Commentary on Philippians 2:6

Commentary on Philippians 2:6

Thomas Allen

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God. (King James Version)

who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, (Revised Standard Version)

For Trinitarians, the phrase “in the form of God” proves the preexistent equality of the Father and Jesus. It refers to Jesus’ nature before his birth. This verse along with the adjacent verses (Philippians 2: 3–11) proves inconvertibly that Jesus disrobed himself of his divinity and dressed himself in the form of a human. That is, Jesus visibly represented the essence of God the Father. Also, Trinitarians use these verses to support the Incarnation.

In his nature, Jesus is God; therefore, being fully God, Jesus did not need to grasp for equality. Thus, although he was “in the form of God,” i.e., of the same substance or essence, and, therefore, had the right to be equal to God, Jesus sought to conceal this fact by not appearing to be equal to God. Moreover, since Jesus was not inferior to God the Father, Jesus could claim the right to be treated as His equal, yet he chose to humble himself and become a man. Although Jesus was equal to God, he decided not to assert his equality — “thought it not robbery” or “a thing to be grasped.”

The Wycliffe Bible Commentary translates Philippians 2:6 as follows: “Though in his pre-incarnate state he possessed the essential qualities of Cod, he did not consider his status of divine equality a prize to be selfishly hoarded (taking harpagmos [plunder, robbery] passively).” Other biased Trinitarian translations are given in the appendix.

Unitarians contend that Philippians 2:6 does not prove the preexistent equality of Jesus and the Father. This verse is part of a passage where Paul compares the attitude and achievements of Adam to those of Jesus. Adam succumbed to his pride and sought, in a sense, to be equal to God. Contrariwise, although Jesus was the perfect expression of God’s character, he humbled himself and, unlike Adam, considered equality with God as something not to be sought or grasped. Instead, Jesus waited for God to exalt him.

This verse is part of a passage where Paul is teaching the virtue of humility by following Jesus’ example of humility. Paul is urging the Philippians to act with humility toward each other. Instead of teaching the Trinity Doctrine, this passage urges believers to be humble.

Unitarians and Trinitarians disagree about the idea that “form” conveys. While Trinitarians contend that it conveys the notion of “essential nature or essence,” i.e. the essence of God, Unitarians contend that it refers to outward appearance because the word translated as “form” was commonly used in the sense of outward appearance during and before the time that Paul wrote. Whereas Trinitarians claim that it refers to an internal quality, Unitarians claim that it refers to an external quality. Jesus was “in the form of God” in the sense that he perfectly expressed the character of the Father. It does not suggest that Jesus was of the same substance or essence as God and, therefore, possesses God’s nature.

Further, Trinitarians assert that the phrase “did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped” proves that in the Godhead, Jesus is equal to the Father. Namely, because Jesus was preexistent God, he could claim equality of the Godhead. On the other hand, Unitarians claim that phrase means the opposite of the Trinitarian claim. Instead of claiming Jesus’ equality with God, it means that Jesus rejected pursuing equality with God. Jesus refusing to seek equality with God is consistent with Paul urging believers to copy Jesus’ humility.

Moreover, the phrase does not mean that Jesus maintained equality with God as Trinitarians contend. It means that he did not try to become equal with God. Furthermore, if Jesus were God, to say that he “did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped” is absurd; being God, he already had equality with God.

If the Trinitarian interpretation of Philippians 2:5-11 is correct, then it refutes the origin of Jesus in Matthew and Luke. Unitarians maintain that Matthew and Luke are correct and the Trinitarians are wrong. Moreover, Unitarians reject the notion that Paul is teaching the Trinity Doctrine in this and the following verses because he clearly rejects the Trinity Doctrine elsewhere. Paul taught that only the Father was God and that Jesus was a man (emphasis added):

1 Corinthians 8:6: “But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.”

Ephesians 4:5-6: 5 “One Lord [Jesus], one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.”

1 Timothy 2:5: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;” (In his exalted state, Jesus is still a man.)

Appendix

Some modern translations show an obvious Trinitarian bias in their translation of the phrase “being in the form of God”:

Christian Standard Bible: “who, existing in the form of God,”

Contemporary English Version: “Christ was truly God.”

Easy English Bible: “Christ had the same nature as God.”

Evangelical Heritage Version: “Though he was by nature God,”

Good News Translation: “He always had the nature of God,”

Living Bible: “who, though he was God,”

New International Reader's Version: “In his very nature he was God.”

New International Version: “Who, being in very nature God,”

New Life Version: “Though he was God,”

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Three Facts About the South

Three Facts About the South

Thomas Allen

Discussed below are the States’ right of secession, music, and the South was right.

States’ Right of Secession

Nowhere does the Constitution deny a State the right to secede. Secession is not expressly stated in the Constitution because the States reserved that right in the Tenth Amendment. 

Each of the original 13 States had seceded twice when they ratified the Constitution of 1787. First, they had seceded from Great Britain, and then they seceded from the Union formed by the Articles of Confederation. That the States would deny themselves the right to secede from the Union formed by the Constitution of 1787 is absurd — especially since the Constitution did not expressly deny them this right. Even New York and Virginia declared in their ratification that they retained the right to secede. Further, the New England States claimed that they had the right to secede. Moreover, the Declaration of Independence asserted that the States (the colonies) had the right to secede. Thus, the Southern States had the right to secede in 1861.

