The Real King

 The Real King

Thomas Allen

Most conservatives claim that Martin Luther King, Jr., is an archconservative. Many believe that he is the greatest conservative ever. Some have even deified him.

These conservatives present King as a nonviolent man of peace who abhorred violence. Let us see what King’s speeches and writings reveal in I Have a Dream: Writings and Speeches that Changed the World (James Washington, ed., Harper Collins Publishers, 1986, 1982) — specifically “I Have a Dream (1963), “ “Letter from a Birmingham Jail (1963),” and “The Time for Freedom Has Come” (1961).

In his “I Have a Dream” speech, King says, “There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day justice emerges.” (p. 103.) Thus, King, the man of nonviolence, promises turmoil and riots until the Negro gets what he wants, which is everything that the White man has.

Continuing, King asks, “‘When will you be satisfied?’ We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality.” (p. 104.) As long as the police use physical force against Negroes regardless of their guilt or resistance, the Negro will not be satisfied. The Negro must be allowed to riot without any penalty, and for the most part, they have been granted this privilege. Moreover, they are often rewarded for their rioting and looting.

Undertaking an action, such as trespassing, that could lead to a violent reaction is not a nonviolent act, even if it is called peaceful protest or civil disobedience. This is especially true if the purpose of the “nonviolent” act is to create tension leading to a violent response as King’s protests often did.

King has a reputation for being a nonviolent, peace-loving person. However, as revealed in his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” he did not shy away from situations that he knew would result in violence. He threatened and even created turmoil to force community leaders to negotiate with him (p. 87), i.e., to surrender unconditionally to his demands.

In this letter, King writes that just laws are to be obeyed and unjust laws are to be ignored because it is not a law (p. 89). He writes, “A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. . . . [A]n unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law.” (p. 89.) In King’s mind, laws forcing integration are just and should be obeyed, but laws forcing segregation are unjust and should be disobeyed. King errs. Since God separated the races (Acts 17:26: “. . . having determined their appointed seasons, and the bounds of their habitation”) and ordained that they should not intermingle and intermarry, then racial segregation laws are just and racial integration laws are unjust. (God is the Great Segregationist. He brought about the greatest segregations ever recorded: the Towel of Babel and the Noachian Flood.)

Continuing, King writes, “. . . segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality.” (p. 89) Contrary to what King asserts, segregation laws are just and moral because they preserve the soul and personality of the races, but integration laws are unjust and immoral because they destroy the soul and personality of the races. Integration even leads to the genocide of the races.

Further, in this letter, King claims that segregation laws apply to Negroes but not to Whites (p. 89). Under a segregated school system, Negroes were assigned to Negro schools and Whites were assigned to White schools. Thus, the school segregation laws applied equally to both races. This was also true of most other segregated venues. (Negroes now demand the right to segregate themselves from Whites while wanting to prevent Whites from segregating from Negroes.)

Moreover, King considered White moderates a greater threat to racial integration than rabid segregationists. These moderates, like today’s liberals, were paternalistic toward Negroes (p. 91).

Also, King condemned passive Negroes for their complacency and the middle-class Negroes who prospered from segregation. They should eagerly and aggressively seek equality with Whites. Moreover, he condemned embittered Negroes who advocated violence and black nationalists. They should seek integration instead of separation (p. 91.)

Furthermore, in this letter, King writes, “If his [the Negro’s] repressed emotions do not come out in these nonviolent ways, they will come out in ominous expressions of violence.” Thus, King warns that if Whites do not surrender unconditionally to the Negro’s demands, violence will follow. Not only have Whites surrendered unconditionally, but many Whites also beg to be genocided. Yet, the Negro is still not satisfied.

Continuing, King writes, “Will we be extremists for hate or will we be extremists for love?” Based on the actions of King and his followers, they were extremists for hate. They expressed a great deal of hate toward Southerners and segregationists. Their actions caused people who otherwise love Negroes to hate them — or at least hated what they were doing. Worse, they caused Whites to hate Whites to the point that today many Whites want to genocide Whites.

