Review of Segregation and Desegregation -- Part 1

Review of Segregation and Desegregation -- Part 1

Thomas Allen

[Editor's note: Some of the endnotes have been replaced with links.]

    The following is an analysis of Segregation and Desegregation: A Christian Approach by T.B. Maston (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1959). His words and my paraphrases or summaries of his words, I have italicized. My commentary is in roman letters. I have provided references to pages in his book and have enclosed them in parentheses.
    Throughout his book, Maston deceptively argues that desegregation would not necessarily lead to integration. Like most other writer who attempts to use a Christian argument to promote or defend desegregation and integration, Matson is long on generalities and void of  specific Biblical verses to support his argument. The segregation argument is much easier to support biblically and can be supported with specific verses.
    Maston states that the objective of his book “is primarily an attempt at an evaluation of segregation and desegregation from the Christian perspective” (p. vii). From his subverted Christian perspective, segregation is evil, a great sin. Desegregation and integration are divinely good.
    In Chapter 1, Maston discusses the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954. Maston states that the Supreme Court’s decision of May 17, 1954, “declared that school segregation was contrary to the federal constitution” (p. 1). How can school segregation, based on earlier Supreme Court rulings, be constitutional on May 16, 1954, and unconstitutional on May 17, 1954, without any change in the Constitution? Obviously, the Supreme Court’s ruling was more political than judicial. As it relied on sociologists and other social scientists instead of the Constitution, previous Supreme Court rulings, and historical understanding and intent of the Constitution proves that the decision was political. The Supreme Court, especially since Franklin Roosevelt’s appointments, seldom lets the Constitution stand in the way of political expediency.
    Maston claims that the Supreme Court “has the final word concerning the meaning of the United States Constitution” (pp. 1-2). If so, it is because it has usurped such power and the President, Congress, and the States have let it get away with this usurpation. The Constitution grants it no such power or duty. President Jackson understood this when he ignored rulings of the Supreme Court. Having created and adopted the Constitution, the States should have the last say on what the Constitution means.
    In its ruling, the Supreme Court relied on the extremely elastic, and thus meaningless, “equal protection” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. First, the Fourteenth Amendment was never legally, constitutionally, adopted. Second, it was never intended to apply to public schools. Those who wrote it, promoted its adoption, and adopted it never pushed for integrated schools. If this amendment were intended to prohibit segregated schools, schools across the country would have been desegregated 85 years earlier. The Supreme Court admitted that those who wrote and adopted the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend for it to integrate schools (p. 4).
    Maston seems to agree with the Supreme Court’s position that “new problems and particularly new insights require a new interpretation” (p. 11). The Court was not bound by the words of the Constitution or the intent of those who wrote and adopted it (p. 11). Thus, the Constitution is a meaningless piece of paper. The country is now under the rule of men instead of the rule of law.
    Maston is probably among that class of theologians who change their interpretation of the Bible to mean whatever the current socio-political climate wants.  Thus, sodomy becomes an acceptable lifestyle accompanied by homosexual marriages instead of a capital crime as the Bible declares. God does not really mean what He says in the Bible. The Bible means whatever twisted interpretation the likes of Maston can give it to fit “new problems and particularly new insights.”
    Maston cites the great educational advancements made by Negro during the first 50 years of the twentieth century (pp. 12-13). Obviously, school segregation was not holding Negroes back. They were making great strides under “separate but equal.”
    Maston remarks that being a world power, the United States needed to desegregate schools and integrate (p. 14). The United States became a world power under segregation. How destroying the race that made the United States a world power enhances them as a world power, Maston does not explain. Moreover, he claims that people in other countries know and are concerned about what happens in the United States (p. 14). To the extent that they are concerned, it is what they can get from the American taxpayer. They are too concerned about their mistreatment by their own leaders to be overly concerned about how Blacks or anyone else is treated in the United States. Furthermore, Maston claims that the United States are handicapped in world leadership because of their failure to apply consistently democratic principles to their minority groups (p. 14). Full integration in the United States where Blacks have special privileges denied Whites has done nothing to stop the horrible discrimination occurring in Africa, where one African tribe hacks to pieces other tribes within its country.  Continuing, Matson states that the elimination of segregation had more to do with foreign relations than with the Constitution (p. 14). Thus, the Supreme Court mutilated the Constitution for the sake of foreign policy.
    Maston asserts “that all men are equal before God” (p. 16). God is no egalitarian.  According to Daniel 12:1, only those whose names are “found written in the book” will be delivered from the “time of trouble.” By inference those whose names are not found in the book are not delivered—hence, inequality of treatment and condition. Daniel 12:2 shows a three-tier treatment of man. First “many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake.” Not everyone will be awakened — again inequality of treatment and condition. Second, of those awakened, some awaken “to everlasting life” and “some to shame and everlasting contempt”— again inequality of treatment and condition. If all men were equal before God, would they not all receive the same treatment?
    Romans 9:9-13 shows that God discriminates against people before they are born. Genesis 17:17-21 shows that God discriminates against people after they are born. If God were an egalitarian, would He not treat all people the same?
    In Exodus 33:19, God says, “. . . I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.” Therefore, God does not treat all people equally. If all people were equal before God, would He not treat them equally?
    “Many are called, but few are chosen” (Matthew 22:14). Would not all be chosen or none chosen if all people were equal before God?
    According to Matthew 25:31-43, Jesus will separate the nations as a shepherd separates sheep and goats. Those on his right hand are exalted and inherit the kingdom prepared for them (verse 34). Those on his left hand are condemned and sent to the eternal fire (verse 41). If all people were equal, would not all be on the same hand and receive either the kingdom or the fire?
    One may become a new person by believing in Jesus. However, people will witness great inequality in the hereafter. According to Jesus, people will not be treated equally in heaven. Some will rule over many cities; some, over none. Some will receive many crowns; some, few crowns.
    Besides, if the Bible is as fluid as the U.S. Constitution as Maston asserts, God may be a respecter of person one year and not a respecter of person the next year. One year He may condemn a certain act, such as sodomy, as a sin and find it acceptable and not a sin the next year. After all, the Bible was written thousands of years ago. Times change, circumstances change, and man’s knowledge changes.
Therefore, the Bible needs to change to fit new times, circumstances, and knowledge whatever God’s original intent and words.
    Using fluid Biblical interpretation, theologians like Matson can justify murder, such as abortion, forced vaccination, and euthanasia. They can justify theft, such as confiscatory taxation and civil forfeiture. Furthermore, they can justify fornication and adultery and all sorts of illicit marriages, such as homosexual marriages and interracial marriages. They can make God’s word support everything it opposes. Most likely, Maston would have supported most of these transgressions and would have claimed that the Bible supported them.
    In Chapter 2, Maston discusses reactions to the Supreme Court’s desegregation decision. He discusses the immediate reaction, resistance to its decision, the reaction of Negroes, the reaction of the church, and the “New Reconstruction.”
    Maston comments that the South did not “want to be a problem area for the nation as it faces the challenge of communism” (p. 20). Yet the Supreme Court, President, Congress, and much of the rest of the country wanted to force the Communist organized and led civil rights agenda on the South. The South, along with the rest of the country, finally did surrender to the Communists. (Not only did the United States surrender to the Communist-led civil rights movement, they surrendered to every plank in Marx’s Communist Manifesto.)
    Maston identifies several religious groups that supported the Supreme Court’s desegregation edict. One of them was the Christian Life Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention (p. 21). Once it joined the Communist-led civil rights movement, it in principle agreed to all other illicit movements. Yet the Southern Baptist Convention has the audacity to object to and oppose the homosexual agenda, including rebelling against the Supreme Court’s decision legalizing homosexual marriages. Homosexuals have merely used the arguments that the Communists, Negroes, and negrophiles used to promote and force the integrationist agenda and interracial marriages on the rest of the country. For the most part, the recommendations adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention (p. 22) for following the Supreme Court decision on school desegregation in 1954 could easily apply to the Supreme Court’s decision on homosexual marriages in 2015.
    Maston cites several governors of Southern and Border States expressing support for the Supreme Court’s decision. Most contain the phrase “obey the law,” “comply with the law,” and the like (pp. 22-23). In effect these governors were claiming that the Supreme Court was legislating from the bench. Under the Constitution, only Congress has legislative powers. These governors spat on the Constitution.
    Maston notes that the Citizens’ Council was the primary leader of the opposition. One effect of the Council was shutting off debate and discussion about racial issues (pp. 25-27). The effectiveness of the Council stifling debate about racial issues pales to insignificance when compared with progressives, Marxists, negrophiles, Black leaders, etc. silencing any discussion by Whites about race — except about how despicable and loathsome Whites are. Seldom does any White today say anything about race, and most of the few who do apologize for discussing race. Only nonwhites can talk openly and candidly about race. “Racist” and “racism” have surpassed “anti-Semitic” and “anti-Semitism” and “fascist” and “fascism” as the most feared smear or slur word in America. If a person is labeled as a “racist,” he irredeemably becomes persona non grata. Most likely, Maston would not object to this outcome of desegregation.
    Maston quotes Thurgood Marshall, chief counsel for the NAACP and later Supreme Court Justice, saying about the Supreme Court’s decision, “This decision gives the lie to communist propaganda” (p. 29). To find greater lying hypocrisy than Marshall’s statement would be extremely difficult. The civil rights movement was organized and led by Communists. Communists and their fronts wanted such a decision from the Supreme Court. Marshall was as close to being a Communist as one could be without being a card-carrying member of the Communist Party. Moreover, he was a racist, who said during his confirmation hearing for his appointment to the Supreme Court, “I want you to understand that when the colored people take over, every time the white man draws a breath, he’ll have to pay a fine.”[1]
    Maston notes that although most Negroes approve the Supreme Court decision, they were not overly enthusiastic about it. Now they would have “to accept the full responsibility that first-class citizenship” places on them. They “must measure up to higher standards than they have in the past.” No longer “could they explain away or rationalize their failures by saying that they were Negroes and did not have a chance” (p. 29). Sixty years later, many Blacks either refuse to or are incapable of accepting the responsibilities of first-class citizenship. They blame their failures on Whites, racism, slavery, the Confederate flag, etc. — everything but themselves. They still use the excuse that they are Negroes and do not have a chance.
    Matson cites endorsements given by various religious organizations approving racial integration (pp. 31-37). Many of these same organizations have endorsed and promoted the homosexual agenda. Most likely, they will endorse and support the pedophilia agenda as proponents of that agenda move forward to legalize pedophilia. The arguments that they used to support racial integration can just as easily, and have been, used to support the homosexual agenda and the up-and-coming pedophilia agenda.
    Matson notes that many church members oppose the statement approved by their general denominational bodies (p. 33). This opposition shows that the typical church member has a better understanding of the Bible than ministers, theologians, and other church leaders.
    Matson wonders whether the “New Reconstruction” or the Second Reconstruction will fade away like the First Reconstruction (p. 37). The Second Reconstruction has not faded away. It has grown and metastasized. Not only has it gone a long way in destroying the South and Southerners, it has brought down the White race and the United States in everything but name as its cancerous effects have spread across the country. The founding fathers would no longer recognize the federal republic that they founded. The Supreme Court has subverted the Constitution so much that it is now a meaningless scrap of paper.  With the police state, Marxist, fascist, plutocratic government that seeks to micromanage every aspect of life; with open borders flooding the country with nonwhites; with perpetual wars to transfer ever more wealth and power to the ruling elite, the Second Reconstruction has brought down the United States. If Whites are going to sacrifice themselves on the altar of racial integration within the country, why not sacrifice themselves on the altar of racial integration of the world. Then they will kill those hideous White cancer cells that inflict America and the world.
    Maston would be happy at the success of opening the borders to nonwhites. He favors an integrated world, which means the death of the White man, who has, or at least his inventions, discoveries, institutions, etc. have eliminated much of the world’s poverty. Without him, the world would not have advanced beyond that which existed before the arrival of White traders (circa 1490).
    One thing that Matson and most other integrationists of the late 1950s failed to see, or refused to acknowledge, was that once the civil rights movement ignited, it would burn across the States outside the South much more furiously than it would in the Southern States.
    Although the real movers behind the desegregation-integration-civil-rights movement were mostly Northern White and disproportionately Jewish, the worst race riots occurred outside the South. Blacks came to realize the cowardice and hypocrisy of Northern Whites who were pushing them to hate Southerners. Blacks took advantage of the riots to destroy White, mostly Jewish, businesses, which they perceived as overcharging them in the ghettos.[2]

