Review of Segregation and Desegregation -- Part 3

Review of Segregation and Desegregation -- Part 3

Thomas Allen

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

    In Chapter 4, Matson discusses desegregation and integration. Included in his discussion are desegregation versus integration, desegregation’s progress and problems, desegregation plans and prospects, and integration and intermarriage.
    Matson argues that technically desegregation and integration differ. “Integration involves more than the removal of barriers and the elimination of compulsory segregation. This may be accomplished by desegregation. The latter is legal and more or less formal. Integration is voluntary and social” (p. 62). Technically, the two do differ. However, one cannot have desegregation without integration. Integration is the only way that a company, institution, organization, or government can prove that it has really desegregated and is not practicing covert segregation. Federal courts went even further by ordering integration, so much for integration being voluntary; they demanded quotas to prove that desegregation had occurred.  Matson is definitely wrong when he claims that integration is voluntary. Congress, federal courts, and the President ended all pretense that integration was voluntary. (Most opponents of desegregation knew that it would lead quickly and directly to forced integration. Was Matson being a  liar and a hypocrite by soft-selling desegregation by claiming throughout his book that it would not lead to forced integration?)
    Matson likes to “split hairs” over the meaning of integration. It requires much more than race mixing. According to him, “integration has taken place only when those of another race or class are accepted as full equal partners in a common task. It is based on mutual respect and on a sense of dignity and worth of the human person” (p. 63). Only when the races have bred themselves into motley mongrel man could full integration be achieved in the sense that he means. Even then, such integration is doubtful because of physical and mental variations that would occur in motley mongrel man.
    Moreover, respect and worth have to be earned. Individuals of the segregated race can earn respect and worth, and many did earn them, under segregation while many have failed to earn them under integration. Whether a person earns respect and worth is independent of segregation and integration.
    Generally, when people use the term “desegregation” and “integration,” they mean “desegregation” offers the races the opportunity to mix; “integration” requires the races to mix. That seems to be the distinction that courts have made. However, most people use the two terms synonymously.
    Matson does admit desegregation cannot be successful unless considerable integration occurs (p. 64).
    Matson states that a major argument against desegregation is that it will lead to the mongrelization of the races. He claims “this argument implies the inferiority of the Negro” (pp. 64-65). If true, when a Negro opposes interracial marriage, he does so because he believes Blacks are inferior to Whites. When people oppose desegregation for this reason, they are aware that when two or more races mix, they soon start mating with each other and breeding themselves out of existence — thus, destroying the races that God created.  (Ezra Chapters 9 and 10 illustrate this outcome. For that reason, God commanded the Jews to send their alien wives away along with the children born of their illicit marriages.) Other than love and justice, Matson fails to explain why Christians should support a situation that leads to the destruction of God’s creation. Where are the love and justice in such wanton willful destruction? The desire to oppose situations that result in destroying the races, species, of humans that God created rests on love and justice and not the inferiority or superiority of any race. Moreover, why would Matson or anyone else want to support breeding the Negro into extinction?
    Matson remarks that the Supreme Court's desegregation decision did not “require the arbitrary mixing of the races in school” (p. 65). If true, this aspect of its ruling was soon forgotten or ignored as Congress and especially federal courts began requiring the arbitrary mixing of the races in school. Matson adds, “The arbitrary mixing of races might violate the right of individual choice as much as forced segregation” (p. 65). Finally, he got something right! Then he goes on to write that force will be necessary. However, it should be limited to the minimum necessary to get people to agree with him on the segregation-desegregation issue (pp. 65-66).
    Matson comments on school desegregation and notes the number of districts that had desegregated schools and those that did not (pp. 66-67). How does he know which district had not desegregated unless he was judging them by how well they had integrated? After all, the Supreme Court had voided all school segregation laws. Yet he maintains desegregation does not mean integration.
    Matson notes that one of the biggest casualties of school desegregation is the Negro teacher (p. 72). As Blacks integrated into White schools, fewer teachers were needed.
    Matson comments on a Gallup Poll on the Supreme Court’s school desegregation ruling. About two-thirds of the people in the South disapproved the ruling and about two-thirds outside the South approved it. Matson interprets this survey to mean that the South better not resist or else it will be sorry (pp. 72-73). What the survey really reveals is the hypocrisy of Northerners and Westerners. People who would be least affected by school desegregation and integration at that time were willing to force them on those who would be most affected. However, when their turn came and the U.S. government forced integration on them, many objected vigorously — for example, forced integration of the Boston schools.
    Matson argues that because people confuse integration with desegregation and because people equate integration with amalgamation, the interracial marriage argument against desegregation is hollow (pp. 73ff). He does state that school integration could lead to some increase in interracial marriages, but he expects it to be slight. First, one cannot have desegregation without integration. Second, integration leads to increased interracial marriages and amalgamation.
