Who Killed Jesus?

Who Killed Jesus?

Thomas Allen

Did the Romans kill Jesus, or did the Jews kill Jesus? Christian Zionists and Jews claim that the Romans killed Jesus.

In “Who killed Jesus: The Romans or the Jews?,” The Jerusalem Post (December 29, 2021; Updated: November 19, 2022) at https://www.jpost.com/jerusalem-report/article-690095, Lewis Regenstein presents an agreement in favor of the Romans being guilty of Jesus’s death and the Jews being innocent. With his argument, most Christian Zionists would agree.

In Judea, the Romans controlled capital punishment; the Jews had no authority to crucify anyone. Only the Romans could execute someone by crucifixion. If the Jews had executed Jesus, they would have stoned him as they did Stephen. Therefore, the Romans are responsible for Jesus’s death.

Moreover, Pilate sentenced Jesus to death and authorized his execution. Further, Roman soldiers carried out the crucifixion of Jesus. The New Testament shows that the Romans, and not the Jews, killed Jesus.

Jesus and his family, disciples, followers, and supporters were Jews, and like other Jews, they were victims of Roman oppression. Since Jesus was an observant Jew and popular with the Jewish people, why would the Jews kill him?

Jesus’s popularity with the Jewish people was the primary reason that the Romans executed him. To carry out their scheme to kill Jesus, the Romans used Jewish agents and collaborators. 

Nevertheless, because of what Jesus said to and about the Jewish leaders, they wanted the Romans to kill Jesus since they had no power to execute him themselves. Further, they feared that the Romans would deal harshly with the Jews unless Jesus, whom they and the Romans saw as a troublemaker, was eliminated. Consequently, these leaders, who held office at the pleasure of the Romans, collaborated with the Romans to kill Jesus. 

In short, the Gospels describe Jesus as a popular Jewish reformer with a large Jewish following. They clearly describe the Romans as cruelly executing Jesus because the Romans perceived Jesus as a threat to the Romans and their Jewish collaborators in the priesthood.

As for the mob of Jews that cursed Jesus and demanded his execution, if such a mob existed, it consisted of Roman collaborators.

For fear of Roman persecution, early Christians could not blame the Romans for the death of Jesus. Therefore, to avoid persecution, writers of the New Testament shifted the blame for the crucifixion of Jesus from the Romans to the Jews. (When one considers the persecution that Paul, Peter, and other followers of Christ suffered from the Romans and Jews, shifting the blame from the Romans to the Jews for fear of Roman persecution seems absurd. Besides, if Paul, Peter, and the other writers of the New Testament blamed the Jews for killing Jesus when the Romans were responsible for his death, then they are guilty of bearing false witness.)

What does the Bible say? According to the Gospels, Pilate did order Jesus’s execution, and Roman soldiers carried out that order. However, Paul and Peter place the blame and responsibility for Jesus’s crucifixion on the Jews.

In 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15, Paul writes:

(14) For you, brothers, became imitators of the assemblies of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus; for you also suffered the same things from your own countrymen, even as they did from the Jews (15) who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and drove us out, and don’t please God, and are contrary to all men.

In this passage, Paul clearly blames the Jews for killing Jesus: “the Jews who both killed the Lord Jesus.”

Speaking to a group of Jews, Peter said, “Let all the house of Israel therefore know certainly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you [Jews] crucified.” (Acts 2:36). Clearly, Peter identifies the Jews as killing Jesus. Later, Peter spoke to the religious rulers and elders of the Jews and said, “[M]ay it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you [Jews] crucified, whom God raised from the dead, this man stands here before you whole in him.” (Acts 4:10) Again, Peter identifies the Jews as the killers of Jesus. At another time, when speaking to the religious leaders of the Jews, Peter said, “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you [Jews] killed, hanging him on a tree.” (Acts 5:30) Once more, Peter declares that the Jews kill Jesus. Afterward, Peter said, “We are witnesses of everything he did both in the country of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they [Jews] also killed, hanging him on a tree.” Several times and to various Jewish audiences, Peter accuses the Jews of killing Jesus. (Biblical citations are from the World English Bible.)

Both Paul and Peter identify the Jews as responsible for the death of Jesus. So, the question is, “Whom do you believe?” Do you believe Jews and Christian Zionists, who claim that the Romans killed Jesus? Or do you believe Paul and Peter, who claim that the Jews killed Jesus?

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen

More religious articles.

King on Our God Is Able

King on Our God Is Able

Thomas Allen

In “Our God Is Able,” Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 109–117, Martin Luther King, Jr. discusses the importance of God, evil, colonialism, and segregation. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

Beginning, King declares that Christians are convinced that God exists and that He can “do exceedingly abundant things in nature and in history.” (P. 109.) Moreover, the God whom Christians worship is neither weak nor incompetent.

King rejects the notion “that only man is able” (P. 109) and the substitution of “a man-centered universe for a God-centered universe.” (P. 109.) “The laboratory began to replace the church, and the scientists became a substitute for the prophet.” (P. 110.) Correctly, King writes, “Man is not able to save himself or the world.” (P. 110.)

However, events cause people “to question the ableness of God.” (P. 110.) Evil, both manmade and natural disasters, leads people to question God’s abilities. Why “do these things occur if God is able to prevent them?” (P. 110.) King’s answer is “that there is and always will be a penumbra of mystery surrounding God.” (P. 110-111.) (Instead of admitting their ignorance, especially about questions about God, most preachers will assert that it is a mystery, which may be true, but why do they not simply say that they do not know? Moreover, much confusion about God results from manmade doctrines.)

Although man may believe that he is the master of the physical universe, God sustains it. To defeat man-centered arrogance, King describes some of the things that God has done, such as the God-created solar system.

Then, King discusses God’s ability “to subdue all the powers of evil.” (P. 112.) To Christians, evil is real. “History is the story of evil forces that advance with seemingly irresistible power only to be crushed by the battering rams of the forces of justice. There is a law in the moral world — a silent, invisible imperative, akin to the laws in the physical world — that reminds us that life will work only in a certain way.” (P. 112.) To support his claim, King cites some examples.