Endnotes

1. Francis X. Gannon, Biographical Dictionary of the Left, I (1969), p. 439.

2. Wilmot Robertson, The Dispossessed Majority (Cape Canaveral, Florida: Howard Allen Enterprises, Inc., 1981 ed., 1981), p. 220.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 2 

More articles on social issues.

Of One Blood

Of One Blood

Thomas Allen

    Proponents of the unity-of-man doctrine who use the Bible to support their doctrine like to quote the first part of Acts 17:26: “And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth. . . .” Therefore, they conclude that all humans have a common origin. They imply, if not outright claim, that the blood of the races of humans is identical. Thus, races cannot be distinguished by blood.
    Most modern scholars doubt that the Greek text used by the translators of the King James Version of the Bible, for this verse was a copy of the original. The best Greek texts do not contain the word “blood.” The word “blood” appears mainly in later Western manuscripts as an interpolation. Most likely, “one” in Acts 17:26 refers to God, who is the maker of all nations of humans.
    Even if the word “blood” is in the original, this verse does not show that all humans descended from Adam. It merely shows that God made each race of humans.
    Whatever blood means in this verse, it does not mean blood flowing through the veins. As shown below, the frequency of genes, alleles, antibodies, and proteins in the blood of the races of humans varies significantly.
    The blood of the races varies at least statistically. The percentage of the population of the several races having certain blood groups varies enough so that the race of a population, if not of a particular individual, can often be identified based on blood analysis. Further, a person’s blood can often eliminate him as a member of a particular race.

[1]

    The Diego (Di-a) blood antigen is absent in Aryans and Negroes, but high in Turanians.[2] The Kell (K) antigen is common in Aryans, but is rare in Negroes and Turanians.[3] The Sutter (Js-a) antigen occurs only in Negroes.[4] Indo-Australians have an extremely low frequency of the B gene, approaching zero, a low frequency of the M gene, no A-2 gene,[5] and a high frequency of the N gene.[6] Asian Turanians have a high frequency of the B and Rh-z genes and almost no A-2 gene. American Turanians have a low frequency of the N gene, little or no B gene, and no A-2 gene. Negroes have a high frequency of the A-2 and Rh-o genes and possess some frequency of the Rh− gene. Aryans have a moderately high frequency of the Rh− gene, and a moderate frequency of the B and A-2 genes.[7] Rh− (cde) blood is almost none existent in Turanians, Indo-Australians, and Khoisans.[8] Blood group A-1,2 is found in Negroes, but is seldom found in Aryans or Turanians.[9] Compared with other races, Aryans have a high frequency of A-2 and Rh−.[10] Negroes are high in Rh-o, P, and Haptoglobin Hp-1 and very low Fy-a (Duffy positive). They have “private genes attached to the MNSU system, including Hunter, Henshaw, and V; a special Rh gene, e-s, in the combination Dce-s; and a gamma globulin variant Gmab.”[11] Indo-Australians are high in CDe (Rh-z), N, NS, Duffy positive (Fy-a), and Haptoglobin Hp-1.[12] Contrary to popular myths, the races do not share a common blood.
    Moreover, the blood of humans strongly resembles that of chimpanzees.[13] Even a chimpanzee with type-A blood can receive a transfusion of human type-A blood.[14] If the criterion of having the same blood makes all the races of humans descended from Adam, then chimpanzees are also his descendants.
    Furthermore, “blood” in Acts 17:26 cannot be referring to the genetic makeup. The different races of humans have significantly different genetic makeup.[15]
    As shown above, the various species of humans differ in their blood. Humans do not have a common blood.

Endnotes

1. Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza and Francesco Cavalli-Sforza, The Great Human Diaspora: The History of Diversity and Evolution, trans. Sarah Thorne (Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1995), p. 125. Carleton S. Coon, and Edward E. Hunt, Jr., The Living Races of Man (New York, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1965), p. 286. Richard A. Goldsby, Race and Races (New York, New York: The Macmillian Company, 1971), p. 59. R. Ruggles Gates, Human Ancestry from a Genetical Point of View (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1948), pp. 158, 338, 356. Stanley M. Garn, Human Races (Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas • Publisher, 1961), p. 47.

2. Stephen Molnar, Races, Types, and Ethnic Groups: The Problem of Human Variation (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1975), p. 76. Coon and Hunt, p. 283. Lionel Casson, et al. Mysteries of the Past, ed. Joseph J. Thorndike, Jr. (New York, New York: American Heritage Publishing Company, Inc., 1977), p. 219.

3. N. E. Morton, “Interracial Crosses and Group Differences,” Racial Variation in Man, ed. F. J. Ebling (New York, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1975), p. 152.

4. Morton, p. 152.

5. William C. Boyd and Isaac Asimov, Races and People (New York, New York: Abelard-Schuman, 1955), p. 158.

6. Gates, p. 157.

7. Boyd and Asimov, p. 158.

8. Casson, p. 219.

9. Carleton S. Coon, The Origin of Races (New York, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1962), p. 173.

10. Coon and Hunt, p. 286.

11. Coon and Hunt, p. 286.

12. Coon and Hunt, p. 287.

13. Coon, pp. 172-176.

14. Herbert Wendt, It Begin in Babel: The Story of the Birth and Development of Races and Peoples, trans. James Kirkup (Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1961), p. 374.

15. See the works of Luigi Lucia Cavalli-Sforza — especially The Great Human Diaspora: The History of Diversity and Evolution (1995) and The History and Geography of Human Genes (1994). Officially, he takes the politically correct position of racial equality and the unity of man. Also, see Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis (1999) by Thomas C. Allen for a polygenetic position.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on anthropology.

Review of The Negro Revolution in America -- Part 2

Review of The Negro Revolution in America -- Part 2

Thomas Allen

[Editor's note: Some of the endnotes have been replaced with links.]

