole is laid beside the chart of the Negro race as a whole, in those attributes involved in our type of civilization, the Caucasoid will be found superior at each level except perhaps the lowest where the question arises, can one be better at being bad? (p. 42)
    As part of his response to opposing interracial social association and interracial marriages, Putnam quotes a Southerner who said, “However weak the individual white man, his ancestors produced the greatness of Europe; however strong the individual black, his ancestors never lifted themselves from the darkness of Africa” (p. 42).
    Putnam refutes the supposed Black civilizations of Africa (pp. 42-44). He discusses the effects of the African climate on the Negro (pp. 45-46). Next he explains how the fallacious doctrine of racial equality became so popular (pp. 46-48).
    Putnam discusses the claim of virtual unanimity among scientists on the biological equality of the Negro and notes that this claim is false (pp. 48-52). He adds:
There is a strong northern clique of equalitarian social anthropologists under the hypnosis of the Boas school which . . . has captured important chairs in many leading northern and western universities. This clique, aided by equalitarians in government, the press, entertainment, and other fields, has dominated public opinion in these areas and has made it almost impossible for those who disagree with it to hold jobs (p. 49).
[This economic blackmail and extortion are not limited to racial interests. The ruling elite frequently uses it in other venues (for example, see “Two Views of History” .)] He continues:
In a moral sense we are confronted with what might almost be called a trilogy of conspiracy, fraud and intimidation: conspiracy to gain control of important citadels of learning and news dissemination, fraud in the teaching of false racial doctrines, and intimidation in suppressing those who would preach the truth. To speak of academic freedom in the United States today is to make a mockery of the term (pp. 49-50).
[We see the same thing occurring with the climate, a.k.a. global warming, and homosexual agendas. Academic freedom today is nonexistence — especially on social issues. Freedom of speech is dead at most universities and colleges. Political correctness is a malignant cancer destroying everything.]
    Putnam discusses Arnold Toynbee (pp. 52-53) and changes in the size of skulls (p. 53).
    He comments on Dr. J.C. Carothers and the frontal lobes of the Negro (pp. 53-54). Dr. Carothers concludes that either “the mentality of a normal African may be due to the fact that the African’s culture does not place as great a demand on his frontal lobes” or “the frontal lobe condition of the African is innate” (p. 53). To Dr. Carothers’ conclusion, Putnam replies, “The truth is that a race must create its culture before the culture can influence the race” (pp. 53-54).
    Next Putnam discusses Alfred Kroeber (pp. 54-55).
    Then Putnam comments on the accusation that he is a White supremacy allying himself with lynchers and bombers (pp. 55-56). His response to this accusation is:
As far as the Negro race is concerned, if it is interested in such cultural elements as our white civilization has to offer, it should realize that to destroy or to debilitate the white race would be to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. It is a temptation as old as the human species, and always ends with a dead goose and no eggs (p. 55).
[Most Black leaders seem to prefer no eggs if they cannot be the goose. Their goal is to bring the White man down and to become his superior. They are finding many self-hating White quislings who will aid them in this endeavor.]
    Putnam states:
I believe the Negro, if he desires it, should be given every reasonable chance of achieving social and cultural adaptation through equal education in his own schools and by every community effort that does not involve pulling down the white race, but it does not follow that I believe the average Negro capable of achieving it, within any time limits that could have a practical bearing on the present controversy (p. 56).
He asks:
Does the Negro really want to become like the white man, or will he not in the end prefer to maintain his own racial integrity, eliminating only those factors which conflict with a peaceable life in a predominantly white civilization? In other words may not the best solution to the problem be permanent voluntary segregation through pride in, and loyalty to, one’s own race, Negro as well as white? (p. 56)
    Then he discusses a character and intelligence index (pp. 58-59) and crossbreeding (p. 59).
    Putnam comments on equality. He discusses the Declaration of Independence and cites Jefferson and Lincoln. He declares that equality can only coexist with liberty “in the sense of equality of opportunities” (pp. 60-62). [With equality, Putnam stumbles. Does a five-foot, overweight klutz have the same opportunity to become a multimillion-dollar center in the NBA as a seven-foot, highly coordinated, muscular athlete? Does a person with an IQ of 70 have the same opportunity of becoming a scientist, engineer, or doctor as someone with an IQ of 130? The answer to both questions is “no.” Genetics prevents people from having equal opportunity. Moreover, the family in which one is born has a great influence on opportunities and prevents equal opportunity. Later, Putnam does explain that genetics and family, heredity and environment, thwart equality (p. 63)].
    He cites Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address as promoting “all men are born equally free” (p. 60). [It does not. It promotes oppression. Commenting on the battle of Gettysburg and the Gettysburg Address, H.L. Mencken wrote:
Think of the argument in it [the Gettysburg Address]. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination — ‘that government of the people, by the people, for the people,’ should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to image anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. What was the practical effect of the battle of Gettysburg? What else than the destruction of the old sovereignty of the States, i.e., of the people of the States: The Confederates went into battle free; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision and veto of the rest of the country — and for nearly twenty years that veto was so effective that they enjoyed scarcely more liberty, in the political sense, than so many convicts in the penitentiary.]
    [As for Jefferson’s phrase “all men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence, it is doubtful that he intended it to include Blacks. If he did, he was a first-class hypocrite. The Declaration of Independence was a propaganda document to justify secession from the British Empire.]
    Putnam believes that for most signers of the Declaration of Independence, it “‘had no reference to the Negro whatever when they declared all men to be created equal.’” It only referred to “‘white men, men of European birth and European descent’” (pp. 60-61). [Here he is correct.]
    To show that equality is incompatible with liberty, Putnam quotes Hamilton: “Inequality will exist as long as liberty exists. It unavoidably results from that very liberty itself” (p. 60).
    Putnam notes that the U.S. Constitution does not mention “equality.” Quoting from the preamble, he states that the purpose of the Constitution is to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” (p. 61.) [He misses a great opportunity to point out that the Constitution was written by White people for White people. White men wrote and adopted it. Barring miscegenation, which they abhorred, they expected their posterity to be White. No wonder Boas, Myrdal, and their like hate it so much! The Fourteenth Amendment became necessary to incorporate free Blacks because the original Constitution did not apply to Blacks, except as slaves, and free Blacks were never expected to be citizens or to have the rights and privileges of citizens.]
    Putnam refutes the notion that “equality for the Negro require[s] desegregation.” He declares, “What the Negro is really demanding is social equality with a group that does not desire his company” (p. 62). [What Blacks really want is not equality, but superiority.]
    Putnam provides an excellent response to the concern of injuring the self-esteem of someone by reflection on his racial background (p. 64). [To enhance the self-esteem of Blacks, the integrationists have annihilated the self-esteem of Whites.] Likewise, his response to discrimination against the exceptional Negro based on racial average is excellent (p. 64).
    Putnam discusses the issue of schools being social institutions. He notes that in many rural areas, schools are  social centers. Students eat together, play together, travel together, and dance together. Thus, schools are as much of places of social interaction as they are educational institutions (pp. 65-66). [A major objective of integrating schools is to encourage interracial mating and by that destroy the White race even if it requires destroying the Black race. A White girl whom Putnam quotes (p. 65) confirms this outcome.]
    Putnam quotes a Southern author about integration leading to miscegenation: “To suppose that we can promote all other degrees of race mixing but stop short of inter-racial mating is like going over Niagra Falls in a barrel in the expectation of stopping three-fourths of the way down” (p. 66).
    Putnam correctly contends that the egalitarian ideology leads to interracial marriages. He writes:
A youth brought up to believe all races potentially equal is first conditioned to disregard the evidence of his senses and the dictates of sound judgment, and then to feel the added pressure of pity. Here, he thinks, is a member of a race which has suffered “cultural deprivation” — not only will time adjust all differences, but marriage may be a recompense for injustice (p. 66).
[Marriage statistics show that integration has been highly effective at causing increasing numbers of interracial marriages.]
    Moreover, Putnam correctly notes “that the first thing a group or party that wishes to remake a civilization to suit itself is going to do is to corrupt the relatively defenseless minds of children” (p. 66). [Those who seek to demolish the United States and the White race have gained control of education and religion. With their control, they have brainwashed many with their destructive alien ideas. Thus, the United States are no longer Christian and have become Marxist by adopting all the planks of The Communist Manifesto.]
    Putnam remarks that the Christian religion promises salvation to all men; however, all men are not consequently equal in the sight of God. He notes that salvation is not status. Status has to be earned. He adds, “To assume that a person who wastes his life, albeit confident in his redemption through faith, stands on an equal footing before God with a man who strives to progress in character and service, is to make a mockery of the Christian religion” (p. 67). [According to Jesus, faith in him guarantees one’s salvation. Works determine one’s status. As Putnam notes, far too many people, including theologians, confuse salivation with status.]
    Putnam states, “[W]hen we are confronted with a situation where a race must be considered as a race, there is no alternative to building the system around the average. The minor handicap to the exceptional individual, if such there be, is negligible compared to the damage that would otherwise result to society as a whole” (p. 68).
    Putnam comments that it may be too late to repatriate the American Negro to his biological and spiritual home. However, “it may not be too late to redeem in America the heritage of the white man” (p. 69). If this is not done, the White man in the United States will lose his home. [If he were to write his book today, Putnam would probably conclude that it is too late for the White man to redeem himself and save his home. The White man has lost the United States although he may still be able to save parts of it. Regardless of the White man, Latinos and other races will, if left unchecked, withdraw large territories from the United States. Secession is in the air, and the Latinos will lead the way. Whites will do nothing for fear of being called “racists.” Blacks will long for the good old days of segregation as Latinos will ethnically cleanse their territory of Blacks.]
    Putnam gives an excellent response to the question: “What’s the use in trying to convince my mind when my heart tell me segregation is wrong?” (p. 69) He quotes Matthew 22:36-37 where Jesus states the first and greatest commandment, i.e., loving God with all our heart, soul, and mind. Then Putnam adds:
There seems little doubt that most of our difficulties are due to a failure to use our minds as well as our hearts, and that more of the evil in the world is created by fools than by knaves. Well intentioned, but ignorant or stupid, people are at the bottom of most of the world’s troubles. The heart, unguided by wisdom, soon leads us into emotionalism and thence into chaos (p. 70).
    On the concept of the brotherhood of man, Putnam notes that “brotherhood begins with the family.” Then he adds, “The communist technique of undermining the family as a social unit is very much of a part with their pressure for racial integration. Communists want to destroy all loyalties except loyalty to the State (p. 70). [Unlike the pro-integrationists, Putnam acknowledges that Communists are behind integration, and he is right (v. “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement”).] Continuing, he states “that the grouping instinct is basic, and that race is one of the wider groups” (pp. 70-71).
    Putnam writes, “to expose young white children, in their most formative years, to the Negro influence would have an immediate adverse effect (p. 71).” [Regrettably, the last 55 years of integration have proven Putnam right. Whites have become more like Blacks than Blacks have become like Whites. Instead of Blacks adopting the culture, morals, and virtues of Whites, Whites have adopted those, or the lack thereof, of Blacks.]
    Putnam discusses modern sociology and notes that it is founded on modern egalitarian anthropology (pp. 71-72). He believes that “the real contest in America today is between equalitarianism on the one hand, and individual freedom and responsibility on the other.” He continues, “One of the notions inherit in the first system is the idea that benefits should flow from the State; in the second, that benefits should flow from individual efforts” (p. 71). [With each decade of integration, egalitarianism has advanced and individual freedom, responsibility, and effort have retreated. Thus, Communists and other Marxists are winning, and the lovers of liberty are losing.]
    Putnam writes, “[Y]ou cannot create superior ideals and superior people by pretending that inferior ideals and inferior people — black or white — are just as good” (p. 72). [Because of declaring that the inferior is just as good as the superior, the United States have collapsed into moral, ethical, religious, spiritual, social, political, and economic decay. Few would have thought that a ruling by the Supreme Court in 1954 would bring down the United States.]
    Putnam quotes one of his correspondents:
        In the last ten years, or ever since the decision was made by the leftwingers to enlist the Negro in their crusade for universal erosion, the leadership of the Negro race has almost abandoned efforts at self-improvement by the Negro. . . .
        Now virtually all the emphasis is being placed upon the theory that the big obstacle to a millennium for the Negro race is the oppressive social system under which he lives. Even a far more sophisticated and superior race of people would be corrupted by such a narcotic as this. In the case of the Negro, with his uncritical mind and lack of experience, the result has been nothing less than a catastrophe (p. 72).
[This was written before the War on Poverty program. The catastrophe that concerned this correspondent pales to insignificance compared with the catastrophe that occurred after the adoption of the War on Poverty program. The War on Poverty and related programs have devastated and nearly destroyed the Black family and Black responsibility. They have enslaved many Blacks to the government. Sadly, few Blacks realize that they have again become slaves.]

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen. 

Part 1, Part 3