To King, colonialism is one of the world’s great examples of evil. (Whether or not colonialism was evil, it brought a great deal of benefits to Africa. Before the arrival of Europeans, the people of sub-Sahara Africa sat on vast unused agricultural and mineral resources. Europeans taught Africans how to develop and use these resources. Europeans greatly improved the health and safety of the Africans. Furthermore, they brought the Africans the gospel of Jesus. Because of the colonial exploitation of European powers, Africans enjoy a much higher standard of living today than they would have if the Europeans never arrived. Nevertheless, colonialism has led to the destruction of the colonial powers. Consequently, contrary to what King would argue, Africa has benefitted more from colonialism than has Europe. To King, Africans exploiting Europe is justice.)

Also, to King, segregation is another great evil. (Since God is the Great Segregationist, how can segregation be evil? While the Bible endorses and teaches segregation and separation, it condemns integration and amalgamation.) Further, King claims that segregation “inflicted the Negro with a sense of inferiority, deprived him of his personhood, and denied him his birthright of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” (P. 113.) (If true, integration should have liberated everyone, both White and Black, from the debilitating effects of segregation. Then, why are Negroes still complaining in this fully integrated America where Negroes have benefits and privileges that Whites never had? Why are Negroes segregating themselves from Whites? Why do so many Whites feel so deprived of personhood that they hate their own race and long for its genocide? Why are Whites being denied their birthright of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — what are affirmative action, quotas, and many other privileges and benefits that Negroes have that are denied Whites if not a denial of the birthright of Whites? In the 1960s, the righteousness of integration slew the evil of segregation. If integration is righteous and segregation is evil, why have the United States been disintegrating ever since? Now the United States are on the verge of shattering.)

King sees the end of colonialism and segregation as “the passing of systems that were born in injustice, nurtured in inequality, and reared in exploitation. They represent the inevitable decay of any system based on principles that are not in harmony with the moral laws of the universe.” (P. 113.) He views the end of colonialism and segregation as evidence of “God working through history for the salvation of man.” (P. 113.) (As noted above, Africans have benefitted more from European colonialism than have the Europeans. Moreover, segregation is in harmony with the moral laws of the universe. Integration is disharmony, which is why the integrated Western world is dying. Integration replacing segregation has nothing to do with the salvation of man. More correctly, the replacement is God working through history to chastise Whites.)

Next, King states, “God is able to conquer the evils of history.” (P. 114.) (Thus, hope exists that God will eventually conquer the evils of integration and amalgamation, which His holy book condemns.) He laments that integration is not progressing as quickly as he desires. Further, he asserts that God is walking with the Negro in his “sometimes difficult and often lonesome walk up freedom's road.” (P. 114.) (Now, Negroes have walked so far up freedom’s road that they can steal and wantonly destroy property with immunity. Moreover, Negroes have enslaved Whites to support them through welfare, job preferences [more qualified Whites have to give their jobs to less qualified Negroes], etc. If a person is unfamiliar with the demographics of the United States, watching American television would convince him that a majority of Americans are Negroes, and American television commercials would convince him that most marriages are interracial. Since the days of King, Negroes have come a long way.)

Continuing, King notes that if people disobey the absolute moral laws of the universe, these laws will break them. (Since racial segregation and separation is a moral law of the universe, the country grew stronger while practicing it. However, since America has abandoned racial segregation and separation in favor of integration and amalgamation, it has been deteriorating toward its death.)

Next, King states, “Christianity affirms that God is able to give us the power to meet them [problems and disappointments]. . . . He is able to provide inner peace amid outer storms.” (P. 115.) Then, he discusses the good times leading people away from God and the bad times drawing them back. Also, people relying on gods other than the one true God results in disasters. (America is witnessing the disastrous results of relying on King and his gospel instead of Jesus and his gospel.)

In closing, King gives a brief discussion of how the Montgomery protest affected him.

In this essay, King gives an excellent discussion on the necessity and importance of God. However, his discussion of evil begins well but ends with erroneous assertions about colonialism and segregation being evil. Colonialism has benefitted Africa far more than it benefitted the European colonial powers. Also, since the Bible teaches, endorses, and promotes segregation, it can hardly be evil.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Republicans Owned Blacks

Republicans Owned Blacks

Thomas Allen

I posted a comment on a comment on “Trump Surprises BLM Activist!” by Vince Quill (https://wltreport.com/2023/11/30/president-trump-surprises-blm-activist/). [Note: If you go to this site, you will not see my comments because it has banned me. Apparently, I objected too much about it censoring my comments telling the truth about God’s chosen people and their political movement.] My comment was “From 1865 to around 1960, the Republicans owned the slaves; then, the Democrats acquired ownership.” Not surprisingly, my comment received several negative responses. For the most part, these commenters seem to be victims of orthodox establishment propaganda that is called history.

Most of the commenters to the newsletter containing this article are anti-Democrats, anti-RINOs, pro-Republicans, especially pro-Trump, and racial nihilists who practice the new morality. (Interesting, when I commented on another article that most commenters of this newsletter were racial nihilists who practiced the new morality, that comment was censored.) Many have Dixiephobic and, especially, Confederaphobic tendencies. 

This discussion is presented in the appendix. Only the pertinent comments are given.

What caused the negative comments was that “the Republicans owned slaves.” Although this phrase is a little hyperbola, it is the truth.

During Reconstruction, carpetbaggers and scalawags, backed by the Union army, used freed slaves to aid them in their plunder of the South. As payment, Blacks filled many elected and appointed political positions and used their new power to further plunder the South. They increased the debt in some Southern States so unbearably high that these States repudiated their debts following the end of Reconstruction.

In the South, Republicans maintained control of Blacks during Reconstruction. In the North, Republicans gained control of Blacks by giving them the vote via the Fifteenth Amendment.

After Reconstruction, Republicans maintained control of Blacks, although they mostly neglected them. Moreover, Republicans left the control of race relations to the States where it constitutionally belonged.

In the South, States made voting difficult for Blacks primarily for two reasons. (1) During Reconstruction, Blacks had proven their incompetence at participating in government.  (2) Most Blacks would have voted for Republicans, the party that had destroyed the South.

During the Franklin Roosevelt administration, the Democrats started replacing Republicans as owners of Blacks. The Democrats acquired ownership of Blacks by offering them more booty and privileges than the Republicans were offering. President Johnson sealed the deal with the Civil Rights Act and the War on Poverty.

Moving on to the founding of the Democratic Party, E claims that the modern Democratic Party was formed in 1828, and Jefferson was not a founder of it. He is deceiving with a partial truth. Apparently, he hates Democrats and does not want anything with “Republican” in its name to be associated with the Democratic Party. (You will notice from E’s comment to my comment on the founding principles of the Republican Party, that ignorance and stupidity consume him. Since he cannot refute my claim, he resorts to name-calling. He is the one who has drunk the cool aid of orthodox establishment propaganda, which is erroneously called history.)