     In Chapter 5, Brink and Harris discuss the politics of race. They lament the failure of Negroes to register and vote (p. 78). This seems to be a perpetual problem with Blacks. When the complete lack of difference between the two major parties is considered, such apathy makes little difference. Like Whites, all that Blacks receive is an echo and not a choice. Just as the Republican Party now ignores the demands and desires of Whites in general and Southerners in particular, so does the Democratic Party takes the Negro for granted. Both work for the best interest of the ruling elite to the detriment of both Whites and Blacks.
    Brink and Harris comment that at the time of their writing Negroes had probably received as little from the political system as any other group. If true, President Johnson would soon change that. With the civil rights law, fair housing law, equal economic opportunity program,  etc., Negroes have been showered with rights and privileges that no other group had ever enjoyed. With the war on poverty, hundreds of billions of dollars have been poured out to the Negro. Never before had a majority so willing sacrificed itself, its property, its heritage, its posterity, and its race for the benefit of a small minority. In the end, Blacks won the civil rights war with the complete and unconditional surrender of Whites. (The small pockets of rebellious Whiles that remain amount to no more than the Indian wars of the late nineteenth century.) The biggest problem for the Negro now is maintaining his privileges as the hordes of Turanians explode; these Turanians cannot and will not be kowtowed as Whites were. Unfortunately for the Negro, his leaders refuse to acknowledge this problem. Contrariwise, they strive to make it worse by supporting the policy of unlimited non-White immigration.
    Brink and Harris note that the electoral college system favors the Negro. About one-third of Blacks lived in seven pivotal industrial States that accounted for 80 percent of the electoral vote in 1960. (A significant change has occurred in the electoral vote since then. The importance of the Northern States has declined, and the importance of the Southern States has risen.) Carrying the Negro vote in these seven States significantly improves the chances of winning the presidency (pp. 80-81).
    Brink and Harris lament the lack of participation by Blacks in the electoral process in the South (pp. 82-86). Negro participation did increase. As a result, more quislings, scalawags, and carpetbaggers were elected. A downfall of democracy is that as the privilege of voting expands among the non-net taxpayers, the quality of candidates and thus leaders and government declines.
    Brink and Harris comment on the overwhelming support that Negroes give the Democratic Party. However, only a small majority regularly support the Democratic Party. They did not want the Democrats to take the Black vote for granted (pp. 86-88). The evangelical Christians fell into this trap with the Republican Party. Their leaders continuously endorsed the Republicans, and the Republicans began taking them for granted. Except the wars in the Middle East, the only thing that the Evangelicals have gotten from the Republicans has been rhetoric.
    Brink and Harris point out the irony of Blacks supporting the Democratic Party. Up to that time, the Republicans had been more supportive of Blacks and their demands for civil rights than Democrats. Many leading Democrats were segregationists. However, many Blacks saw Democrats working to improve the economic standing of the masses while Republicans were concerned only with Big Business (pp. 88ff).
    Brink and Harris comment on the skepticism that Blacks had about Lyndon Johnson as president because he was a Southerner (pp. 92-93). What most people failed to realize was that Johnson was a rascal, scoundrel, quisling, and scalawag of the highest order. He probably surprised most Negroes as he delivered nearly everything that they demanded. The welfare state, of which the Negro has been the principal victim, exploded under his leadership. Ironically most Negro leaders supported the welfare state although it made many Negroes wards of government and by that stripped them of their independence and effectively enslaved them to the government.
    In Chapter 6, Brink and Harris discuss the role of the Negro church. They give a historical overview and discuss the present day (late 1950s and early 1960s).
    Brink and Harris remark “that Negro society tends to be a matriarchal society. . . . The matriarchal character of Negro society is largely a product of broken homes” (p. 100). They note that in 1960 a third of Black women who had been married no longer lived with their husbands as compared with one-fifth of White women (p. 100).
    According to Brink and Harris, the Negro Revolution is a holy war. The Negro is convinced “that his cause is just because it is just before God, and that he must ultimately win because that is God's word and will.” (p. 100). To arrive at such a conclusion requires a highly liberal explanation of the Bible while ignoring large parts of it. The God of the Bible is a God of segregation and not of integration.[1] He does not forbid slavery,[2] but the Bible does provide a code for the just treatment of slaves. Probably none of the characters in the Bible are Negroes. Nearly all are Aryans (Whites) with occasional mention of Melanochroi. Nevertheless, Whites have no justification for oppressing Blacks or any other race. God commanded the species (races) of humans to separate themselves from others. When they are separated, they cannot oppress one another.
    Based on Brink and Harris’ observations, Negro churches were evolving into political organizations. Their ministers were moving away from preaching the Gospel to preaching civil rights, equal rights, Black Power, and the like. They were preaching the social gospel (pp. 103-104).
    Brink and Harris give some background information on Martin Luther King and describe some of his activities and writings (pp. 104-106). However, they fail to mention his Communist connections and sympathies.
     In several places in their book, Brink and Harris remark that because of segregation Blacks are poorly educated. Yet Black leaders, such as King, were highly educated. Segregation did not appear to hold them back educationally.
    Brink and Harris state that a primary source of King's financing is the collection plate of churches where he speaks (p. 105). If Negroes were as economically oppressed as Brink and Harris continuously iterate, where did they get all this money to finance an operation as expensive and elaborate as King’s? Moreover, why did not the IRS revoke the tax exemption status of these churches for promoting politics? Even today the IRS ignores Black churches that preach politics. Yet if a White church preaches against abortion, sodomy, interracial marriage (when was the last time a preacher condemned interracial marriages), and a host of other issues that have been politicized, it risks harassment by the IRS and possible revocation of its tax exemption status.
    Brink and Harris present King and other civil rights leaders as promoters of nonviolence (pp. 105ff). When one undertakes an action that he expects will evoke a violent response, he is not acting nonviolently. King and other civil rights leaders were continuously undertaking actions that they expected and hoped would cause a violent response. (He who fires the first shot does not necessarily start the war; he who causes the first shot to be fired starts the war. Unfortunately, most people lose sight of this principle and place the blame on the responder.)
    Brink and Harris note that most Black ministers believe that the Black church would be among the last institutions integrated and would survive the integration movement (pp. 109-110). If these ministers really believed what they preached, they would have led by example. They would have insisted that Black churches destroy themselves through integration. They would have implemented active integration plans to cause the integrated demise of their churches as soon as possible. What the Negro really wants is to be able to integrate White society and institutions at will. Whites are to have nothing that is beyond integration. Yet at the same time, the Negro wants to protect and preserve Black society and institutions from White integration. That is, Blacks should be able to segregate themselves; Whites should not.
    In Chapter 7, Brink and Harris discuss the leadership of the civil rights movement and the Negro Revolution and the tactics used. However, they fail to identify the Communist leadership of the civil rights movement. Except Dubois, they do not identify any of the leaders as Communists. One Negro leader whom they mention who was a Communist was Ralph Bunche. However, they do not identify him as a Communist. They do note that until 1960, most Black instigators in the South were Northern Negroes.
    In Chapter 8, Brink and Harris discuss what Negroes think of Whites. Only the White man has prevented the Negro from achieving freedom, comforts, and pleasures (p.125). Everything is Whitey’s fault; nothing is Blacky’s fault.
    Brink and Harris quote a Negro as saying that the reason that Whites want to keep the Negro down is to keep Negro men from marrying White women (p. 126). If Blacks did not want to marry Whites, why did they fight to repeal and overturn laws prohibiting interracial marriages? If interracial marriages were not an important objective, why did interracial marriages soar after the prohibition was removed?  They could have gone a long way to alleviate such fears by fighting to keep laws against interracial marriages in place and to enact them in States that did not have them. (Once interracial marriages became acceptable, all other illicit and unscriptural marriages became acceptable including homosexual marriages.)
    The fear of interracial marriage was well-founded. In 1960 only 0.4 percent of White marriages were interracial of which 0.1 percent were with Blacks. By 2010 interracial White marriages had risen to 3.0 percent of which 1.1 percent were with Blacks. By 2010 14.0 percent of Black marriages were interracial; of these 11.8 percent were with Whites. If the current trend continues, the Negro will breed himself out of existence in a few generations. (The American Indian has already almost bred himself out of existence.) Integration is truly genocide.[3]
    One Negro said that Whites needed the Negro so that they could have someone to look down on (p. 126). People who need someone to look down on will find someone to look down on even if that someone is of the same race. (I had a Black secretary, different from the one mentioned above, who told me that light-skin Negroes look down on dark-skin Negroes. Looking down on people is not restricted to Whites.)
    According to Brink and Harris, many Blacks were convinced that most Whites hated them (p. 127). At least in the South, most Whites did not hate Blacks.
    Brink and Harris quote one Negro as saying, “Whites in the North like for Negroes to be independent, but those in the South like you dependent.” (p. 127). If true, the South won and the North lost. With the eruption of the welfare state, the Negro became more dependent than ever.
    One astute Northern Negro observed, “The Southerner lets you know where you stand. The Northerner stabs you in the back.” (p. 128) Another Negro notes, “I think the white man in the North makes a better hypocrite” (p. 128). A wise Negro said, “Man is basically selfish and is not concerned about what type of break someone else is getting as long as it does not affect him. The average American is not overwhelmingly concerned about the Chinese boy who goes to bed hungry or the Indian child whose fingers are cut off to make him a more effective beggar” (p. 128).
    About the baneful moderate White aiding Blacks, one Negro said, “Being a moderate is a nice way for a guy to hide” (p. 129). Another Negro said, “Moderate is just a fancy name for do nothing” (p. 129).
    Brink and Harris note that the Catholic church and Jews have supported the civil rights movement (p. 133). That is not surprising. Both have little regard for the races that God created. Both lust for power. Turmoil often results in concentrating political power. Both intend to control this concentrated power.
    In Chapter 9, Brink and Harris discuss what Whites think of Negroes. They conclude that Whites suffer from guilt about the way that they treat or do not treat the Negro (p. 138). This guilt has destroyed the country and is leading to the extinction of the White race. Brink and Harris selected several comments that Whites made about Blacks; many of the selected comments were highly derogatory — especially by today’s standards (pp. 139-141).
    Many Whites believe that Negroes smell different (pp. 140-141). Brink and Harris give the impression that Whites and Blacks smell the same. Science shows that they differ in odor. Their odor glands secrete different compounds that attract different bacteria. (Turanians are generally odorless.)[4]
    Besides odor, Brink and Harris present several other White stereotypes about Negroes (pp. 140-141).  Many of these so-called stereotypes are supported by statistics and observation. They included loose morals, living off handouts, less intelligence, and breeding crimes.  
    Stereotypes are not created out of the imagination. They develop from experience and observation. Many, but not all, members of the group generally fit the stereotype.
    Brink and Harris show that most Whites in the South and nationwide believe that Negroes have the right to vote, unrestricted use of buses and trains, job opportunities, and decent housing. Although a majority nationwide favor the federal vote-enforcement law, the federal fair employment practice law, the Kennedy civil rights bill, and the public-accommodation bill, most Southerners opposed them (p. 142). If the Southern view had prevailed, both races and the country would have been better off. These laws lead to a more powerful, micromanaging federal government and the destruction of the Black man’s independence and thus his freedom.
    Although a large majority of Whites nationwide supported Eisenhower’s invasion of Arkansas and Kennedy’s invasion of Mississippi, most Southerners opposed them (p. 143).
    Brink and Harris quote a White man saying, “. . . one state can’t tell the other parts of the United States what to do” (p. 143). Apparently, this man had no qualms about other States telling the Southern States what to do. He just objected to the Southern States trying to resist the tyranny of the other States. What a hypocrite he is!
    A majority of Whites thought “that the Negroes were pressing too hard, asking for too much.” (p. 145). Nevertheless, “Whites have remarkably clear understanding of Negro demands.” (p. 145).
      Brink and Harris quote several responses to a question about how Whites thought it must feel to be discriminated against as a Negro. Those quoted express indignation and outrage (p. 147). Everyone, including Whites, is discriminated against nearly every day. Did these people express such indignation and outrage when they themselves were actually discriminated against? Does the federal government have to eliminate all forms of discrimination? The power-hungry micromanagers would certainly like to try as that would give them absolute control over everyone and everything. What most people fail to realize is that every time that they make a choice they discriminate.
    Brink and Harris note that Whites adamantly object to job quotas for Negroes and Negroes given job preference over Whites (p, 149). Whites lost this one as Blacks have received special privileges in the job market.
    Brink and Harris remark that most Whites reject “the notion that the education of white children would suffer if both races go to school together” (p. 150). Were they wrong! Education for both races has been in decline ever since schools were fully integrated.
    Brink and Harris quote a White woman who naively and ignorantly believes that children do not notice racial differences (p. 150). Contrariwise, children who are around other children of other races are aware of racial differences at a very young age. By the time that they are old enough to express the difference, they are aware of the differences.
    In Chapter 10, Brink and Harris discuss breaking the vicious circle. In this chapter, they summarize what the Negro wants and the Negro’s opinion about various things. Basically, Blacks want the White man’s wealth. To get it, they need better jobs, which requires better education, which requires better housing (this was before busing children because of race became popular outside the South).
    Brink and Harris write: “Negroes do not want to take these things [i.e., things that the Negro believes that the Whites have] away from whites or to destroy the white society that has them. On the contrary, Negroes ask only for the chance to earn the better life with dignity” (p. 157).
    No matter what the Negroes claim to want, the primary object of the civil rights movement has been to destroy White society.  With the war on poverty and the exploding welfare state that accompanied the civil rights movement, a great deal of wealth has been taken from Whites via taxation and inflation and transferred to Blacks. When Blacks became dependent on government, they lost all claims to “earning a better life with dignity.”
    According to Brink and Harris, most Negroes want to work next to Whites in an integrated workforce (p. 157). Ironically, often when Blacks are in charge, the workforce becomes predominantly Black with a few token Whites, who are needed to do most of the hard work.[5]
    Brink and Harris state that Blacks believe that their children will do better in school if they sit next to Whites (p. 158). Effectively, they are admitting that they are too inferior to learn without the presence of Whites. Somehow they can capture intelligence from adjacent Whites. The response is that when Blacks seat in a classroom without Whites, Blacks feel inferior (p. 158). Why did not Whites feel inferior when they sat in a classroom without Blacks? Such a claim degrades Blacks. Apparently, Blacks have a low opinion of their children and their ability to learn.
    Brink and Harris quote a Negro man saying, “Negro’s don’t want favoritism, they just want justice” (p. 162). In the end, they got favoritism.
    Brink and Harris show that integration per se was not the primary objective of most Negroes. They want Whites to treat them better. They want equal rights (pp. 162-164).
    Regardless of White “prejudice” and “bigotry” toward Blacks at the time that Brink and Harris wrote this book, today Black prejudices and bigotry toward Whites far exceeds that of Whites toward Blacks.
    Blacks have achieved their primary objective as stated in Brink and Harris’ book. They won the job battle as the job market has been skewed in their favor via discrimination against Whites. (This leads to the question: Did he get the job because of his ability or because of his race?) They won the education battle by destroying White education and getting education lowered to the level of Blacks. They won the housing battle. They can buy houses in White neighborhoods. Yet they get to maintain their own Black neighborhoods. Only self-hating Whites have any desire to live in Black neighborhoods (and Blacks prefer not having those debased people around). Instead of making Blacks more like Whites, integration has made Whites more like Blacks.
    Blacks won the civil rights war and gained full integration. However, they failed to gain their freedom and independence. They are much more enslaved now than then.
     The Communist-led civil rights movement has achieved many of the ruling elites’ goals. It has greatly expanded the power of the federal government and made people more dependent on government. Thus, it has led to the enslavement of all races. More important, it is destroying America and the White race — the primary objectives of the ruling elite.