King condemned the Birmingham police for their nonviolent handling of the demonstrators. Since the police were protecting segregation with nonviolent means, they were acting morally to preserve an immoral end — segregation — according to King. Near the end of his letter, King writes that “it is wrong . . . to use moral means to preserve immoral ends.”(p. 99.) (As noted above, King is wrong. Biblically, segregation is a moral end and integration is an immoral end.) King seems to have desired a violent reaction to the demonstration — so much for him being a man of peace.

In his article “The Time for Freedom Has Come,” King writes, “Paradoxically, although they [Negro students] have embraced Thoreau’s and Gandhi’s civil disobedience on a scale dwarfing any past experience in American history, they do respect law. They feel a moral responsibility to obey just laws. But they recognize that there are also unjust laws.” (pp. 79-80.) If Biblical laws and principles are just, as King affirms, then segregation is just while integration is unjust. From Genesis to Revelations, the Bible preaches racial segregation and at times ethnic segregation while condemning integration. (See “Does God Abhor or Approve Miscegenation?,” “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation,” and “Is Integration a Moral Law?” by Thomas Allen.)

Correctly, King writes that “an unjust law is one that is out of harmony with the moral law of the universe.” (p. 80.) However, he is wrong to consider segregational laws unjust. On the contrary, segregational laws are just while integrational laws are unjust. Segregational laws comport with the Scriptures; integrational laws do not.

Continuing, King writes that “an unjust law is one in which the minority is compelled to observe a code that is not binding on the majority.” (p. 80). Based on this remark, segregational laws were not unjust. Most were binding on Whites as well as Negroes. As noted above, segregated schools are a prime example of laws binding on both races. Laws prohibiting interracial marriage are another example.

Next, King writes, “An unjust law is one in which people are required to obey a code that they had no part in making because they were denied the right to vote.” (p. 80.) If true, the ten commandments and the other laws that Moses wrote in the Old Testament are unjust because no one had any part in making them. Throughout most of history, all laws have been unjust because people who were required to obey them had no part in making them. Even today, the same is true for minors because they have no part in making laws that apply to them.

In this article, King writes, “They [students] are seeking to save the soul of America.” (p. 81.) Unless the soul of America is large-scale enslavement of Negroes to the government via the welfare state, protection for all sorts of perversions (homosexualism, transgenderism, etc.), wokeism, and flooding the country with legal and illegal nonwhite immigrants, they failed. Nevertheless, if these evils, which seem to be what King wanted, are the soul of America, they succeeded. Moreover, if saving the soul of America required turning the United States into a communist country, which King wanted to do, they succeeded. (Communists backed King because he was instrumental in turning the United States into a communist country, and he was highly successful. The United States have implemented about 80 percent of the planks in the Communist Manifesto — see “Are the United States a Communist Country?” by Thomas Allen.) 

Further, King writes that “if our national government would exercise its full powers to enforce federal laws and court decisions and do so on a scale commensurate with the problems and with an unmistakable decisiveness,” the country could rid itself of the Jim Crow system. (p. 81). Thus, he shows his disdain for the Constitution and federalism when he writes that we could quickly and easily get rid of the Jim Crow system by using the brute force of the federal government, which was done.

Although King filled his speeches and writings with the word “nonviolence,” he left a trail of blood, destruction, and violence everywhere he went. So much for this man of peace.

King’s rhetoric cultivated Black hatred of Whites and turned Negrophilic Whites against realistic Whites. King is responsible for much of what is happening in America today that conservatives find abhorrent. Political correctness and wokeism are natural-outgrowth of King’s movement. However, King’s movement did lead to many special privileges for Negroes — privileges that Whites have never enjoyed.

Moreover, King implies that Negroes have no responsibility for their problems. The cause of all their problems is the White man — especially, Whites who believe that the White race is worth preserving and that next to physical separation, segregation is the best way to preserve the White race. Moreover, segregation also preserves the Negro while integration leads to his genocide.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Traditional American Conservatism

Traditional American Conservatism

Thomas Allen

What are the underlying principles of traditional American conservatism? They are the protection and promotion of traditions, heritage, religious values, traditional sexual roles, strong nuclear families, native fertility above replacement levels, racial integrity, strong borders, immigration restricted to the native race, and a common national identity. That is the preservation of the nation in the true senses and its culture, civilization, and way of life. (A nation or nationality is a people who have a common genetic ancestry, culture, language, and history; who have common traditions and customs; and who are capable of forming or constituting an independent country.) Upon this foundation can be built such values as freedom of speech, a free-market economy, and private ownership of weapons sufficient for the people to defend themselves from a tyrannical government.

Conservatism is not a dedication to abstract propositions, such as “democracy” or “all men are created equal.” Such conservatism is a pseudo-conservatism. Pseudo-conservatism includes neoconservatism, establishment conservatism, progressive conservatism, compassionate conservatism, national conservatism, and other types of conservatism that accept big government managerial liberalism (the welfare state, warfare state, governmental oversight and management of the economy, and homogenization including integration and amalgamation), i.e., the managerial liberal state — all these types of conservatism fit under the umbrella of big government conservatism. (Further discussion of big government conservatism is below.)

Unlike wokesters, progressives, liberals, libertarians, and most big government conservatives, traditional American conservatives do not condone the depravity of the reprobate mind. Thus, they do not accept the public display and promotion of homosexual activity, transgenderism, and other sexual perversions including interracial sexual activity, which the Bible condemns. Transgenders are mentally ill and should be treated as such. Homosexuals and transgenders should receive no special privileges as they do today in the Western World.

Furthermore, feminism and the effemination of men are detrimental to strong nuclear families and, therefore, should be opposed. (Today, most conservatives find sexual perversion, transgenderism, feminism, and the effemination of men acceptable or at least not worthy of opposition.) Traditional American conservatives promote masculinity and strength.

Moreover, traditional American conservatives are racial preservationists and abhor racial supremacy (the desire to rule other races) and especially racial nihilism. On the other hand, nearly all big government conservatives are racial nihilists.

Also, traditional American conservatives reject the notion of equality including equality of opportunity (equality of opportunity can only be proven by equality of outcome). They know that equality is a lie, and to strive for it leads to despotism. People differ in build, strength, beauty, health, intelligence, character, personality, disposition, temperament, etc. — all of which genetics causes to some degree. Since men and women differ significantly, they cannot be equal. Moreover, people who are born into wealthy families have advantages and, therefore, opportunities that people who are born into poor families do not have. Consequently, these differences prevent equality including equality of opportunity. Differences mean inequality. Consequently, equality is a chimera. 

Thus, what passes for conservatism today in the United States is not traditional American conservatism. It is big government conservatism, which is as destructive as progressivism and liberalism.

Big Government Conservatism

Big government conservatives do not seek to roll back the managerial liberal state; they seek to make it more efficient. Now, conservatism is little more than an accounting department for the managerial state. These conservatives prefer to make government more efficient and, by that, a greater threat to liberty, than to reduce the size and reach of government.

For the most part, big government conservatives are the progressives from a decade ago. That is, they have adopted the policies and philosophy that progressives had about a decade ago. The acceptances of homosexuals and homosexual marriages are good examples of this phenomenon. Moreover, within ten years, big government conservatives will accept drag queens performing before school children. Thus, big government conservatives do not stand for any moral principles or any principles that they consider worth fighting for. They definitely disagree with John C. Calhoun, who said “I hold concession or compromise to be fatal.” Big government conservatives are always ready to compromise and concede; for them, that is a success.

Like progressives, liberals, and libertarians,  big government conservatives deny the importance of genetics. Consequently, the environment causes all differences, and the government is responsible for leveling or equalizing the environment to make all people equal whether equal in opportunity or equal in outcome. 

Moreover, big government conservatives strive to appease the leaders of the left. Consequently, they accept liberal pluralism of diversity, inclusiveness, multiculturalism, multiracialism, etc., or at least they do not aggressively oppose liberal pluralism. On the contrary, they vigorously accept and promote multiracialism and often brag about accepting the other aspects of liberal pluralism.

Unlike traditional American conservatives, big government conservatives do not want to dismantle the managerial liberal state. Instead, they want to capture it and use it for their own purposes.

References

Henderson, Ian. “Why Russia and China Are More Conservative Than the West.”  Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. July 2022. Pages 14-17.

Francis, Samuel. “The Managerial Revolution: A Reformation.” “The Rothbard-Rockwell Report.” December 1992.

The Z Man. “Conservatism: The Total Failure of Conservatives.”  February 7, 2022. Accessed February 9, 2022. <https://www.takimag.com/article/the-total-failure-of-conservatism/>

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Was Paul an Evolutionist?

Was Paul an Evolutionist?

Thomas Allen

    If creationists who claim that Adam and Eve are the parents of all the various kinds (races, species) of humans are correct, then Paul is an evolutionist, a Darwinist. In 1 Corinthians 15:39, he writes, “All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes.” These so-called creationists interpret “one flesh of men” to mean that all humans are descendants of Adam and Eve through Noah and his family.
    First, let us see what some commentators have to say about this verse. In A Commentary on the Holy Bible (1939), J.R. Dummelow, editor, writes, “There are many different forms of animal life; so there may be of human life.” Thus, because many different species of animals exist, so may several species of men exist.
    Everett Harrison, editor, suggests in The Wycliffe Bible Commentary (1962) that this verse and those following indicate that a believer’s race will be identifiable in his resurrected body. Moreover, based on Harrison’s comment on this verse, one could support Paul being either an evolutionist or a creationist. He comments, “In the light of the theory of evolution, this is an interesting statement [,i.e., ‘All flesh is not the same flesh’].” Paul could be suggesting that each flesh (kind, species) initially came into being independently of all other flesh. This is creationism and is most likely what Paul intended. Conversely, he could be suggesting that all flesh came from one flesh, which is evolution, Darwinism.
    In One Volume New Testament Commentary, C.B.S. writes, “There are different varieties and forms of bodily life.” Thus, he implies that different forms (kinds, species) of men exist. Likewise, Beet writes, “. . . the immense variety, and variety of kinds, of living bodies.” Consequently, there are several kinds of humans.
    With the possible exception of Harrison, these commentators in their commentary on this verse neither support nor reject evolution or creationism. They merely note that a large number of kinds of animals exist. So, by implication, several kinds of humans exist.
    If all human kinds have one common pair of parents, then, according to Paul, all beasts have one common pair of parents. Therefore, all mammals, reptiles, and amphibians are descendants of one pair of parents. How does a frog turn into a mouse if an evolutionary process is not involved? Likewise, the same is true of birds and fishes; they are descendant from a common pair of parent birds or parent fishes.
    Creationists cannot have it both ways. If different kinds (fleshes) of beasts have different initial parents, then different kinds (fleshes) of humans have different initial parents. If “one flesh of men” means that all humans have a common initial pair of parents, then “another flesh of beasts” means that all beasts have a common initial pair of parents. That is, all mammals, reptiles, and amphibians are descended from the same initial parents. Likewise, so are the various kinds of birds and fishes descended from the same initial parents respectively. Evolution means different kinds descending from common initial parents. Thus, if all kinds of human descended from Adam and Eve, evolution is proven.
    Monogenism, which is what the Church has traditionally taught, supports evolution, Darwinism. According to monogenism, all human kinds (races, species) descended from a common pair of parents, Adam and Eve. Polygenism supports creationism. According to polygenism, each human kind descended from a different, unique pair of parents. Thus, if creationism is true, Adam and Eve are the parents of only one human kind. If (theistic) evolution is true, then Adam and Eve are the parents of all human kinds.
    Biblical creationism is described as “after its kind.” Polygenists claim that each flesh (kind) of beast and each flesh (kind) of man has its own initial pair of parents (flesh) and, thus, is after its flesh (kind). Therefore, creationism is polygenism.
    On the other hand, monogenists claim that all flesh (kind) of beasts comes from the same initial flesh (kind) and all flesh (kind) of men comes from the same initial flesh (kind). Therefore, monogenism is evolution, i.e., Darwinism. If the monogenistic claim that all human kinds descended from Adam and Eve is correct, evolution is proven.
    In The Disaster Darwinism Brought to Humanity, Harun Yahya, a Muslim,  argues that Darwinism is responsible for Social Darwinism, communism, fascism, Nazism, Marxism (from which come fascism and Nazism), two world wars, and many other evils of the late nineteenth century and the twentieth century. It is also responsible for colonialism, imperialism (Islamic imperialism existed long before Christian imperialism or Darwin’s birth), the prohibition against interracial marriages (although interracial breeding is a form of genocide), segregation (although segregation preserves the integrity of the races whereas integration genocides them), and eugenics. Moreover, although capitalism has been retreating since World War I, Darwinism is responsible for the advancement of capitalism (because of the stereotypical criticism of capitalism: individualism, competition, and profit-making and because it is void of charity and cooperation, or as Marx asserts, because capitalism is a vital, energetic, productive engine, yet it is egoistic, individualist, and rights-obsessed, which makes it morally evil.) Nevertheless, Yahya acknowledges that these evils existed before Darwin, but Darwin gave them a scientific veneer to justify them and make them more acceptable. If Darwinism is guilty of these evils, then the Church is just as guilty, if not more so, than Darwin. With its monogenistic teachings, it was preaching Darwinism centuries before Darwin was born. Likewise, Islam with its monogenistic doctrine is also guilty.
    When Paul writes, “there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts,” etc., does he mean that all human kinds have a common initial pair of parents and all beast kinds have a common initial pair of parents? If so, he is a monogenist and an evolutionist. However, if he means that each human kind has a different initial pair of parents and each beast kind has a different initial pair of parents, then he is a polygenist and is not an evolutionist.
    Of course, the argument depends on what is a “kind.” Is a kind a class, order, family, species, or subspecies? Some creationist evolutionists, to use an oxymoron, start with the family; that is, they identify a kind as a family. For example, all species of the cat family are decedents of an initial pair of felines, i.e., a feline kind. Obviously, evolution is involved if all species of cats are descended from a common ancestor. If these creationist evolutionists are correct, then evolution, Darwinism, is proven. The disagreement between creationist evolutionists and secular evolutionists is the starting point and the time required for one species or kind to evolve into another. What secular evolutionists claim that takes millions of years to achieve, creationist evolutionists claim that it takes only a few generations. If kind is not equivalent to a species, or even a subspecies (many of which used to be a species in their own right), then Darwinism becomes necessary, and evolution is proven.
    Does only one human kind exist or do several kinds or species of humans exist? If taxonomists had followed the techniques used to identify species of animals for identifying species of humans, they would have identified several species of humans (and some did identify several human species). However, because of centuries of Catholic monogenic indoctrination that all human kinds descended from Adam and Eve, all human kinds were lumped into one species. (Now, political correctness has replaced Catholic indoctrination. However, with the disdain and hatred of the White race, even by Whites, one wonders why the White race is not classified as a different human species or even a different genus to prevent it from contaminating and degrading the other human races.)
    Today, the primary technique used to identify a species is the ability to produce fertile offspring. As a result, many former species have been lumped together as one species. Because of using this criterion as the almost sole criterion for identifying a species, many former species of the genus Canis have been lumped together. However, taxonomists are not consistent is using the criterion of fertile offspring. Obviously, it is not used for extinct species. Moreover, have entomologists tried interbreeding all species of ants to see if they are really distinct species or mere subspecies of the same species? The ability to produce fertile offspring should be only one of several criteria used to determine a species — and then used more for exclusion than inclusion.
    (For a more detail discussion of polygenism verses monogenism and the classification of human kinds into several species, see Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis and Adam to Abraham: The Early History of Man, both by Thomas Allen.)
    Is Paul an evolutionist? “Flesh of beasts” parallels “flesh of men.” Therefore, Paul must have meant the same thing by both phrases. Thus, if Paul means that all kinds of men descended from a common ancestor, then he would have meant that all kinds of beasts descended from a common ancestor. Consequently, he is an evolutionist. However, if by “flesh of” he does not mean descent from a common ancestor, then he does not mean that all human kinds and all beast kinds descended from a common ancestor, i.e., each human kind, race, species, and each beast kind, species, and many subspecies have a different initial ancestor.  Thus, he is not an evolutionist but is a creationist.
    Dr. Pye Smith, who was a Christian philosopher and a proponent of all human kinds descending from a common pair of parents, wrote,

If the two first inhabitants of Eden were the progenitors, not of all human beings, but only of the race whence sprang the Hebrew family, still it would remain the fact, that all were formed by the immediate power of God, and all these circumstances, stated or implied in the Scriptures, would remain the same as to moral and practical purposes. Adam would be a “figure of Him that is to come,” the Saviour of mankind; just as Melchizedek, or Moses, or Aaron, or David: the spiritual lesson would be the same. The sinful character of all the tribes of men, and the individuals composing them, would remain determined by the most abundant and painfully demonstrated proofs, in the history of all times and nations. The way and manner in which moral corruption has thus infected all men, under their several heads of primeval ancestry, would be an inscrutable mystery, which it is now, but the need of divine mercy, and the duty to seek it, would be the same; the same necessity would exist of a Saviour, a redemption, and a renovation of the internal character by efficacious grace. That the Saviour was, in his human nature, a descendant of Adam, would not militate against his being a proper Redeemer for all races of mankind, any more than his being a descendant of Abraham, Judah, and David, at all diminishes his perfection to save us “sinners of the Gentiles.” (Geology and Scripture, p. 357, Bohn's ed. 1854.)

    Thus, just as Melchizedek, Moses, Aaron, and David were figures of the Christ, who would come as the Savior of humanity, so was Adam. Adam did not have to be the ancestor of all man kinds for them to be saved.  Thus, each kind of human having a different initial pair of parents does not diminish the salvific work of Christ — unless the Israelite-identity folks are correct. (If descent from Adam is necessary for salvation, then descent from Abraham through Jacob is also necessary as the Israelite-identity folks claim. According to Israelite-identity folks, only Israelites, descendants of Jacob, can be saved. Therefore, whether all are descendants of Adam is irrelevant. Only descend from Jacob matters. Without a reliable genealogy, how does one know that he is a descendant, much less a pure descendant with no admixture of non-Israelite Adamites, Aryans, of Jacob? [Non-Israelite Aryans and Israelites are biologically the same.] Most Aryans, like Negroes, Turanians, Melanochroi, Khoisans, and Indo-Australians, cannot be saved because they are not descendants of Jacob, or at least not pure descendants.)
      Either God created each kind, race, species, of men or they evolved from a common ancestry, which is evolution, Darwinism. If the races did not evolve and God did create them, then all good Christians (and presumably good Muslims) should oppose everything that leads to their demise or destruction, including interracial mating. Otherwise, if God did not create them independently, then Darwinism and all the evils that Yahya attaches to it, including genocide, should not matter.
    If God created each race of men independently, then genocide matters. However, if the races of men evolved, then genocide per se does not matter as genocide leads to the survival of the fittest. Unfortunately, most Americans are evolutionists and do not oppose genocide per se. However, they do oppose some forms of genocide while finding other forms acceptable — only the type of genocide may matter. At least 98 to 99 percent of Americans do agree on one thing — be they liberal or conservative, progressive or libertarian, left-wing or right-wing, communist or laissez-faire capitalist, Republican or Democrat, pro-Trump or anti-Trump, pro-Clinton/Obama or anti-Clinton/Obama, globalist or nationalist, Christian or atheist, Jew or Muslim, religious or nonreligious, White or Black, or Yellow or Brown. They all agree that one form of genocide is perfectly acceptable. This form of genocide is interracial mating: breeding the races out of existence. Thus, this proves that most Americans, even most Christians who claim to be creationists, are Darwinists. (Most Americans object vigorously to the genocide of the North American Indians by disease, starvation, and mass killing. However, few Americans show any concern about breeding the North American Indian out of existence. This form of genocide has been much more effective than other forms.)
    Since a key law of evolution is survival of the fittest, no evolutionist should have any objection to genocide whatever its form. Genocide is nothing more than the application of the law of the survival of the fittest.
    Would Paul have condoned or condemned genocide in the form of interracial mating? If he were a creationist, he would surely have condemned it.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.