According to Compton’s Pictured Encyclopedia (1957), The World Book Encyclopedia (1971), and Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia (1983), the Democratic Party grew out of the Democratic-Republican Party, which Thomas Jefferson founded. The Democratic-Republican Party advocated a strict interpretation of the Constitution and States’ rights. In 1828, it split into two parties: the Democratic Party and the National Republican Party, which the Whig Party later absorbed. Representing the Eastern interest, the National Republican Party advocated nationalism, protective tariffs, and centralized banking (then called national banking) — policies that the Republican Party advocated after the collapse of the Whig Party. Representing the Western and Southern interests, the Democratic Party advocated States’ rights, tariffs for revenue only, and an independent Treasury — thus, it continued the original policies of the Democratic-Republican Party that Jefferson founded but under a shorter name.

When wokeism and political correctness do not consume it, the Democratic Party claims Jefferson (the first president of the Democratic-Republican Party) and Jackson (the first president of the Democratic Party) as its founders.

As for Abraham Lincoln, whom all these commenters idolize, he believed in and promoted corporate welfare (subsidies to big businesses), protective tariffs (a form of corporate welfare), internal improvements (a form of corporate welfare), national banking (now called centralized banking), and preserving the territories for Whites (Black should be kept out of them). (I suspect that these commenters oppose corporate welfare and centralized banking, although they may support corporate welfare in the form of protective tariffs.) Lincoln’s job as president was to serve big business and convert the United States from a federation of sovereign nations to a consolidated empire. In this task, he was highly successful.

Appendix

The following are the original comment I commented on and the pertinent comments that followed. The pseudonyms have been changed to protect the guilty. 

C: Yep, democrats keeping their slaves on the plantation since the end of the Civil War. Only they no longer house them on their property.

Me to C: From 1865 to around 1960, the Republicans owned the slaves; then, the Democrats acquired ownership.

E to Me: That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. You must be reading those revisionist history books.

The foundation of the Republican Party was on abolitionism (that means that a person is AGAINST slavery, and not for it), and the Democrat Party was so adamantly for it, at least one Republican Congressman was murdered on the Floor by a Democrat (but because he was a Democrat, he apparently was never charged, just like today). After losing the Civil War, the Democrat Party formed the KKK, to intimidate and kill “uppity niggers”that dared to speak up. In the 1960’s, the Democrat Party went on a new path: make blacks willing slaves, by offering them money to have babies, not marry, not get an education, and as a result, they were beholden to the Democrat Party for all "free money" and such they got.

D to E: Thank you, you explained it a lot better then I did, but I was trying to explain it as simply as I could because thats [sic] how you have to for some people that never listened in history class. About the black babies they should read about the abortionist herself Margret [sic] Sanger. And if anyone doesn’t think Librals [sic] aren’t trying to bring Socialism to us, they could read the 8 rules of socialism by Saul Alinski [sic]. Oh and lets [sic] not forget Democrats voted into Congress a good friend of Joe Biden’s The one Head Master of the KKK, ROBERT BYRD. And Hillary Clinton done [sic] her college thesis on Saul Alinski [sic] and praised how great she thought he was.

Me to E: The foundation of the Republican Party was to keep Blacks out of the territories, to subsidize big business, and to establish central banking, which it did with the national banking law. The Republicans could have aided the freed slaves by giving them land in the territories. However, since the territories were preserved for Whites, they didn’t. They wanted them to stay in the South as punishment for Southerners. Moreover, Lincoln stated that he had no intention of freeing the slaves until he could use freeing the slaves as war propaganda. He always said that he was fighting to preserve the Union, which is why nearly all Northerners fought. His Emancipation Proclamation freed no slaves because it only applied to slaves in places that the Union army did not control. It exempted places under the control of the Union Army. Moreover, if Lincoln had gone to war to free the slaves, he would not have had much of an army because Northerners would have rebelled. Most Northerners despised the abolitionists almost as much as Southerners despised them. Northerners feared if slaves were freed a significant number of them would migrate to the North, and they did not want Blacks in the North. Further, the slaves were freed in the Confederate States before they were freed in the Union States. The KKK was created to protect Southerners from an occupying army as the French did during WWII. Unfortunately for the Blacks, they were the tools that the carpetbaggers and scalawags used to pillage the South, and thus, they received the brunt of the retaliations. The people who formed the KKK disbanded it a few years later. However, the KKK was later resurrected, and in the 1920s, it was stronger in the Republican North than in the Democratic South. This will surprise most of these people who cannot think beyond “Democrats created the KKK” and “all are Democrats evil,” Jefferson is the father of the Democratic Party, and the last truly Jeffersonian president was a Democrat, Cleveland.

E to Me: Oh, my God; you drank the whole jug of Cool-Aid! Just where did you get this claptrap? From the Democrat Party website? I suppose that next, you’ll inform us, that the Democrat Party was really the party of Black Freedom, and it was the Republican Party that wanted to keep the slaves, right?

Stop trying to greenlight us, and try to convince us that a turd is really a Baby Ruth bar.

For everyone’s edification, the modern Democrat Party was formed in 1820, not by Jefferson; he was long-dead by then.

Me to E:  Revisionist history books are often closer to the truth than are establishment orthodox history books. Examples are the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the JFK assassination, and 9-11.

Me to Me: Those who give the down votes on this comment [on revisionist history] must believe the official story of the Kennedy assassination and the official governmental conspiracy story of 9-11 because they are the orthodox history of these events. If they are consistent, they believe that the COVID so-called vaccine saved millions of lives while killing almost no one because that the establishment orthodox history.

D to Me: Such BS . Guess history wasn’t one of your strong subjects. This is a little bit of history, Abraham Lincoln - A REPUBLICAN writer of the emancipation to free the slaves. DEMOCRATS FOUGHT AGAINST IT. AND has had the blacks under their thumb for 200 + years later and a commie loving Democrat in office again that’s letting every TOM, DICK and HARRY cross their open border, has every Communist country pointing nuclear weapons at us, has depleted our oil supplies, and our military, there’s no way we’d ever win. I’m glad blacks are waking up.