Besides, when the States drafted the Constitution of 1787 and joined the federation created by that Constitution, they retained their sovereignty. (Because the States were republics and the Constitution guaranteed each State a republican form of government, the States could not surrender their sovereignty and still remain republics. [See “Returning Republican Governments to the States” by Thomas Allen.]) Sovereigns have the power to secede from any union or federation to which they have acceded.

When the Southern States seceded, they were merely exercising their right as sovereigns to leave the Union peacefully as the States did from the Union created by the Articles of Confederation. The Tenth Amendment guaranteed the right of secession.

For a more detailed discussion of a State’s right to secede, see Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States: Its Causes, Character, Conduct, and Results, volume 1, by Alexander H. Stephens, 1868.

Music

How long will it be before American music is outlawed? Why should American music be outlawed? Because, with rare exception, all neoconservatives, establishment conservatives, liberals, progressives, and libertarians are Dixiephobes. They loathe the South and Southerners. Therefore, they disdain everything Southern.

What does this have to do with music? All significant genres or styles of American music of any significance originated in the South. Thus, American music is the product of slavocracy, Jim Crow, White supremacy, and their descendants. Rock ‘n roll, jazz (including ragtime, boogie-woogie, Dixieland, and swing), blues, country, bluegrass, rhythm and blues, soul, funk, Tejano, Cajun, zydeco, gospel, spiritual, sacred harp, barbershop, and more are Southern. All of them came out of the South.

Because of their hatred of the South, neoconservatives, establishment conservatives, liberals, progressives, and libertarians seek to destroy everything that is Southern. Consequently, American music, which is really Southern music, must be destroyed. They have to destroy Southern music before it completely contaminates the virtues of Yankeedom.

(Reference: Daniel, Tom. “Academy of Southern Music.” Abbeville Institute: The Abbeville Blog, June 1, 2021. https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/bthe log/academy-of-southern-music/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=d073b88d-f677-448c-9c41-191b5e0c631f accessed June 2, 2021.)

The South Was Right

In “The Power of the Powerless” (November 4, 2020), James Rutledge Roesch provides an excellent description of the Puritan Yankee mentality that wars against the South, which proves that the South was right (https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/the-power-of-the-powerless/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=c24f9d1b-a791-4b69-be6a-ca8b5d96ed4b):

In the meantime, however, we can take some bittersweet solace in the fact that despite the sadistic iconoclasm against the symbols of the American South, the polarisation/radicalisation of American politics, the dysfunction of the American system of government, the corruption of the American party system, the degeneracy of American culture, and the disintegration of American society represents the ultimate vindication of the Southern critique of American millenarianism (i.e. “The City Upon A Hill” and “The Last, Best Hope for Mankind”), American gnosticism (i.e. “The More Perfect Union” and “The Indissoluble Union”), American teleocracy (i.e. “The Proposition Nation” and “The Redeemer Nation”), American hubris (i.e. “The Exceptional Nation” and “The Indispensable Nation”), and other Hebraic-Puritan “isms” and “ologies” from the Left and the Right to which our compatriots up north have proven so susceptible throughout our country’s very young life.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern articles.

The Promised Land

The Promised Land

Thomas Allen

In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: (Genesis 15:18)

God promised to give the land of the Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites (Exodus 3:8 and 17), i.e., the land that became Palestine, to Abraham’s descendants. Zionists claim that this promise has never been fulfilled. Many Zionists claim that the promised land includes all the territory between the Euphrates and the Nile. That is, it includes not only Palestine, but also Iraq and Syria west of the Euphrates, Lebanon, Jordan, northwest Saudi Arabia, and Egypt east of the Nile. Moses describes the promised land in Numbers 34:1-12.

According to Joshua, God gave the Israelites all the land that He had promised to Abraham:

So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the Lord said unto Moses; and Joshua gave it for an inheritance unto Israel according to their divisions by their tribes. And the land rested from war. (Joshua 11:23)

And the Lord gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein. (Joshua 21:43)

Thus, the Abrahamic land promise was fulfilled in Joshua’s lifetime.

While Joshua claims that God’s land promise to Abraham was fulfilled in his lifetime, Zionists contend that the promise remains unfulfilled. Some Zionists contend that before the Abrahamic land promise is fulfilled, modern-day Israel must occupy all of Palestine. To fulfill this promise, other Zionists assert that Israel must occupy all the land between the Euphrates and the Nile.

Who do you believe: today’s Zionists or Joshua?

Furthermore, Jews using Genesis 15:18 to justify God giving them Palestine is one of today’s greatest ironies. It is ironic because so few Jews may be descendants of Abraham.  Nearly all of today’s Jews are descendants of the people of the extinct Khazar Empire. (The Khazar Empire covered what is now southeastern Russia, southern Ukraine, Crimea, and northeast Kazakhstan.) Moreover, unlike the Jews, most Palestinians may be descendants of Abraham.