     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 percent of which 1.1 percent were with Blacks. By 2010 14 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. Integration is truly genocide.[7] Again, Matson is wrong.
    Matson actually claims “that there could be desegregation of public schools with comparatively little mixing of the races” (p. 74). One must wonder what he was smoking when wrote his book. For him to make a statement like this, he must have been living in chimera land. History shows that school desegregation resulted in massive race mixing, which is what promoters of school desegregation wanted.  As shown above, integration has significantly increased interracial marriages — especially for Blacks who seem to be trying to breed themselves into extinction. For the Negro, integration is genocide. Their leaders wanted to integrate schools to emasculate and destroy the White race and by that bring down America.
    Matson believes that desegregation would improve education for the Negro. This improved education leads to greater achievement by the Negro, which increases his racial pride. As a result,  “the frequency either of sex relations with Whites outside marriage or of interracial marriages with them” is reduced (pp 75-76). Again, one must wonder what Matson was smoking on his trip through chimera land. History shows that desegregation brought a significant increase in interracial mating.
    Matson claims that the restrictions concerning intermarriage in the Old Testament were primarily national or tribal and not racial (p. 80). If true, why does God forbid the half-breed from being part of His assembly (Deuteronomy 23:2)? Moreover, in Ezra Chapters 9 and 10, God does not order the people to be separated by religion. The separation is by race. All foreign or alien women and their children were sent away, even those who were believers. All Jewish men remained, even those who were nonbelievers.
    Matson claims that Deuteronomy 7:1-8, which some people use to oppose interracial marriages, is not about interracial marriage. It prohibits Israelites from marrying outside their religion (pp. 79-80). No matter which claim is true, these verses show that God is a Segregationists. He forbids the Israelites to integrate and intermarry with the seven nationalities listed in Deuteronomy 7:1. Whether segregation is based on race, nationality, or religion, the result is the same: Segregation has occurred.
    Matson claims, “The scholars generally agree that the prohibition against intermarriage throughout the entire Old Testament were primarily and almost exclusively based on religions grounds” (p. 80). As many of these scholars are agnostics and atheists, their assertions should not be taken at face value. Moreover, the story of Dinah shows the enforcement of the prohibition of marrying outside one’s race. Chapter 34 of Genesis tells the story of Simeon and Levi, two of Jacob’s sons, slaying a city of Hivites over the issue of interracial marriage. The prince of the Hivites wanted to marry their sister, Dinah. So, the Hivites of this city offered to intermarry with the Hebrews. Before they could intermarry, Simeon and Levi told the Hivites that they needed to convert to the Hebrew religion. The Hivites converted and were circumcised. Thus, the two people would not be unequally yoked religiously. Now both of them were of the same religion: the Hebrew religion. However, they differed racially. The Hebrews were Aryans or White; the Hivites were Aryan-Melanochroi hybrids (or possibly Melanochroi). Simeon and Levi slew the Hivites not because of religious differences, for they were of the same religion. They slew them because of racial differences.  Even if these scholars are correct, they still show that God is a Segregationist. A segregationist is a segregationist despite the reason for the segregation.
    In Chapter 7, Matson discusses the church and segregation. Included are discussions of the church of God, the Body of Christ, an appraisal of the church, and the problems of the church.
    Matson writes about Paul’s reference to the church, where he uses the terms “the church of the living God” and “the church of God.” Matson focuses on two passages in 1 Corinthians (pp. 123-124). He fails to note that the people to whom Paul wrote in Corinth were White. Scripture gives no indication that any nonwhites were in the audience to whom Paul wrote.
    Matson notes that Paul suggested that the Corinthian Christians show their sanctification, dedication and union with Christ, etc. “‘with all those who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.’” Matson maintains that Paul is urging them to share fellowship with all classes and races (pp. 123-124). Paul was lecturing the Corinthians on the division in the church in Corinth, the immorality of members of that church, litigation, improper sexual relations, food offered to idols, etc. He was not lecturing them on integration versus segregation. He also urged the Corinthians to support him in his ministry.
    Matson cites 1 Corinthians 10:32 where Paul tells the Corinthians to stop being a stumbling block to Jews and Gentiles or to the Church of God (p. 124). Thus, Matson implies that Christians who do not desire or at least cease objecting to integration are a stumbling block. It never occurs to him that the integrationists and integration can be stumbling blocks.
    Matson writes, “Christians will glorify God and will ‘give no offense’ to the church or to those who are outside the Christian fellowship, if they will honestly and sincerely seek to reveal to the world the nature, the character, and the will of the God who is their Father and also the Father of all who believe” (p. 124). Christians like Matson who promote and support desegregation, integration, and the civil rights agenda must be offending many people. Over the last 50 years, Christianity has been retreating faster that these agendas have been advancing.