H to Me: You need to catch up on your history. Democrats have been changing the history so know one will know the truth about what they did. The civil war proves that the Republicans wanted freedom of slaves and the democrats did not. The democrats started the KKK, THEY WERE SYMPATHIC [sic] TO THE Nazis, THEY SUPPRESSED THE BLACK COMMUNITY AND TREATED THEM LIKE 2ND CLASS CITIZENS FROM THE GET GO. Blacks mostly voted Republican from after the Civil War and through the early part of the 20th century. That’s not surprising when one considers that Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican president, and the white, segregationist politicians who governed Southern states in those days were Democrats. Nwaubani Ogogo Oriaku, WAS A BLACK BUSINESS MAN WHO SOLD SLAVES!!!! Nwaubani Ogogo's slaves were sold through the ports of Calabar and Bonny in the south of what is today known as Nigeria. IMAGINE THAT.

Me to H: Much of my information comes from the time that the Republicans were in charge of writing history. Your sources of the civil war, which was not a civil war, seem to come from the Democratic, liberal, progressive, and neoconservative sanitized version of that war. How could the KKK be sympathetic to the Nazis when the Nazis did not arrive until about 70 years later? By that time, most KKK organizations were governmental sting operations to entrapped dimwits. Lincoln was a racist bigot who wanted to repatriate all Blacks. Since slavery was better protected within the Union than outside the Union, slavery was not the cause of the war. (Here are some comments that Lincoln said about Blacks: https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2019/10/lincoln-on-negro-race.html. Here is what the typical antebellum Northerner thought of Blacks: https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2020/08/the-antebellum-northerners-opinion-of.html. Here is evidence that slavery did not cause the war: https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2012/12/slavery-not-reason.html. Of course, you are too lazy and opinionated to read them.)

The founding principles of the Republican Party were hatred of the Constitution and Southerners, disunion, and the concentration of political power in the federal government. Being a White man’s party, the Republican Party had little use for Blacks — free or slave. (https://tcallenco.blogspot....[?])

Moreover, the Democratic-controlled Confederate states freed their slaves before the Republican-controlled Union States freed theirs. Further, Blacks received the vote in the South before they received it in most of the Northern States.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political issues.

King on How Should a Christian View Communism

King on How Should a Christian View Communism

Thomas Allen

In “How Should a Christian View Communism,” Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 99–108, Martin Luther King, Jr. discusses Communism as a rival to Christianity, the incompatibility of Communism and Christianity, Christianity and social justice, and capitalism. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

King begins by identifying three reasons why Christian ministers need to speak to their congregations on Communism. All three reasons are correct at the time he wrote.

“The first reason recognizes that the widespread influence of Communism has, like a mighty tidal wave, spread through Russia, China, Eastern Europe, and now even to our hemisphere.” (P. 99.) Nearly a billion people believe its teachings with many embracing it as a new religion. (People whom Communism oppressed did not believe in it. Probably, most of the Communist leaders did not believe in it. They used it to feed their insatiable lust for power.)

“A second reason is that Communism is the only serious rival to Christianity.” (P. 99.) Although Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam are possible rivals to Christianity, “Communism is Christianity’s most formidable rival.” (P. 100.) (Now, Communism has fallen by the wayside. Hinduism and Islam are the fastest-growing rivals of Christianity. Along with Judaism and Zionism, wokeism has infected nearly every Christian denomination. Ironically, if King were alive today, most likely, he would be preaching wokeism as the new Christianity since it is a natural outgrowth of his civil rights movement.) 

“A third reason is that it is unfair and certainly unscientific to condemn a system before we know what that system teaches and why it is wrong.” (P. 99.) Then, King states, “Communism and Christianity are fundamentally incompatible.” (P. 99.) (Yet, King spent his career associating with known Communists. Communists trained him, financed his movement, and wrote many of his speeches. Although he never became a member of the Communist Party, never did he seriously denounce them — even after the Kennedys urged him to avoid them. Based on his works, King was not a true Christian. Though he preached from the Bible, his heart was with Communism. Based on his actions, he did not consider Communism incompatible with Christianity — at least it was not incompatible with his perverted version of Christianity.)

Then, King proceeds to condemn Communism. “First, Communism is based on a materialistic and humanistic view of life and history. According to Communist theory, matter, not mind or spirit, speaks the last word in the universe.” (P. 100.) It is secularistic and atheistic. God is a fiction, and religion grows out of ignorance and fear. Communism “thrives on the grand illusion that man, unaided by any divine power, can save himself and usher in a new society.” (P. 100.) Conversely, Christianity believes that God exists, and He “is the ground and essence of all reality. A Being of infinite love and boundless power, God is the creator, sustainer, and conserver of values.” (Pp. 100-101.) Correctly, King writes, “Man cannot save himself, for man is not the measure of all things and humanity is not God. Bound by the chains of his own sin and finiteness, man needs a Savior.” (P. 101.) (Unfortunately, King did not believe what he wrote. He was much closer to Communism than he was to Christianity.)

Next, King discusses the second reason that Christianity is incompatible with Communism. “Second, Communism is based on ethical relativism and accepts no stable moral absolutes. Right and wrong are relative to the most expedient methods for dealing with class war.” (P. 101.) (This relative right and wrong was an underlying principle of King’s civil rights movement.) Correctly, “Christianity sets forth a system of absolute moral values and affirms that God has placed within the very structure of this universe certain moral principles that are fixed and immutable.” (P. 101.) Christianity rejects the philosophy that the ends justify the means. (King and his civil rights movement have resorted to Communist tactics: lying, deception, law-breaking, violence, intimidation, etc.) Then, King writes, “Destructive means cannot bring constructive ends.” (P. 101.) (King and the civil rights movement have used destructive means to achieve their ends. Consequently, America is in its death throes.)

Next, King discusses the third reason that Christianity is incompatible with Communism. “Third, Communism attributes ultimate value to the state. Man is made for the state and not the state for man.” (P. 101.) (King fails to explain what the state is. The state is the people who control it; it is the oligarchs who control the government and the country through their political, economic, and social power. They use their control of the state to protect and increase their wealth and especially their power.) In theory, under Communism, the state is supposed to fade away when a classless society is achieved. (However, such a society is never reached. The oligarchs ensure that such a society cannot be achieved.) Nevertheless, as long as the state exists, a classless society is its ostensible end. “Man is a means to that end. Man has no inalienable rights. His only rights are derived from, and conferred by, the state. . . . Man must be a dutiful servant to the omnipotent state.” (P. 102.) Correctly, “Christianity insists that man is an end because he is a child of God, made in God’s image.” (P. 102.) Moreover, man “is a being of spirit, crowned with glory and honor, endowed with the gift of freedom.” (P. 102.)

