King on the World House – Part 2

King on the World House – Part 2

Thomas Allen

To solve international poverty, King writes “The rich nations must use their vast resources of wealth to develop the underdeveloped, school the unschooled and feed the unfed.” (P. 189.) (In other words, reverse colonialism: Instead of Whites countries exploiting nonwhite countries, nonwhite countries exploit White countries. This exploitation has been extended to allow nonwhites to invade White countries without restrictions or limits while granting these nonwhites the privilege to plunder, oppress, rape, maim, and kill Whites with little or no penalty. On the contrary, Whites who complain about being maltreated by nonwhites are penalized.)

Continuing, King states that the great and rich countries must “provide capital and technical assistance to the underdeveloped areas.” (P. 188.) These countries need to provide much more aid than they have provided — enough to sustain economic growth. Wealthy countries “must promptly initiate a massive, sustained Marshall Plan for Asia, Africa and South America.” (Pp. 188-189.) (Although not at the level that King wanted, rich countries, especially the United States, have provided an enormous amount of aid. However, they send aid to the government of the recipient country; consequently, only a small portion goes to the people who need it. Most of the aid goes to enrich officials of the recipient government and to the politically connected in the country receiving the aid and the country sending the aid. As for the Marshall Plan idea, European countries that received the most aid, e.g., Great Britain, under the Marshall Plan took longer to recover than countries that received little or nothing, e.g., Germany.)

Continuing, King writes, “The aid program that I am suggesting must not be used by the wealthy nations as a surreptitious means to control the poor nations.” (P. 189.) (That is, aid must be given with no conditions attached and no oversight.) Moreover, aid must be given with “a compassionate and committed effort to wipe poverty, ignorance and disease from the face of the earth.” (P. 189.) (Thus, if aid is given with an inappropriate motivation, it does the recipient country no good. How absurd! Despite the motivation, the recipient will use his lucre the same way if it comes without conditions.) Nevertheless, King implies that much of the aid will be wasted instead of improving the health, education, and wealth of the people. Such waste is caused by these colonies becoming independent countries. 

King credits the economic growth of the West to being relatively underpopulated and an abundance of iron ore and coal. (If true, when the Europeans landed in the Americas, they should have found a level of economic prosperity similar to what Europe had. The Americas were relatively underpopulated and coal, iron ore, and other natural resources exceeded that of Europe. Likewise, with Africa, when the Europeans landed in sub-Sahara Africa, they should have found a level of economic prosperity similar to Europe’s. Like the Americas, Africa was relatively underpopulated and had natural resources that far exceeded Europe’s. King errs because he fails to account for nonphysical genetic differences.)

Because the emerging new governments of former colonies, “confront staggering problems of overpopulation. There is no possible way for them to make it without aid and assistance.” (P. 190.) (Thus, King admits that nonwhites are inferior to Whites because Whites made it without aid and nonwhites cannot. Moreover, the primary reason that these new countries were “overpopulated” was that the European colonial powers created conditions conducive to population growth.)

King declares, “that we must use our resources to outlaw poverty.” (P. 191.) (Thus, King declares that Jesus erred when he said that the poor will always be with us. Jesus did not mean that we should not help the poor from our personal estates, which we should. However, one should not plunder [tax] another person and give the loot to the poor — as King wanted to do.)

About one thing, King is correct: “A final problem that mankind must solve in order to survive in the world house that we have inherited is finding an alternative to war and human destruction.” (Pp. 191-192.) (On this point, King-idolizing conservatives, especially neoconservatives, ignore the greatest conservative ever, the archconservative King. Most of these conservatives adore every war that they have ever seen. People with the right connections can make a great deal of money from war.)

Continuing, King writes, “There is no need to fight for food and land. Science has provided us with adequate means of survival and transportation, which make it possible to enjoy the fullness of this great earth.” (P. 192.) (King sounds like a proponent of free trade.) He detests the notion of fighting wars in the name of peace and condemns leaders who do so. These leaders seek “a peaceful world order, a world fashioned after their selfish conceptions of an ideal existence.” (Likewise, King sought a peaceful world order fashioned after his selfish conception of an ideal existence.) He contends that peaceful ends must be pursued through peaceful means.

Then, King suggests “that the philosophy and strategy of nonviolence become immediately a subject for study and for serious experimentation in every field of human conflict” (p.194) including relations between nations. (King seems to want countries to resolve conflicts among themselves following his method of “nonviolent” protests. For decades, the CIA has been following King’s method. If a government [a segregated State or city] does not bow to the CIA’s [King’s] demands, the CIA supports the opponent’s [openly violent civil rights groups] of the government and brings it down via a coupe, civil war [riots], etc.)

Then, King states, “The United Nations is a gesture in the direction of nonviolence on a world scale.” (P. 195.) (If true, the United Nations is a failure. As many, and probably more, violent conflicts have occurred since its creation than before. However, the real purpose of the United Nations is not to prevent violent conflicts. Its purpose is to serve as a foundation for a despotic world government that a few oligarchs control.)

Next, King writes that “true nonviolence is more than the absence of violence. It is the persistent and determined application of peaceable power to offenses against the community.” (P. 195.)  (What is this application of “peaceful power?” It looks a lot like the application of legalized coercion, i.e., war. Covert war is what King used to destroy the South.)

King argues for “a revolution of values to accompany the scientific and freedom revolutions engulfing the earth.” (P. 196.) (King had a warped sense of freedom. Traditionally, freedom means that the government does little beyond the minimum to protect life, liberty, and property. Freedom means no welfare state, no guaranteed income, no affirmative action or quotas, no public school system, and none of the many other things that King wanted governments to do. Concerning race relations, just about the only acts that a government could take are those necessary to prevent or discourage genocide.)

Continuing, King declares, “We must . . . shift from a ‘thing’-oriented society to a ‘person’-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.” (Pp.196-197.) (King-idolizing conservatives take note: You need to oppose the free market economy. Either King is exposing his ignorance of a free market economy or he hates it. A free market economy is people-oriented. If producers do not provide people with what they want or need at a price that they can afford, they make no profit. Without property rights, i.e., the right to use their property as they think best, producers are hampered in providing people what they desiderate. The foundation of a free market economy is cooperation. Moreover, a free market economy does a better job of conquering the great triplets than does King’s approach of massive governmental intervention that is based on envy and the lust for power.)

Then, King describes capitalism and Communism. (His description of Communism is accurate. His description of capitalism is what happens when governments interfere in a free market economy for wars, favorites, or picking winners and losers.)

King argues for a fascist economy — the melding of capitalism and Communism. “The good and just society is neither the thesis of capitalism nor the antithesis of Communism, but a socially conscious democracy which reconciles the truths of individualism and collectivism.” (P. 197.) (This is a description of fascism: the concatenation of the collective and the individual with oligarchs deciding what is a good and just society. Moreover, King should be rolling over in his grave with joy since nearly every country in the world today has some form of fascist political economy, and most did at the time he wrote.)

With his Luddite tendencies, King declares “With righteous indignation, it [the true revolution of values] will look at thousands of working people displaced from their jobs with reduced incomes as a result of automation while the profits of the employers remain intact, and say: ‘This is not just.’” (P. 198.) (King seems to want nonwhite countries to industrialize. Yet, industrialization, i.e., automation, costs people their jobs. Over the centuries many jobs have been lost to automation. Most automation has replaced people in grueling, dangerous, or monotonous jobs that most people dislike doing. Automation has freed them to perform more interesting work. The industrial revolution has been built on automation. Besides, if everything is so automated that no jobs exist, then companies would quickly go out of business because no one could buy their products. What King and most other people fail to realize is that the final customer decides what jobs are needed and the pay of workers and not employers, capitalists, etc. If the government intervenes to fix wages, prices, etc. shortages occur, and the country as a whole is poorer. Nevertheless, King has a point about companies taking much more money out of a community than they invest there — this is an argument to favor small businesses over multinational corporations.)

King complains, “There is nothing but a lack of social vision to prevent us from paying an adequate wage to every American citizen.” (P. 199.) (As noted above, the final customer decides the pay that a worker receives by what he is willing to pay for the product or service. Obviously, King did not know much about economics. But, here, he is promoting his guaranteed income for every family. That is, he wants the government to plunder producers and divide the stolen loot among families or individuals.)

Then, King states, “that our greatest defense against Communism is to take offensive action in behalf of justice.” (P. 200.) (That is, the United States need to flood the world with money with no conditions attached.)

Continuing, King declares, “These are revolutionary times.” (P. 200.) (True. It was the revolution of tyranny and despotism over freedom and liberty. In the name of King’s social justice, tyranny, and despotism won.)

Next, King writes, “Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal opposition to poverty, racism and militarism.” (Pp. 200-201.) (If this is our only hope, we are doomed. Poverty is still with us as Jesus said it would be. Black racism, Yellow racism, and Brown racism have supplanted White racism, which is mostly dead. Militarism is as prevalent today as ever before as the United States seek to impose democracy and King’s social justice on every country in the world.)

King was a cosmopolitan and a globalist. He urged everyone to place humanity as a whole above his particular tribe, race, class, and nation (a people as opposed to a country). Further, he calls “for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all men.” (P. 201.) (That is, all tribes, races, classes, and nations must sacrifice themselves on the altar of globalism under the rule of the global oligarchs. Now, it becomes clear why White oligarchs supported King and his destructive work.)

In conclusion, King states, “We can no longer afford to worship the God of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation.” (Pp. 200-201.) (Where Southerners were involved, King never did stop worshiping the God of hate or bowing before his altar of retaliation.)

For decades, the White oligarchs have been flooding the country with legal and illegal nonwhites. This flooding of nonwhites greatly threatens the hold that Negroes have on America. Because they are not White, these nonwhites are demanding and receiving the same benefits and privileges given to Negroes. Consequently, Negroes are beginning to lose their control of America to these nonwhites. Unfortunately for Negroes, they cannot control these nonwhites with guilt as they have controlled Whites. When these nonwhites reach a critical mass, they will push the Negro to the lowest rung of society. Then, Negroes will look at the days of segregation and Jim Crow as the days of privilege and prosperity. For this dismal future, Negroes can think King and his civil rights movement and social justice.

After reading his book, I discovered that I have much more confidence in the American Negro than King did. He believed that the Negro was incapable of bettering himself without the aid of Whites. Therefore, according to King, Negroes need Whites to solve their problems, to support them, and to give them special privileges and benefits. Although Whites gave the Negro everything that King demanded and more — except ending wars and a guaranteed income, many Negroes still have a slave mentality, however, a perverse slave mentality. Like the traditional slave, they remain dependent on Whites, but unlike the traditional slave, they expect Whites to serve them. By obeying King’s demands, Whites have greatly damaged the Negro. The Negro as a whole would have been better off today if King and his followers had not created the turmoil that they did in the 1960s and if the Negro had been left alone to solve his problems.

To resolve his problems the Negro should free himself from his dependency on Whites. Ironically as it may seem, especially to King, Negroes would have advanced further in a more segregated society. The Black Power folks were going in the right direction, but King subverted their movement. As a result, the Negro is not much better off today than in King’s day except economically. In many social respects, the Negro is worse off.

If the Negro had followed the Black Power road instead of King’s road, he would have had the satisfaction of knowing that he raised himself up and that he is responsible for his achievements. Because he followed King’s road, he will always question his achievements since Whites gave him just about everything that he has.

When King said that he had a dream, his dream was the genocide of the White race after all its wealth had been plundered. At least, that is the result of the policies that he advocated and promoted. Moreover, King-idolizing conservatives have been working diligently to achieve his dream — except in the economic realm where most continue to oppose guaranteed income and reparations.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on social issues.

King on the World House – Part 1

King on the World House – Part 1

Thomas Allen

In “The World House,” Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? (Boston: Beacon Press, 1968), pages 177–202, Martin Luther King, Jr., discusses the American Negro uniting with nonwhites around the world in their struggle for freedom, racism, colonialism and economic exploitation, poverty, war and peace, and foreign aid. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

(First, I must remind the reader that most conservatives and nearly all conservative commentators consider King a conservative. Furthermore, many conservative commentators assert that King is an archconservative and the greatest conservative ever. Some have even deified him. Hereafter, all these conservatives are referred to as King-idolizing conservatives. Since King is an archconservative, these King-idolizing conservatives should advocate everything that King advocated.)

King supports a world welfare system. He writes that “we cannot ignore the larger world house in which we are also dwellers. Equality with whites will not solve the problems of either whites or Negroes if it means equality in a world society stricken by poverty and in a universe doomed to extinction by war.” (P. 177.) (King-idolizing conservatives need to stop objecting to nonmilitary foreign aid and start opposing military foreign aid.)

Then, he mentions the inventions and discoveries made during the previous 100 years. (He fails to mention that Whites are responsible for these inventions and discoveries.)

Next, King states that “what is happening in the United States today is a significant part of a world development.” (P. 179.) That is, the civil rights movement needed to spread across the planet. (Neoconservatives have accommodated King by forcing his civil rights movement on the world. When necessary, they use war to impose King’s civil rights movement. White countries outside the Muslim world have surrendered to King’s civil rights movement with little resistance. However, war has been required in the White and nonwhite Muslim world. So far, most of East Asia and India have avoided having King’s civil rights movement imposed on them.)

Erroneously, King declares that what “we are seeing now is a freedom explosion” (P. 179.) (On the contrary, except for the defunct Soviet block, most countries are much less free today than they were before King’s civil rights movement. Ironically, freedom has been dying faster in the United States, the White Anglophone countries, and Western Europe than anywhere else on the planet, and these are the countries where the civil rights movement has advanced the furthest.)

Continuing, King remarks that “the era of colonialism, is at an end. East is moving West. The earth is being redistributed.” (P. 180.) (What are the American Negroes going to do when China conquers the United States? The only use that the Chinese will have for most Negroes is manual labor. They certainly will have no use for them as whining welfare recipients and habitual complainers who are never satisfied.)

Next, King claims, “Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever.” (P. 180.) (Anyone who cares about the White race, especially Southerners, who are now the oppressed, needs to hope that King is right. Negroes, who are the oppressors, need to hope that King is wrong.)

Then, King compares the biblical story of Moses demanding that Pharaoh let the Israelites go with the American Negro. (However, King does not complete the analogy. When Pharaoh let the Israelites go, the Israelites left Egypt. To complete the analogy, the American Negroes would have to leave the United States. Moreover, if King envisioned himself as Moses delivering his people from bondage, then King should have led his people to the promised land in Africa.)

King remarks that the American Negro “has been caught up by the spirit of the times, and with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow brothers in Asia, South America and the Caribbean, the United States Negro is moving with a sense of great urgency toward the promised land of racial justice.” (P. 180.) (Now, many Negroes are probably having second thoughts about uniting with their black, brown, and yellow brothers flooding America and claiming rights and privileges that Whites had given the Negro. Also, their promised land of racial justice seems void of any racial justice for Whites.)

Then, King writes, “Together we must learn to live as brothers or together we will be forced to perish as fools.” (P. 181.) (King seems to have omitted Whites from his brotherhood — except White Communists, White liberal Negrophiles, and White oligarchs. He certainly omits Southerners and White segregationists.)

Correctly, King states, “The richer we have become materially, the poorer we have become morally and spiritually. . . .  Enlarged material powers spell enlarged peril if there is not proportionate growth of the soul.” (Pp. 181-182.)

King writes, “Among the moral imperatives of our time, we are challenged to work all over the world with unshakable determination to wipe out the last vestiges of racism.” (P. 183.) (White racism has mostly vanished from the world. However, the racism of the other races is as strong as ever, and even the racism of the American Negro has been growing stronger ever since King inflamed it.)

According to King, economic exploitation is the perennial ally of racism. (If true, then the Negro’s economic exploitation of Whites proves that Negroes are racists — in spite of the accepted definition of “racist” that declares that Negroes cannot be racists.)

Then, King comments on the racism of South Africa and claims that “the economic policies of the United States and Great Britain” (p. 183) make possible “the racist government of South Africa.” (P. 183.) (Yet, the economic policies of the United States and Great Britain brought down the White racist government of South Africa and replaced it with a Negro racist government. Ever since South Africa has been deteriorating while the Afrikaners are being genocided.)

Next, King comments on Rhodesia and the aid given to Rhodesia by “British-based industry and private capital, despite the stated opposition of British government policy.” (P. 184.) (In 1979, the White government of Rhodesia fell. The country changed its name to Zimbabwe, and Negroes gained control of the government. After the Negroes drove most of the Whites from the country, the Negroes of Zimbabwe became poorer and more oppressed than they were under White rule. However, if he had lived to see this happy moment, King would rejoice knowing that Whites no longer oppress Negroes in Zimbabwe while complaining that Whites are not given Zimbabwe ever more money.)

King writes, “Nothing provides the Communists with a better climate for expansion and infiltration than the continued alliance of our nation with racism and exploitation throughout the world.” (P. 184.) (Being a Communist sympathizer, King should not have objected to anything that aided Communist expansion.)

Then, King declares, “And if we are not diligent in our determination to root out the last vestiges of racism in our dealings with the rest of the world, we may soon see the sins of our fathers visited upon ours and succeeding generations.” (Pp. 184-185.) (The only racism that has been rooted out is that of Whites while racism in the rest of the world is healthy, strong, and growing. As a result, the Whites of the United  States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Europe, and the rest of the world are fading away as they lose the countries that they founded and built to nonwhites.)

After discussing the exploitation of Latin America, King states, “The Bible and the annals of history are replete with tragic stories of one brother robbing another of his birthright and thereby insuring generations of strife and enmity.” (P. 185.) (King’s statement is correct. However, he confounds who is exploiting whom. King asserts that Whites are exploiting nonwhites, especially Negroes. On the contrary, Negroes and other nonwhites have been exploiting Whites for decades. By that, they create strife and enmity as they war among themselves for the spoils of Whites.)

King notes that most of the revolutionaries of Africa, Asia, and Latin America were educated in the West. Before then, many had been trained in Christian missionary schools. (Thus, Communists and Communist sympathizers had infiltrated and gained controlled universities and religious organizations even before King’s civil rights movement.)

King shows that envy is a significant motive for nonwhites to claim what Whites have. “In recent years their countries have been invaded by automobiles, Coca-Cola and Hollywood, so that even remote villages have become aware of the wonders and blessings available to God’s white children. . . . Either they share in the blessings of the world or they organize to break down and overthrow those structures or governments which stand in the way of their goals.” (P. 186.) (In other words, either Whites give Negroes and other nonwhites what they demand or they will steal it.)

Then, King declares, “And when they [colored people] look around and see that the only people who do not share in the abundance of Western technology are colored people, it is an almost inescapable conclusion that their condition and their exploitation are somehow related to their color and the racism of the white Western world.” (P. 186.) (King fails to realize that Whites obtained what they have through their intelligence and other innate attributes and traits, hard work, delaying gratification, sacrificing, etc. Erroneously, King and most other nonwhites, especially Negroes, believe that most of what Whites have, they got through exploiting nonwhites. However, Whites did not have to exploit anyone to create the wealth that they have. As for colonialism, most natives of the colonies, especially in Africa, became wealthier, healthier, and safer after the Europeans arrived than they were before the European arrival.)

Next, King asserts, “If Western civilization does not now respond constructively to the challenge to banish racism, some future historian will have to say that a great civilization died because it lacked the soul and commitment to make justice a reality for all men.” (Pp. 186-187.) (No civilization has ever come as close as Western Civilization in banishing the racism of its race, i.e., the White race. As a result, the White race has lost its soul and is dying. When the White race perishes along with its  great innate innovative intelligence, the nonwhites of the world will plunge into a dark age of poverty, tyranny, and oppression.)

Then, King declares, “Another grave problem that must be solved . . . is that of poverty on an international scale.” (P. 187.) He believed that Whites had the resources to rid the world of poverty. He states “that famine is wholly unnecessary in the modern world.” (P. 187.) (This is mostly true. When a natural disaster causes a famine, international aid usually arrives quickly to alleviate the problem. However, most famines are political. That is, the government of the country where the famine is occurring is the cause, and foreign aid offers little relief since the offending government receives the aid. War is another political problem that causes famine. The elimination of war and oppressive governments, like nearly every country has today, would eliminate most famines.) He offers several solutions for eliminating famine. (However, he fails to recognize that governments often prevent some of the solutions that he offers. King believes that governments are altruistic and benevolent, except in the South, whose governments are malevolent. Moreover, before Whites were driven from Africa, they were improving and increasing agricultural production.)

Furthermore, King favors controlling the population growth of the planet. He notes, “Most of the large undeveloped nations in the world today are confronted with the problem of excess population in relation to resources. But even this problem will be greatly diminished by wiping out poverty.” (P. 188.) Economic security and education lead to smaller families. Stabilization of the population depends on stabilizing economic resources. (One technique that the White oligarchs have used for population control besides easily available abortion is to inject people, especially Negro women, with sterilants disguised as medicine.)

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on social issues.

The Batchelor Brothers

The Batchelor Brothers

Thomas Allen

[Editor's note: Unfortunately, the formatting system for this blog is not suited for poetry. It inserts a line for a hard return.]

May twentieth, eighteen and sixty-one,

Independence declared their beloved State.

To a deadly war in a fiery din

Volunteered the valiant Batchelor brothers

Of Nash County—Jackson, Henry, and Van.

To defend family, loved ones and home,

To fight for precious liberty and God,

Is what they sought, not glory, wealth, or fame.

To repel the invading horde of blue

Is why they fought a bloody war so grim.

In North Carolina they joined and trained.

Under the great General Lee they fought.

In war-torn Virginia they took their stand.

The Batchelor brothers of Company I,

With the thirtieth, fought for blood-soaked ground

Of the Virginian towns, forests, and fields.

From these sacred pure lands they strove to drive

Satan’s great regiments from their strongholds

Back into hell across the Potomac

Into the odious vile northern wilds.

After defending the town of New Bern

From marauding Yankees, Jack, Henry, and 

Van marched to the sound of the battle horn,

North to Virginia to the Seven Days’

Battle with little chance to pause and mourn.

Mechanicsville, Cold Harbor, Malvern Hill,

They slew the evil Yanks driving them back.

Henry and many good Southerners fell

Wounded that day in July on the field

Before Malvern Hill that stretched half a mile.

Two months later to Maryland they went—

Jack and Van. To Sharpsburg they did travel.

The battle they encountered was no feint.

Blood flowed free as they faced twice their number.

Green turned red before the fighting had quit.

This one day, September seventeen, was

The bloodiest day of the four-year war.

So withdrew Satan’s cruel soldiers en masse

Taking a wounded Van with them but soon 

Paroled him. To Virginia they would cross.

The devil’s thirst was nearly quenched with blood

And his hunger satisfied with bodies

Down the Bloody Lane where gullies flowed red.

With landscape carpeted with blue and gray,

The first cost of tyranny had been paid.

Many a good Southerner had been lost, 

But their struggle for priceless liberty

Had just begun against the Northern beast.

Thus ended the summer of sixty-two.

To Virginia they returned undisgraced.

The year of sixty-three, the year of great

Battles—Chancellorsville and Gettysburg—

The three brave Batchelor brothers went to fight.

With the great General Lee, they marched. With

Stonewall Jackson’s foot cavalry they fought.

At Chancellorsville, victory they won

When Jackson’s famed foot cavalry outflanked

The Devil’s flanking horde and spoiled his plan. 

Intense combat had broken the Devil’s

Back; northward fled the swine without rapine.

But good Lee’s greatest victory came dear.

His most eminent general he lost.

How horrible is the nightmare of war!

Henry gave an arm while Jack fell wounded

As his fame grew for coolness under fire.

Lee had lost his right arm and Henry his.

For Henry the combat ended, and Jack 

Was out the remainder of the year as

Was many other good Southern soldiers;

For this miscreant they had to oppose.

Northward to Gettysburg Sergeant Van marched

Through Maryland to Pennsylvania.

For the despot’s heart, he now boldly searched

In the bowls of hell in a Northern town.

He drove the foe from Gettysburg but torched 

It not. For two more long days he remained. 

The carnage of those two days, he was spared

As Satan’s lust was fed and good men pined.

Once more death was king and agony queen.

Against metal, mortal man cannot stand.

Then back to sweat Virginia Van retired.

Pursued by the Devil’s heartless horde through

The land until they met at Kelly’s Ford.

Here the thirtieth suffered large losses.

Many were captured including Van. Feared

They the worst, and the worst certainly came.

To prison they went. Van to Point Lookout.

The fighting had drawn to an end for him.

Here he stayed until the last year of war,

But he would surely suffer in this tomb.

His brutal captors dragged him off to hell.

In a damp cell he was forcibly thrown.

Hunger and cold he endured in this hole

While his fat guards burned bodies for their warmth.

Disease and death filled this sadistic hall.

Deprived of medicine, clothing, and food

In the land of plenty, this want friends were

not allowed to alleviate with aid.

As their hopelessness grew, their life became

Filled with despair. All suffered; many died.

The year of sixty-four had arrived with

One brother in prison and the other 

A cripple; Jack alone stood in their path.

With his ragged clothes and empty belly,

He would keep on fighting the behemoth

Of the North, for he held liberty dear

And knew it was not free. He continued

The struggle against Satan’s great empire.

Disease and want reared their ugly faces.

With fortitude the men in gray stayed pure.

The Great Slaughterer had taken command

Of Satan’s horde. To send his troops against

Southern lines till their shoot was spent, he planned.

He would turn his blue Yankees red, for no

Simpler or deadlier plan could be found.

What did death matter to him. His foe weak,

And he strong. At his beckoning, he had

The world; surely he would make the South shake.

He could sacrifice ten of his to kill

One of theirs. Southern blood the ground would soak.

In the Wilderness Jack met him and fought

At Union and Mule Shoe the battle raged.

With death all about, would it be his fate?

Line after line, wave after wave, on they

Came, bleeding and dying as they were shot.

On to Cold Harbor move the Southern men

Where the fighting intensified. More died

As the Great Slaughterer forced his troops on, 

But the Southern lines held, and the massive

Bloody assault proved futile while death won.

Summer came and into Maryland crossed

Jack with Early’s corps. To Washington, the 

Tyrant’s capital, they hastily raced.

He began to see the buildings and lights

Of Satan’s place as the distance closed.

Panic filled the wicked hearts as the front

Came to the Sodom on the Potomac

Where he heard depravity’s mournful rant.

But victory was not theirs. With evil’s

Strength too strong, back to Virginia he went.

To the defense of Petersburg, he came

In the last year of war. Here he would

Make his last great stand against the vile crime

That had destroyed his homeland. As he faced

The enemy’s siege, he long to be home.

Attack and counterattack, on he fought

Though he knew he had lost. But liberty

He held dear, so he continued to fight.

Weary and tired of cold and hunger, of 

Sweet home he thought. Would he die here and rot?

Then came spring, and the last great march he took.

To Appomattox Jack went. The advance

Guard was he of a future black and bleak.

On the Yankees he fired that dark morning

Of April nine, the day the South was struck

Down, the end of time, the day the South died,

The day Lee surrendered. Jack lingered on

Another weary week before he laid

Down his arms and received his parole at

Bunkeville Junction. He gave his lifeblood.

Four years they had lost, Henry, Jack, and Van.

Home they now returned to rebuild their lives

From the ruins of war. Much had to be done.

The great joy of reuniting with their

Families was short-lived, for much more pain

They would suffer. That which they had feared most

Came to past. Yankee oppressors swooped down

To devour them with a great vengeful thirst.

Allying themselves with the black horde and

White Southern traitors, the South they would waste.

Their State was reduced to a province with

No self-government. Black ignorance filled

The land. They were governed by the black death.

Their homes were pillaged; their women were raped.

Their lands burned beneath Satan’s evil wrath.

With their liberties gone, despair filled all.

They would have perished if it were not for

The hooded white knights coming forth to heal

A dying nation by driving Satan’s

Worse out of the South and back into hell.

From the Glory of War by Thomas Coley Allen (Franklinton, NC: TC Allen Co., 2006)

Copyright © 2006 by Thomas Coley Allen

[Note: Jack Batchelor is the author’s great grandfather.]

Why Does God Allow Suffering

Why Does God Allow Suffering

Thomas Allen

In “Suffering and the God of Love,” Glad Tidings of the Kingdom of God, issue 1666, pages 13–17, Chris Furniss attempts to explain why God allows suffering. His argument seems to center around disproving the atheist’s assertion about the nonexistence of God.

He admits that suffering “has probably caused more people to lose faith, and prevented more people from finding faith, than almost any other problem.” (P. 13.) Although he does not discuss prayer specifically, unanswered prayer has done more damage. In Matthew 7:7, Jesus said, “Ask and it shall be given you.” As everyone who has ever prayed knows that this promise has not been kept. (See “Why Elijah Defeated the Baal Priests” by Thomas Allen.)

Furniss summarizes the atheist’s argument that God does not exist:

Christians believe in a loving, all-powerful God. But such a God would want to stop all the suffering in the world. He has not stopped the suffering, therefore either:

a He is all-powerful but not loving, or 

b He is loving but not all-powerful, or 

c He does not exist. (P. 13.)

Furniss does not discuss an argument that is not atheistic. According to this argument, only two of the following propositions can be true:

1. God is all-knowing, omniscient.

2. God is all-powerful, omnipotent.

3. God is a God of love, benevolent.

If God possesses the two attributes, omniscience and omnipotence, commonly given to Him (and the Bible supports these attributes), then He is not benevolent. Instead, He is malevolent. If God is benevolent, then He lacks one or both of the attributes that the Bible claims that He has.

Furniss asserts that the atheist’s argument is based on four false assumptions:

1.  that God is in some way responsible for suffering,

2.  that suffering is necessarily bad,

3.  that if God allows suffering when He has power to stop it, He is therefore lacking love, and

4.  that because God has not so far stopped suffering, He therefore never will. (P. 13.)

Then, Furniss proceeds to refute these four propositions. He presents four arguments against the first proposition.

First, deliberate acts of humans cause suffering. These acts include crimes and wars. Furniss believes that blaming God for these acts is unfair. (Yet, God is omniscient and omnipotent. Since He does not intervene to prevent such acts of suffering, He is at least partially responsible. Moreover, He commanded the Israelites to war against the people of Canaan, so He is solely responsible for the suffering of the Israelites and the people of Canaan caused by these wars.)

Second, humans unintentionally cause suffering. Furniss uses famine and starvation as examples. According to him, God has provided the world with more than an adequate food supply, but people refuse to share. (Furniss fails to realize that most famines are political. They result from wars or political leaders deliberately starving their people. No amount of sharing will relieve these types of famines. Nevertheless, since God is omniscient and omnipotent and since He fails to intervene to relieve the suffering, He is at least partially responsible.)

Third, human foolishness causes suffering. As an example, Furniss uses a drunk driver causing an accident. He asks who is to blame. The implication is that the drunk driver is solely to blame. (True, the drunk driver is to blame. However, being omniscient and omnipotent, God could have prevented the accident. Therefore, He is at least partially responsible.)

Fourth, suffering is beyond a person’s control, i.e., the suffering is not the fault of the sufferer. An example is a child born deformed. (Again, since God is omniscient and omnipotent, He can prevent such suffering. Therefore, He is at least partially responsible.)

(I am not sure which one of the four above arguments Furniss would place the plagues of Egypt that occurred just before Moses led the Israelites from Egypt. Nevertheless, God was responsible for the plagues as He caused them, and, therefore, He was responsible for the suffering that they caused.)

In response to the second proposition, Furniss argues that suffering is not necessarily bad. In his argument, he confuses pain with suffering. For example, when a person touches a hot object, he feels pain, which causes him to withdraw his hand and prevents him from suffering a third-degree burn. Furthermore, Furniss states that according to Paul, suffering is a gift from God and good for the sufferer. (Consequently, following Furniss’ reasoning, child abuse, battery, etc. are gifts from God and are good for the sufferer. Thus, he makes God appear malevolent. Moreover, his argument for this proposition contradicts some of his arguments for the first proposition since people attempting to relieve suffering are depriving the sufferer of a gift from God.)

For the third proposition, Furniss argues that God deliberately allows people to suffer because He loves them. (Do parents show their love for their children by beating their children unmercifully? Following Furniss’ reasoning, they do. Or, do they show their love by sparing their children from as much suffering as possible?) Although God can prevent suffering, Furniss claims that God is completely innocent of all human suffering. (However, other than assertions, Furniss offers no convincing argument on why an omniscient and omnipotent benevolent God bears no responsibility for human suffering.) Furniss blames sin as the cause of suffering.

Furniss answers the fourth proposition by claiming that God will eventually end suffering. God ends suffering by removing the cause of suffering: sin. Then, Furniss offers two ways for God to remove sin.

First, God makes it impossible for people to sin. According to Furniss, the only way that God can prevent people from sinning is to strip them of their free will and turn them into robots.

Second, God sets forth a plan that shows people how to live and provides a way to salvation. (How following God’s plan, even perfectly, prevents suffering beyond a person’s control, Furniss does not explain. Moreover, if God can only prevent sin by stripping people of their free will and converting them to robots — as Furniss asserts, then saved people in the hereafter must be robots with no free will. If not, they would start the sin cycle again. Not only can people sin willfully, but they can also sin accidentally or because of ignorance or stupidity.)

For Furniss’ arguments to be valid, at least one of these three must be true:

1. The sin of omission does not exist, i.e., failure to act is not a sin. (For more on the sin of omission, see “Some Random Thoughts on Religion” by Thomas Allen.)

2. If the sin of omission does exist, then God, who is omniscient and omnipotent, is the greatest sinner of all.

3. If the sin of omission exists and if God is not a sinner, then God is held to a lower standard than are humans.

Trying to refute the atheist, Furniss attempts to present God as a benevolent God who shows his love for people by allowing them to suffer. However, he portrays a God who either revels in human suffering or is limited in knowledge and power like humans.

Copywrite © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

King on Where We Are Going– Part 2

King on Where We Are Going– Part 2

Thomas Allen

About alliances with churches and church bodies, King writes, “Some churches recognize that to be relevant in moral life they must make equality an imperative.” (P. 159.) An alliance can be made with these churches, and other churches should be shunned. (However, God is no egalitarian. Saved and unsaved people serve as an example. If God were an egalitarian, then all people would either go to heaven and receive the same reward or go to hell and receive the same torment. Since saved people go to heaven and receive different rewards, and unsaved people go to hell and receive different torments, God cannot be an egalitarian; he rejects equality.)

King states, “A primary Negro political goal in the South is the elimination of racism as an electoral issue.” (P. 160.) (This goal has failed. For at least 55 years, Negroes have made racism an electoral issue. Whites ceased making racism an electoral issue decades ago with Whites surrendering unconditionally to the Negro and joining Negroes in the genocide of the White race.) 

Then, King comments on White politicians surrendering to the Negro. He notes, that as more White politicians compete for the Negro bloc vote, the “monolithic white unity based on racism will no longer be possible.” (P. 161.) (Whatever unity that Whites had based on race did collapse as King predicted. However, Negro unity based on racism quickly replaced it and has remained intact ever since.)

Continuing, King comments “that the Negro vote has not transformed the North” (Pp. 161-162) as it was transforming the South. He blames this lack of progress in the North on Northern Negroes having “never used direct action on a mass scale for reforms.” (P. 162.)

Further, King blames the lack of Negro political strength in the North on “the grip of an old tradition on many individual Negroes. They tend to hold themselves aloof from politics as a serious concern. They sense that they are manipulated, and their defense is a cynical disinterest.” (P. 162.) (Thus, Northerners had less concern for Negroes than did Southerners.)

King asserts that Negroes must use their political strength (i.e., governmental coercion) to achieve their goals. (So much for nonviolence.) They cannot do it with economic power or through culture.

Then, he offers the Jews as an example for Negroes to follow. Jews placed a great deal of emphasis on education; so should Negroes. (A big difference exists between Jews and Negroes. On average, the IQ of Jews is about 25 to 30 points higher than the IQ of Negroes, which is about 85, a standard deviation below the IQ of Whites.) He comments on Jewish social and political actions as examples for Negroes to follow.

Correctly, King states, “Education without social action is a one-sided value because it has no true power potential. Social action without education is a weak expression of pure energy.” (P. 64.) (Since the 1960s, Negroes overall have shown little improvement in intelligence, intellect, characters, temperament, and other nonphysical traits influenced by genes. In attitude, Negroes have even regressed and show no appreciation for what Whites have given them, which is everything that they have demanded, except reparations [and that will make no difference], even genociding themselves. The more Whites surrender to the Negroes, the more Negroes loathe Whites and the less they appreciate what Whites have given them.)

King urges Negroes in the civil rights movement to pressure Negroes who are not active in the civil rights movement to join and become active. The inactive Negro needs to be scorned to “pick up his citizenship rights and add his strength enthusiastically and voluntarily to the accumulation of power for himself and his people.” (P. 165.) King wanted to make every Negro a protestor.

Then, King writes, “The slave heritage can be cast into the dim past by our consciousness of our strengths.” (P. 165.) (Instead of casting away their slave heritage, many Negroes copied the Jews. As Jews boast of their Holocaust™ heritage even if they have none, Negroes boast about their slave heritage even if they have none. As Jews have used the Holocaust™ to swindle ever more wealth and power from people who were not alive at the time of the Holocaust™, so have Negroes used slavery to swindle ever more wealth and power from people who were not alive at the time of slavery.)

Continuing, King argues that adequate organization is necessary to channel the Negro’s fighting spirit to achieve radical reform. Negroes needed to overcome “their disunity and petty competition.” (P. 166.) (Much of the Negro’s victory over Whites results from disunity and petty competition among Whites. Worse, some Whites, especially Yankees, have sought to annihilate another White ethnicity, Southerners — and have wanted to genocide them even before Lincoln’s War. Moreover, scalawags, New-South Southerners, Southern wokesters, and other quislings care little about their brethren, the Southern people, and nothing about Southern culture. Instead, they imitate the Yankee and join him in the genocide of the Southerner. Yankees and these Southern traitors join Negroes in their war against the South.)

Next, King writes, “Negroes are almost instinctively cohesive. We band together readily, and against white hostility we have an intense and wholesome loyalty to each other.” (P. 168.) (Cohesiveness is one great advantage that Negroes have over Whites. Negroes easily unite against Whites. Unfortunately for the White race, some White ethnicities, especially the Yankee, loathe other White ethnicities, e.g., Southerners, so much that they are willing to unite with Negroes against their fellow Whites and genocide them.)

Continuing, King proposes some civil rights programs. He focuses on one in particular, which deals with poverty. He states that “there are twice as many white poor as Negro poor in the United States.” (P. 170.) Then, he identifies several causes of poverty. (One item that he omits from his list is genetics. Genetics is not the cause of all poverty, but it is the cause of some poverty.) He criticizes the fragmented approach to treating poverty; a coordinated approach is needed. King concludes that the solution to poverty is a guaranteed income. (King-idolizing conservatives take note: You need to promote a guaranteed income.) Further, he attacks the market economy because its “dislocations in the market operation . . . and the prevalence of discrimination thrust people into idleness and bind them in constant or frequent unemployment against their will.” (Pp. 171-172.) (King ignores that when given a choice to work or to be paid for loafing, many people will choose to loaf for a living.)

Then, King identifies two groups that have enjoyed guaranteed incomes for nearly 40 years: “The wealthy who own securities have always had an assured income; and their polar opposite, the relief client, has been guaranteed an income, however minuscule, through welfare benefits.” (P. 174.) (King must have never owned securities. Stocks may or may not pay dividends. Moreover, a company may go bankrupt, which usually results in the holders of its stocks and bonds losing everything.)

Citing John Kenneth Galbraith (an abysmal but popular economist), King notes that the cost of a guaranteed income is about what is spent on the Vietnam War. King concludes, “If democracy is to have breadth of meaning, it is necessary to adjust this inequity [of distribution].” (P. 174.) (King ignores the lack of constitutional authority for the federal government to provide a guaranteed income. But, then, King had absolutely no use for the US Constitution; nearly everything that he advanced was unconstitutional. Nevertheless, a State may provide a guaranteed income unless its constitution prohibits it.)

King taught Negroes how to envy and never to be satisfied. He taught Whites to disdain themselves and to seek their own genocide. Moreover, he destroyed the South, which the White oligarchs wanted to be destroyed because the South was the last bulwark on the planet for liberty, localism, constitutional government, Christian values, and the White race. 

Although King objected to discrimination based on merit, he did not object to discrimination based on race per se. Although he opposed racial discrimination that favored Whites, he supports racial discrimination that favored Negroes. Nearly all Negroes agree with King concerning discrimination.

Since other races are genetically more endowed than the Negro, Negroes, like King, object to discrimination based on merit. They prefer discrimination based on race if the discrimination favors their race as it has for at least the last 50 years.

The hiring of musicians for classical orchestras illustrates this hypocrisy of Negroes. Historically, few Negroes were hired to play in classical orchestras. Negroes claimed that they were not hired because of their race. In response to this accusation, a barrier was placed between the auditioning musician and the people hiring so that those hiring could not see the race of the musician; they could only hear the music that the musician was playing. Still, the number of Negroes playing in classical orchestras did not significantly increase. So, Negroes demanded that those hiring see the person auditioning. Thus, Negroes demanded discrimination against better-qualified White musicians in favor of less-qualified Negro musicians. In other words, Negroes were demanding affirmative action and quotas for Negro musicians. Naturally, King would have approved of this racial discrimination against Whites since he promoted such discrimination throughout his career.

The fate of the North American Indians provides a warning to Whites. Indians failed to unite against White immigrants when they greatly outnumbered Whites. Many Indians allied with Whites to fight other Indians. As a result, the North American Indian is almost extinct — most that exist today are more mongrel than Indian. Whites are following the path of the North American Indians.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 1.

More social issues articles.

King on Where We Are Going– Part 1

King on Where We Are Going– Part 1

Thomas Allen

In “Where We Are Going,” Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? (Boston: Beacon Press, 1968), pages 143–176, Martin Luther King, Jr., discusses the development of civil rights programs, power, Negro economic activity, labor unions, Negro political power and voting, Negro leaders, and poverty. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

(First, I must remind the reader that most conservatives and nearly all conservative commentators consider King a conservative. Furthermore, many conservative commentators assert that King is an archconservative and the greatest conservative ever. Some have even deified him. Hereafter, all these conservatives are referred to as King-idolizing conservatives. Since King is an archconservative, these King-idolizing conservatives should advocate everything that King advocated.)

King blames the Vietnam War for the slow progress of the civil rights movement and the cause of the absence of program advancement. Although many programs had been proposed, most had been ignored. Moreover, the federal government failed to enforce existing laws that would have advanced the cause of the civil rights movement.

Chastising the federal government, King declares, “Underneath the invitation to prepare programs is the premise that the government is inherently benevolent.” (P. 144.) (One thing that the civil rights movement taught, or should have taught, Southerners is that the federal government is malevolent — just as it was during the First Reconstruction.)

Next, King complains about shifting the burden of producing civil rights programs from the White majority to the oppressed minority. This shifting of the burden gave Whites an excuse to do nothing and to claim that Negroes wanted nothing. (Placing the burden on Whites allowed Negroes to blame Whites for the failure of such programs although they failed because of the Negro’s innate attributes. Nevertheless, when Whites finally did push forward civil rights and related programs, they gave the country to the Negro and then enslaved themselves to the Negro. Is the country any better off because of this suicidal act of Whites?)

King declares, “When a people are mired in oppression, they realize deliverance when they have accumulated the power to enforce change.” (P. 144.) (Now the Negro has the power to enforce change. Have they changed the country for the better or the worse? If for the better, why is America destroying itself and why is America far, far more divided today than in the 1960s?)

Then, King states, “Our nettlesome task is to discover how to organize our strength into compelling power so that government cannot elude our demands.” (P. 145.) (King’s followers accomplished this goal. Not only do the federal and State governments not elude Negro demands, but they also exceed those demands while Whites attack each other for not giving the Negro more. Reparations are the only demand where Whites have not yet surrendered, but that surrender is coming.)

King wanted programs that would satisfy the Negro’s aspirations. (Within a few years after King’s death, Whites showered Negroes with rapine, benefits, and privileges that Whites never enjoyed. Yet, Negroes still demand more.)

Next, King laments that “too few Negro thinkers have exerted an influence on the main currents of American thought.” (P. 146.) (This problem has now been solved. Has the country improved because of it?)

Continuing, King complains about the lack of Negro businesses. (Negro businesses were growing under segregation during the Jim Crow Era. However, the civil rights moment diminished them — at least initially.)

Although King condemns labor unions in other essays for discriminating against Negroes, he praises them in this essay for creating racial harmony and for providing Negroes hospitality and mobility. Further, unions had brought Negroes high wages. Still, Negroes needed to increase their influence in the labor movement. He notes, “The coalition of an energized section of labor, Negroes, unemployed and welfare recipients may be the source of power that reshapes economic relationships and ushers in a breakthrough to a new level of social reform. The total elimination of poverty, now a practical possibility, the reality of equality in race relations and other profound structural changes in society may well begin here.” (P. 150.) (King-idolizing conservatives take note.)

Then King discusses Negroes using their vote as consumers to exert economic power. They needed to use the boycott to give them what they demanded. (Some Whites attempted to use the boycott to counter Negro boycotts. However, because of a lack of White unity and disorganization, White boycotts failed. Unlike White boycotts, Negroes were unified and organized in their boycotts; therefore, they succeeded. Now, after 55 years, Whites finally learned something from the Negro and are using boycotts to punish businesses that promote wokeism and queerdom, but not interracial mating. Since the country is rapidly succumbing to wokeism and queerdom, how effective these boycotts will be, remains to be seen.)

Part of the Negro’s demands was quotas for Negroes. The workforce in each category should reflect the percentage of the Negro population. (Qualifications of the Negro for the job did not matter. What mattered was his race. Consequently, all King-idolizing conservatives need to support hiring based on race to meet the quota.)

Next, King comments on the rising political power of the Negro. The population in major cities was rising because of Negro migration and because the Negro birthrate was exceeding that of Whites in the cities. “The two trends, along with the exodus of the white population to the suburbs, are producing fast-gathering Negro majorities in the large cities.” (P. 154.) (As a result, Negroes have taken control of several major cities. In other major cities where they do not control directly, they control indirectly through their kowtowing White slaves.) By controlling governments of large cities, especially in the North, Negroes obtained enough political power substantially to “determine the political destiny of the state.” (P. 154.) 

King remarks that through a coalition of urban minorities, Negroes will control the Democratic Party. (Where Negroes are a significant part of the electorate, Democrats usually need the Negro vote to win. The question is, do Negroes use White Democrats or do White Democrats use Negroes?) Continuing, King states that even the Republican Party needs the Negro’s vote to win, especially in the presidential elections. (Even today, most Republicans believe that they need the Negro vote to win although only a small percent vote for Republicans and although Republicans have won more presidential elections than Democrats since the 1965 voting rights act. If Whites valued the interest of their race as Negroes do theirs and voted for the candidate that served their racial interest as Negroes do, no White presidential candidate would need the Negro vote.)

Then, King comments on Negroes destroying the power of the Dixiecrats and Southern reactionaries. Consequently, they eliminated the power of Dixiecrats and Southern reactionaries in Congress. Thus, Congress can impose the Negro’s agenda on the South and then the rest of the country(, which it did). 

Next, King discusses the need for Negroes in party politics. Traditionally, White political leaders have manipulated Negroes. (Some believe that White political leaders still manipulate Negroes. White oligarchs have been highly successful in manipulating Negroes to increase the power and wealth of the oligarchs.) He criticizes the typical Negro politician, most of whom were frontmen whom Whites had picked and supported. About these Negro politicians, King writes, “Tragically, he is in too many respects not a fighter for a new life but a figurehead of the old one.” (P. 156.) Then, he comments on the poor performance and distrust of Negro politicians.

About what Negroes need to do, King states that “we shall have to do more than register and more than vote; we shall have to create leaders who embody virtues we can respect, who have moral and ethical principles we can applaud with an enthusiasm that enables us to rally support for them based on confidence and trust.” (P. 158.) (This goal has only been partially achieved. Many Negro politicians have come forward whom Negroes and even many Whites enthusiastically support. However, most of these Negro politicians lack moral and ethical principles — just as many White politicians lack moral and ethical principles.) Continuing, King demands, “We will have to demand high standards and give consistent, loyal support to those who merit it.” (P. 158.) (Negroes have failed to demand high standards. But, then, since King’s moral and ethical standards were low, he may have been considering his low standards as high. Anyway, most Negroes give consistent loyal support to Negro political leaders whatever their standards. Many Whites are also guilty of supporting Negro politicians with low standards and with no moral or ethical principles.)

Next, King describes the need for Negroes to become politically independent and ways to force machine politicians to bow to the Negro’s will. Then, he states, “The future of the deep structural changes we seek will not be found in the decaying political machines. It lies in new alliances of Negroes, Puerto Ricans, labor, liberals, certain church and middle-class elements.” (Pp. 158-159.)

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 2

More social issues articles.

Founding Documents of Today’s United States

Founding Documents of Today’s United States

Thomas Allen

Most Blacks, progressives, liberals, neoconservatives, establishment conservatives, libertarians, Negrophiles, Albusphobes, Dixiephobes, and Confederaphobes (hereafter referred to as “these people”) consider the Declaration of Independence (especially the phrase “all men are created equal”), the Emancipation Proclamation, the Gettysburg Address, the US Supreme Court’s Brown v. Education (1954) decision, and Martin Luther King’s speech “I Have a Dream” (especially the sentence “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”) to be the founding documents of today’s United States. For them, the Constitution should be interpreted considering these five documents. Consequently, they interpret the Constitution to increase the power of the federal government and decrease the power of the States and to force integration and diversity. 

1. Declaration of Independence. For “these people,” the Declaration of Independence contains only one important phrase: “all men are created equal.” They ignore the two most important provisions.

First, “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government. . . .” This clause acknowledges the right of the people to abolish their government and replace it with another. However, Lincoln and the Republicans denied Southerners this right.

Second, “That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States. . . .” This clause shows that each colony declared itself to be a free and independent sovereign State. Each colony became a free and independent nation. (Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary defines “state” as “a politically unified people occupying a definite territory; nation.” Thus, each colony was a free and independent sovereign nation.) These sovereign nations formed the United States and established two governments: one under the Articles of Confederation and another under the Constitution for the United States. However, “these people” have to ignore this clause because it conflicts with the Gettysburg Address.

When the States created a union under these two constitutions, they did so without surrendering any of their sovereignty. Unlike today, where the United States is a consolidated empire with an all-powerful central government and the States are merely subjugated provinces, the United States were originally established as a federation of sovereign republican States and remained so until Lincoln’s War.

Although “these people” preach equality, they do not practice it. They believe that some people are more equal than others. Blacks are more equal than Whites. That is, Blacks are the superior race, and Whites are the inferior race while other nonwhites are in between. Above all of them are the oligarchs.

2. Emancipation Proclamation. Most of “these people” believe that Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves. It did not. The Emancipation Proclamation was a war propaganda document that freed no slaves. The Thirteenth Amendment freed the slaves. Lincoln even admitted that his proclamation had no legal justification or force, which is why he pushed a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery. 

With the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation, the genocide of Southerners began. Soon after its issuance, Lincoln’s army began warring against and deliberately killing children, women, and other civilians. This genocide continues to this day.

3. Gettysburg Address. Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address did not change the structure of the United States from a federation of sovereign republican States to a consolidated empire. The illegally and unlawfully ratified Fourteenth Amendment did that. (Another important component in changing the United States to a consolidated empire was Lincoln and the Republicans putting in place during Lincoln’s War the unconstitutional American System: protective tariffs, subsidies to businesses, central banking, and the concentration of political power in the federal government.) However, the Gettysburg Address declared the objective and underlying principle of Lincoln and the Republicans. To justify this new governmental structure, Lincoln had to distort (lie about) the historical and political foundations of the United States.

Before Lincoln’s War, the United States were a federation of sovereign republican States. After Lincoln’s War, the United States became a consolidated empire with the Southern States becoming exploited colonies. 

H. L. Mencken, who may be accused of being an iconoclast but who can hardly be accused of being a fire-eating unreconstructed rebel, succinctly summed up Lincoln’s War when commenting on the Battle of Gettysburg and the Gettysburg Address:

Think of the argument in it [the Gettysburg Address]. Put it into the cold words of every day. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination — ‘that government of the people, by the people, for the people,’ should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. What was the practical effect of the battle of Gettysburg? What else than the destruction of the old sovereignty of the States, i.e., of the people of the States: The Confederates went into battle free; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision and veto of the rest of the country — and for nearly twenty years that veto was so effective that they enjoyed scarcely more liberty, in the political sense, than so many convicts in the penitentiary.

4. US Supreme Court’s Brown V. Education. In Brown v. Education, the Supreme Court established two new basic principles. First, “feelings of racial inferiority have a constitutional status.”[1] Second, “racial integration is the remedy for these ‘feelings of inferiority.’”[2] Therefore, “private discrimination is a constitutional evil and racial diversity is a constitutional good.”[3] Thus, racial integration is the remedy for the feeling of inferiority. However, an exception exists and that is Whites feeling inferior, and today many Whites feel inferior. (If these Whites did not feel inferior, they would not hate themselves and their race and promote the genocide of the White race.) Racial integration is the primary cause of White feeling inferior.

This Supreme Court ruling gives the federal government almost absolute control over everything anyone does. Consequently, it destroys all freedoms and liberties.

The Supreme Court’s ruling is based on a false premise. While the ruling justifies integration, it also justifies diversity. Yet, racial integration leads to amalgamation and homogenization, which destroys diversity.

5. Martin Luther King’s Speech “I Have a Dream.” Although King advocated judging people by the content of their character instead of their race, he wanted Blacks to be judged by their race and given special benefits and privileges. At least subconsciously, he knew that judging Blacks by their character placed them at a disadvantage. Judging Blacks by their character is a losing situation for Blacks. When compared with Whites and most other races, Blacks overall are more lethargic, lazy, impulsive, violent, criminally inclined, vociferous, rowdy, sexually immoral, irresponsible, superficial, childlike, and demanding.

Moreover, if Blacks were judged by merit, most would lag behind most Whites because they innately have lower intelligence and intellectual capabilities. Only in most sports and menial labor do they have an advantage over Whites. Because Blacks lag behind Whites in the most prestigious professions, quotas become necessary to fill these professions with Blacks who are less qualified than Whites. 

Constitution. Through these five documents, “these people” interpret the Constitution. Consequently, to implement these five founding documents, the federal government may undertake any action necessary to prevent discrimination against Blacks and other nonwhites except East Asians and to force discrimination against Whites. Moreover, they interpret the Constitution such that political power is concentrated in the federal government and the States are reduced to subjugated provinces. 

Furthermore, using these five documents, they interpret the Constitution to give advantages, benefits, and privileges to Blacks and other nonwhites at the expense of Whites. Thus, the Constitution requires discrimination against Whites although “these people” assert that the Constitution forbids racial discrimination.

Consequently, the implementation of these founding documents abolishes the Constitution that the founding fathers gave the country — in principle if not in words, i.e., the words of the Constitution remained the same but their meaning changed. Thus, the implementation of these five documents suppresses liberties and freedoms, especially the freedom of speech, religion, and association.

Summary. The following summarizes the five founding documents of today’s United States:

1. The Declaration of Independence declares that all men are equal — except Southerners, Afrikaners, Palestinians, and a few other despicable ethnicities who are only worthy of genocide.

2. The Emancipation Proclamation freed the Black slaves (so “these people” claim), but it has resulted in Whites being enslaved to support Blacks and other nonwhites with welfare and job preferences.

3. The Gettysburg Address outlines the change in the political structure of the United States from a federation of sovereign States (we the peoples) to a consolidated empire under an all-powerful central government that the oligarchs control for their benefit.

4. The US Supreme Court Ruling on Brown v. Education has led to forcing integration and diversity (although the two conflict) and giving Blacks benefits and privileges at the expense of Whites. 

5. The “I Have a Dream” speech provides the camouflage for discriminating against Whites and making Blacks the superior race.

Endnotes

1.  Jesse Merriam, How We Got Our Antiracist Constitution (Claremont Institute), p. 5.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

King on the Dilemma of Negro America – Part 2

King on the Dilemma of Negro America – Part 2 

Thomas Allen

While King was a strong proponent of providing Negroes with better housing, he opposed urban renewal. (Much of urban renewal was done in the name of providing Negroes with better housing.) He laments that Negroes in the Chicago ghettos had sacrificed to save enough money to buy a house in the ghetto. Then the Urban Renewal Authority claimed their houses, not because they were substandard but because it wanted the land for a shopping center. Moreover, it paid less for some houses than the purchase price. Needless to say, such acts increased the bitterness of Negroes. (Apparently, King failed to realize that such urban renewal was a natural outgrowth of the despotic government that he advocated — especially since he preached that Whites needed to provide Negroes with better houses.)

About urban renewal projects, King complains that “the democratic process breaks down, for the rights of the individual voter are impossible to organize without adequate funds, while the business community supplies the existing political machine with enough funds to organize massive campaigns and control mass media.” (Pp. 124-125.) (Why did not King’s SCLC, other civil rights organizations, and Negrophilic White liberals come to the aid of these people and pressure the city to reverse its decision? After all, they had mustered enough resources to bring than the South.) King blamed this destruction of Negro houses on Northern ambivalence about the civil rights movement. (These Northerners were not ambivalent. Civil rights and related laws were to apply only in the South and never in the North.)

King reveals Northern and Western hypocrisy with their fervent opposition to open housing legislation. He writes, “Nothing today more clearly indicates the residue of racism still lodging in our society than the responses of white America to integrated housing.” (P. 125.) Continuing, King writes that opposition to open housing is based on “the fear that the alleged depravity or defective nature of the out-race will infiltrate the neighborhood of the in-race.” (P. 125.) (Generally, when the number of Negro families moving into a White neighborhood reaches a certain, but small, percent, that neighborhood begins to deteriorate toward the level of the neighborhood from which the Negroes fled. Consequently, this fear of depravity or defective nature of Negroes does have some foundation.)

King argues that opposition to Negroes moving to White neighborhoods is based on race and not moral character. After all, “professional white hoodlums and racketeers are located in the best neighborhoods of Cicero is fit proof that the opposition to open housing is not based on behavior or moral standards.” (P. 125.) (True, White criminals live in White neighborhoods. However, statistically, Whites are much less likely to be hoodlums or criminals. Statistically, Negroes are more likely to be rowdy and people of low moral standards. Nevertheless, King is partially right, race is at least part of the reason because most people prefer living among people of the same race.)

Continuing, King maintains that each person should be judged by “his individual culture, brilliance and character. . . . To the racist . . .  every Negro, lacks individuality” (Pp. 125-126.) (Never did King practice what he preached. Never did he judge each individual Southerner by his individual culture, brilliance, and character. He just lumped them together as vile, evil, despicable, degraded degenerates. Never once did he make any effort to discover my parents’, grandparents’, aunts’, and uncles’ individual culture, brilliance, and character. He just lumped them in with all other Southerners. Thus, he judged by ethnicity and not by character.)

Then, King discusses real estate brokers. Shrewdly and subtly, they used the “racist doctrine [from the slavery era] to justify the profitable real estate business.” (P. 126.) They thrived by keeping the housing market closed. “Going into white neighborhoods where a few Negroes have moved in, they urge the whites to leave because their property values will depreciate.” (P. 126.) (Therefore, real estate brokers were the cause of White flight — so King claims.) They made huge profits from relocating Whites and from Negroes moving in.

Next, King states, “Many whites who oppose open housing would deny that they are racists.” (P. 126.) (First, by definition, all Whites are racist [racism is in their genes] and to claim that one is not a racist is proof that one is a racist. Moreover, since race precedes the cultural environment, race creates the cultural environment in which it lives. However, the cultural environment may influence the race once it is created. Furthermore, some races are connately more inclined toward criminal activity than others — probably because of genetic hormonal differences. Genetics has given some races greater intelligence and intellectual capabilities than others. Genetics also influence personality, temperament, character, etc. Thus, genetics has a great deal of influence on the cultural environment that a race creates. Consequently, people of one race not wanting people of other races polluting their cultural environment is not irrational or hateful.)

King writes “When Negroes move into a neighborhood and whites refuse to flee, property values are more likely to increase. It is only when blockbusting takes place and whites begin to move out that property values decrease.” (P. 126.) (What King inadvertently shows is that Whites keep property values up, and Negroes bring them down.)

Continuing, King remarks “that many white Americans oppose open housing because they unconsciously, and often consciously, feel that the Negro is innately inferior, impure, depraved and degenerate.” (P. 127.) (The last 50 years of open housing have done more to prove these Whites right than to prove them wrong.)

About Negro employment, King complains, “Some of the most tragic figures in our society now are the Negro company vice presidents who sit with no authority or influence because they were merely employed for window dressing in an effort to win the Negro market or to comply with federal regulations in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.” (P. 127.) (The reason that these Negro vice presidents had no authority was that they were incompetent. Still, not much has changed since then. Most Negroes in high-ranking jobs in corporations and especially governments hold their jobs because of their race and not because of their competence or capabilities. Competent Negroes who fill such positions work under the suspicion that they got the job because of race and not merit. Such is the penalty of affirmative action, quotas, etc.)

Then, King describes what it is like to be a Negro in America. (His description comes close to describing what is happening to today’s Southerners.)

King condemns the notion of “a separate black state or a separate black nation within the nation. This approach is the most cynical and nihilistic of all, because it is based on a loss of faith in the possibilities of American democracy.” (P. 130.) (Thus, King lacks confidence in Negroes governing themselves. They need White succor and rule to overcome their deficiencies — so King implies. Haiti and cities governed by Negroes support King’s lack of confidence in the Negro’s ability to govern competently.)

Also, King objects to Negroes trying to lighten their skin and straighten their hair so that they may look more like White people. He was an adherent of “Black is beautiful.” (Yet, he wanted the descendants of Negroes to be more White by encouraging interracial marriages.)

King writes, “From the inner depths of our being we must sing with them: ‘Before I’ll be a slave, I’ll be buried in my grave and go home to my Lord and be free.’” (P. 131.) (A large number of Negroes have opposed King on this issue. They prefer being a slave of governments through the welfare state to being free.)

Then, King asserts, that the first step “that the Negro must take is to work passionately for group identity.” (P. 131.) (Yet, integration destroys group identity because it leads to amalgamation and homogenization of all groups into an indistinguishable mongrel.)

Next, King states, “Group unity necessarily involves group trust and reconciliation.” (P. 131.) (True. Today, Negroes have a strong group unity, and Whites have almost no group unity. Although Whites greatly outnumber Negroes, Negroes have presented a united front and have gotten Whites to turn on and devour each other. Consequently, the Negro defeated the White race.)

Continuing, King recognizes that Negroes would disagree with each other. However, when confronting Whites, they needed to present a united front. (For the most part, Negroes have followed King’s advice and have presented a united front against Whites. However, for nearly 90 years or so, Whites have never presented a united front against Negroes. Worse, many Whites united with Negroes against Whites. Has this White disunity made the country better?) 

Then, King condemns Negro newspapers for failing to fervently agitate for social change. He attacks Negro social and professional groups for “a preoccupation with frivolities and trivial activity.” (P. 132.)

Continuing, King writes, “that our women must be respected, and that life is too precious to be destroyed in a Saturday night brawl, or a gang execution.” (P. 133.) (Unfortunately, on this issue, too many Negroes have ignored King.)

Next, King writes, “While not ignoring the fact that the ultimate way to diminish our problems of crime, family disorganization, illegitimacy and so forth will have to be found through a government program to help the frustrated Negro male find his true masculinity by placing him on his own two economic feet, we must do all within our power to approach these goals ourselves.” (P. 133.) (Since most of these problems are as bad today, if not worse, as in the 1960s, neither governments nor Negroes have been effective in solving these problems. Yet, governments have expended enormous resources trying to solve them. Today, these problems cannot be blamed on segregation or discrimination against Negroes because they died decades ago. Nevertheless, Negroes blame their problems on slavery although slavery ended almost 160 years ago.  But, then, could the real cause of the Negro’s problems lie in his genes? In any event, Negroes need to grow up and stop acting like little children who never accept responsibility for anything.)

King discusses the advancements that young Negroes were making. (Much of the advancements that he describes occurred before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related laws and court orders that followed. Negro advancement before the Civil Rights Era was based on merit. Negro advancement during the Civil Rights Era is based mostly on governmental force. Many Negroes who have advanced during the Civil Rights Era are tainted. People, including themselves, do not know if their advancement is because of ability or because of race.)

Further, King was not a patient man. According to him, time was an ally of the segregationist; therefore, it was the enemy of the integrationist.

Continuing, King writes, “Equally fallacious is the notion that ethical appeals and persuasion alone will bring about justice.” (P. 137.) (Therefore, governmental force, which is usually unethical, must be used. How using unethical force brings about justice, King does not explain. Probably, in his mind, all forces that suppress segregation and institute integration are ethical.)

King remarks that ethical appeals should not be abandoned. “It simply means that those appeals must be undergirded by some form of constructive coercive power.” (P. 137.) (For the victim of coercive power, that power is hardly constructive. Besides, whether coercive power is constructive or not depends on perspective. A segregationist may consider governmental force used to enforce segregation as a constructive coercive power, but King would not.)

Then, King writes that “we must agree that we will not violently destroy life or property; but we must balance this by agreeing with the person of violence that evil must be resisted.” (P. 138.) (In other words, if the community did not surrender unconditionally to King’s demands, riots or some other forms of violence would follow. To King, Southerners and segregationists were per se persons of violence.)

Next, King asserts, “The American racial revolution has been a revolution to ‘get in’ rather than to overthrow.” (P. 138.) (Negroes got in, and then they overthrew.) “We want a share in the American economy, the housing market, the educational system and the social opportunities.” (P. 138.) (Negroes have received far more than their share. Their major problem now is to protect their share from the nonwhite aliens and immigrants with whom the White oligarchs are flooding the country. Unfortunately, for the Negro, he will not be able to control them with guilt as he has controlled Whites. Moreover, most of these nonwhites have less use for the Negro than does the stereotypical Klansman.)

Further, King complains that the Constitution does not assure “the right to adequate housing, or the right to an adequate income.” (P. 138.) He insists “that every person [should] have a decent house, an adequate education and enough money to provide basic necessities for one’s family.” (P. 138.) (King may not have been a card-carrying Communist, but he certainly advocated the progressive welfare state. He had no qualms about using the force of government to steal from one group of people and give the stolen loot to another group of people. Yet, while advocating violence, King calls himself nonviolent.)

Next, King discusses what Negroes must do to achieve their goals. He states, “The use of creative tensions that broke the barriers of the South will be as indispensable in the North to obtain and extend necessary objectives.” (P. 139.) (Would the North have restrained its hatred of the South if it had known that the monster that it sent to destroy the South would turn on it?)

Then, King condemns the Negro middle class for not enthusiastically pushing King’s agenda. “It is time for the Negro haves to join hands with the Negro have-nots. . . . The relatively privileged Negro will never be what he ought to be until the underprivileged Negro is what he ought to be.” (Pp. 140-141.) (In this and other essays, King gives the impression that all Negroes lived in severe poverty and barely at a subsistent level. So, how can a Negro middle class exist? Moreover, how could a Negro middle class ever have existed under the segregation of the Jim Crow Era? [During the Jim Crow Era, the Negro middle class was growing so robustly that Stalin sent agents to destroy it.])

Finally, King tries to draw Puerto Ricans, Mexican Americans, Indians, and Appalachian Whites into his movement by offering them federal bribes with the War on Poverty. Then, he claims that Negroes are winning rights for themselves and “have produced substantial benefits for the whole nation.” (P. 141.) (Since the country is more divided now than at any time since 1860, what substantial benefits has King’s civil rights movement brought? Whatever they are, King-idolizing conservatives need to support them.)

Concluding, King states that “there is a need for a radical restructuring of the architecture of American society.” (P. 141.) (This goal, the Negro has achieved. So, why are they still complaining?)

King ends his essay by showing his socialist tendencies: “Our economy must become more person-centered than property- and profit-centered.” (P. 142.) (Therefore, King-idolizing conservatives need to stop promoting capitalism and start promoting socialism.)

Because of slavery and segregation, Whites have caused all the Negro’s problems; therefore, Whites should solve them — King contends. Further, Negro’s are incapable of solving their problems and governing themselves — King implies.  Moreover, integration solves all problems, heals all wounds, and leads to universal love — King maintains. How integration undoes all the damage segregation supposedly caused, King does not explain.

One thing about which King is emphatic is that regarding Negro demands, Whites should never be niggardly. Whites have followed King’s demand and have sacrificed their liberty, their property, and everything else that they have, even to genociding themselves, for the Negro.

With sacrificial and even suicidal succor from Whites, Negroes have overcome most of the handicaps that King describes. As a result, they have thoroughly defeated the Whites and are now the superior race. They have enslaved the White race to provide them with all sorts of privileges and benefits.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 1.

More social issues articles.