Endnote

 1.  Thomas Allen, “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation” (Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Co., 2015). Thomas Allen, “Is Integration a Moral Law?” (Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Co., 2015). Thomas Allen, Integration Is Genocide (Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Co., 1997).

2. Allen, “The Bible, Segregation and Miscegenation.”

3. Allen, Integration Is Genocide.

4. Thomas Allen, Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis (Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Co., 1999), p.27. John R. Baker, Race (New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 1974), pp. 170-177. Carlton S. Coon, Racial Adaptation (Chicago, Illinois: Nelson-Hall, 1982), pp. 108-109.

5. For example, see Tracy Abel “The Wages of Idealism” in Face to Face with Race, ed. Jared Taylor (Oakton, Virginia: New Century Foundation, 2014), pp. 3-21.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen. 

Part 1

More articles on social issues. 

Review of The Negro Revolution in America -- Part 1

Review of The Negro Revolution in America -- Part 1

Thomas Allen

[Editor's note: Some of the endnotes have been replaced with links.]

    The following is an analysis of The Negro Revolution in America by William Brink and Louis Harris (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1964). Much of this book is based on surveys. Their words and my paraphrases or summaries of their words, I have italicized. My commentary is in roman letters. I have provided references to pages in his book and have enclosed them in parentheses
    As one would expect from the subject matter of this book, it is anti-White and especially anti-Southerner. Like nearly all pro-Black-civil-rights writers, the authors express a great deal of bigotry and prejudice toward Southerners.
    Chapter 1 discusses the Black race awakening — what the Negro wants. Brink and Harris claim that Blacks “wanted nothing less than full equality” (p. 20). Before 1980 not only had Blacks become the White man’s equal, they had become his superior. Blacks can segregate themselves from Whites, but Whites cannot segregate themselves from Blacks. Blacks can have Black beauty pageants, Black caucuses, Black scholarships, etc. Whites cannot. Blacks are allowed to have Black-only clubs at public universities, but Whites are not allowed to have White-only clubs.
    Blacks can discriminate against Whites, but Whites cannot discriminate against Blacks. Whites feel compelled to declare that they have Black friends. Blacks feel no obligation to claim White friends. To the contrary, many feel compelled to deny that they have White friends. The country now has Jim Crow in reverse, but only worse.
    Brink and Harris contend that the writers of the U.S. Constitution intended for it to apply to Blacks (p. 20). They did not. The Constitution is clear about whom it is written. The Preamble reads “. . . . secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution. . . .” Thus, the writers of the Constitution, who were all White, intended it for their posterity, who would be White. The illegally adopted Fourteenth Amendment was and is used to give Blacks certain rights and privileges. (This  Amendment also stripped most Southern leaders of their political rights and privilege of holding public office.)
    Brink and Harris quote a White man saying, “They only expect the same rights that we have. They only want the same chances we have for a better life” (p. 21). (One wonders how many Blacks lived in this man’s town, Vestal, New York —  probably less than 1 percent.) Brink and Harris quote a Black dentist as saying, “I’d like to see the Negro change from a second-class citizen to a first class-citizen” (p. 21). Eventually Blacks not only achieved equal rights, but they achieved special rights. Not only did they cease being second-class citizens, doting Whites elevated the Negro to a deity, at least in the abstract. (Yankees are notorious for placing the abstract above the concrete.) At the same time, these Whites reduced far too many Blacks to wards of government via welfare programs. By trading the old plantation master for the new government master, Blacks have really come a long way. At least under the old plantation master, they had the pride and dignity of working for their keep.  (They consumed about 90 percent of their production.) Under their new government masters, they have been degraded to little more than breeding and offering jobs for their caretakers. Under the old plantation system, Blacks worked to support Whites. Under the new welfare system, Whites work to support Blacks. Can a person really be a first-class citizen while he is on the public dole?
    Brink and Harris remark that the Negro’s struggle for equal rights had been essentially nonviolent (p. 23). That depends on one’s definition of “nonviolent.” Is violating the property of others nonviolent? Is threatening violence nonviolent? Is deliberately creating a situation that will evoke a violent response nonviolent? They wrote in 1963. The great waves of violence would come with the race riots of the mid-1960s and later. The more Whites surrendered to Blacks, the more violent Blacks became. Why should not they? The more Whites surrendered, the less respect Blacks had for Whites.
    Brink and Harris note that the crime rate for Negroes is too high (p. 25). Civil rights and equality have not reduced the Negro crime rate. If anything, the crime rate of Blacks is even worse today than then.
    Brink and Harris also note the high rate of illegitimate births among Negroes (p. 25). Not only has the civil rights movement raised the illegitimacy of Negroes from 20 percent in 1960 to 72 percent by 2013, but it has also raised the illegitimacy rate of Whites from 2 percent in 1960 to 29 percent by 2013.
    “Negroes (and white sociologists) point out, of course, that these things are produced by the vicious circle that has ruled their lives if they were not downtrodden they would not resort to crime; if their family structure had not been undermined as far back as slavery they would have more stable marital relations; if they had better job opportunities they would not need relief. But the further point that the Negroes make is that they will never be able to improve all of these conditions unless they are granted equal rights now” (p. 25). The Negro won the civil rights war. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on the war on poverty and to enhance Negro health and education. Negroes have been preferentially treated in the job market; they are hired and promoted over better-qualified Whites. Yet none of this has made any difference. They have received what Whitney Young of the National Urban League argued for: a better-than-an-even break, a massive domestic Marshall Plan, and special and preferential treatment. To the extent that all these programs have affected Black crime and illegitimacy, they have raised them. At least Negroes can still blame it on something that none have ever experienced: slavery.
    Brink and Harris quote Martin Luther King’s “I Got a Dream” speech where he talks about judging people by their character and not the color of their skin (pp. 26-27). Contrary to his speech, the legislation and policies that King and other civil rights leaders pushed judged people by the color of their skin and not by their character. The civil rights act, fair housing act, the equal employment opportunity program, and other similar laws and programs were biased in favor of Blacks and discriminated against Whites. They stripped Whites of rights and privileges while granting Blacks special rights and privileges.
    Chapter 2 begins with Gunnar Myrdal’s An American Dilemma and an overview of Negro slavery and the Negro in America up to 1960.
    Myrdal was a Swede and a Marxist economist and sociologist who despised the U.S. Constitution as it was a White man’s document. When ordering the integration of public schools, the U.S. Supreme Court relied on Myrdal’s work instead of the U.S. Constitution. In effect, it declared his work the supreme law of the land.
    Brink and Harris note that the first load of Negroes brought to Virginia in 1619 were “promptly sold into slavery” (p. 29). This is not true. As Francis Springer shows in War for What?, these Blacks became indentured servants like many Europeans who came to America to pay for their passage. They were treated the same as European indentured servants. When they had worked their time to pay for their passage and initial upkeep, they were set free. A Negro brought slavery to Virginia when he refused to let his Black indentured servant go free. He got the court to rule in his favor to bind the Black indentured servant to him for lifetime servitude.[1]
    Brink and Harris imply that Whites threw Blacks out of White churches (p. 33). This may be true of some Northern churches. In the South, most Negroes voluntarily left White churches. They wanted their own churches so that they could be independent of Whites. They realized that they could never be free and independent of White rule and oversight if they remained under White rule and oversight. Such independence and freedom require separation instead of integration. Most Black civil rights leaders either forgot or ignored this truism.
    Brink and Harris comment on DuBois and the founding of the NAACP (p. 35). They failed to mention that DuBois was the only Black involved in the founding of the NAACP. Nevertheless, they did note that he later left the NAACP and joined the Communist Party (p. 35). Although they identified the other founders as liberals, they failed to identify them as what they really were: radicals, socialists, and Communists. They do name some of the White founders: John Dewey (who destroyed education in the United States with his progressive education — Whites must be brought down to the Negro’s intellectual level), Jane Addams (who advocated diluting the electorate by forever expanding the privilege of voting and by that diluting the power of the electorate and making it irrelevant), and Lincoln Steffens (who was a journalist and a supporter of the Soviet Union) (p. 35).
    Brink and Harris comment on the great Negro migration from the South to urban areas in the North (p. 38). Much of the Northern support for the civil rights act and related laws resulted from the desire to keep the Negro in his place, i.e., in the South.
    Brink and Harris discuss the rise of black power and the rights and privileges that Blacks need to have to trump the rights and privileges of Whites (pp. 40-41). Under the Communist-led civil rights movement and the integrationist regime, just about every gain that the Negro has made has been at the expense of Whites. Most of what the Negro has received has been given to him by Whites, most of whom have Marxist leanings and all of whom are statist. For the most part, the Negro has not earned what he has received. The whole objective of the civil rights movement has been to increase the power of the federal government, that is, to increase the power of the ruling elite (globalists, one-worlders, heads of major foundations, international financiers, chief executives of multinational corporations, Zionist leaders, leaders of the occult, and other elitists) and to destroy America and the White race.
    Brink and Harris discuss the school integration issue and the slowness of integration (pp. 30-41). School integration ultimately rests on the theory that Negroes are so stupid and intellectually inferior that they are incapable of learning unless they are sitting next to an intellectually superior White student.  Somehow Blacks will absorb the superior intellectual genes of Whites by sitting next to them in the classroom. Also, proponents of school integration declare that Blacks are too stupid and incompetent to teach Black students unless White students are in the classroom to provide intelligence genes.
    Brink and Harris write, “The proliferation of Negro leadership organizations points up a significant fact of the Negro’s revolution, that it has lacked any clear-cut, centralized direction.” (p. 43). That is not exactly true. Behind the prominent civil rights organizations has been the Communist Party. Its control of the civil rights organizations and the civil rights movement has been mostly through fronts and sympathizers and fellow travelers instead of card-caring Communists although they have been heavily involved. Communists have controlled and guided King’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and King’s front, the Students Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). Likewise, Communists and Communist sympathizers and fellow travelers were heavily involved in the NAACP and Congress of Racial Equality (CORE).
    At least Brink and Harris comment on some of the victims of the “nonviolent” civil rights movement (pp. 43-47). However, like true integrationists, they blame the violence on Whites. All these violent outbursts and those that followed led cowardly Whites to surrender unconditionally to Black demands. Unfortunately, for Blacks in America, the unconditional surrender was not only to them. It was also to non-Whites across the globe.  This surrender has led to massive immigration of non-Whites, primarily Turanians (mostly East Asians and Latinos). To the Negro’s detriment, these Turanians hate Blacks more than the integrationist’s stereotypical Southerner ever did (few Southerners ever really hated Blacks; more Northerners hated Blacks than did Southerners). Moreover, these Turanians do not suffer White guilt and will never be made to feel guilty about their treatment (mistreatment) of Blacks. Once they reach critical mass, probably in less than 20 years, the Negro will look on the days of segregation and Jim Crow as a time of freedom, respect, and opportunity. The Turanians will suppress them to the lowest rung of society — perhaps even lower than they enjoyed under slavery.
    In Chapter 3, Brink and Harris discuss what it is like to be a Negro. Brink and Harris state, “Negroes believe whites don’t understand them, don’t understand what it is like to be discriminated against and segregated” (p. 48.). Southerners do have some idea of what it is like to be discriminated against. They have been discriminated against and belittled since 1865. Except Indians, they are the only group that the U.S. Constitution specifically denied the privilege of holding public office. (At least the Indians did not have to pay taxes.) Today, the Southerner is one of the few ethics that can be disparaged with impunity. Movie makers seem obliged to belittle and ridicule him as he is seldom presented positively. Like Whites in the North and West, he is also discriminated against in favor of non-Whites.
    Moreover, if a Southerner wants to know what it is like to be a second-class citizen, all he has to do is to read a pro-integration book written in the 1950s or 1960s: They all treat Southerners as second-class citizens and often worse.
    (I have had Blacks discriminate against me. Once, when my office took our secretaries to lunch to celebrate secretary’s day, I had a Black secretary. While returning to the office, my secretary and I stopped at an ice cream shop for ice cream. A Black woman was behind the counter. She gave my secretary two heaping scoops of ice cream and me, two puny scoops. Such discrimination did not humiliate me, make me feel like a second-class citizen, or drive me to protest.
    My wife experienced discrimination in the army. When a Black woman was placed in charge of a work detail, she gave the White women laborious and dirty jobs. She gave the Black woman easy jobs and minimal tasks — they mostly lofted.)
    Much of the poverty suffered by Negroes come from the radical Republicans’ (most radical Republicans were abolitionists) policies and programs to destroy the South during the War and Reconstruction. (Perhaps Southerners need civil rights for Southerners to preserve what remains of their culture, heritage, ethnicity, race, etc.) A major motivation behind the civil rights movement is to bring down the South and Southerners. It has been primarily a war against the South, although it quickly spread to Northern urban areas.
    How and why segregation made the Negro a second-class citizen and how and why integration ends this status is not fully explained. Regarding the Negro, Roy Innis did not see integration as elevating the Negro. He states, “Under segregation, black people live together but their institutions are controlled by whites. Under integration, black people are dispersed and the institutions, goods, and services are still controlled by whites. In effect, the two are the same. But under separatism, black people will control their own turf.”[2]
    Brink and Harris comment that Negroes believe that Whites consider Negroes worthless (p. 49). If true, the Negro is not going to overcome this problem by forced association. Force association creates resentment. More often than not, it reinforces the stereotype. The more a person associates with a group, the more likely he will find examples fitting the stereotype. Moreover, respect has to be earned; it cannot be forced or given. Until the Negro stands on his own in spite of real or perceived discrimination without any governmental aid, he cannot really be respected by himself or others. Innis seems to have realized this when he argued for separation. With separation and without any aid from Whitey, the Negro can prove that he can stand on his own and deserves the respect that he believes that he is entitled.
    Brink and Harris claim that Blacks in the military were degraded during World War II because far too many were relegated to engineering (road construction) and transportation (driving trucks and guarding airports) instead of being mortar meat in front-line combat units. Many Whites on the front line probably would have gladly traded places with these Blacks if given a choice.
    Judging by what Brink and Harris write in Chapter 3, the Negro’s self-esteem depends almost entirely on what Whites think of him and how they treat him. At least the Negro’s problem with self-esteem has been overcome. Blacks now have much more self-esteem than Whites, many of who loath and hate themselves.
    Brink and Harris claim that part of the cause of the Negro’s problem is that nearly half the Black married women worked while less than a third of White married women worked in 1960 (p. 51). The civil rights movement and accompanying programs have made this problem worse. More married women have been forced into the workforce to support the civil-rights welfare state. Also, most Black fathers have been driven from the home so that the government can support their children. Many of these absent fathers end up being supported in the prison system.  Thus, has the civil rights movement advanced the Black race.
      A typical excuse recorded by Brink and Harris for Blacks dropping out of high school is that “they feel they don’t have a chance, so why struggle? I got honors in high school, but I can’t get a decent job.” (p. 57). If Southerners had held this attitude after the devastation of the War and Reconstruction, the South today would be little more than a third-world country. Although Southerners took nearly a century to rebuild the South, they did so. If the South were an independent country, it would be one of the top-tier countries in the world. It rebuilt itself in spite of Yankee discrimination. It made its greatest strides during Yankee neglect. No Marshal Plan was available to rebuild the South. The Negro needs to look to himself and not to others.
    A major complaint of Blacks during the era of Brink and Harris’ writing was the poor education received by Blacks (pp. 56-58). The civil rights-integrationist movement has solved this problem by reducing the quality of public education for everyone. Now Blacks, White, and all others are poorly educated (but well indoctrinated). Most consider the generation of the founding fathers as the greatest generation ever produced in this country. Yet not one of them had a public education. Perhaps we should follow their example for education.
    In Chapter 4, Brink and Harris describe the weapons of the Negro Revolution. These weapons include riots, demonstration marches, picketing stores, boycotts, sit-ins, etc. They discuss the effects that the Freedom Rides and other demonstrations had on Negroes (pp. 66ff). Like most integrationists, Brink and Harris blame all the violence on Whites instead of the Black agitators seeking a violent reaction (p. 64). (One wonders how many federal agents and operatives had been implanted in White resistant groups to urge Whites to do what the integrationist provocateurs wanted: to react violently.)
    Brink and Harris describe Whites attacking Black Freedom Riders in Montgomery in 1961. They discuss CORE, which had organized the Freedom Riders (pp. 63-66). James Farmer was the national director of CORE then. A basic tactic was that Farmer and CORE threatened to bring violence to a community unless the community surrendered unconditionally to the demands of King and SCLC. (SNCC was also used to threaten violence unless the community surrendered unconditionally to King.)
    Like most integrationists, Brink and Harris declare the Negro demonstration to be nonviolent on the part of the Negro (pp.65-66). Whenever people deliberately undertake an action that they know will provoke a violent response, they are not completely innocent of the resulting violence.
    According to Brink and Harris, the Freedom Riders were trained to love those who attacked them (p. 65). If these Freedom Riders really loved their White attackers, they would have never knowingly created a situation to provoke Whites into attacking them.
    Brink and Harris remark that the civil rights movement taught Blacks that “going to jail is no longer shameful blot on their record; it has become a badge of honor” (p. 68). Perhaps this in part explains why so many Black men end up in prison. Going to prison is a badge of honor — a hangover from the glory days of the civil rights movement.
    Brink and Harris comment on Rosa Park being arrested for refusing to give up her bus seat to a White and the boycott that followed. They state that she was a seamstress (p. 70). However, they fail to mention that she was a Communist agent who had been trying to create an incident.
    In a sense, this boycott was a failure. It did not end the law that segregated seating on buses in Montgomery. White men on the U.S. Supreme Court ended it (p. 70).
    Brink and Harris do admit that the Negro is ready to use weapons to get what he wants (p. 71) — so much for nonviolence. As the years that followed show, the Negro was much more militant than Brink and Harris were ready to admit.
    Brink and Harris note that some Negroes felt “that the potential for violence lies chiefly in the South and will not be much of a factor in the North” (pp. 71-72). Were these Negroes wrong! The worst race riots inflicted on the country were outside the South. Most of these riots resulted in destructing Black neighborhoods and Black businesses — so much on teaching Whitey a lesson. Nevertheless, White taxpayers ended up paying for the reconstruction.
    Brink and Harris quote several Northern Negroes saying how much Southerners hated Blacks and wanted to kill Blacks. Some of those interviewed expressed hatred of Whites and Southerners in particular (p. 72). An irony of the civil rights movement is that race relations have generally been better in the South than in the North and West. That must be a great surprise to anti-Southerners.