Again, correctly, King notes, “The ultimate weakness of Communism is that it robs man of that quality that makes him man.” (P. 102.) Being confused about God, Communism is also confused about man. Then, King remarks that “never can we, as true Christians, tolerate the philosophy of Communism.” (P. 102.) (Thus, King proves that he is not a true Christian. He not only tolerated the philosophy of Communism, but he also promoted much of it. Like the Communists, he advocated the civil rights movement, which Communists organized and guided. Likewise, King advocated such Communist programs as the welfare state, transferring wealth from the rich to the poor, a guaranteed income, public housing, etc. Further, I have not found him speaking against any of the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto.)

Continuing, King comments on Communism and social justice. According to King, Communism is a protest “against the injustice and indignities inflicted upon the underprivileged.” (P. 102.) (If so, why has Communism fascinated the upper middle class more than the lower class? Why has the upper middle class promoted it more than the lower class?)

King notes that in theory, Communism emphasizes a classless society. According to him, this classless society includes not only the elimination of economic classes but also the elimination of all racial differences. (Thus, King promotes genocide. He would have all the races interbreed until only mongrel man exists. Moreover, all these mongrels would have the same income, wear indistinguishable uniforms, live in identical dwellings, etc. so that no class distinction of any kind exists.)

Continuing, King states that Christians need to be concerned with social justice. (King believes that miscegenation, forced wealth transfers, the welfare state, quotas, etc. are essential to the achievement of social justice.) He comments on the Bible expressing concern for the poor. (King’s proposals for expressing concern for the poor differ from the Bible’s. King wants the government to forcibly take property from the rich and give it to the poor. On the other hand, the Bible wants the rich to care so much about the poor that they will voluntarily help them.) Then, King remarks, “No doctrinaire Communist ever expressed a passion for the poor and oppressed such as we find in the Manifesto of Jesus.” (P. 104.) (True, however, Communists have often excelled in manipulating such people.)

King states that Christians should repudiate racism. (What does King mean by “racism?” At least 800 definitions of “racist” exist. [See “Are You a Racist?” by Thomas Allen.] Moreover, King disagrees with God about the races. Since God created the races, He must consider them important. However, King does not since he advocates breeding them out of existence. Further, while God commanded racial segregation and separation, which preserves the races, King promoted integration and miscegenation, which genocides the races.)

King writes, “Racial prejudice is a blatant denial of the unity that we have in Christ, for in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile, bond nor free, Negro nor white.” (P. 104.) (First, King is adding to the Scriptures. Negro and White in the sense that he is using the terms are not in the passage that he is paraphrasing. Second, racial prejudice does not exist in the South. Collins English Dictionary defines prejudice as “an opinion formed beforehand, esp an unfavourable one based on inadequate facts.” Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary defines prejudice as “an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.” The attitudes of Southerners toward Blacks are based on 400 years of observation, knowledge, thought, reason, and facts. Therefore, they are not prejudging Blacks.)

Then, King condemns the church for its lack of alacrity in preaching his idea of social justice. (Today, most churches preach King’s social justice instead of the Bible.) The church should focus on present evils on the earth rather than on salvation.

Next, King castigates the church for failing in its mission of social justice; consequently, it has failed Christ. (King seems to believe that his version of social justice is the heart of Christianity and thus its most important aspect. His version of social justice leads to Black supremacy and massive discrimination against Whites.) He chastises the church for not opposing colonialism and slavery. (Nowhere does the Bible condemn or outlaw slavery.)

Continuing, King writes, “The judgment of God is upon the church.” (P. 105.) (True. Ever since the church replaced preaching the gospel of Jesus with preaching the gospel of King, the church has been declining in relevance. Most denominations have degenerated so much that they are drowning in wokeism.)

Next, King discusses what he calls traditional capitalism. Part of the rise of Communism results from the weaknesses of traditional capitalism. He condemns capitalism because it “has often left a gulf between superfluous wealth and abject poverty, has created conditions permitting necessities to be taken from the many to give luxuries to the few, and has encouraged small-hearted men to become cold and conscienceless so that . . . they are unmoved by suffering, poverty-stricken humanity.” (Pp. 105-106.) Then, he condemns the profit motive because it “encourages a cut-throat competition and selfish ambition that inspires men to be more concerned about making a living than making a life. . . . Capitalism may lead to a practical materialism that is as pernicious as the theoretical materialism taught by Communism.” (P. 106.) (His observation of capitalism has some merit because capitalism has more in common with socialism than it does a free market, free enterprise economy. [See “Capitalists and Socialists” by Thomas Allen.] A free market, free enterprise economy depends on all the economic actors cooperating.) According to King, capitalism and Communism represent a partial truth. “Historically, capitalism failed to discern the truth in collective enterprise and Marxism failed to see the truth in individual enterprise.” (P. 106.) He advocates the melding of the two. (That is, King advocates a form of fascistic welfare state, which most countries have today.)

Continuing, King notes that Communists have a “zeal and commitment to a cause that they believe will create a better world.” (P. 107.) (Communist ideologues may believe that Communism leads to a better world. However, those in control see Communism as a means to feed their insatiable lust for power.) King states that Communists seem to have a greater passion to win others to Communism than most Christians have to win others to Christ. He urges Christians to “recapture the spirit of the early church.” (P. 107.) Then, he discusses the zeal of the early church.

King concludes that preaching the gospel of Jesus and turning people to Christ is the best defense against Communism. War cannot defeat Communism. (Although Communism fell at least in the Soviet Union, progressivism, fascism, and wokeism rose to take its place. Preaching the gospel of Jesus can defeat them. Unfortunately, most churches preach Zionism, i.e., Judeo-Christian heresy, and the gospel of King, which birthed wokeism.)

Additionally, conditions that lead to Communism need to be removed: “poverty, insecurity, injustice, and racial discrimination.” (P. 108.) (Thus, King endorses the Great Society with its War on Poverty and civil rights laws.) Eliminating them will starve Communism to death.  (What happened to slaying Communism with the gospel of Jesus?)