    Matson comments on Paul’s analogy of the church being like the human body. Matson uses this analogy to support integration (p. 125). Booker T. Washington used the same analogy to describe segregation. Washington is correct. Hands segregate from the feet, and eyes, from ears. Under the integrationist model, hands mingle with feet, and eyes and ears become one. The integrationist model results in a massively confused body while the segregation model results in a well-organized, orderly, functioning body.
    Matson discusses Christ being the head of all things, including the church (pp. 126-127). His implication is that Christ can only be the head of an integrated or at least desegregation church. He cannot be the head of a segregated church.
    Matson cites James 2:1 about not showing partiality, being no respecter of persons. He writes that “the principle of no partiality applies not only to the treatment of the wealthy and the poor but to any other man-established divisions of mankind” (p. 131). As God created the races of mankind, they are not man-established divisions. Man has merely identified them. (Does Matson credit some other being or thing besides God with the origins of the races?) Therefore, James' admonition does not apply to racial segregation or integration according to Matson’s interpretation.
    Matson emphasizes James’ use of “my brethren” and comments that “the thing that made them brethren was their shared faith in the same Lord” (p. 131). They were also of the same race as James. Thus, he could just as easily have been implying his racial kinship with them.
    Matson states that Jesus was no respecter of persons (p. 131). Yet, Jesus expends a great many words castigating and insulting the Jewish leaders and turning people from them. Jews certainly saw him as a respecter of persons. Because of it, they managed to get him executed. Moreover, Jesus respected the woman who gave her two small coins, which were about a cent, much more than he respected the well-to-do Jews who gave from their surplus (Luke 21:1-4). He also respected the tax collector who admitted that he was a sinner more than he did the self-righteous, self-centered Pharisee who boasted about his great works and not being a sinner (Luke 18:10-14).
    Matson asserts that God is no respecter of persons (p. 131). If true, the Universalists are correct: All are saved. Most Christians maintain that only some are saved to eternal life in heaven. The remainder are condemned to eternal death. If God allows some into heaven and condemns others to eternal death, He is certainly a respecter of persons. The more fatalistic Christians believe that God arbitrarily chooses who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. How does anyone exceed this arbitrary choice of God in being a respecter of persons? Surely, it exceeds racial segregation as a respecter of persons since it is eternal.
    Moreover, God acted like a respecter of persons with Jacob and Esau. He loved Jacob and hated Esau (Malachi 1:2,3). He chose Jacob or Israel and his descendants to become His chosen people from whom Jesus would come. This choice certainly looks like the act of a respecter of persons. Another example of God acting like a respecter of persons is His rejection, disposing, of Saul and choosing, raising up, of David (Acts 13:22).
    Matson states, “There is no indication of segregation, based on race or color, in the churches of the first centuries of the Christian era. The same was true in the Middle Ages” (p. 134). This statement is misleading. Rarely did the Christians in the first centuries and especially the Middle Ages encounter people, much less Christians, of any race other than Whites. Only in Egypt, Arabia, and southern Mesopotamia (southern Iraq) were Christians likely to encounter nonwhites and only a few of them were Christian. The primary inhabitants of these areas were Melanochroi. Rarely, if ever, during these eras would a Christian see a Negro.
    In Chapter 8, Matson discusses segregation and world missions. Included in his discussion are the commission of the church, the people of the world, the challenge of communion, and the burden of the missionaries.
    Matson comments on Christ’s commission to make disciples of all nations and remarks that churches have failed to be inclusive in the homeland (p. 144). By being inclusive in the homeland, he means not only to evangelize in one’s homeland, but also to desegregate and integrate.
    He notes that most of the world is nonwhite; his estimate is 75 percent. He also remarks that racial minorities in the United States are acquiring the rebellious nature of their kindred in Africa, Asia, and elsewhere. To evangelize effectively these people, Americans need to desegregate and integrate (pp. 147ff).
    Whites have expended so many resources evangelizing nonwhites that they have lost their homeland. Except perhaps in Russia, Christianity is dying in White countries and is almost dead in Europe. As the Communist-led civil rights movement and desegregation and integration have advanced, Christianity has retreated. Human secularism, agnosticism, atheism, paganism, Satanism, Luciferism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and new age cults are the growing religions. Instead of the world becoming more Christianized, it is becoming more secularized and un-Christianized. In Europe, Islam is replacing secularism and most likely will be the dominant religion in Europe in a few decades — all because of the desegregation-integration mentality of Whites.
    Commenting on the restless movements of the masses in Asia and Africa, Matson states, “The Christian missionary movement must share the responsibility” (p. 149). Is it because of or in spite of the Christian missionary movement that most of the movements of the masses in Asia and Africa have been Marxist oriented? Some of them have been outright communist movements. Were these missionaries following the example of the Catholic priests in Latin America and preaching the teachings of Marx more than the teachings of Jesus?
    Matson credits the rise of Communism in these countries to the failure of missionaries “to understand that basic concept of the Christian faith demanded a new social structure” (p. 149). One such concept is the dignity and worth of the human person (p. 149). According to him segregation strips a person of his dignity and worth, while integration gives him dignity and worth. Few things can exceed abortion in denying a person of his dignity and worth. Yet abortion has exploded as integration has expanded.
    Matson contends that the greatest foe of Christianity is Communism. It challenges Christianity at home and on foreign mission fields (p. 151). Matson remarks that Communists are using segregation in the United States to undermine Christian missionaries in Asia and Africa (p. 153). Thus, he contends that desegregation, which he prefers to the more honest integration, as though a country can have one without the other, is necessary to battle Communism. Yet he joins the Communists in the desegregation-interrelation-civil-rights movement, which Communists have organized and led. Either he knew this or he did not. If he did not know, which being a learned man, he should have known, that Communists and its allies led the desegregation charge, he is extremely ignorant. If he knew, then he is a hypocrite and a liar. Either way, his ignorance or hypocrisy makes everything that he writes promoting desegregation highly questionable. This is especially true since Matson understands the evils of Communism (pp. 151-152).
    He was not ignorant of Communist involvement; he willingly dismisses it. He notes that many people charged “that the movement to desegregate the schools and the churches is a communist plot” (p. 153). Thus, he was aware of at least the possibility of Communist involvement. However, he brushes off such claims as the work of “little minds and little people.” (Acting like a respecter of persons, is he not?) They “label anyone who supports desegregation as a communist” (p. 153). Communists often work through sympathizers, collaborators, fellow travelers, etc. to advance their agenda. One must conclude that Matson was a sympathizer or a collaborator.
    He contends that segregation in the United States burdens missionaries aboard (p. 154). Apparently, segregation in the United States is primarily responsible for the advancement of Communism and Marxism aboard. Amazingly, Communism and Marxism have made their greatest advances in the world after the United States desegregated and integrated with special privileges for nonwhites becoming the norm.
    In Chapter 9, Matson gives a statement of convictions. He summarizes his convictions as presented in his book.
    He states that discrimination “is contrary to the spirit and teachings of Jesus. It violates the very heart of the message proclaimed by the churches”  (p. 163). So, Christians are not to discriminate. They are not to choose to do good instead of bad because that is discrimination. They are not to choose faithfulness to their spouse over adultery because that is discrimination. They are not even to choose to marry because that is discrimination against many in favor of one. A lack of discrimination has led to the moral decline of the United States and the acceptance of homosexuality as a normal lifestyle. It is a lifestyle acceptable to God in spite of Him condemning it, because it proves discrimination has been overthrown. For that reason, pedophilia will become acceptable.
    In summary, school desegregation has had a deleterious effect on public education. Some of these deleterious effects of the desegregation of schools are:
    1.    Desegregation has filled Whites with self-hatred and self-loathing and makes them feel inferior.
    2    It has made a mockery of the Constitution and caused rule by federal judges, who not only judge but also legislate.
    3    Contrary to Matson’s argument, it forced school integration. Thus, it destroyed the notion of neighborhood schools with forced busing and gerrymandering of school districts.
    4.    Desegregation drove large numbers of Whites, including hypocritical Whites who favored desegregation, from urban areas to the suburbs. Only Whites too poor to leave remained. Thus, urban schools become predominantly Black.
    5.    College enrollment has come to depend more on race than merit. Nonwhites receive preferential treatment. The standards for enrollment have been lowered to guarantee more Black enrollment.
    6.    Desegregation has promoted the residential separation of the races.
    7.    It has led to a steady decline in national averages of scholastic aptitude tests.
    8.    It has caused students of each race “to adopt the worst customs, habits, morals, and speech of the other.”[8]
    9.    Not only has desegregation substantially slowed the progress of White students, but it has also increased the number of Black students dropping out of schools.
    10.    Negro students are often promoted based on age instead of achievement. Thus, many Negroes graduate with only a third or fourth-grade education.
    11.    It has led to a two-tier grading system: Teachers grade Blacks more leniently than Whites to ensure that more Blacks pass and to avoid the accusation of racial prejudice.
    12.    Desegregation has led to Black studies programs, which teach Negro racism. However, White studies programs are forbidden. (Blacks have beaten Whites into submission because of Black racism. Blacks are strongly racist. Whites are almost void of racism.)
    13.    Textbooks have been rewritten to disparage White institutions and to downgrade the importance of historical White leaders, such as George Washington and other founding fathers. Minor Negroes are elevated above the much more important White leaders.
    14.    Desegregation has caused education to abandon its primary purpose: the transmission of culture. The primary duty of the educator is to safeguard the culture. Under desegregation, public schools and universities have failed this essential task.
    15.    Desegregation has caused a general deterioration in public education.
    16.    The only good thing to come from desegregation has been revealing the extreme hypocrisy of high-ranking federal officials.  While they busied themselves forcing school integration on the masses, they sent their children to segregated schools, albeit these schools may have a token Black or two.
     Canada has had desegregated schools for more than 130 years, but economically and socially, the Negro is still at the bottom.[9] Contrary to what Matson asserts, desegregation has done little to help Blacks, but it has done a good deal of harm to Whites.
    Robertson describes the destructive effects of desegregation as follows:

The kind of learning that prepares a people to prevail and endure must be primed by centuries of common history and millennia of common ancestry. Desegregation kills it by destroying its binding force — the homogeneity of teacher and pupil. The disappearance of this vital bond from the American classroom may prove to be the greatest educational tragedy of all.[10]

    For the most part, Blacks and Whites lived a more Christian life under the evil of the “un-Christian” regime of segregation than they have under the holy, sacred regime of desegregation and integration. Under desegregation and integration, abortion; divorce; acceptance of homosexuals, transgender, transvestites, and pedophiles; violent crime by Blacks; the desire for war; etc. have grown. The quality of education, constitutional government, peaceful existence, tolerance, the sacredness of life and marriage, the quality of music and art, etc. have declined.
    Matson’s solution to the race problem is for the Black man to become a dark-skin White man. He should be made the White man’s equal in all aspects of life — even if the White man must be brought down to the Black man’s level. Yet God made the Negro different. He gave him different attributes, abilities, levels of intelligence, etc. Instead of striving to become White, the Negro should strive to become the best Black man that he can be.
    As for the White man, he needs to regain his self-respect and cease destroying his country, culture, and race to bring down the White to raise up the Black man. Instead of striving to become like the Negro, the White man should strive to become the best White man that he can be.
    Robertson remarks:

If Majority members [Whites] would only comprehend that the whole point, the whole drive, the very essence of minority racism is not to obtain equality but superiority, most of the misunderstandings and misinterpretations of contemporary Negro behavior would be avoided.[11]

    We all need to remember Santayana’s observation: “The more two different peoples grow in externals, the more conscious and jealous they become of diversity in their souls. . . .”[12]

Endnotes -continued

7. Allen, Integration Is Genocide.

8. Robertson, p. 293.

9. Robertson, p. 535.

10. Robertson, p. 301.

11. Robertson, p. 223.

12. Robertson, pp. 53-54.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 2 

More articles on social issues.

Review of Segregation and Desegregation -- Part 2

Review of Segregation and Desegregation -- Part 2

Thomas Allen

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

     In Chapter 3, Matson discusses the difference between “separation” and “segregation.” He also discusses segregation and desegregation and the cost of segregation.
    The distinction that he makes between separation and segregation is that separation is voluntary while segregation is compulsory by custom or law or both. However, Whites are not allowed to separate voluntarily from other races. They must always be forced to integrate. Only Jews and nonwhites are allowed to separate.
    A better way to use these two terms is to use “segregation” to mean two or more groups living in a community or society keeping apart from each other in many or most of their activities. This keeping apart can be voluntary or coercive; it can be by choice, custom, or law. “Separation” means living in separate independent, autonomous communities or societies and not under the rule of or sharing rule with another race. When Black leaders speak of separation, this is the definition that they usually use.
    Matson notes, “There seems to be a natural desire by those who speak the same language, who have the same cultural background, or who are of the same color to group together for social fellowship” (p. 42). Chinese have the freedom to separate themselves from other races with their Chinatowns. Likewise, other nonwhite races have this freedom. However, Whites, especially Southerners, lack this freedom. Everything that they have is to be opened to all other races. (Whites can join White-only private clubs; however, opinion molders berate and ostracize them.)
    As shown above, Maston argues that separation is voluntary. It may at times be voluntary. However, it can be compulsory. In Uganda, Black Africans adopted the ultimate separation of Asian Indians. They forcibly removed Asian Indians from Uganda. Thus, separation need not be voluntary.
    Matson opines that one chief reason that Negroes voluntarily separate themselves from Whites is that they believe “that they are not wanted among the majority group” (p. 43). He fails to explain how forcing a person’s company on those who do not want to associate with him will engender respect and friendship instead of resentment and hostility.
    Matson does admit that if the Negro so desires, he should be allowed to separate from Whites. However, Whites should never be allowed to separate from Blacks (pp. 43-44). When Blacks prefer the company of Blacks to Whites, that is separation. When Whites prefer the company of Whites to Blacks, that is segregation. At least that is Maston’s reasoning.
    Matson asks if as some opponents of desegregation argue, “Negroes naturally prefer to be by themselves, why should anyone fear or oppose desegregation” (p. 46). The answer is that integration is necessary to prove that desegregation has been achieved. Matson asserts, “Voluntary separation would be a more logical argument for desegregation than for segregation” (p. 46). Nevertheless, Whites are forbidden to separate themselves voluntarily from Blacks in their housing, schools, businesses, etc. — and Matson agrees with this prohibition. The Supreme Court rulings and later Congressional laws outlawed such separation. Thus, desegregation prevents Whites from voluntarily separating themselves from other races.
    Matson claims that racial prejudice is the significant cause of segregation. He defines “prejudice” as “a prejudgment, or judgment not based on knowledge or experience. It implies an opinion based on insufficient or irrelevant data” (pp. 47-48). This is a good definition. Having lived, worked, and associated with Negroes for more than 400 years, no group knows the Negro better than the Southerner. He has more than 400 years of experience with and knowledge of the Negro. Whatever caused Southerners to adopt segregation, it was not racial prejudice as Maston and many others surmise. Racial prejudice may in part explain why sanctimonious Northerners, who are much less familiar with the Negro, segregated racially by custom.
    Moreover, Matson and others like him seldom, if ever, comment on the racial prejudice of Blacks. They seem to believe that only Whites are racists and possess racial prejudices. An honest review of recent decades reveals that Blacks are more racist and prejudiced than Whites — and they do not even apologize for it.
    Matson seems to hold to the classic definition of “racism” as the “idea of the natural inferiority or superiority of race” (p. 49). Thus, if a person maintains that Blacks are superior to Whites at surviving in the lower latitudes because their highly pigmented skin prevents ultraviolet rays from destroying vitamin B-12, which is necessary for reproduction, he is a racist. Contrariwise, if he believes that Whites are superior to Blacks at surviving in the higher latitudes because their lightly pigmented skin allows ultraviolet rays to produce more vitamin D, which is necessary for overall good health, he is a racist. (The current definition of a racist is [1] a White person, [2] anyone who disagrees with President Obama or any of his policies.)
    A good example of racism was White boxing associations denying membership to Black boxers. They did so because Black boxers have a genetic advantage over White boxers. In general, Black boxers are innately superior to White boxers. Nevertheless, White boxers can no longer protect themselves from this disadvantage by separating themselves from Black boxers.
    Matson maintains that segregated schools deny the Negro’s right to equal treatment before the law (pp. 50-51). It did not. Blacks were treated the same as Whites. Both were required to go to segregated schools. Moreover, Maston does not object to Blacks separating themselves from Whites and having Black-only churches, schools, neighborhoods, etc. However, he objects to Whites separating themselves from Blacks in any manner. Yet he preaches equal treatment before the law. Legally Blacks are to have special privileges and rights while Whites have none.
    Matson claims, “Segregation seems inevitably to involve some discrimination” (p. 52). Several times he condemns the principle of “separate but equal.” He contends that separate institutions, facilities, etc. cannot be equal (p. 53). He insists that segregation “is based on the idea that the segregated group is inferior” (p. 52). His proposition is flawed. Under segregation, Whites are segregated from Blacks as much as Blacks are from Whites. So, which is the superior and which is the inferior?
    According to Matson, when Whites were in power in South Africa, they discriminated against Blacks because Whites were superior to Blacks. When Blacks came to power, they discriminated against Whites because Blacks were now superior to Whites. Apparently, the superiority-inferiority issue has more to do with who wields political power than with racial superiority or inferiority. In South Africa, segregation is used to take care of and give an advantage to one’s racial kindred.
    Contrary to what Maston thinks and claims, Blacks do not want equality. They want superiority and will not stop until they are superior to Whites in all aspects. Unfortunately for both Blacks and Whites, emasculated, effeminate, self-hating, self-loathing Whites will continue to surrender to Black demands until Whites are vastly inferior in the land that their ancestors founded, built, and carried to the greatest heights that the world has ever known. (South Africa and especially Rhodesia, Zimbabwe, illustrate the deleterious effects of Blacks becoming superior to Whites.)
    Also, Malaysia disproves Matson’s principle of the superior segregating the inferior. In Malaysia, the Malays segregated the Chinese because the Chinese are superior at generating wealth.
    Thus, Maston’s hypothesis that segregation occurs because the segregating race believes itself superior to the segregated race is highly flawed. Discrimination and segregation serve to protect the segregating race from the adverse effects of the segregated race.
    Moreover, if Maston is consistent, he must argue that restrooms must be desegregated. Each sex gets to choose which restroom to use. Restrooms are no longer segregated by sex. Thus, having different restrooms for men and women must be outlawed — just as they were for different races. Such segregation of restrooms must result from sexual prejudice, sexism, and the superiority-inferiority complex. As women prefer segregated restrooms more so than do men, women must be prejudiced toward men and consider themselves superior to men. At least desegregated restrooms solve the problem of which restroom transgender people and transvestites should use.
    Matson claims, “Segregation is always discriminatory; it has meant and does mean inferior service to the segregated” (p. 54). Thus, he admits that sexually segregated restrooms are discriminatory. As more women than men prefer segregated restrooms, that must mean that men’s restrooms are inferior to women’s restrooms.
    Matson cites examples that show more, often much more, money spent on White students than on Black students (pp. 53-54). As schools were integrated, spending on public schools soared and the quality of education plummeted. Expenditures on public schools and the quality of education seem to have a negative correlation.
    Matson doubts that if men were thoroughly redeemed, they would maintain a segregated society (p. 55). That may be true of humans, who remain sinners on Earth after redemption. However, it is not true of God. In Revolution 5:9, 7:9, 11:9, 13:7, 14:6, 17:15, and 21:24, John describes mankind in the plural: peoples, nations, kindreds (tribes), and tongues (languages). Such a description implies and requires segregation. If heaven were fully integrated, only one people, nation, kindred, and tongue would exist.
    Matson quotes Benjamin Mays, a Negro educator, as saying “segregation is the greatest curse that can be imposed on anyone” (p. 55). Perhaps no group, not even the Negro, has been discriminated against as much as the Jew. Over the last 2000 years, Jews have been expelled many times in toto from many countries, while  Negroes have not been expelled from any. Jews have endured discrimination greater than Blacks. Yet in spite of “the greatest curse that can be imposed on anyone,” the power and wealth of Jews far exceed their numbers. They are the most powerful group on the planet.[3] So what is the Negro’s excuse? If Jews, who have endured discrimination far worse and far longer than Negroes, can rise to the pinnacle of wealth and power in spite of discrimination, why cannot Negroes?