Endnote

1.  Francis W. Springer, War for What? (Nashville, Tennessee: Bill Coats Ltd., 1990), pp. 8-9.

2. Francis X. Gannon, Biographical Dictionary of the Left, III (1972), p. 462.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 2 

More articles on social issues.

Differences Between Real Money and Fiat Money

Differences Between Real Money and Fiat Money

Thomas Allen

    Attributes generally ascribed to monetary material are that it is portable (relatively high value per unit of weight), homogeneous or uniform, durable, divisible, recognizable, highly marketable (highly liquid, universally acceptable), and stable in value. These attributes are true for real money, such as full weighted gold and silver coins. For the most part, they are true for today’s paper fiat money, such as the US dollar, euro, and British pound. However, real money has characteristics that are lacking in fiat paper money.
    Real money has quantity, measurement, and substance. Fiat paper money has only quantity.
    An early illustration of these three attributes in real money is recorded in Genesis 23:16. Abraham bought a burial plot. He paid 400 (quantity) shekels (measurement of weight) of silver (substance). In pre-1933 money, if a person bought something with a $20 gold coin, he paid with money that had quantity (20), measurement (dollar, a unit of weight equal to 23.22 grains), and substance (gold).
    Fiat paper money lacks two of these three characteristics. For example a $20 federal reserve note has quantity: 20. The dollar appears to be its measurement. However, it is not. It is an abstraction. It measures nothing of substance. A unit of measurement has to be something concrete and definable like the meter, ounce, minute, or horsepower so that things can be compared to it. It has to be something that instruments can determine. Also, it lacks substance as its monetary value exceeds the value of the material of which it is made and it does not promise to deliver anything concrete.
    With pre-1933 gold money, a $20 gold coin weighed twice as much as $10 gold coin. Even if the disk had no inscription on it, a disk containing 464.4 grains of gold had twice the purchasing power of a disk containing 232.2 grains of gold. It was twice as large and weighed twice as much.
    Federal reserve notes, which are fiat paper money, cannot be measured. If all the inscriptions are removed from them, a $20 federal reserve note would look like a $10 federal reserve note. They would both have the same value: nothing.
    Another important distinction between real money and fiat paper money is that real money can transport value through space and time, which makes it an excellent store of value, medium of exchange, and standard of value (unit of accounts). Fiat paper money cannot, which makes it a poor store of value, medium of exchange, and standard of value. Real money retains its value when it moves from one place to another and from one time to another. Fiat paper money does not.
    In the United States since 1933, when President Roosevelt stole the people’s gold, the dollar had lost 94 percent of its purchasing power by 2010. Since its complete divorce from gold in 1971, it had lost 81 percent of its purchasing power by 2010.
    On the other hand, gold has retained its value through the millennia. The ancient Babylonian and Hebrew gold shekel contained about 252 grains of gold or about as much gold as an American $10 gold coin.[1] Those 252 grains of gold are still worth 252 grains today.
    If a time traveler carried a $10 gold coin back two thousand years, he would have the buying power equivalent to about 58 days of wages of a common laborer. A common laborer’s wage at that time was about 17¢ per day[2] (this estimate was made in the late 1930s when the federal reserve dollar was worth almost as much as a gold dollar). Moreover, because a $20 gold coin contains twice the gold of $10 gold coin, it would have twice the buying power. If he carried a $100 and a $1 federal reserve note with him, he would get only what he could trade his notes for as a curiosity. He might find the $1 note worth more than the $100 note if the person with whom he was trading liked Washington’s picture more than Franklin’s. Possibly, the person with whom he was trading found that the occult symbols on the back of a $1 note had great value whereas a picture of Independence Hall on the back a $100 note had none. Unlike real money, fiat paper money fails to maintain its value through time.
    Also, unlike real money, most fiat paper money has little value beyond the borders of the issuing country. Fiat paper money that does retain value beyond its borders does so because it is considered a reserve currency or the fiat money of a country is losing value so quickly that it makes other fiat money desirable. This limited ability of fiat paper money to transport value, albeit decreasing value, through space is short-lived.
    Thus, real money can transport value through space and time. Fiat paper money can only transport value for short distances and for a highly limited time. Real money is vastly superior to fiat paper money as a medium of exchange because of its superiority at transporting value through space. It is vastly superior as a standard of value and store of value because of its superiority at transporting value through time.
    As shown above, real money has quantity, measurement, and substance. Fiat paper money has only quantity. Real money can transport value over vast space and time. Fiat money cannot.

Endnotes

1. Madeleine Miller and J. Lane Miller, Harper’s Bible Dictionary, pp. 454-455.


2. John D. Davis, The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, p. 630.

Copyright © 2014 by Thomas Coley Allen. 

More articles on money. 

A Review of The South and Christian Ethics -- Part 2

A Review of The South and Christian Ethics -- Part 2

Thomas Allen

    Throughout Chapter 3, Sellers preaches, “We are to love our neighbor.” One of the highest forms of love, if not the highest, is integration. As integration leads to the death of the races, how can this be love? As integration destroys the uniqueness of the races and racial identity, how can this be love?
    In Chapter 4, Sellers claims that the Bible supports integration and condemns segregation. As noted above and in Integration Is Genocide, False Biblical Teachings on the Races and Interracial Marriages, and People of the Flood, the opposite is true: The Bible supports segregation and condemns integration. To support his claim, Sellers makes a few broad statements, but offers no Biblical proof.
    Based on Sellers comments about White preachers in the South at the time that he wrote (p. 118), most preachers then are like most preachers now. They were not going to oppose the Marxist Communist agenda.
    Sellers describes segregation as a system of belief (p. 118ff). If true, then integration, its opposite, also has to be a system of belief. The major difference between the two beliefs is that segregation has much more Biblical support than integration. (V. “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation.”)
    If segregation is the theology of “the unrepentant Southern kingdom of God” as Sellers asserts (p. 119), then integration is the theology of the unrepentant Yankee kingdom of Lucifer. If segregation is a comforting temptation as Sellers purports, then integration must also be a comforting temptation.
    He states that segregationists use the same Bible verses to justify segregation as slaveholders used to justify slavery (p. 120). That may be true to a limited degree. However, one could point to a host of Biblical passages in both the Old Testament and New Testament on slavery. None condemn slavery with the possible exception of the Israelite slaves in Moses’ day. These slavery verses had little relevance for segregationists. Because the Bible is void of antislavery and antisegregation verses, integrationists, like abolitionists, have to abandon the Bible to justify their position. If they do refer to the Bible at all, it is with vague broad abstractions. Sellers is guilty of this broad vagueness when talks about “neighborliness,” “brotherhood of man,” etc.
    Sellers contends that the Bible does not support slavery and that slavery and segregation are rebellion against God (p. 120). He must not have read the Bible. If his claim is true, why does the Bible not clearly condemn slavery as a sin and forbid it? On the contrary, both the Old Testament and New Testament present slavery as an acceptable institution. Both set forth a code on how masters are to treat their slaves and how slaves are to act. The South probably came closer than any other slaveholding society in following the Scriptural rules on slavery.
    If Southerners sinned by being slave owners, then Northerners must have sinned by dealing in slaves. They bought the slaves from African chiefs and sold them to Southern slave owners. Surely, buying and selling slaves is as sinful as owning them. Sellers does not mention the sins of the Northern slavers. Nor does he mention the sins of the African chiefs, who grew rich by African standards, in capturing and selling their fellow Africans. If God punished the South because a small percentage owned slaves, why did He not also punish the North for its Northern slavers?
    According to Sellers, Southerners see segregation as the road to salvation (pp. 120-121). If true, then Yankees and quisling Southerners must see integration as the road to salvation. If Sellers believes what he writes about segregationist theology and salvation, then he should believe in integrationist theology and salvation. (As discussed below, he does equate integration to salvation.)
    Sellers maintains that the reason that White segregationists object to their daughters marrying Blacks is pride (p. 121). It never occurs to him that the basic reason could be obedience to God’s word. Numerous passages condemn interracial marriages, even to the point of not allowing mixed breeds in God’s assembly (Deuteronomy 23:2). (V. “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation.”)
    Sellers appears to believe that God cannot be the Father of all unless the races are integrated (p. 122) and eventually produce motley mongrel man. He ignores the last part of Acts 17:26. This verse states that God created the races (“and hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth”) and assigned them their habitat (“hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation”). Thus, God did not intend for the races to commingle. To the extent that he recognizes this verse, Sellers like most integrationists only recognizes the first part and ignores the second part.
    Sellers suggests that Christ has nothing to say in support of segregation (pp. 122-123). On the contrary, Christ reiterates five of the Ten Commandments that condemn the fruit of integration, miscegenation. (V. “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation.”)
    To him, Christ teaches a love that precludes segregation and requires, if not forces, one to be an integrationist (pp. 122-124). Why he believes Christ would support, even advocate, situations that encourage men to destroy the races that God created by breeding them out of existence, he does not explain.
    In Chapter 4, Sellers questions the Christianity of segregationists. He has difficulty believing that segregationists can be Christians. To him segregation and Christianity are incompatible.
    Sellers seems to have little use for the Old Testament (p. 124, passim). Perhaps he degrades the Old Testament because it supports segregation far more than it supports integration.
    Sellers accuses segregationists of selecting passages from the Bible that support their argument (p. 124). He does the same thing. Well, not exactly. Sellers does not cite specific passages to support integration, perhaps because none exists. He just makes vague references to Jesus’ teachings on love and neighborliness.
    Sellers finds segregationists guilty of racial pride — pride in the White race (p. 116). Throughout his book, he condemns segregationists for the sin of pride. Yet Sellers is proud of being an integrationist, but he does not perceive himself guilty of the sin of pride. A proud segregationist is a sinner; a proud integrationist is never a sinner.
    An objective of integration has been to instill Blacks with pride in the Black race. Yet Sellers finds no fault with Black racial pride.
    Sellers has nothing but praise for the Communist front-man Martin Luther King (v. “Appendix: Martin Luther King” in “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement.”) and the Communist-run Southern Christian Leadership Council (v.  “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement”). He also praises the highly violent Student Non-Violent Coordination Committee and the Congress of Racial Equality, (v. “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement”) both closely allied with Communists (pp. 128-129).
    He implies that all violence that has occurred during the civil rights movement is the fault of Southerners. They are guilty of not surrendering to Blacks fast enough (p. 129).
    Sellers castigates the orthodox Southern liberal and all others who did not want to surrender to the Negro unconditionally and immediately. He even chastises what he calls the unrealistic Negroes, such as middle-class businessmen (they were the ones whom the Communists wanted to destroy), for not giving complete, unhesitating, unquestionable support to Black radicals (pp. 130-132). (V. “Black Nationalism.”)
    Sellers seems to believe that once full integration is achieved, the United States would be a color-blind democracy (p. 142). The United States have had full integration for more than forty years. Yet race consciousness is greater than ever, especially among non-Whites. The predominant race consciousness that Whites have is hatred of the White race, a feeling in common with the other races. We have come a long way in race relations under integration, have not we! Sellers should be proud.
    He has no problem with sacrificing principle for appearance in the name of moderation if the principle sacrificed is one with which he disagrees.
    Sellers blames Whites, especially Southerners, for most of the problems encountered with the civil-rights-integration movement. They are the blame because they had not elevated Blacks to “full-fledged human beings” (p. 153). Most likely, Sellers would be blaming Southerners today for the race problems, although Blacks had reached godlike status by the 1980s. Today the self-esteem of Whites is far lower than the self-esteem of Blacks ever was during segregation or slavery. If Sellers is correct, Whites need to be raised to “full-fledged human beings,” and Blacks lowered to “full-fledged human beings.”
    Sellers quotes Roger Mehl: “The primary condition for communicating is respect for the otherness of the other” (p. 153). How can a self-respecting Negro respect cowardly, debasing, self-hating, self-destructive Whites?
    Sellers writes, “White men have tended to regard benevolence as their sole obligation to the Negro. But between adults, there is another obligation: neither love nor mercy nor benevolence, however well-meant, can stand in lieu of recognizing the recipient as possessing independent, mature selfhood” (p. 153). Knowingly or not, he has chastised the White liberal, who has been the primary promoter of this benevolence. The welfare state that has accompanied the civil rights movement has stripped many Blacks of their independent, mature selfhood by making them wards of the State. As he is a good liberal, I would be surprised if Sellers would or did oppose the growing welfare state.
    Sellers asserts that the Negro “is not going to accept the white man’s benevolence in preference to asserting his manhood” (p. 154). If true, why are so many Blacks on welfare of one sort or another?  If they valued manhood over benevolence, they would reject all welfare even if they qualified for it.
    Sellers writes a good deal about justice (p. 156ff). Where is the justice of taking the property of another and holding it hostage?
    He seems to place much more importance on justice than love. Justice should always trump love. According to him, justice builds manhood; love destroys it. Justice should always have priority over love. Furthermore, integration is justice. If he is correct, justice has prevailed. However, it has done nothing to improve race relations, which would surprise Sellers. If anything, race relations are just as bad today, probably worse, than in 1962. The hostility is just better concealed. (V. “The Dirty War: America’s Race War.”).
    Sellers also presents the civil rights movement, especially the part led by King, as nonviolent (p. 157). If King were nonviolent, why did he leave a trail of blood everywhere he went? Why would a nonviolent man coordinate his activities with violent men as King did? The civil rights movement has been extremely violent. What else would one expect from a movement led by Communists? (V. “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement.”) Blacks have been warring against Whites since the movement began. However, this war has been concealed and is revealed in crime statistics. Whites are far more often the victims of Blacks than Blacks are of Whites. (V. “The Dirty War: America’s Race War.”)
    Sellers firmly believes that morality and ethics can be legislated (pp. 161-163).
    He presents the integration of the armed forces as good and as a good example of improving racial relations (p. 162). The primary reason for integrating the armed forces had nothing to do with justice, elevating Blacks to full manhood, or improving race relations. On the contrary, it degraded the Negro. The armed forces integrated because Black in segregated units often broke and ran instead of holding their ground when the enemy attacked them during the Korean War. (Perhaps, Blacks displayed more intelligence than Whites in this insistence. Why should they die for some foreign territory that meant nothing to them?) Dispersing them among the White troops gave them the fortitude to stand firm in the face of the enemy. (A friend of mine once told me about an experience that he had in basic training years after the armed forces were integrated. In his integrated unit was a Northerner from a place that had few Blacks. After being around Blacks for a while, the Northerner, who had had his fill of Blacks, asked my friend, who was a Southerner, “Why have you let them [Blacks] live?” Obviously, integration has not created all the neighborliness that Sellers prophesied.)
    Sellers sees himself as a witness for God pushing integration. However, he does caution against identifying legal decisions and governmental directives with the word of God (p. 165).
    To dampen his earlier discussion on justice, he brings love into his argument. He notes that justice is not enough. After justice is achieved, the races must be made to love each other (pp. 166ff). However, he maintains that no one can demand the right of fellowship (p.169). Yet the ostensible purpose of civil rights laws, which Sellers surely supports, is to force fellowship. (The real purpose of civil rights laws is to give those who really control the government more power over the people.) Then he contradicts himself with “the Church has a duty to preach the commandment of love itself as a fulfillment of all external, compulsory commandments which deal in forced togetherness” (p. 168). Thus, once the government corals with force various groups, the job of the Church is to brainwash the people forced together to love one another and their overlords who forced them together. After all, these despotic overlords are only executing God’s justice.
    Sellers condemns the concept of “voluntary association” when it results in segregation (pp. 169-170). Presumably, he has no problem with voluntary association if it results in integration. According to him, governmental coercion should trump freedom of association.
    Sellers does offers some excellent advice to Northerners: Clean up your own house before telling Southerners what to do beyond desegregation (p. 171). He has no fault with Northerners forcing integration on the South. An irony to come out of the civil rights movement has been that the worst race riots have been outside the South. I doubt that Sellers expected this. I am sure that few Northerners foresaw this outcome. (V. “The Cold War.”) Most likely, they expected integration would keep the Negro where he belonged: down South. It would even encourage Blacks in the North to migrate to the South. The civil rights law was written to desegregate areas where segregation was enforced by statute, that is in the South. It did not apply where segregation was by custom, that is in the North. However, some renegade judges soon changed that and brought integration to the North. Most likely, Sellers approved of that.
    Sellers seems to have found a new road to salvation: integration (pp. 171-172). Apparently faith in Jesus is not enough. Whites must also integrate with Blacks. Not only must they integrate, they must also love the Negro to achieve salvation.
    Sellers seems to follow the blueprint of the radicals of the French Revolution for rebuilding society. (V. “The French Revolution – Part II: The Revolution.”) First, tear it down completely, then rebuilt it anew in the radical image. He despises the love that Southerners had for Blacks during segregation because Blacks were subordinate. So, he tears the South asunder with forced integration imposed from outside. Next, he rebuilds the South on integration and elevates the Negro with special privileges above Whites. By now he has destroyed the love. Then he wants to bring back the love that has been destroyed. All he has achieved is arrogant demanding Blacks and self-hating, fearful, and cowardly Whites. The love that was may never return.
    Sellers has no use for segregated churches — at least White segregated churches. He has no use for White churches that oppose integration. The only honorable churches are those that preach the virtue and holiness of integration (p. 172ff). As God is a segregationist and an anti-integrationist, (v. “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation” and “Is Integration a Moral Law?”) Sellers has no use for churches that preach these biblically revealed aspects of God. People are to love and accept indiscriminately. Apparently, they are to love even those whom God hates. Seemingly, only churches that preach breeding out of existence the races that God created are preaching the love of man and the love of God. How willingly destroying what God created is love is not explained.
    Unlike many integrationists, at least Sellers realizes that fellowship cannot be imposed by force. To attempt to do so makes matters worse (p. 176).
    Throughout his book, Sellers preaches the virtues of neighborliness by the White race. However, the only neighborliness that he will tolerate is the one that he wants to be created. He despises the neighborliness that existed under segregation. He and his fellow integrationists succeeded in destroying that neighborliness in the name of what he calls “justice.” Then he complains about the lack of neighborliness!
    Sellers condemns racial pride as a great sin. It is rebellion against God — especially racial pride by Whites (p. 180). At least Whites are no longer guilty of this sin. Whatever racial pride that they may have had has been replaced by hatred of their race. If Whites have any racial pride, it is pride in the colored races.
    Sun Moon seems to have achieved the church-driven neighborliness that Sellers espouses. (V. “New Age Religions.”) Moon’s congregations are highly integrated. Many marriages in his church are interracial. What would one expect from a church led by the Messiah, as Moon claims to be?
    At least the motley mongrel man ends racial pride as he is of no race. How soon would it take the motley mongrel man to discover that some mongrels have darker skin than others and take pride in that? Thus, skin pride replaces racial pride.
    Sellers believes that churches should teach the truth (p. 180). If they did, they would oppose much of what he advocates.
    Like most integrationists, Sellers condemns prejudice. Throughout his book he condemns it. Yet he displays prejudice against Southerners, segregationists, white supremacists, Christian fundamentalists, and others throughout his book.
    Although Sellers did not believe that integration would bring about utopia, he did expect it to cause a significantly higher level of morals and ethics. Furthermore, he expected a higher level of justice. However, the opposite has happened. Since integration replaced segregation, morals and ethics have been declining. Abortion is commonplace. Homosexuals are now considered normal and acceptable, even to the point of being able to marry each other. Miscegenation (adultery) is accelerating. Divorce is rampant. With Waco, Oklahoma City, and 9-11, the United States government has declared war on the American people. Furthermore, America is no longer a Christian country. Church membership has been declining (perhaps justifiably so as many churches have abandoned the Bible). Children are no longer educated but are taught to be slaves. America is the greatest debtor country in history. Decadence, moral decay, crime, gambling, pornography, and drug abuse are growing. Self-reliance, freedom, security, and prosperity are fading. The law has ceased to protect the races and individuals, but it grants special privileges to the politically powerful at the expense of everyone else, White or Black. Scoundrels with sufficient political power are now more than ever above the law — so much for justice.
    Out of the integration-civil-rights movement has grown political correctness and the death of freedom of speech. White people, especially those in the public, have to watch every word that they say for fear of being called a racist, which is now the most feared smear word in the language, having surpassed “fascist” and “anti-Semitic.”
    Because of integration, the great bastions of free discussion, free thought, and free expressions — universities — have gone as far as to suppress discussion, thought, and expression with speech codes. Anyone found guilty of violating the speech code is expelled. University administrators, most of whom are White, condemn Whites upon the mere accusation of a Black without any proof. Even after the White person proves his innocence (the burden of proof is always on the White victim), he is still guilty as far as the university is concerned. Would Sellers be politically correct and mold himself into political correctness?
    Thus, censorship has become the norm. Only the extremely politically incorrect utters any condemnation of integration, Martin Luther King, and miscegenation. Anyone who says or writes anything that the powers-that-be considers “racist” (a seldom defined ambiguous term) becomes persona non grata until he sufficiently grovels before the proper parties — and even then he is never fully forgiven.
    One wonders what Sellers would think of America’s maturing police state. Most likely, he would approve as it grows from the same mentality that spewed forth integration and the civil rights movement.
    I don’t know if Sellers is still alive. If he is and if he retains his consistency, he would be arguing for “homosexual rights” and being neighborly with homosexuals. He would support the coming pedophile agenda, which will be the next group to be granted special privileges in the name of “equal rights.” Most likely, he would be using the same arguments of justice tempered with a little bit of love. He would contend that Jesus would have accepted both. In the eyes of Jesus and the Bible, neither homosexual sex nor pedophilia is a sin, but White racism is (racism by Blacks and other races is not a sin).
    The battle against the homosexual agenda and the pedophile agenda was lost by 1965. All the opponents of these agendas are doing now is fighting a rear-guard action. They are like the German army in 1945. They have already lost the war. The war against the homosexual and pedophile agendas cannot be won unless the communist civil rights movement is abandoned. That cannot happen unless Whites abandon their false guilt and self-hatred and once again love their race and what their forefathers gave them.
    The solution to the race problem is not what Sellers promotes and argues. It is not a return to segregation of yesteryear either. The solution is along the proposals that Marcus Garvey, Mittie Maud Gordon, Roy Innis, and a few other brave, forward-thinking Blacks have put forth: separation. That is the solution in keeping with God’s original plan: “determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.” For that reason, it will be the last solution considered.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 1

More articles on social issues.