Once again, King preaches a great sermon and offers some good advice. Yet again, he ignores most of his advice. He has an excellent understanding of Communism and knows that Communism is incompatible with Christianity. Nevertheless, he spent his career associating with known Communists. They controlled his civil rights movement. His alliance with Communists proves by his own words that he was not a Christian.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Christian Zionists

Christian Zionists

Thomas Allen

Christian Zionists are peculiar people. Of their theology, their most important doctrine is based on the commentary of Cyrus I. Scofield, primarily the futurist school interpretation of Revelation with the rapture. Zionist Jews financially aided Scofield in writing his Zionist commentary, which proselytizes for Zionism, and promoted his Bible.

Most Christian Zionists seem to confuse “Jew,” “Zionism,” and “Israel.” They consider them to be nearly synonymous. However, they differ significantly.

“Jew” is an ethnicity. Anyone born of a Jewish mother is a Jew, with the possible exception of a person born of a nonwhite Jewish mother. Although many Jews practice Judaism to some degree, many Jews are atheists or agnostics or are areligious. The only way that a person born a Jew ceases to be a Jew is to convert to Christianity.

“Zionism” is a political movement. Its objective is to convert Palestine into a Jewish homeland governed by Jews. Some Zionists expand the boundaries to cover all the land between the Euphrates and the Nile. What surprises many Christian Zionists is that not all Jews are Zionists and oppose establishing a country for Jews.

“Israel” is a country governed by Jews that covers most of what used to be Palestine. Only about 46 percent of the world’s Jews live in Israel.

Moreover, Christian Zionists delude themselves by believing that those who call themselves Jews but are not are God’s chosen people. Almost none of today’s Jews are descended from Judah or even Jacob, Israel. Ironically, their theology has led the Christian Zionists to support outlawing the New Treatment and to root for the slaughter of Jews.

With the support of Christian Zionists, the United States House of Representatives passed the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023. It codifies the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This definition leads to outlawing the New Testament, which has been a goal for Jews for centuries. One example that IHRA gives as antisemitic is “Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews. . . .” Jesus told the Jewish leaders that they were the children of the devil (John 8:44) and called them hypocrites (Matthew 15:7; 23:13-15; 23:23, 25, 27. 29). Thus, from a Jewish perspective, he made mendacious, dehumanizing, and demonizing allegations. Therefore, Jesus is antisemitic. Since the New Testament is the story of Jesus that glories him, it is antisemitic and, consequently, illegal under the Antisemitism Awareness Act.

Furthermore, Paul wrote much of the New Testament. Like Jesus, Paul is also an antisemite. According to IHRA’s definition of antisemitism, anyone who makes “claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel” is an antisemite. In 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15, Paul states that the Jews killed Jesus. Therefore, Paul is an antisemite.

Further, Christian Zionists imply, if not outright claim, that the Bible states that God blesses those who bless Israel (Jews) and curses those who curse Israel. Many insinuate that “Israel” refers to the country of Israel. On the contrary, according to the Bible, God blesses those who bless Abraham, who was not a Jew or an Israelite, and curses those who curse him (see “Commentary on Genesis 12:3" by Thomas Allen). No country has supported Zionism, Israel, and the Jews as much as the United States. This support even extends to giving Israel and Jews control of the US government. Yet, instead of being blessed, the United States have been cursed (see “The Results of Supporting Zionism and Israel” by Thomas Allen).

Also, some Christian Zionists claim that if a person does not promote Zionism and support Israel despite what it does, that person is not a Christian. Such a person needs to be shunned, disfellowshiped, and excommunicated.

Additionally, most Christian Zionists do not know that Christians, Jews, and Muslims lived together in Palestine peacefully before the Balfour Declaration of 1917. In 1920, of the population of Palestine, about 11 percent were Palestinian Christians, about 10 percent were Jews, and the remainder were Muslims. By 1940, the population of Palestine was about 8 percent Christians, 30 percent Jews, and 62 percent Muslims.

After World War I, Jews began moving to Palestine and creating strife, primarily by driving Palestinians from their land. Following World War II, Jews began pouring into Palestine in large numbers and stealing Palestinian land. Palestinian attacks against Israel and Israeli attacks against the Palestinians are just a continuation of the war that the Jews started following World War II to steal Palestinian land.

Many Christian Zionists fail to understand why Palestinians do not accept their plight and get on with their lives. They assert that today’s Palestinians should not hold today’s Jews responsible for the wrongs committed more than 7 decades ago by other Jews against other Palestinians. However, most of today’s Palestinians do not hold Jews who came to Palestine in the late 1940s and early 1950s responsible for what is happening to Palestinians today. They hold today’s Jews accountable for what they have done to Palestinians in recent years and decades. Israelis have continued to steal Palestinian land and murder Palestinians.

Furthermore, Christian Zionists show their compassionate Christian love by cheering for the extermination of Palestinians, i.e., the genocide of Palestinians. They rejoice over killing Palestinian children (future terrorists) and women (breeders of future terrorists). On top of that, many claim that Palestinians are subhumans, who do not and have never existed. That group that calls themselves Palestinians is no more than squatters who illegally occupied land that belongs to the Jews. Moreover, Palestine never existed. (Apparently, the editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica, ninth edition, 1890, were too stupid or too ignorant to know that Palestine did not exist because they wrote eight pages describing Palestine. Also, Joel must not have received the notice that Palestine does not exist; he mentions Palestine in Joel 3:4.)

If nothing else, Christian Zionists are hypocrites. Out of one side of their mouth, Christian Zionists claim to care for Israel and the Jews and want to provide them unlimited aid. Out of the other side of their mouth, they want and pray for a world war in which most Jews are killed. Moreover, since most Christian Zionists are members of the rapture cult, they believe that they will not be on earth to enjoy the slaughter of the Jews. They will enjoy the slaughter safely in heaven.

Jews and vaccines have one thing in common. Both are sacred and are innocent of causing any problems or adverse effects. They are immune to criticism because they can do no wrong.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

King on Shattered Dreams

King on Shattered Dreams

Thomas Allen

In “Shattered Dreams,” Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 87–97, Martin Luther King, Jr. discusses people’s reactions to shattered dreams and peace. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

King begins by writing, “One of the most agonizing problems within our human experience is that few, if any, of us live to see our fondest hopes fulfilled.” (P. 87.) (This statement is one of the most truthful ones that King ever wrote.) Continuing, King asks, “Is there any one of us who has not faced the agony of blasted hopes and shattered dreams?” (P. 87.) Then, he comments on the shattered dreams of some famous men. “Shattered dreams are a hallmark of our mortal life.” (P. 88.) (King may have thought that his dreams were shattered just before he died, but they were not. Most came to pass after his death. He failed to live long enough to see the Negro become the White man’s superior. Nor did he live long enough to see himself and the Negro idolized, and one of his speeches become a founding document of modern-day America. Within a few years after his death, America adopted almost everything that he advocated. However, a guaranteed income is one of his dreams that has yet to come true. Though he did not live to see the fulfillment of his dreams, most of them came true. Now that America is on the verge of shattering, have his dreams made America a better place?)