What some commentators have written about Genesis 15:18 and Joshua 11:23 and 21:43 follows:

– Halley: God promised the descendants of Abraham the land of Canaan.[1]

– Gore: The land promised to Abraham’s descendants was not achieved until the peak of Solomon’s reign.[2]

– Holmes: Joshua conquered the land described in Deuteronomy.[3]

– A. Clarke: The southwestern border was not the Nile but was the Sichor River on the border of Egypt near the Isthmus of Suez. The Abrahamic land promise was fully accomplished during the reign of David and Solomon. Whatever land in Canaan that the Israelites did not occupy paid tribute to prove their submission.[4]

– L. Clarke: The Israelites occupying all the land between the Nile and Euphrates was never more than a dream.[5]

– Mann: The extent of the promised land was idealized and was approximately achieved during the reigns of David and Solomon. Moreover, the River of Egypt refers not to the Nile but probably to the brook of Egypt.[6]

– Smith: All the land that God had promised the Israelites, Joshua took.[7]

– MacDonald: The Nile probably means the Wadi el-Arish, a small stream south of Gaza.[8] Further, Joshua’s stating that Israel occupied all the land that God had promised Abraham’s descendants from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates should not be understood literally; it means that the land that Joshua divided among the Israelites fulfilled God’s promise to give the Israelites the land on which they walked.[9]

Endnotes

1.  Henry H. Halley, Halley's Bible Handbook (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1965), p. 94.

2. Charles Gore, “Genesis,” A New Commentary on Holy Scripture, ed. Charles Gore, Henry L. Gouge, and Alfred Guillaume (New York: The Macmillian Co., 1928), p. 51.

3. Samuel Holmes, “Joshua,” A Commentary on the Bible, ed. Arthur S Peake (New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, n.d.), p. 254.

4. Adam Clarke, Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible, Abridged by Ralph Earle (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1967) p. 38.

5. W.K. Lowther, ed., Concise Bible Commentary (New York, New York: MacMillan Publishing, 1953), p. 348.

6. John Marks, “Genesis,” The Interpreter’s One-volume Commentary on the Bible, ed. Charles M. Laymon, (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1971), p. 15. 

7. Robert Smith, “Joshua,” The Interpreter’s One-volume Commentary on the Bible, ed. Charles M. Laymon, (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1971), pp. 130, 133.

8. William  MacDonald, Believer's Bible Commentary (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 1989), p. 50.

9. Ibid., p. 231.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Why I am not a White Nationalist — Where They Are Wrong Economically

Why I am not a White Nationalist — 

Where They Are Wrong Economically

Thomas Allen

White Nationalists advocate adopting highly invasive, liberty-destroying, and immensely destructive economic and monetary programs. A discussion of some of them follows.

– Managed economy. White Nationalists have a low opinion of the free market, free enterprise economic system; like most people, they confuse it with capitalism. (See “Capitalists and Socialists” by Thomas Allen.) Even those who do not confuse it with capitalism have an especially low opinion of it. Since White Nationalists have more trust and confidence in bureaucrats than they have in the people, even White people, they prefer a governmentally managed economy to a free market, free enterprise economy.

– Communist threat to capitalists. Contrary to what many White Nationalists believe, capitalists do not have to be threatened with communism. Few White Nationalists know that if it were not for capitalists’ succor, communism would have died a stillbirth. (See “Soviet Union” and “China” by Thomas Allen.)

– Welfare. Although White Nationalists oppose Martin Luther King’s social justice (discrimination against Whites and special privileges for Blacks and other nonwhites), they not only want to implement his economic justice but also expand it. Like King, they are proponents of the welfare state. They seem to admire President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society (except the civil rights and immigration parts of it). Their primary objection to the Great Society is the recipients of the benefits. The principal problem that White Nationalists seem to have with King’s economic justice is that he did not go far enough. Like King, they have no qualms about forcibly taking property from producers and giving it to nonproducers.

Most White Nationalists advocate a welfare state for the benefit of the working and middle classes. Contrary to what many of them believe, mostly the working and middle classes will pay for this welfare state. Moreover, the welfare state benefits the oligarchs more than anyone else since it makes the working and middle classes more dependent on the government, which the oligarchs control. When a person is receiving financial benefits from the government, he is less likely to object to governmental actions even if they are detrimental to him because he fears losing his benefits. Some White Nationalists find such control desirable.

– Protectionism. Like many statists, White Nationalists are proponents of protectionism. They want to protect politically favored industries from competition. Thus, they are enamored with government-business partnerships, i.e., corporate welfare; protectionism is just a form of corporate welfare.

Protectionism may give workers in the protected industry higher pay, but it does so at the expense of other workers with higher prices, which lowers their standard of living. Protectionism is of little benefit to construction workers, plumbers, carpenters, electricians, medical faculty workers, teachers, hospitality workers, and most service providers. Often, protectionism adversely affects workers in the protected industries. Owners of the protected industries are the primary beneficiaries. (For more discussion on protectionism, see “Questions for Protectionists,” “Do We Really Need to Return to Hamilton,” and “A Letter: Tariffs” by Thomas Allen.)

Instead of giving politically favored industries special advantages with tariffs and quotas at the expense of consumers, a more prudent approach that would save taxpayers money and encourage manufacturers not to build their plants overseas should be used. This approach ends all subsidies that encourage them to locate their factories overseas. Moreover, the US armed forces would not be used to protect their property in foreign countries. Also, reducing regulations on domestic manufacturers would reduce the incentive to move outside the country. One thing that most people forget is that imports are bought with exports. The more a country imports, the more it must export. (Currently, a major export of the United States is the fiat US dollar.)

– Interest. Some White Nationalists want to outlaw interest. When the government suppresses the rate of interest, the country consumes its capital. As a country uses its capital for consumption, its economy deteriorates and poverty grows. Eventually, all its capital is consumed and it returns to the hunter-gatherer stage. (For a more detailed discussion on interest, see “Usury” and “Questions for Anti-Usurers” by Thomas Allen.)

– Fiat money. Like all statists, White Nationalists adore fiat money and abhor commodity money (gold and silver). (For the difference between fiat money and commodity money, see “What Is the Difference Between Commodity and Fiat Money” by Thomas Allen.) Unlike the founding fathers, who trusted the people and left control of the money supply directly in the hands of the people, White Nationalists trust politicians and bureaucrats to regulate and control the money supply. Under the gold coin standard contained in the US Constitution, the people decided how many gold coins were needed by the quantity of gold they brought to the mint for coinage and the quantity of gold coins they melted for nonmonetary uses. (See "Constitutional Money" by Thomas Allen.) The same is true for the silver standard. (For more on the gold standard, see “What is the Gold Standard?” by Thomas Allen.) Moreover, gold extinguishes debt, while fiat money merely discharges debt by passing it to another. (See “Extinguishing Debt” by Thomas Allen.) A major reason that fiat money adherents hate the true gold-coin standard is that the government cannot control the money under the gold-coin standard.

When accompanied by the real bills doctrine, enough money is created to clear the market of newly produced goods. Most of the money created under the real bills doctrine goes initially to the workers and suppliers of material used to manufacture the products. Further, when money created under the real bills doctrine has done its work, it is automatically removed from the market and does not cause inflation. A chief flaw of all fiat monetary systems is a lack of a mechanism to remove excess money from the economy; consequently, fiat monetary systems nearly always have problems with inflation. (For more discussion on the real bills doctrine, see “Real Bills Doctrine” by Thomas Allen.)

– Social credits. Some White Nationalists prefer the social credit fiat monetary system. This system is highly flawed and will fail to do what its supporters claim it will do. It is highly invasive and greatly swells the ranks of governmental bureaucrats. Moreover, it demands enormous amounts of record-keeping, reporting, and data analysis. Nevertheless, most White Nationalists probably know nothing about the social credit system, and many have never heard of it. (For a detailed discussion of the social credit system, see “Analysis of Richard Cook’s Monetary Reforms as Presented in We Hold These Truths” by Thomas Allen.)

Central bank digital currency is ideal for the social credit economy because it makes tracking private spending transparent and, therefore, easier. Further, it reduces the time between collecting and analyzing data and the injection of new currency. Also, it can be used to force people to spend by directly stealing their savings. (Most social credit advocates despise savings.)

Moreover, since the social credit economy requires an administrative state, it is compatible with an administrative state. (An administrative state is a state ruled by experts and technocrats for the benefit of the oligarchs.) Most other fiat monetary reform schemes also require an administrative state. Furthermore, the administrative state eliminates checks and balances by merging the executive, legislative, and judicial functions into one agency, which is what many White Nationalists seem to want.

– Guaranteed income. Like King, White Nationalists promote a guaranteed annual income. A guaranteed annual income is the foundation of the social credit system.

– Economic summary. The difference between the monetary and economic system that White Nationalism promotes and that fascism and socialism promote is difficult to distinguish. (Since the United States have adopted at least 80 percent of the planks in the Communist Manifesto, distinguishing between the US government and a communist government is often difficult. See “Are the United States a Communist Country?” by Thomas Allen.) All want to use the government to force people, ultimately under the penalty of death, to do what most people do not naturally want to do. 

Conclusion

Many White Nationalists seem to overlook the necessity of a firm moral foundation. Christianity used to provide this foundation. However, between World War I and World War II, it began earnestly to be phased out. During the civil rights era, this foundation has been nearly eradicated as Christian denominations replaced the gospel of Jesus with the gospel of King and wokeism. To replace dying Christianity, a few White Nationalists promote paganism, especially Nordic paganism. Yet, paganism offers no firm moral foundation. Various forms of paganism are prominent in America today; the three most popular are the worship of Hermes (sports), Gaia (climate change), and Moloch (abortion). Most White Nationalists seem to want to replace Christianity with the welfare state and the worship of the state.

Only a few White Nationalists seem to realize that the political and economic policies and programs that they advocate lead to despotic tyranny even if the country is entirely White. Although they deplore totalitarianism, their worship of the state and their proposed economic system leads to totalitarianism.

Their love of statism, support of the welfare state, and the proposed monetary and economic system disqualify me from being a White Nationalist. Nevertheless, they are generally correct in their solution to racial problems and many other social issues. However, their ignorance of economics knows no bounds. As abysmal as the current monetary and economic system is in the US, the proposals of White Nationalists are far worse.

Further, the primary difference between the typical White Nationalist and the typical left-winger is racial and social issues. Other than these issues, they mostly agree on other issues at least in principle although they may differ in details.

In summary, the foreign and social policies of White Nationalism are excellent. However, its political and economic policies are horrendous.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

 Part 2

More political articles.

Why I am not a White Nationalist — Where They Are Wrong Politically

Why I am not a White Nationalist — 

Where They Are Wrong Politically

Thomas Allen

The following are some key political areas where White Nationalists err.

– Populism. White Nationalists are populists. Populism claims to champion the common man and to protect him from the oligarchs and plutocrats. The government governs for the common good. (What is the common good, and who decides it?) Populists oppose big business and financial interests. (So do I.) To thwart subversion by special interest, governmental deliberations should be public and transparent. (Can transparency really exist under the authoritarian version of populism? If so, how?) Generally, populists favor fiat money, inflation (to cheat creditors by paying debt with less valuable money), graduated income tax and other “soak it to the rich” schemes (which usually backfire by soaking it to the middle and working classes), governmental ownership of utilities, labor regulations that greatly favor workers, and heavily regulated transportation systems if not outright governmental ownership. Also, they favor immigration restrictions and welfare programs for the working and middle classes. While some populists favor an authoritarian government, others favor direct democracy through popular initiatives and referenda. Popularism gave the United States the Sixteenth Amendment (the graduated income tax) and the Seventeenth Amendment (direct election of Senators).

– Statism. White Nationalists are statists and seem to have little use for libertists. (For a description of the two, see “Statists Versus Libertists” by Thomas Allen.) Under statism, its priesthood, the government, grows until the state consumes all and becomes a god and the decider and provider of everything. Although statism is the cause of most of the social problems that they identify, White Nationalists do not want to abandon statism; they want to use the state to impose their economic and other policies and programs. Communist China, North Korea, and the Soviet Union are examples of the fruition of statism. The love of statism is one of the most egregious problems with White Nationalism. (For more details on statism, see “The State” and “The Difference Between Government and State” by Thomas Allen.) 

– Common good. Except where it conflicts with the common good, White Nationalists support private liberty. However, who decides what is the common good? According to White Nationalists, the state decides the common good and has unlimited powers to achieve it. And who or what is the state? The state is the oligarchs (the ruling elite) through bureaucrats and politicians. (The difference between pursuing the common good under White Nationalism and pursuing it under communism, socialism, fascism, and the current US regime is hard to distinguish although what they consider the common good may differ significantly.) Like all statists, White Nationalists believe that rights and liberties come from the state.

Although White Nationalists support free speech, presumably in the name of the common good, some governmental authority can declare that free speech, freedom of worship, the right to bear arms, and all the other rights and liberties identified in the Bill of Rights conflict with the common good and, therefore, prohibit them.

Many left-wingers believe that the common good requires censorship. Governmental bureaucrats should decide what people read and hear, i.e., what political views to which they are exposed. Since “democracy” is the great common good, censorship is necessary to protect it. Do White Nationalists believe that censorship is a common good? They seem ambivalent; free speech is a common good when it benefits them, while censorship is a common good when some bureaucrat or governmental leader declares it to be a common good.

On the other hand, many right-wingers also believe that democracy is the common good. Yet, they believe that free speech is essential to protecting democracy and is, therefore, a common good. — not censorship. (Nazis and fascists are not right-wingers; they are left-wingers.)

Additionally, left-wingers assert that banning the private ownership of firearms serves the common good because fewer people will be shot (and because disarmed people resisting tyranny is much more difficult). Do White Nationalists agree? Presumably, they do because banning privately owned firearms serves the common good. Or does a common good depend on who decides what it is?

Moreover, many White Nationalists believe that people should be forcibly injected with an experimental gene therapy drug if some bureaucrat finds that it is for the common good. The common good of society always trumps individual liberties.

Furthermore, White Nationalists criticize right-wingers for denying that a common good exists. They are wrong. Right-wingers merely disagree with White Nationalists on what is the common good. For most Right-wingers, individual liberty is the paramount common good.

As shown above, the common good depends on who wields political power.

– Constitution. Being statists, White Nationalists prefer the constitution that Lincoln gave the country to the one that the founding fathers gave it. (For the difference between the two, see “What Is Your View of the US Constitution?” by Thomas Allen. Also, see “More on the US Constitution”  and “More Thoughts Related to the US Constitution” by Thomas Allen.) Additionally, as statists, they prefer a centralist society to a decentralist society. Centralists emphasize the larger community: the state, a puissant central government, the collective, big businesses, central banks, and even the utopian world state. (White Nationalists object to a world state because it conflicts with their policy of each race having its own independent countries. Although many may object to a central bank, their economic program requires a central bank.) Decentralists emphasize the smaller community: the individual, the family, voluntary associations, small businesses, and local and State or provincial governments. (For a more detailed discussion of the two, see “Centralism Versus Decentralism” by Thomas Allen.)

– Lack of trust in the people. Like progressives, liberals, socialists, and fascists, White Nationalists do not trust the people. However, like them, they do trust politicians and especially bureaucrats implicitly — despite politicians and bureaucrats being the cause of most of the problems to which White Nationalists object. Like progressives, liberals, socialists, and fascists, White Nationalists seem to believe that sinful humans become angels when they become government employees. If they do not believe this, why do they want them to have so much power?

– Prefer bureaucratic rule. White Nationalists prefer the rule of bureaucrats to politicians governing because politicians think no further than the next election. However, the democratically unaccountable bureaucrats (the “Deep State”) can engage in long-range planning. Thus, White Nationalists believe that a governmentally bureaucratically controlled society — which is a fascist, socialist, and communist idea — is superior to a laissez-faire society.

– Prefer the rule of men. White Nationalists prefer the rule of men to the rule of law. (What the United States enjoy today is the rule of men clothed in the rule of law.) In making decisions, they prefer a strong leader like the Fuhrer or Il Duce, who is held responsible for his decisions, to a legislative body. (Who is going to hold the leader accountable for his decisions?) Moreover, they oppose the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution and State constitutions. Thus, they seem to oppose constitutional government or at least a constitution that is intended to protect the rights and liberties of the people — even White people. Perhaps, this is the main reason that they prefer Lincoln’s constitution since it places little restraint on the federal government.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

 Part 1 Part 3

More political articles.

Why I am not a White Nationalist — Where They Are Right

Why I am not a White Nationalist — 

Where They Are Right

Thomas Allen

The following is based primarily on the works of Greg Johnson, who presents himself as a spokesman for White Nationalists and White Nationalism. First, I note where I agree with the White Nationalists. Then, I will comment on issues with which I disagree with them.

Not all White Nationalists agree with the political and economic policies and programs discussed below, but many, perhaps most, do. Nevertheless, all believe that countries should be monoracial. Also, being White separatists, White Nationalists should not be confused with White supremacists. (For the differences between the two, see “Views on Race” by Thomas Allen.)

Where White Nationalists Are Right

Correctly, White Nationalists support and advocate:

– encouraging truth and justice;

– limiting immigration to Whites;

– repatriating all illegal immigrants and all nonwhites who are not citizens;

– developing a program to encourage the repatriation of citizens who are nonwhite.

– following the example of the first naturalization law, which granted citizenship only to Whites;

– promoting ethnonationalism;

– promoting monoracial countries, i.e., every race should have its own independent countries, which means that one race should not rule over other races — consequently, imperialism is abhorred; (This follows Biblical teachings.)

– preserving the diversity of the races by giving them their own countries;

– accepting that democracy does not work in a multiracial society;

– recognizing that races are real and differ biologically and, therefore, are not social constructs, i.e., biological differences exist between the human races, and these differences are more than a few physical features that no sane person can deny (see “Nonphysical Racial Differences,” “Of One Blood,” and “Skeleton Differences of Human Races” by Thomas Allen) — these differences lead to different outcomes; consequently, unlike all left-wingers (liberals, progressives, socialists, and communists) and libertarians and most conservatives, White Nationalists are racial realists;

– acknowledging that the current system creates hatred between the races; 

– recognizing that unconditional surrender to Black Lives Matter has caused a significant increase in crimes by Blacks and more Black victims of Black criminals;

– encouraging Whites to breed to reverse the White demographic decline;

– strictly prohibiting miscegenation and interracial mating (this agrees with Biblical teachings — see “Does God Abhor or Approve Miscegenation?” and “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation” by Thomas Allen);

– recognizing collective property of race and Western Civilization, and believing that such collective properties are worth protecting (so did the founding fathers) — unlike most libertarians, left-wingers, and neoconservatives, who do not recognize them as collective property worth protecting;

– acknowledging that Neo-Nazism is not a solution, although White Nationalists propose some of the same economic and welfare programs that the Neo-Nazis propose; both are statists;

– adopting an American-first foreign policy and ending foreign interventionism;

– acknowledging that Whites built and made America unlike left-wingers, nearly all libertarians, and many conservatives, who do not think that they did;

– accepting that both the Democratic Party and Republican Party serve the oligarchs; and

– possessing a more realistic view of America than does the typical conservative (the America that conservatives venerate died decades ago).

Further, White Nationalists correctly oppose:

– racial hatred;

– violent acts done in the name of White Nationalism or by White Nationalists;

– the oligarchs, who are disproportionately Jews, who rule the country primarily through frontmen in the federal government;

– the government serving the ruling elite, i.e., the oligarchs, at the expense of the rest of society;

– elitism;

– the acceleration of the decline of the present system;

– globalization;

– so-called “free trade” agreements but for the wrong reasons; they believe that these “free trade” agreements promote free trade, which they do not; (These so-called “free trade” agreements have little to do with free trade. Their objective is to manage trade for the benefit of multinational companies.)

– the parasites who are killing America, e.g., Zionists, but apparently not welfare recipients since they support the welfare state;

– immigration of nonwhites being used to replace Whites (see “Black Replacement” by Thomas Allen);

– the genocide of Whites (see “The Genocidal War Against the White Race” by Thomas Allen);

– DIE (diversity, inclusion, equity), political correctness, and wokeism;

– multiracial societies (Unlike most libertarians and many conservatives, White Nationalists know that multiracial societies cause alienation, hatred, conflict, and violence, which is why God ordained monoracial societies. However, left-wingers know that multiracial societies cause these problems and, therefore, promote multiracial societies. They want to destroy the existing society so that they can build a new society in their image on the ruins — just as the Yankees did following Lincoln’s War.);

– misogyny and misandry;

– political universalism, which is the fundamental cause of multiracialism, multiculturalism, cultural assimilation, and miscegenation;

– neoconservatives, establishment conservatives, and most other conservatives because they suffer from the same principles of egalitarianism and universalism as the left, which gives the left a great advantage over the right;

– Antifa and its tactics;

– the Democratic Party ardently working to destroy America and genocide the White race;

– voter fraud and corrupt election;

– the faux morality of racism being the greatest sin of all (with at least 800 definitions, “racism” is a meaningless term; see “Are You a Racist?” by Thomas Allen.); however, it is a sin that only Whites can commit; racism by nonwhites is not racism; and

– a false morality that blames Whites for all of the world’s problems even when Whites are innocent.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

 Part 2

More political articles.

Do Human Races Exist: Appendices

Do Human Races Exist: Appendices

Thomas Allen

Appendix 1. Discussion with RN1 in comments to an article in “We Love Trump Report.” 

RN1: Mayor Wu should NOT be apologizing for having the emails sent to ALL Council Members! She should be apologizing for NOT intending to invite the whites in the FIRST PLACE! Plain. And. Simple. PERIOD!

Me to American Patriot: Nonwhites segregating themselves from Whites is the only thing that will save the suicidal White race. Since most Whites are racial nihilists, they are determined to sacrifice themselves on the altar of humanity. Since most people of other races are racial supremacists or racial separationists, they seek to protect, preserve, and promote their race — something White stopped doing decades ago.

RN1 to Me: But we’re all the same race. The human race!

Me to RN1: You prove my point. Are you so stupid that you cannot distinguish between a Korean and a Zulu? If you are correct, then why do we have all these laws and policies that prohibit discriminating against nonexisting nonwhites while encouraging discrimination against nonexisting Whites? Why do we have all these laws and policies that give nonwhites benefits and privileges that are denied nonexisting Whites? Even the great archconservative Martin Luther King could identify the races of humans and wanted Negroes (his word) to have special benefits and privileges. Apparently, these nonexisting Whites can distinguish the race of man that God created. Even toddlers and dogs know that races of humans exist. Only stupid racial nihilists like you are unable to identify a person’s race, which is an insult to that person because his race is an essential part of his identity. Racial nihilists do prove one thing: They prove that nonwhites are more intelligent than Whites where race is concerned. Furthermore, following your logic, there are no differences between men and women because both are of human race. Thus, you must be a proponent of transgenderism since you have proven the proponents of transgenderism correct.

RN1 to Me: What in the world are you even saying? You don’t make much sense. We are ALL of the HUMAN race! With that said, there are different ETHNICITIES within our same race! And there are only TWO genders (male and female)! It's VERY simple to understand! Where did I not make sense to you?

Appendix 2. Discussion with RN2 in comments to an article in The New American.

Original Commenter: Feminize [sic] the males and masculinize [sic] the women; there is such a mass desire to get rid of all God’s creations and some Christians have had enough. 

IMHO messing with God’s formulations is not only dangerous it is downright cruel. The children are the victims; mRNA, drug enhancement vaccines, drugs to trans, drugs for depression, sex edu. at age 4, etc. Sex isn’t in the organs it’s in the mind that controls the organs and the natural hormones. Mess with the minds and hormones of children and you have a mess. Their minds and bodies are not ready for sex or hormones as infants and toddlers......but it's being forced on them; cruelty.

God Help US

Me to Original Commenter: Don’t forget the genociding of the races that God created and that has been pushed since the 1960s.

RN2 to Me: The races that God created? From what I read, God created man kind, both male and female. “Race” is a divisive goo to you evolutionist invented classification. We are all being genocided — black, white, male, female, homosexual, straight, American, European, etc... I know you don’t believe we came from monkeys who came from pond scum, which came from an explosion of nothing.

Me to RN2: If you are correct, evolution is proven. Like begets unlike. Each kind after a different kind. End of story. By the way, Adam invented classification when he named the animals. Consequently, according to your reasoning, Adam must have been an evolutionist. Moreover, since I wrote that God created the races, that precludes me from being an evolutionist. However, the scenario that you describe and seem to support requires you to be an evolutionist.

RN2 to Me: No, not if I'm correct. If scripture is correct, after God created animals, He created man in His image — a clear distinction and separation between animals and man kind. If scripture is correct, then each animal brings forth creatures after their kind. That being the case, and considering the clear distinction between animals and man, it stands to reason that man also brings forth his kind as supported and evidenced by our own eyes and experience. Dogs can only bring forth dogs, cats can only bring forth cats, man can only bring forth man. No animal has or can evolve into another kind of animal, nor has or can any animal evolve into man. There is no evidence that one kind became another. I've not read any scripture that indicates that God created races or different “kinds” of man, just man. Differences in skin color, is not a result of evolution. There are no races. Not if I’m correct. If scripture is correct, God created Adam, and God created Eve. Adam and Eve brought forth their kind in His image. Evolution is NOT proven.

Me to RN2: If God did not do it, what causes the difference in skin color? Since races do not exist, then you must be unable to tell the difference between an East Asian and a Sub-Saharan African. If races do not exist, why do Republicans work so hard to get the Black vote? If races do not exist, why do Blacks have so many benefits and privileges denied Whites, and Whites are discriminated against? If races do not exist, how can one identify a person’s race with a high degree of accuracy from his blood? https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2015/12/of-one-blood.html. If races do not exist, how can one identify a person's race with a high degree of accuracy from his skeleton? https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2016/05/skeleton-differences-of-human-races.html. If races do not exist, why do groups differ greatly in nonphysical traits? https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2022/02/nonphysical-racial-differences.html. Only one kind of man is created in God’s image: https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2016/06/what-race-was-adam.html.

RN2 to Me: What makes you think I can not distinguish between an East Asian and a Sub-Saharan African? I have eyes that work the same as all man kind (with the exception of defect, of course), just as the people of those regions do and can see the differences in Anglo-Americans. How are your political prejudices a scientific determinant of so called ‘race?’ How are benefits and privileges a scientific determinant of so called ‘race?’ All of these are a result of the fall of man kind. God did not cause the fall. He therefore did not cause the variations you call ‘race,’ and certainly not man’s prejudices. “If races do not exist, how can one identify a person's race...” <== This is a logic trap within your question. It is circular and can't be answered.

This article based on scripture and science will answer your questions about skin color, facial features, blood characteristics, bone structure, etc. It is certainly too long to paste here.

“How did all the different ‘races’ arise (from Noah’s family)?” https://dl0.creation.com/articles/p040/c04018/chapter18.pdf.