    Furthermore, the Chinese and Japanese have suffered discrimination and exploitation rivaling if not exceeding that of Blacks. They have been persecuted more than Negroes. Yet, they have prospered without resorting to racial agitation and lobbying (although that is increasing) as has the Negro. Moreover, the Chinese and Japanese give the community and country more than they take. Unlike Blacks, they do not ask for special privileges or play politics except in Hawaii.[8] Again, what is the Negro’s excuse?
    Matson fails to mention that Mays was affiliated with several Communist front organizations. They include the American Committee for the Protection of Foreign Born, the Civil Rights Congress, the National Council of American-Soviet Friendship, the National Federation for Constitutional Liberties, the Southern Negro Youth Congress, the Mid-Century Conference for Peace, the Southern Conference Educational Fund, the Southern Conference for Human Welfare, and the National Committee to Repeal the McCarran Act.[5]
    Matson states, “The white South cannot hold the Negro down without staying down with him” (p. 56). White Yankee progressives with the aid of White Southern quislings seem to have found a way to hold the Negro down: the welfare state. With the welfare state, they have managed to keep an abnormally large number of Negroes in poverty while destroying Black families and causing an increasing number of Black males to turn to crime and thus a life in and out of prison. Instead of desegregation lifting the Negro up, it has doomed far too many of them to be wards of government, i.e., the ruling elite.
    Matson quotes Martin Luther King as saying that segregation “scars the soul of both of the segregator and segregated” (p. 57).  If true, then God has a scarred soul. With the Towel of Babel, He is the original author of segregation. In Ezra Chapters 9 and 10, He orders the Jews to segregate themselves from their foreign wives and children. Many more examples can be provided showing God causing or ordering segregation.[6]
    Matson notes that segregation leads to hostility and aggression by the segregated group (p. 57). Sixty years after desegregation, hostility and aggression by the segregated group, Blacks, has not abated. It has accelerated. However, after surrendering unconditionally to the Communist-led civil rights movement, Whites cower before Blacks and tremble in fear of that great smear word: “racist,” which keeps them in their place.
    As the Negro made more economic progress, he became more militant. Much of the Black violence results from White pacifism. The less Whites resisted the demands of Blacks, the more emboldened Blacks became in their demands. They become more violent in insisting that their demands be met.
    Matson states that 90 percent of a group of social scientists in the 1950s blamed segregation as the cause of “the lower achievement level of Negro pupils as compared with white children of the same age and grade” (p. 58). After 60 years of school desegregation and ever lower standards, Negro students still have lower achievement levels than Whites.  What is the excuse now? Slavery from 150 years ago? Segregation from 60 years ago? Nonexistent White racism? Nonexistent White privilege? The ubiquitous Black privilege?
    Matson claims that under segregation, the majority group develops a paternalistic attitude toward the segregated. He defines “paternalism” as involving a “condescending service of a superior to an inferior. It seldom allows the ‘child’ it nurtures to grow into full manhood” (pp. 58-59). His description of paternalism fits the welfare state that has accompanied the civil rights movement and integration far better than it does segregation. (Most likely, Matson was a proponent and supporter of the welfare state.)
    Matson’s paternalism principle is flawed. In Malaysia, the Malays, who are the majority, have no paternalistic attitude toward the Chinese minority. They discriminate against and segregate the Chinese to protect themselves from the Chinese and to keep the Chinese minority from taking over the country.
    He goes on to describe the “vicious circle theory” (p. 59).  Again this theory fits the welfare state much better than it does segregation. (Although I am not aware of Matson ever opposing the welfare state, he should have been a leading opponent of it as it has been more harmful to the Negro than segregation ever was. Most likely, he supported the welfare state.)
    Matson remarks, “The challenge of communism makes the situation [continuing segregation] ever more acute for America and for the West. Two great forces, democracy and communism, are competing for mastery in the world, mastery over the minds and souls of men” (p. 60). Although democracy won in form, Communism won in mastery over the minds and souls of men. The United States are far more Marxist today than they were ever under segregation. Almost every plank of the Communist Manifesto has been fully implemented. The primary objective of the Communist led and Communist organized civil rights movement has been to bring down the United States and destroy the White race. Communists have been remarkably successful in achieving these goals. Most likely, Matson would approve of this outcome of the death of segregation.

 Endnotes -- continued

3. Robertson, p. 152ff.

4. Robertson, pp. 204-207.

5. Gannon, p. 442.

6. Thomas Coley Allen, Integration Is Genocide (Franklinton, N.C.: TC Allen Co., 1997), pp. 10-17. Thomas Coley Allen, False Biblical Teachings on the Origins and the Races and Interracial Marriages (Franklinton, N.C.: TC Allen Co., 2001), passim.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 1, Part 3 

More articles on social issues.