Next, he comments on reactions to shattered dreams. “One possible reaction is to distill all of our frustrations into a core of bitterness and resentment.” (P. 89.) Such people frequently “develop a callous attitude, a cold heart, and a bitter hatred toward God, toward those with whom he lives, and toward himself. Because he cannot corner God or life, he releases his pent-up vindictiveness in hostility toward other people. . . .  He loves no one and requires love from no one. He trusts no one and does not expect others to trust him. He finds fault in everything and everybody, and he continually complains.” (P. 89.) This type of reaction often leads to various physical ailments and mental problems.

About another reaction to shattered dreams, King writes, “Another common reaction by persons experiencing the blighting of hope is to withdraw completely into themselves and to become absolute introverts.” (P. 89.) These people do not enter the lives of others or allow others to enter their lives. “Such persons give up the struggle of life, lose their zest for living, and attempt to escape by lifting their minds to a transcendent realm of cold indifference.” (P. 89.) They become detached from the world, and cynicism often cripples them. Such a person may become schizophrenic. 

Next, King describes a third reaction to shattered dreams. “A third way by which persons respond to disappointments in life is to adopt a fatalistic philosophy stipulating that whatever happens must happen and that all events are determined by necessity. Fatalism implies that everything is foreordained and inescapable.” (P. 90.) These people succumb without resistance to whatever they consider their fate. They believe that they have no freedom and that external forces control them. “To sink in the quicksands of fatalism is both intellectually and psychologically stifling.” (P. 91.) With his discussion of fatalism, he concludes, “But fatalism stymies the individual, leaving him helplessly inadequate for life. Fatalism, furthermore, is based on an appalling conception of God, for everything, whether good or evil, is considered to represent the will of God.” (P. 91.) (An obdurate Calvinist might dispute King on this issue. To the obdurate Calvinist, man is just a robot executing his God-given program. Otherwise, if man had any freedom, God would not be sovereign. [See “God the Great Programer: Predestination Theology” by Thomas Allen.])

Then, King describes how people should react to shattered dreams. “The answer lies in our willing acceptance of unwanted and unfortunate circumstances even as we still cling to a radiant hope, our acceptance of finite disappointment even as we adhere to infinite hope.” (P. 92.) People should accept their shattered dreams, but they should not forget their dreams. They should turn their defeat into an asset.

Next, King turns his discussion to the Negro. “We Negroes have long dreamed of freedom, but still we are confined in an oppressive prison of segregation and discrimination.” (P. 93.) (Negroes have gained their “freedom.” They have been so successful at slaying segregation that many now seek segregation. [See “More Social Issues Related to Blacks” by Thomas Allen.] Negroes have turned discrimination against Negroes into discrimination against Whites. Has this freedom of which King dreamed made the country any better?)

King asks should Negroes conclude that segregation is God’s will and resign themselves to it. (If they believed the Bible, they should have because the Bible teaches segregation and condemns integration. Nevertheless, King does not appear to believe the Bible and, like Lincoln, quotes it to deceive people.)

King condemns the failure to oppose segregation as blasphemy. (Although it is biblically ordained,) segregation is unjust and should be opposed using his “nonviolent” tactics. “By recognizing the necessity of suffering in a righteous cause, we may possibly achieve our humanity’s full stature.” (P. 93.) (The Negro leaders of the civil rights movement did not suffer much, at least not in King’s sense of the word. Most were well-paid and got to integrate with Whites. Unfortunately, the Negro achieved King’s goals not so much by raising the Negro as by pulling down the White race. The decline in educational standards is evidence.)

King writes, “Our present suffering and our nonviolent struggle to be free may well offer to Western civilization the kind of spiritual dynamic so desperately needed for survival.” (P. 94.) (Regrettably, King’s civil rights movement did not provide Western civilization the kind of spiritual dynamic that it needed to survive. What his movement did was to provide Western civilization with evil spirits that have hastened its demise.)

Continuing, King states, “We must accept finite disappointment, but we must never lose infinite hope.” (P. 94.) Following this advice was the secret to the survival of the Negroes’ slave foreparents. (How does King know?) Then, he describes how he saw slavery. (The slaves who survived the trip and were sold in what became the United States were better off than if they had remained in Africa. If they remained in Africa, most likely, their captors would have killed them because they had no value. On the other hand, if no market existed for slaves, they may not have been captured. Nevertheless, most of their descendants would live a better life in slavery than they would have lived in Africa in freedom — although except for the autocratic kings, witch doctors, and perhaps a few others, no one was really free in the Western sense of the word. For whatever reason, most Negroes seemed doomed to live undesirable lives, whether remaining in Africa or living in slavery in the Americas. However, some slaves in the Americas gained their freedom. In Haiti, all slaves became free in 1804, but their lives did not improve and, in some respects, became worse. If given a choice in the 1950s, most Haitians would have gladly left the land of the free to live in the land of segregation and discrimination.)

King remarks that people should not let adversity stop them from pursuing their dreams. Then, he comments on Paul facing adversity. Although Paul never achieved his dream of going to Spain (as far as we know), he never quit doing the Lord’s work. Paul was never complacent. He had learned “the distinction between spiritual tranquility and the outward accidents of circumstances.” (Pp. 95-96.)

King concludes with a brief discussion of peace. To the world, peace is beautiful weather, plenty of money, a body and mind free of aches and pains, and the achievement of dreams. However, these are not true peace. True peace “is a calmness of soul amid terrors of trouble, inner tranquility amid the howl and rage of outer storm, the serene quiet at the center of a hurricane amid the howling and jostling winds.” (P. 96.)

Through faith in Jesus, a person obtains true peace. (I wonder if King ever obtained true peace. If he is judged by his works, it is doubtful.)

In closing, King writes, “Our capacity to deal creatively with shattered dreams is ultimately determined by our faith in God.” (P. 97.) “The Christian faith makes it possible for us nobly to accept that which cannot be changed, to meet disappointments and sorrow with an inner poise, and to absorb the most intense pain without abandoning our sense of hope, for we know . . . in life or in death. . . . ‘that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.’” (P. 97.)