Me to RN2: If you can distinguish between East Asians and Sub-Saharan Africans, you have identified two distinct races. I have glanced at the article you referenced and will review it in more detail when time permits. It seems like a covert evolutionist article claiming to be a creation document by doing the impossible with genetics. If all mankind descended from Noah and his family, then evolution is proven. A tribe or nation (nationality) has a common ancestral origin, which makes them monoracial (of the same people group) and are not hybrids. Moreover, skin color is a minor racial characteristic. An albino East Asian can be easily distinguished from an albino Sub-Saharan African, although they have the same skin color. The authors of the paper prefer “people group” to “race”; I prefer species, which is a much more accurate term. Here are two articles that show that most fundamental Christians are covert evolutionists: https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2020/05/fundamental-christians-and-evolution.html and https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2019/11/christians-and-creationism.html. Moreover, if races do not exist, why does God prohibit mongrels, mixed breeds, or multiracial people in his assembly https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2017/05/commentary-on-deuteronomy-232.html. However, I doubt that you will read or even look at this article and the previous ones that I linked. In closing, I quote Jeremiah, who declared the immutability of the races (species) of man when he said, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?” (Jeremiah 13:23a). The implication is no. Thus, Jeremiah testifies that fundamental Christians err when they maintain that all the species of man descended from Adam and Eve or from Noah through his sons and their wives.

RN2 to Me: No, I have not identified two distinct races. I have identified two groups of people, each with common characteristics resulting from many generations of environmental adaptations and mutations, not different creations of God. All are descended from one. Not evolution (one kind becoming another). Not separate creations. Descendants. “And [God] hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; ‘Species,’ the term you prefer over ‘people groups,’ nations and tribes, is a 14th Century invention by evolutionists. It cannot more accurately describe that which existed thousands of years before it.

God does not prohibit ‘mongrels’ from His assembly. “Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.” A better question would have been, “Why did God make the prohibitions of Deut. 23?” Not because they were a different creation. Not because they evolved from animals. Not because they were a different ‘species.’ Not because of the color of their skin. He prohibited them because they were pagans, worshipers of false Gods, workers of evil. He prohibited them so Israel would not be destroyed. He prohibited them for the same reason he prohibited Israelites from marrying foreign nationals from cultures of evil. Even then, God allowed some that were converted.

Why doubt that I read the articles you linked when you could simply ask? Because you did not read the article I linked? Because you cannot convert me and initiate me into the evolutionist cult? Yes, I read them, and they don’t hide their Aryan “master race” scripture twisting ideologies. They make false claims such as, “They imply, if not outright claim, that the blood of the races of humans is identical. Thus, races cannot be distinguished by blood.” No, they don’t. They do not imply or claim there are ‘races,’ rather nations and tribal groups. They do not imply or claim the blood of people groups are identical. This is explained in the article I linked that you did not read. They do not imply or claim that ethnicity groups cannot be distinguished by blood (also explained).

You “closed” by partially quoting Jeremiah who did NOT declare “the immutability of the races (or species — a term loved by Darwin and invented thousands of years after God spoke to Jeremiah). The full quote is “Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.” This in no way indicates that skin can not change over time and through generations. In fact, we know that skin can change with environmental factors, and can actually change quite abruptly with conditions doctors call “vitiligo.” What the Lord is saying is that the evil people of Judah have ignored God’s words for so long and are so accustomed to doing evil, that changing their hearts is as likely as the heavily pigmented Ethiopian changing his own skin or a leopard changing its spots — so unlikely He will destroy them.

So, now I will close by saying, you and I have a different belief system. Neither you nor I will change our hearts. Evolution is pseudo-science. There are no races, and the only master is the Messiah.

Me to RN2: As interesting as it is, I must close this discussion. After decades of studying this issue, I am convinced that I am correct, and you are not going to change my mind. Moreover, I am not going to correct your errors. Anyway, I congratulate you for not resorting to name-calling, as many commenters do when they cannot counter an argument. By the way, you believe that I am an evolutionist; I am more of a creationists than you are since I credit God with creating the races of humans (which your article calls people groups), and you resort to evolutionary methods. Further, I do not believe in a master race.

RN2 to Me: I thought you had already closed. “In closing, I quote Jeremiah,...” Perhaps, you meant only to close your prior comment. If so, fair enough.

I am not sure why you insist on making projections toward me. First, you doubted I would read your links, when in fact I already had. Second, you state as fact that I believe you are an evolutionist — ignoring my very first comment. I do NOT believe you are an evolutionist. You said you are not. I know you are not. I believe TC Allen is manipulating words to convolute what is obvious to “creationists,” just as you believe the author and contributors of Chapter 18 of Creation Answers Book 8th Edition is (not to be confused with “The Creation Answer Book,” by creation and biblical apologist Hank Hanegraaff).

“Only one kind of man is created in God’s image” is indicative of a master kind, or ‘race’ and ‘species’ as you prefer. TC Allen states that whites [only] are created in God’s image and have dominion over the earth, which would include the other supposed ‘races’ and ‘species’ of man. If these beliefs are not a belief in a master ‘race,’ I do not know what is.

“After decades of studying this issue, I am convinced that I am correct, and you are not going to change my mind.” Sound like Jeremiah 13:23? Keep an open mind, Me. Everyone can be deceived. Even the apostles and others who literally walked the earth with Messiah have been deceived. Don’t place all of your trust in TC Allen’s writings. I don’t place all of mine in the people at Creation Ministries International.

God bless and keep you. I’m out. The final word is yours.

Part 1: Main Article.

More social articles.