In this essay, King discusses various ways people respond to shattered dreams. He offers sage advice on how people should react. This essay is one of his more inspiring ones.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

White Privilege

White Privilege

Thomas Allen

Whites are accused of having “White Privilege,” which supposedly gives them all sorts of advantages over and at the expense of nonwhites, especially Blacks. “White Privilege” is the unearned assets, advantages, and benefits that White people have merely because they are White. Whites have what they have solely because of their skin color.

   In “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack,” Peggy McIntosh identifies 50 things that she considers “White Privilege.” Some of them are absurd, irrelevant, and insignificant. A few insult Blacks. Some result from the desire of Blacks to be thought highly of by other Blacks. Even a few are wrong: The opposite is true. However, a few are correct. [See “Black Privilege” by Thomas Allen.]

The following is a short, but incomplete, list of the privileges that Whites have today. They greatly disagree with McIntosh’s list of privileges.

1. The privilege of being second-class citizens in the country that their ancestors founded and built.

2. The privilege of having their God-given unalienable rights as citizens of a State subordinated to civil rights granted by Congress and federal agencies to nonwhites.

3. The privilege of being led by Albusphobic Whites.

4. The privilege of being obligated to be disloyal to the White race.

5. The privilege of not defending the interests of the White race.

6. The privilege of being denied equal rights and equal protection under the law.

7. The privilege of having the legal system weaponized against them (lawfare) instead of having the legal system protect them.

8. The privilege of going to prison for trying to save the life of a Black thug as happened to  Derek Chauvin.

9. The privilege of being the victim of Black criminals (see “The Dirty War: America’s Race War” by Thomas Allen).

10. The privilege of being the only race that can commit hate crimes.

11. The privilege of going to jail for peacefully protesting while nonwhites, especially Blacks, are rewarded for highly destructive riots.

12. The privilege of dying in foreign wars for people and institutions that loathe them.

13. The privilege of not being allowed to hear political speeches at church while nonwhite churches can have political speeches.

14. The privilege of being domestic terrorists.

15. The privilege of having less qualified nonwhites hired for a job instead of more qualified Whites because of race.

16. The privilege of losing their jobs to nonwhites.

17. The privilege of being fired because they are White.

18. The privilege of being victims of affirmative action and racial quotas.

19. The privilege of having nonwhites steal the credit for discoveries, inventions, and works of Whites.

20. The privilege of granting nonwhites benefits and privileges that Whites never enjoyed.

21. The privilege of being sacrificed for racial justice.

22. The privilege of being responsible for the substandard behavior of Blacks.

23. The privilege to support nonwhites.

24. The privilege of having their country destroyed.

25. The privilege of having their culture destroyed.

26. The privilege of having their history destroyed.

27. The privilege of having statues and memorials of Whites destroyed.

28. The privilege of participating in the destruction of statues and memorials of Whites.

29. The privilege of not segregating while nonwhites may segregate.

30. The privilege of not being allowed to attend meetings of nonwhites.

31. The privilege of not discriminating against nonwhites while nonwhites may discriminate against Whites.

32. Privilege of being discriminated against and not being allowed to object to such discrimination without being penalized.

33. The privilege of having nonwhites refer to Whites with racial slurs and being sued if responding by referring to nonwhites with racial slurs.

34. The privilege of being the only race that has to endure hate speech.

35. The privilege of enjoying wokeism.

36. Privilege of being the only race that can be racist.

37. The privilege of not being allowed to speak about race except to degrade Whites.

38. The privilege of worshiping archconservative St. Martin Luther King the Divine. 

39. The privilege of being racial nihilists while not allowed to be racial supremacists or racial preservationists although nonwhites may be racial supremacists or racial preservationists (See “Views on Race” by Thomas Allen.)

40. The privilege of practicing the new morality of scarifying the White race on the altar of humanity while not allowed to practice the old morality of preserving their race although nonwhites can practice the old morality of preserving their races (See “Old Morality – New Morality” by Thomas Allen.)

41. The privilege of being loathed by nonwhites, especially Blacks.

42. The privilege of hating themselves and their race.

43. The privilege of living in environments that are hostile to Whites.

44. The privilege of being victims of racism.

45. The privilege of being marginalized.

46. The privilege of being humiliated.

47. The privilege of feeling guilty about being White.

48. The privilege of being victims of antiwhite inquisitions.

49. The privilege of not having their lives matter.

50. The privilege of having less qualified nonwhites admitted to a university instead of more qualified Whites because of race.

51. The privilege of having their children taught to hate their race.

52. The privilege of not being allowed to protect their children.

53. The privilege of having their education lowered to accommodate nonwhites, especially Blacks.

54. The privilege of enduring diversity training and sensitivity training.

55. The privilege of being indoctrinated with Critical Race Theory.

56. The privilege of not having college courses designed specifically for Whites.

57. The privilege of being stupid and apathetic;

58. The privilege of trying to placate nonwhites whose lust for vengeance can never be satisfied, for example, many Blacks.

59. The privilege of being degraded and bullied for being White.

60. The privilege of being masochists.

61. The privilege of being held to a higher standard than nonwhites.

62. The privilege of being blamed for all of the world’s problems and being considered the cancer of the universe.

63. The privilege of being guilty of all evils until proven innocent, which they can never do.

64. The privilege of the sin of whitism, a sin of which they can never repent.

65. The privilege of kowtowing and groveling to unappreciative nonwhites, especially Blacks.

66. The privilege of begging nonwhites, especially Blacks, for forgiveness for things that Whites have never done.

67. The privilege of being demonized.

68. The privilege of having their reputation destroyed. 

69. The privilege of being penalized because of their massive contribution to mankind.

70. The privilege of being replaced by nonwhites.

71. The privilege of not having a homeland while all other races may have a homeland.

72. The privilege of participating in their own annihilation.

73. The privilege of being abolished, i.e., genocide.

74. The privilege of being the stupidest race to ever exist.

75. The privilege of being the most frightened cowards who ever existed.

According to diversity, inclusion, and equity (DIE) adherents, all the aforementioned White privileges are unearned benefits that Whites enjoy and that give them advantages over other races. Merely by being born White, they earn these privileges. Because of their White supremacy, they refuse to share these privileges with others.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles,