Do Human Races Exist? –Main Article

Do Human Races Exist?

Thomas Allen

Do human races exist? I discussed this issue in comments to two different articles. First, I discussed it with RN1 in comments to an article in “We Love Trump Report”: “Boston Mayor Defends Sending Out Invitations For Segregated Holiday Party” by Russell Bartlett at https://wltreport.com/2023/12/14/boston-mayor-defends-sending-invitations-segregated-holiday-party/. Second, I discussed it with RN2 in comments to an article in The New American: “Burundi’s President Calls for Public Execution of Homosexuals”  by Angeline Tan January 2, 2024, at https://thenewamerican.com/world-news/africa/burundis-president-calls-for-public-execution-of-homosexuals/#comment-6359761180. I have changed the pseudonyms of the commenters to protect the guilty. The discussions are in the appendices.

If human races do not exist, how can racial discrimination occur? How can a nonexistent race discriminate against a nonexistent race? Further, if races do not exist, then White supremacy and White privileges cannot exist because the White race does not exist. Yet, progressives and liberals who are the most adamant in the notion that races do not exist are the most vociferous at decrying White supremacy and White privilege.

Most progressives and liberals claim that the various human races are social constructs and do not exist genetically. Many conservatives, such as RN1 and RN2, act as though they agree with them. Conservatives do so by asserting that only one race, the human race, exists; races are merely artificial constructs created by evolutionists. Most proponents of the racial social construct theory are racial nihilists, who believe that human races do not exist or if they do, they are irrelevant. 

According to the racial social construct theory, genetics does not determine a person’s race; societies’ arbitrary choice and selection determine it. Consequently, if races are social constructs, then merely abolishing the White racial construct can abolish White privileges and White supremacy.

The best answer that racial nihilists, like RN1 and RN2,  can give to the question of racial discrimination is that the races exist as social constructs, and, therefore, they and their names are fluid and can change at a whim. (In a limited sense, this is true of everything in nature. The names of everything in the universe can and do change from one culture to another and from one era to another. However, the substance or essence of the thing whose name is changed remains the same.) However, contrary to their belief, the genetics of the races is fixed and cannot change — unless the theory of evolution is correct.

Moreover, many White conservatives, like RN1 and RN2, pride themselves on denying the existence of races or at least not noticing a person’s race. They declare that only one race exists: the human race. Are these conservatives ignorant, stupid, liars, or self-deceivers? Even the nonwhites whom these conservatives seem to be trying to placate openly admit the existence of genetic races. These conservatives are racial nihilists who are practicing the new morality of sacrificing their own race, the White race (a.k.a. Aryan, Adamite, or Homo albus), on the altar of humanity. (See "Old Morality – New Morality” by Thomas Allen.)

Although racial nihilists, most of whom are Whites, claim that human races do not exist, nearly all nonwhites claim that they do exist. Thus, nonwhites show more intelligence and honesty concerning race than do White racial nihilists. (See “Views on Race” by Thomas Allen.)

People who assert that only one race exists are calling Moses and God liars. God  through Moses declares in Deuteronomy 23:2, “No half-bred [mongrel] may be admitted to the assembly of the Yahweh; not even his descendants to the tenth generation may be admitted to the Assembly of Yahweh.” (See “Commentary on Deuteronomy 23:2” by Thomas Allen.) If only one race exists, mongrels cannot exist. Since, according to the Bible, mongrels exist, then more than one race must exist.

Also, Jeremiah writes, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?” (Jeremiah 13:23a). (See "Jeremiah on the Fixity of Race" by Thomas Allen.) The implication is that a leopard cannot change its spots. God created the leopard the way it is; genetics fixes its appearance, character, temperament, etc. Likewise, the Ethiopian cannot change his skin. That is, when God created the Melanochroi and the other races, he genetically fixed their physical appearances and genetically influenced their intelligence, character, temperament, etc. Therefore, the racial characteristics of the human races are fixed and cannot change. They are immutable because God fixed them when he created the races. (Although both RN1 and RN2 give God the credit for creating man, they do not give Him credit for creating the various human races. Instead, they resort to Darwinism, although they deny that they are doing so.)

Nearly all race deniers like RN1 and RN2 confuse race, which is genetic, with ethnicity, which is cultural. Almost everyone can distinguish between a Norwegian and a Swede, who are Aryans (Whites) of the Nordic racial type, on the one hand, and a Zulu and a Tswana, who are Negroes (Blacks) of the Bantu racial type, on the other hand. Anyone who claims that he cannot tell the difference is either brain-dead or a liar. However, almost no one can distinguish between Norwegians and Swedes based on physical appearance. Likewise, almost no one can distinguish between Zulus and Tswana based on physical appearance. Norwegians and Swedes are ethnicities of the Aryan race, and Zulus and Tswana are ethnicities of the Negro race. Thus, races and ethnicities are not the same. Ethnicities are subdivisions of a race and are based on culture. (See “Some Comments on Race and Ethnicity” by Thomas Allen for further explanation of the differences between race and ethnicity.) 

Furthermore, a person’s race can be identified with a high degree of accuracy from his skeleton (see “Skeleton Differences of Human Races” by Thomas Allen). Moreover, a person’s race can also be identified with a high degree of accuracy from his blood (see “Of One Blood” by Thomas Allen). Also, races differ significantly in nonphysical characteristics (see "Nonphysical Racial Differences” by Thomas Allen).

Human races are as genetically fixed as are human sexes. (Nevertheless, human races [species] can crossbreed and produce hybrids, as can some species of Canis [the dog, wolf, coyote, and jackal] and Bos [the gaur and the gayal, the American bison and the yak, the American bison and the wisent, the American bison and the domestic cattle, and the wisent and domestic cattle].) Although RN1 and RN2 recognize some of the genetic differences between the races, they reject the existence of the human races.

Moreover, RN1 and RN2 and people like them claim that human races do not exist because the Bible does not specifically use “race” in the biological sense. If they are consistent, they would argue that fungi and bacteria do not exist because the Bible does not mention them. Yet, these people accept the existence of fungi and bacteria. Many things exist that the Bible does not mention. Because the Bible does not mention “race” does not mean that human races do not exist.

Both RN1 and RN2 are racial nihilists and consider themselves conservatives. While denying that human races exist, they claim that they can distinguish between the human races.

RN2 displaces far more intelligence than does RN1. RN1 can only repeat catchphrases that he has heard or been taught. He believes that only one race, the human race, exists. He shows little understanding of why he believes that human races do not exist other than he has been told that they do not exist. 

At least, RN2 can explain why he believes that human races do not exist. Although he is wrong, he can offer a plausible argument for his belief.

RN1 criticizes Mayor Wu of Boston for not inviting Whites to her party. Then, he has the audacity to declare that “we’re all the same race. The Human race.” If we are all of the same race, then her party could not have been racially segregated, as RN1 and the article assert. How could she apologize to Whites if Whites do not exist? Likewise, like most people of his kind, RN1 confuses race, which is genetic, with ethnicity, which is cultural.

RN2 rejects the notion that God created the human races. According to him, Darwinian principles, such as mutation, natural selection, and adaptation, explain the origin of the various human races. Although he denies that he is an evolutionist, he uses evolutionist principles. Furthermore, he claims that evolutionists created biological classification. Yet, the first known classifier was Adam, who named the animals. Moreover, modern-day biological classification preceded Darwin’s theory of evolution by about a century. 

Although RN2 states that the principle of “each after its kind” is correct, he implies that it does not apply to humans. If true, we should see East Asians producing Negroes regularly. Despite asserting that human races do not exist, he claims that he can distinguish between East Asians and Negroes.

Like many Christian “creationists” who use evolutionary principles to explain the origins of human races, RN2 prefers using “people groups” instead of “race.” Many evolutionists prefer “geographical populations” instead of “race.” 

Moreover, he errs when he states that “species” is a term that evolutionists invented in the fourteenth century. Since the theory of evolution came into being in the nineteenth century, evolutionists could not have invented a term that came into being four hundred years earlier.

Also, when RN2 asserts that God does not prohibit mongrels in His assembly, he errs. As quoted above, Deuteronomy 23:2 clearly states that God does not allow mongrels in His assembly. RN2 claims that this verse means that pagans are not allowed in God’s assembly. Thus, he translates the Hebrew word for “mongrel” as “pagan.” He is the only person whom I have encountered who gives such a translation. Most others erroneously translate the Hebrew word for “mongrel” as a person of “illegitimate birth,” “illicit birth,” “illegitimate or unlawful marriage,” “forbidden marriage,” “born out of wedlock,” or a similar phrase.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 2: Appendices.

More social issues articles.

Jeremiah on the Fixity of Race

Jeremiah on the Fixity of Race

Thomas Allen

Jeremiah 13:22–24 (emphasis added):

22 And if thou say in thine heart, Wherefore come these things upon me? For the greatness of thine iniquity are thy skirts discovered, and thy heels made bare.

23 Can the Ethiopian [Cushite] change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

24 Therefore will I scatter them as the stubble that passeth away by the wind of the wilderness.

The implication is that an Ethiopian cannot change his racial characteristics, and a leopard cannot change its spots. Jeremiah is using irony to show that the people whom he is addressing have become so accustomed to practicing evil that they cannot and do not want to change their ways and do good. They are as fixed in their evil ways as an Ethiopian is in his racial attributes, and a leopard is in its spots. The chance of them becoming good is on the same level as the chance of an Ethiopian, i.e., a Melanochroi, changing his biological racial characteristics, which is never. If the racial traits of a Melanochroi can change, then Jeremiah’s analogy fails. Moreover, a leopard can change its spots. Consequently, Jeremiah has declared that the biological attributes of the races, or more accurately, species, of humans are immutable.

The attributes of a species are fixed; they are not fluid and do not change over time.  According to Jeremiah, the biological races of humans, as opposed to cultural and ethnic races, are fixed, and, therefore, they should be considered species. Thus, several extant species of humans exist: Aryan (Homo albus), Turanian (H. luridus ), Negro (H. niger), Melanochroi (H. brunus), Indo-Australian (H. australis), and Khoisan (H. khoisanii).  Lumpers have mistakenly grouped all of these species into a single species, contrary to Jeremiah. (Whom do you believe? Jeremiah, whom God inspired, or modern-day lumpers and Darwinists.) Also, several species of humans are extinct; they include Neanderthal (H. neandertalensis), Homo erectus, giants (H. gigantus), e.g., Nephelium and kindred people mentioned in the Bible, Denisovan man (H. denisova), and Florisbad man (H. heidelbergensis).

(According to Darwinism, species are fluid; they are not fixed. Over time, one species can change into another species. Jeremiah’s analogy, which requires that the characteristics of the various human races, or more correctly species, be immutable, is incompatible with Darwinism. Moreover, under Darwinism, a leopard can change its spots.)

Appendix 1. Melanochroi.

The King James Version and many other translations translate the word “Cushite,” which is a literal translation, as “Ethiopian.” Others use “Cushite.” Regardless of which word is used, both are referring to a Melanochroi. A few erroneously translate it as “a black man, “a black Moor,” or “an African.”

Melanochroi are predominately found in Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, coastal Iran, southern Iraq, the Arabian Peninsula, Egypt, Ethiopia, Somalia, Sudan, Libya south of Tripolitania and Cyrenaica, Chad, Niger, Mali, Mauritania, Algeria south of the Atlas Mountains, and central and southern Morocco.

Appendix 2. The Superiority of Hybrid Theory.

Some people argue in favor of interracial breeding using the “superiority of hybrid theory,” i.e., the superiority of mixed-racial people. Thus, the offspring of parents of different races is superior to the parent races in most, if not all, aspects — intelligence, beauty, strength, health, character, temperament, personality, etc. Even if true, which it is not, the advantages of hybrids are lost in the next generation. The offspring of hybrids are inferior not only to the hybrid parents but also to the parent races of the hybrids. For this reason, hybrids are not bred.

The notion of the superiority of hybrids comes from agriculture. People who promote this theory observe that some crosses of chicken breeds result in superior egg layers. However, if these hybrids are bred, their offspring are inferior to the hybrids and the original parent breeds. Likewise, with hybrid seeds, which result in some superior traits, such as disease resistance and yield, their descendants are not planted because they produce plants inferior to the hybrids and the parents of the hybrids. Furthermore, the proponents of this theory overlook two things. First, many hybrids are discarded before a hybrid with desirable traits is found. Second, unlike human hybrids, which are developed by random breeding, selective breeding develops livestock and seed hybrids. Consequently, the superiority of hybrid theory is highly flawed.

The proof that the superiority of hybrid theory is invalid is Kamala Harris. She is a hybrid — a cross between a Melanochroi (an Asian Indian) and a Negro (a Caribbean Black). Obviously, she is inferior to the average Negro and the average Melanochroi.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Contrasting Machiavelli and Washington

 Contrasting Machiavelli and Washington

Thomas Allen

The author of Internal Relations of the Cities, Towns, Villages, Counties, and States of the Union; re, The Municipalist: A Highly Useful Book for Voters, Tax-Payers, Statesmen, Politicians and Families, second edition (New York: Ross & Tousey, Dexter & Brothers and William Radde, 1859), pages 192-193, contrasts the political philosophy of Niccolo Machiavelli as presented in the Prince and George Washington as presented in his farewell address. His contrast follows.

Machiavelli identifies a hereditary prince at the head of a consolidated monarchy as the best form of government. 

Washington identifies a federal republic under one elective executive as the best form of government.

Machiavelli treats more on subjects, and their prudent management.

Washington treats more political business, and its good organization, distribution, and performance. 

Machiavelli advises his prince how to conquer a republic by ruining it and keeping down influential men.

Washington maintains that liberty ought to be the main pillar of the Union. 

Machiavelli suggests that the prince must manage public affairs, so that in all places, times, and occasions, the people may need his administration and regimen, or that he has his hands in everything.

Washington sees the proper organization and distribution of public business as the best guarantee for the safety of both the people and the government. 

Machiavelli argues that a prince is to have no other thought or study but war.

Washington believes that by our Union we will avoid the necessity of overgrown military establishments. 

Machiavelli thinks a prince may not shun vices and infamy if he can only preserve thus his dominion.

Washington believes that honesty is the best policy.

Machiavelli claims that a prince ought not to keep his parole when it is to his prejudice.

Washington believes that all engagements should be observed in their genuine sense, justice, and good faith toward all nations.

Machiavelli holds that having all the good qualities in reality is necessary for a prince, and to play the hypocrite well.

Washington believes that honesty, virtue, and morality are necessary springs of popular government.

Machiavelli believes that the prince ought to be terrible at home to his subjects, and abroad to his equals.

Washington believes that the ideal is a life under the benign influence of good laws under a free government.

Machiavelli argues that a prince must recommend himself to the world through great enterprises and valor (of course expensive things), and monopolize knowledge.

Washington is for peace, economy, and diffusion of knowledge.

Machiavelli advises his prince never to league with another more powerful than himself.

Washington is against all entangling alliances.

Machiavelli warns the prince of the snares of women. 

Washington warns of the wiles of party and faction.

Machiavelli advocates rank king-craft.

Washington advocates undefined democracy.

The author also contrasts virtues with vices, page 301:

Virtues: Justice, self-control, attention, honesty, veracity, truth, prudence, politeness, piety, charity, modesty, simplicity, economy, patience, sobriety, pudicity, industry, conscientiousness, fortitude, glory, patriotism, righteousness, love, humanity.

Vices: Injustice, carelessness, recklessness, faithlessness, dishonesty, falsehood, calumny, intrigue, slander, hypocrisy, imprudence, inurbanity, profanity, inhumanity, avarice, impudence, extravagance, prodigality, passion, intemperance, lewdness, free love, laziness, treachery, perfidy, cowardice, bombast, treason, villainy, corruption, hatred, vengeance, cruelty, barbarism.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Cussons on the Hypocrisy of the Puritan Yankee

Cussons on the Hypocrisy 

of the Puritan Yankee

Thomas Allen

In  United States “History” as the Yankee Makes and Takes It (1900, third edition) pages 68–69,  John Cussons describes the hypocrisy of the Puritan Yankee. His description fits today’s neoconservatives and especially progressives and wokesters. His description follows.

These new rulers [Puritan Yankees of the 1850s] had chiefly distinguished themselves as the enemies of existing institutions — their political and social creed being, in effect, “Whatever is, is wrong.” They were fond of execrating the Union as “a league with hell,” and denouncing the Constitution as “a covenant with death.” They derided the highest courts of the land as “crimping houses of iniquity,” and vilified the old flag as “a flaunting lie!”

But on coming into power they threw off all disguise, and shamelessly started a war of conquest in pretended defence [sic] of the very principles and symbols which they had so bitterly reviled.

With paralyzing logic they mutilated the States on the plea that the States were “indestructible”; they debarred them from the Union while declaring the Union to be “indissoluble,” and they tore the Constitution to tatters while pretending that they were the only class who reverenced its “inviolability.” Having thus approved themselves the only true champions of “the sacred principle of government by consent,” they rounded out their perfect work by converting the States into satrapies, and holding them under bayonet rule until the conquered peoples consented to ratify the whole of their rump performances.

Puritan Yankees favored secession and nullification until the Southern States used them. For most of the Jefferson and Madison administrations, the New England States, the home base of the Puritan Yankee, threatened secession. Massachusetts threatened to secede because of the Louisiana Purchase and argued that it had the right to secede. When Jefferson attempted to embargo trade with Europe during the Napoleonic War, the New England States threatened to secede. Several New England States discussed secession during the War of 1812. Connecticut and Massachusetts nullified Congress’ call for State militias.

Moreover, Puritan Yankees did not oppose slavery until the importation of slaves became illegal after 1808. Yankees had been the primary importers of slaves. Later, many Yankees became ardent abolitionists. As a result, like many other Northern States, the New England States nullified fugitive slave laws.

However, when the Southern States seceded and ended the “league with hell,” these abolitionists did not want to let them go. By then, the Puritan Yankees had gained control of the federal government. Now, they were going to use their newfound power to force their utopia on the world, starting with the South. They were going to save Southerners from their evil, heathen ways and convert them into the image of the Puritan Yankee. They started their conversion in the South and have metastasized across the world. America’s attempt to create American hegemony across the world is nothing more than the Puritan Yankee trying to remake the world in his own image.

One thing that Cussons seemed not to have anticipated was that most Southern leaders would lose their moral fortitude. Most Southern political, business, academic, and religious leaders would become scalawags. They would sell their souls to the Puritan Yankee and then genocide the Southerner, their own people. What the scalawags have not done, the carpetbaggers have. The genocide of the Southerner is mostly completed. (This genocide has been mostly cultural instead of physical. However, the United Nations considers the deliberate destruction of a people’s culture to be genocide. Destroying an ethnicity’s culture destroys the ethnicity.)

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Commentary on John 10:30

Commentary on John 10:30

Thomas Allen

I and my Father are one. (John 10:30)

[Note: most translations since 1900 use “the” instead of “my.” Contrary to the assertions of some Trinitarians, whatever word is used makes no difference.]

John 10:30 is one of the strongest proof texts of Trinitarianism. According to many Trinitarians, this verse proves that Jesus is of the same substance or essence as the Father. Namely, Jesus is claiming to be one with his Father in substance or essence and by that, his deity. He is claiming that he is one of the persons of the Triune God. Thus, these Trinitarians understand this verse to mean that Jesus and the Father are equal and are persons of the same God.

Some Trinitarians claim that the “are” in this verse proves the plurality of persons, i.e., God consists of multiple persons. For Trinitarians, God consists of three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Further, the “one” in this verse proves the unity of God, i.e., the three persons are one God. Consequently, Wesley claims, “Therefore, if He [Jesus] was not God, He must have been the vilest of men.” Thus, if Jesus is not God, he is guilty of blasphemy. 

If this verse proves that Jesus and the Father are both God, it supports modalism just as easily as it supports orthodox Trinitarianism.  It implies that Jesus and the Father are the same God, but are different manifestations, modes, or aspects of God. That is, a modalist understands this verse to mean that Jesus and the Father are the same person but are different manifestations of that person.

Unitarians understand Jesus to mean that he and his Father are united in will and purpose; they are of one mind and purpose. Their conclusion is supported by John 17:11: “And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.” (Emphasis added.) Jesus prays that as he and his Father are one, his followers may be one, i.e., united in purpose. He was not praying that his followers would become one being or substance.

Not only do Unitarians have this understanding, but so do some Trinitarians, such as Erasmus and Calvin. Calvin argues that Jesus is speaking of his agreement with the Father; he is not speaking of the unity of substance. Likewise, in The Layman’s Biblical Commentary, volume 6, Floyd Filson writes about this verse, “Jesus and the Father are one in purpose and in love for the sheep.”

Some Trinitarians take both sides. If the verse is connected to the text that precedes it, it means oneness of purpose. However, if it is connected to the text that follows it, it means oneness of essence, and, therefore, affirms Jesus’ deity.

When this verse is read in context, it is in the context of the good shepherd (Jesus) caring for his sheep (his followers). Jesus is talking about the unity of purpose. He is not talking about the unity of substance or essence. 

A good Christian claims, “I and the Father are one.” However, he is not claiming that he is equal to the Father, of the same substance as the Father, or God. He is claiming that he is in union and agreement with God. This is what Jesus means in John 10:30. What separates him from his followers is that being the Son of God, he is in perfect union and agreement whereas they are not.

Unity can exist without equality. Unity of purpose and enterprise are examples. Another example is the soldiers of an army; an army has a unity of goals and objectives but is hierarchal in structure (no equality).

Thus, John 10:30 refers to the perfect unity of action and purpose between God the Father and Jesus the Messiah. It does not refer to both Jesus and the Father being of the same essence or substance or to the intrinsic deity of Jesus.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen. 

More religious articles.

Revisionist History

Revisionist History

Thomas Allen

In response to a comment that I made on “MSNBC’s Revisionist History About JD Vance and America’s Failed Wars,” The New American, by Selwyn Duke, July 22, 2024, (https://thenewamerican.com/us/msnbcs-revisionist-history-about-jd-vance-and-americas-failed-wars/#comment-6515624670), I had an interesting discussion with “Confused” on revisionist history. (I have changed his pseudonym to protect his ignorance or stupidity — whichever the case may be.)

Duke’s misleading statements on revision history prompted my comment. My comment was:

A revisionist history is a history that disagrees with the standard orthodox establishment history. It is a historical account based on facts or a perspective that differs from the standard orthodox establishment history, which emphasizes a particular narrative or agenda instead of objective facts. That is, the primary purpose of the standard orthodox establishment history is to declare that the victors had the moral high ground and were not at fault or to advance an agenda of the establishment. More often than not, revisionist history is closer to the truth than is the standard orthodox establishment history. 

(This comment is a quotation from “Another Discussion with the Imbecile” by Thomas Allen.) The essence of revision history is that it significantly contradicts standard orthodox establishment history.

Duke may be the cause of some of Confused’s confusion about revisionist history. He writes that Alexander Nazaryan, a left-winger, condemned JD Vance over who launched America’s failed wars. Nazaryan attacked Vance and claimed that Vance was accusing Democrats in general and Biden in particular for the death of Americans in the Afghanistan and Iraqi wars, although Vance hardly mentioned these wars and did not blame Democrats for them. Nazaryan identified the Republican Party as the party of war because of Bush the Younger’s war with Iraq. Yet, Nazaryan ignored the wars in which Democrats led the countries: World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. Duke called Nazaryan commentary revisionist history. Nazaryan’s historical account may be revisionist history, but that does not mean that all revisionist historians are left-wingers.

Confused maintains that only left-wingers write revisionist histories; right-wingers do not write revisionist histories. However, since progressives, liberals, and neoconservatives write most standard orthodox establishment history, they have little need to write revisionist history. Consequently, right-wingers write most revisionist history.

Among the right-wing writers of revisionist history are Dennis Cuddy, G. Edward Griffin, Jim Marrs, Jack Mohr, Eustace Mullins, Murray Rothbard, Antony Sutton, Nesta Webster, Clyde Wilson, and even Pat Buchanan. (This list is only a minute sample of right-wingers who have written revisionist histories.) Because these writers have written revisionist history, Confused considers them to be left-wingers, even communists. Following are some examples of revision history.

Standard orthodox establishment history claims that the French Revolution began as a spontaneous grassroots revolt of repressed peasants and proletarians against an oppressive aristocracy, monarchy, and clergy. Revisionist historians argue that the French Revolution was planned years earlier and was guided by elites and secret societies. (See “The French Revolution: Part I: The Foundation” by Thomas Allen.)

Standard orthodox establishment history claims that slavery was the cause, even the sole cause, of Lincoln’s War. The North fought to free the slaves, and the South fought to preserve and even to expand slavery.

Revisionist historians argue that slavery was a minor, even an insignificant issue, until about halfway through the war. Tariffs were the primary cause of secession for the Lower South, and the denial of the constitutional right of a State to secede was the primary cause of secession for the Upper South. (Until 1861, most people, including and especially New Englanders, claimed that States had a right to secede. However, once New Englanders and their allies in New York and the Upper Midwest gained control of the US government, States no longer had a constitutional right to secede.) Thus, the South fought against Northern exploitation, and the North fought to continue to exploit the South. Further, the South fought to preserve self-government and not to protect slavery. Most Southerners fought to repeal an invading hoard; if the Yankees had not invaded the South, no war would have occurred.

Standard orthodox establishment history claims that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack. Revisionist historians say that it was a surprise attack for the people at Pearl Harbor. However, it was not a surprise to Roosevelt and his inner circle. They knew about it before it happened. Not only did they let it happen, but Roosevelt facilitated the attack. (See “World War II” by Thomas Allen.)

Robert Welch, who was a co-founder of the John Birch Society, asserted that President Eisenhower was a Communist sympathizer and an agent of the Communist conspiracy. Standard orthodox establishment historians disagree with Welch.

Standard orthodox establishment history claims that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone assassin. Moreover, no conspiracy was involved in the assassination of President Kennedy. Revisionist historians argue that Oswald did not act alone; others were involved in the assassination, which made it a conspiracy. Furthermore, Oswald may not have been the actual assassin. (For more on the Kennedy assassination, see “A Credibility Test” by Thomas Allen.)

One left-wing revisionist history that has become partially, if not wholly, accepted as standard orthodox establishment history is that slaves in the Catholic Latin colonies were treated better than in the Protestant colonies of North America. This history is the opposite of the truth. Slaves were treated better in Protestant North America.

Another slavery-related left-wing revisionist history has become standard orthodox establishment history. That revisionist history was that slavery was the reason for Lincoln’s War. Many Republican leaders, who were the progressives of that day, promoted this revisionist history. Now, this explanation for the war is the standard orthodox establishment history.

Confused is like Imbecile; any history with which he disagrees is revisionist history. The standard definition of revisionist history, which he rejects, is any explanation of a historical event that disagrees significantly with the standard orthodox establishment explanation. (For more on revisionist history, see https://tcallenco.weebly.com/history.html.)

Discussion in Comments

Me: A revisionist history is a history that disagrees with the standard orthodox establishment history. It is a historical account based on facts or a perspective that differs from the standard orthodox establishment history, which emphasizes a particular narrative or agenda instead of objective facts. That is, the primary purpose of the standard orthodox establishment history is to declare that the victors had the moral high ground and were not at fault or to advance an agenda of the establishment. More often than not, revisionist history is closer to the truth than is the standard orthodox establishment history. https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2024/05/another-discussion-with-imbecile.html

Confused: That’s not correct. “Revisionist history” has a negative connotation and is usually applied to leftist manipulation of history.

There are facts relating to events that have happened. Actual history involves revealing and expressing those facts.

Me: If you are correct and I am wrong, then the official explanation of the Kennedy assassination and 9-11 are accurate, and the revisionists are wrong. Likewise, only revisionist historians claim that the Democrats stole the 2020 presidential election. Also, the conspiratorial history that the JBS [John Birch Society] spews out is revisionist history, and, therefore, it has a negative connotation and is usually applied to manipulate history if you are correct. Most revisionist historians do a better job of discovering and explaining facts relating to historical events than do the standard orthodox establishment historians, whom you seem to prefer to believe.

Confused: Your above analysis is incorrect and illogical.

The problem is semantics. You’re defining “revisionist history” in a very anomalous way. The people you’re describing are conspiracy theorists, who may be right or wrong. Here is the definition of “revisionism”: “1 : a movement in revolutionary Marxian socialism favoring an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary spirit.” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/revisionism

By calling correct historical interpretations “revisionism” YOU are unwittingly demonizing them by associating them with a negative label. You can do that if you wish, but it’s misguided and unwise.

Please stop hurting the cause.

Me: Your definition is for “revisionism” and not for “revisionist history.” Nevertheless, if you are correct, then people who question the official history of the Kennedy assassination and 9-11 and present an alternative explanation are Marxist socialists.

Confused: Again, that’s illogical. It’s only “revisionist history” if it’s an incorrect portrayal of history put forth to deceive and warp people’s conception of reality. So if the 9/11 doubters are correct, or at least if they’re questioning the official story in good faith, it’s not revisionist history.

Me: I have concluded that you are like Imbecile; any history with which you disagree is revisionist history. The standard definition of revisionist history, which you reject, is any explanation of a historical event that disagrees with the standard orthodox establishment explanation of that event. JBS’s conspiratorial explanation of various historical events is revisionist history, just as a communist class-warfare explanation of the same event is revisionist history.

Confused: Go bake some cookies, hon.

END

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More historical articles.

A Litmus Test

A Litmus Test

Thomas Allen

Following is a letter to the editor that appeared in The Franklin Times on Thursday, September 12, 2024. The contents of the letter are extracted from “A Credibility Test” by Thomas Allen. After the letter are a comment made by a reader and my response to his comment. I have made some additions to my response, which are enclosed in brackets. Also, I have added some additional remarks at the end.

Letter

A 'litmus test' for political candidates 

[The Franklin Times title.]

Dear editor:

Now that the election season has arrived, people need a way to discern the credible candidates from the noncredible candidates. This simple test can be used.

Does the candidate believe or act as though he believes:

1)The official story of the Kennedy assassination.

2) The official government conspiracy theory of 9-11.

3) The Democrats did not steal the 2020 presidential election but won it fairly.

4) The COVID-19 vaccine is safe and effective.

5) White replacement is a hoax despite Whites falling from 89 percent of the population in 1950 to 61 percent in 2020 and with fewer Whites living in the U.S. in 2020 than in 2010.

If the candidate answers "yes" to any of these statements, his credibility is questionable. If he answers "yes" to two, he lacks credibility. If he answers "yes" to three or four, he has no credibility. If he answers "yes" to all five statements, he is ignorant beyond repair and is irredeemably stupid.

Thomas Allen

Franklinton

Comment and Response

Comment by a Reader

Abel

September 17, 2024 at 12:52 pm

1) what?

2) what?

3) No court has found that the Democrats “stole” the election. Anywhere. Just another right-wing conspiracy idiocy. Just because Trump claims it doesn’t make it even remotely true—pretty much the case for anything this conman says, actually.

4) I’ve had 4 covid vaccines — not dead yet, from either Covid or the vaccine. I’m guessing you think that the CDC is bought, lol?

5) Nobody is “replacing” white people. Racial demographics are changing — why is this a problem?

6) Please look up attributes of a “cult” leader, and you will see that Trump has them all.

“Credible” beliefs depend on verifiable facts, not paranoid delusions handed down from conmen and internet blogs that spin nonsensical and hateful conspiracy theories. I know such dubious “sources” make some people feel like they have “special” truths and insights. For those who get pulled into this alternative “reality,” there appears to be no solution to their madness, unfortunately. Whatever.

My Response

tcallen

September 17, 2024 at 8:35pm

No court has ever ruled that the Democrats did not steal the 2020 presidential election. No court has heard a case on election fraud in the 2020 presidential election. [Courts have dismissed all cases brought before them without ever hearing the merits of the case. This argument that the election was not stolen because no court has proven that it was is like saying no Kennedy was not assassinated because no court has proven that he was.]

You are lucky [having received four COVID shots may explain his derangement]; Franklin County seems to have gotten the placebo version of the shot. If you have bothered reading the studies and articles on the vaccine that have been published since 2021, you will find that more people have been injured or died from the vaccine than from the virus. Further, vaccinated people have a greater chance of contracting COVID than unvaccinated people. [I have probably read more than a hundred studies and articles, most written by doctors and medical experts, on the COVID issue, so I do not speak from ignorance. I suspect that Abel suffers from believing known liars — almost every governmental official and health authority lied about COVID-19 and its so-called vaccine; Big Pharma  controls them.]

For a person who despises Whites and Western Civilization and the great standard of living that Whites have given people of all races, the disappearance of the White race is of no importance. [Abel is obviously a racial nihilist who practices the new morality. Also, he appears to be an albusphobe.]

Moreover, I am not a disciple of Trump.

Additional Remarks

Abel should stop watching and listening to the oligarchs’ news services. They lie all the time and preach propaganda for the benefit of the oligarchs.

Abel writes, “‘Credible’ beliefs depend on verifiable facts. . . .” Everything that I wrote in my letter is based on verifiable facts. (In the White replacement hoax, I even gave some, which can be verified with US census data.) His sources, which are based on the oligarchs' news services, are not. Their purpose is to promote the oligarchs’ agenda of concentrating all power in their hands. Abel may enlighten himself if he would study some of those blogs that he condemns. Often, they contain much more truth than do the oligarchs' news services. Nevertheless, the oligarchs’ news services do contain some truth, but it is heavily laced with toxins. One has to be able to filter out the toxins. Unfortunately, Abel seems to lack this ability. Moreover, he seems to believe without question known liars.

Further, Abel seems to believe the official story of the Kennedy assassination and the official government conspiracy theory of 9-11. To find out what he has to believe to accept them, see “A Credibility Test” by Thomas Allen.

In conclusion, since Abel believes or acts as though he believes each of the five items of the litmus test, he is ignorant beyond repair and is irredeemably stupid. Can he overcome his ignorance and see the truth? Or is he irredeemably stupid? I hope that he is able to repent.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

King on Pilgrimage to Nonviolence

King on Pilgrimage to Nonviolence

Thomas Allen

In “Pilgrimage to Nonviolence,” Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 155–164, Martin Luther King, Jr. discusses liberal theology, neo-orthodoxy, existentialism, social gospel, Gandhi’s nonviolent tactics, and the influence that they had on him. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

King remarks that he was raised in a strict fundamental tradition. However, the theological seminary changed him. He states, “Liberalism provided me with an intellectual satisfaction that I had never found in fundamentalism.” (P. 155.) Thus, he fell in love with liberalism. He writes, “I was absolutely convinced of the natural goodness of man and the natural power of human reason.” (P. 155.)

Later, however, he began to question some theories associated with liberal theology. Nevertheless, the “contribution of liberalism to the philological-historical criticism of biblical literature has been of immeasurable value and should be defended with religious and scientific passion.” (P. 156.)

King “began to question the liberal doctrine of man.” (P. 156.) He “came to recognize the complexity of man’s social involvement and the glaring reality of collective evil.” (P. 156.) (Collective evil rises from the sinful nature of individuals.)

Another problem that King found with liberal theology was that it “overlooked the fact that reason is darkened by sin.” (P. 156.) He discovered that “sin encourages us to rationalize our actions.” (P. 156.) “Reason, devoid of the purifying power of faith, can never free itself from distortions and rationalizations.” (P. 156.) (Thus, King understood the flaws of liberal theology concerning human nature and its underrating sin.)

Although King “rejected some aspects of liberalism, . . . [he] never came to an all-out acceptance of neo-orthodoxy.” (P. 156.) He found liberalism to be too optimistic about human nature and neo-orthodoxy to be too pessimistic. A major problem with neo-orthodoxy is that it “went to the extreme of stressing a God who was hidden, unknown, and ‘wholly other.’” (P. 157.) Moreover, it “fell into a mood of antirationalism and semi-fundamentalism, stressing a narrow uncritical Biblicism.” (P. 157.)

For King, neither liberal theology nor neo-orthodoxy satisfactorily described the nature of man. “A large segment of Protestant liberalism defined man only in terms of his essential nature, his capacity for good; neo-orthodoxy tended to define man only in terms of his existential nature, his capacity for evil.” (P. 157.) King found the truth in a synthesis of the two “that reconciles the truths of both.” (P. 157.)

Then, King discusses his “appreciation for the philosophy of existentialism.” (P. 157.) He was “convinced that existentialism . . . had grasped certain basic truths about man and his condition. . . .” (P. 157.) Existentialism gave King an “understanding of the ‘finite freedom’ of man.” (P. 157.) Also, it gave him an understanding “of the anxiety and conflict produced in man’s personal and social life by the perilous and ambiguous structure of existence.” (P. 157.)

Continuing, King remarks that after entering the theological seminary, he began  “a serious intellectual quest for a method that would eliminate social evil.” (P. 158.) (That is, granting Negroes special privileges and benefits and discriminating against Whites.) He “was immediately influenced by the social gospel.” (P. 158.) (That is preaching socialism and communism instead of the gospel of Jesus and worshiping the state instead of the Father of Jesus.)

Then, King writes, “The gospel at its best deals with the whole man, not only his soul but also his body, not only his spiritual well-being but also his material well-being.” (P. 159.) He chastises religions that express concern for the soul but little concern “about the slums that damn them, the economic conditions that strangle them, and the social conditions that cripple them.” (P. 159.) These religions are spiritually moribund. (Today, most denominations have followed King’s advice and have focused on man’s economic and social conditions at the expense of focusing on the salvation of his soul and morality. As a result, they have become spiritually moribund.)

Next, King discusses his encounter with the teachings of Gandhi, which taught him about nonviolent resistance. (King was a poor student because nearly everywhere he went, he left a trail of blood and destruction. Basically, his nonviolent tactic was to create a situation that would cause a violent reaction from his opponent. Despite his denial, such a tactic is not nonviolent.) He concludes “that the Christian doctrine of love, operating through the Gandhian method of nonviolence, is one of the most potent weapons available to an oppressed people in their struggle for freedom.” (P. 159.) (Contrary to his assertions, King failed at merging love with nonviolence. Never did he show any love for segregationists and seldom for Southerners. Moreover, many of his protests were filled with violence. Most of the others threatened violence if Whites did not surrender unconditionally to King’s demands.)

Although the Montgomery protest was violent, King claimed that it convinced him of the power of nonviolence. (As most of his later protests were violent or threatened violence, he must have been convinced that nonviolence would not achieve his goals. His preaching of nonviolence was for propaganda purposes.) He declares, “Nonviolence became more than a method to which I gave intellectual assent; it became a commitment to a way of life.” (P. 160.) (Based on his action, King gave nonviolence only intellectual assent, but he never committed to it as a way of life — except in words.)

Next, King comments on his pilgrimage to India. He witnessed “the amazing results of a nonviolent struggle to achieve independence. The aftermath of hatred and bitterness that usually follows a violent campaign was found nowhere in India.” (P. 160.) Great Britain and India remained friendly within the British Commonwealth. (First, politically, the British left India. Although King may have wanted many Whites to have no political voice in the United States, he wanted to increase the political voice of Negroes. If India is an analogy for the United States, the Whites, who are the majority, would be the Indians, and the minority Negroes would be the British and, therefore, leave the country or at least eliminate their political influence. Second, King proved that his protests were violent because their aftermath left hatred and bitterness. Only the victors hated and were bitter. Even decades after the Negroes won everything that King fought for and more, the destructiveness of the “peaceful” demonstrations of Black Lives Matter revealed the hatred and bitterness that the victors had for the defeated.)

Then, King notes that following the Montgomery protest, many Southerners were bitter toward the Negro leaders “even though these leaders have sought to follow a way of love and nonviolence.” (P. 161.) (First, the Montgomery protest was violent. King and his followers had created a situation that they knew would result in violence. Second, many Southerners correctly saw that King had initiated a war to destroy the South and its society and culture and eventually to genocide Southerners. Love does not cause people to seek the destruction and genocide of an ethnicity. Since King sought to destroy the South, love did not guide him.)

Continuing, King asserts that the nonviolent approach gives people who are committed to it “new self-respect. It calls up resources of strength and courage that they did not know they had.” (P. 161.) Moreover, “it so stirs the conscience of the opponent that reconciliation becomes a reality.” (P. 161.) (Reconciliation never became a reality. King and other civil rights leaders forced Southerners and later the remainder of American Whites to surrender unconditionally.)

Next, King discusses using “the method of nonviolence in international relations.” (P. 161.) Once, he believed that war “might be preferable to surrender to a totalitarian system.” (P. 161.) However, he later changed his mind because of “the potential destructiveness of modern weapons.” (P. 161.) (How much did his Communist advisors have to do with King changing his mind? Further, when his association with Communists and his Communist training are considered, one must wonder if his definition of peace was a lack of violence or a lack of resisting Communism. Judging from his actions, one must conclude that he meant the latter.) Correctly, he asserts that “we must find an alternative to war and destruction.” (P. 161.) (Unfortunately, King did not find an alternative to war. He and his followers warred against the South and then the rest of the country. Moreover, King’s followers have continued to war against Whites long after Whites had surrendered unconditionally to the Negroes — as Black Lives Matter protests and riots illustrate.)

Correctly, King states that he is no doctrinarian pacifist. (He proved that he was not with his war against the South.) He contends that the church “must call for an end to the arms race.” (P. 161.)

Then, King discusses his sufferings and the lessons that they taught him. Instead of reacting with bitterness, he sought “to transform the suffering into a creative force.” (P. 162.) His suffering drew him closer to God. (Whether his God is Yahweh, the Father of Jesus, is debatable.) 

In closing, King rejoices in his coming victory. However, he errs when he writes, “Old systems of exploitation and oppression are passing away; new systems of justice and equality are being born.” (P. 163.) (Unfortunately, the old system of exploitation and oppression was replaced by a new system of exploitation and oppression. Nevertheless, more equality exists today than when he wrote. However, since equality requires exploitation and oppression, more exploitation and oppression exist today than then. As a result, less justice exists today — for example, sending innocent Whites, such as  Derek Chauvin, to prison. Nevertheless, King would have little objection to today’s exploitation and oppression because Negroes are exploiting and oppressing Whites.)

King has a good understanding of some of the flaws of liberal theology. With a good degree of accuracy, he discusses flaws of both liberal theology and neo-orthodoxy and how each fails to describe correctly the nature of man. Further, he discusses how existentialism influenced him and his journey down the road of the social gospel. Also, he discusses his use of Gandhi’s technique. However, he fails to discuss his Communist training, such as the training that he received at the Highlander Folk School run by Marxist Myles Horton.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Five Yankee Authors

Five Yankee Authors

Thomas Allen

In To the Victor Go the Myths & Monuments: The History of the First 100 Years of the War Against God and the Constitution, 1776 - 1876, and Its Modern Impact (Appleton, Wisconsin: American Opinion Foundation Publishing, 2016), Arthur R. Thompson provides some interesting, but little known, facts about five well-known Yankee authors: Ralph Waldo Emerson, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Henry D. Thoreau, and Walt Whitman. All five were anti-Christian Transcendentalists and proponents of the Illuministic New World Order.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Emerson (1803-1882) was a Phi Beta Kappa at Harvard and a Unitarian minister who used the Unitarian Church to promote socialism. Also, he was a leader of the Death of God movement. Moreover, he worked to change the sacraments and to reduce the essence of Christianity to something called God but without Christ.

Furthermore, he was an early leader of Transcendentalism and participated in the Transcendentalist Club. (Transcendentalism substitutes spiritualism for Christianity and provides an intellectual side to socialism. Although it appears to be a rational, reason-oriented philosophy seeking the truth, it is really a transformation from Christ to antichrist.) 

Emerson went to Europe during the Revolution of 1848 and met with many of its leaders. He was a socialist and a radical revolutionist, who praised Mazzini and  Kossuth, both of whom were revolutionary leaders.

Further, Emerson was a contributor to the Democratic Review and the Dail. (The  Democratic Review promoted the agenda of Young America. The Dail was the journal of the Transcendentalist movement in New England. Young America was a movement that advocated social reform, territorial expansion [American imperialism], national unity [nationalism], American exceptionalism, democracy, democratic participation [expansion of suffrage], free trade, and economic interdependence. Also, it supported republican and anti-aristocratic movements abroad and opposed European hierarchical society. [Young America appears to have been the forefather of today's neoconservatives.])

Additionally, Emerson was a speaker for the Boston Lyceon Bureau. (The Boston Lyceon Bureau sought to indoctrinate people to support a socialist new world order.)

Also, he was a founder of the Radical Club, which he later left, and the Free Religious Association. (The Radical Club sought to influence the arts, letters, publishing, etc. Consisting of the most radical of the Unitarians, the Free Religious Association promoted social Darwinism, rejected Christianity, and promoted rationalism theology.)

Emerson also was involved in the Brook Farm, a communist commune.

Nathaniel Hawthorne

Hawthorne (1804-1864) was a Transcendentalist Fourierist, a member of Emerson’s study group, the Saturday Club, and Young America, and was involved in the Brook Farm. (The Saturday Club was a club of free thinkers and socialists whose objective was to dominate American intellectual and publishing pursuits.)

Hawthorne was appointed an assistant collector of customs in Boston. Later, President Pierce, whose biography Hawthorne wrote, appointed him the consul to Liverpool.

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Longfellow (1807–1882) was an early leader of Transcendentalism, a member of Emerson’s study group, and a member of the Saturday Club.

Henry D. Thoreau

Thoreau (1817–1862) was an early leader of Transcendentalism and a member of Emerson’s study group and was involved in the Brook Farm. Also, he was a contributor to the Democratic Review and the Dail.

Walt Whitman

Whitman (1819-1892) was an early leader of Transcendentalism and a member of Emerson’s study group. Also, he was a contributor to the Democratic Review.

Further, he was a leader of the Equal Rights Party. (The Equal Rights Party came out of the radical wing of the Democratic Party. It was strongly egalitarian and opposed banks, paper money, and monopolies.)

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More historical articles.

The Seventy Weeks of Daniel

The Seventy Weeks of Daniel

Thomas Allen

In “Daniel’s 70 Weeks,” which is based on a lecture by Emma Moore Weston, Charles Gilbert Weston gives a different explanation of Daniel’s 70 weeks or 490 years than that given by dispensationalists. (https://www.gospeltruth.net/scofield.htm.)

Daniel 9:24-27 (World English Bible) reads:

24 “Seventy weeks are decreed on your people and on your holy city, to finish disobedience, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy.

25 “Know therefore and discern that from the going out of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem to the Anointed One, the prince, will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks. It will be built again, with street and moat, even in troubled times. 26 After the sixty-two weeks the Anointed One will be cut off, and will have nothing. The people of the prince who come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end will be with a flood, and war will be even to the end. Desolations are determined. 27 He will make a firm covenant with many for one week. In the middle of the week he will cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease. On the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate; and even to the full end, and that determined, wrath will be poured out on the desolate.”

In Daniel 9:24-27, each day equals a year. The 70 weeks or 490 years began with the Jews returning to Jerusalem from Babylon in 457 BC. Thus, rebuilding Jerusalem accounts for the first seven weeks or 49 years. From the return to Jerusalem until the baptism of Jesus accounts for 69 weeks or 483 years. So far, Weston and the dispensationalists agree. The last week or seven years is where they disagree.

Weston understands the second part of verse 26 (“The people of the prince . . .”) to be a parenthetical statement because it is outside the 70 weeks. Titus is the prince and the Roman soldiers are the people who destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD and turned the country into an uninhabitable desolation.

Verse 27 pertains to the final week or seven years of the 70 weeks or 490 years. This final week is where the principal disagreement between Weston and dispensationalists occurs. Whereas Weston has the final week or seven years immediately following the 69 weeks or 483 years, dispensationalists have a lengthy gap between the 69 weeks and the final week.

Many dispensationalists identify the covenant in verse 27 as a treaty between the Antichrist and the Israelis, who are, according to John, antichrist. After three and a half years, the Antichrist breaks the agreement, and the Great Tribulation begins. Other dispensationalists have the Great Tribulation beginning at the start of the seven years. Most have the Christians being raptured at the Great Tribulation’s beginning whenever it occurs. The Great Tribulation ends when Christ returns.

Weston objects to this explanation. This covenant is the New Covenant that the Messiah makes.

According to Weston, the final week or seven years is “the dawn of the Son of righteousness . . . and the focal point of the Covenants of promise, of typology and of prophecy. . . . This one week is the historical, chronological, moral and redemptive fulcrum of all the ages of the human race.” (P. 29.)

At the end of the 69 weeks or 483 years, God identified Jesus as His Messiah when John baptized him. The 69 weeks or 483 years began in 457 BC with Artaxerxes’ decree and ended in 27 AD when God identified Jesus as His Messiah. In 27 AD, the final week or seven years began. In 34 AD, three and a half years after Jesus was crucified, the final week ended with the death of Stephen and the scattering of Christians in Jerusalem.

Thus, Daniel’s prophecy of 70 weeks or 490 years has been fulfilled. It began in 457 BC and ended in 34 AD.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

King on Paul’s Letter to American Christians

King on Paul’s Letter to American Christians

Thomas Allen

In "Paul’s Letter to American Christians," Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 145–153, Martin Luther King, Jr. presents an imaginary letter from the Apostle Paul. This letter expresses King’s views and objectives. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

This imaginary letter begins with the imaginary Paul discussing scientific and technological advancements. Then, Paul observes “that your moral progress lags behind your scientific progress, your mentality outdistances your morality, and your civilization outshines your culture. . . . Through your scientific genius you have made of the world a neighborhood, but you have failed to employ your moral and spiritual genius to make of it a brotherhood.” (P. 146.) (Hereafter, I substitute King for Paul because King is the real author of the letter.)

Next, King expresses his concern about Christians giving “their ultimate allegiance to man-made systems and customs.” (P. 146.) They fear being different and want to be accepted socially. For many, “morality merely reflects group consensus. In your modern sociological lingo, the mores are accepted as the right ways. You have unconsciously come to believe that what is right is determined by Gallup polls.” (P. 147.) (King is chastising Christians for supporting segregation instead of integration. They supported segregation because they feared being different and wanted to be socially accepted. Today, many Christians support integration because they fear being different and want to be socially accepted. Would King condemn these Christians? Most likely, he would not. Nevertheless, the Christian segregationists follow the teaching of the Bible while the integrationist Christians do not. [See “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation” and “Does God Abhor or Approve Miscegenation?” by Thomas Allen.])

Quoting Paul’s letter to the Romans, King urges Christians not to conform to this world. (Since integration dominates America today, conforming to this world requires one to be an integrationist. That King would condemn conformity today is highly unlikely. More likely, he would rebuke nonconformity because today nonconformity requires one to be a segregationist.)

Thus, King correctly states that a Christian’s “highest loyalty is to God, and not to the mores or the folkways, the state or the nation, or any man-made institution.” (P. 147.) (Since God created humans “and the bounds of their habitation” [Acts 17:26], God is a racial segregationist and not a racial integrationist. Therefore, Christians should support racial segregation and oppose racial integration. King urges Christians to do the opposite of what the Bible teaches.)

Continuing, King remarks that if “any earthly institution or custom conflicts with God’s will,” (p. 147) Christians have to oppose it. (Since segregation is God’s will, then Christians have to oppose racial integration.)

Next, King states, “You must be willing to challenge unjust mores, to champion unpopular causes, and to buck the status quo.” (P. 147.) (For those who lambaste me, I am merely following King’s advice. I am challenging unjust mores of diversity, inclusion, equity, discrimination against Whites, and the genocide of Southerners. I am championing unpopular causes of racial separation, anti-Zionism, and non-interventionism. I am bucking the status quo of integration, amalgamation, American imperialism, and Zionism. Today, King would condemn anyone following his advice because today’s mores, causes [except peace], and status quo are what he advocated.)

Then, King condemns what he considers the misuse of capitalism. He denounces having concentrated wealth in the hands of a few and having “taken necessities from the masses and given luxuries to the classes.” (Pp. 147-148.) However, Communism does not solve this problem because “Communism is based on an ethical relativism, a metaphysical materialism, a crippling totalitarianism, and a withdrawal of basic freedom.” (P. 148.) (At least, King recognizes the evils of Communism. Nevertheless, Communism is the ultimate merger of big business with big government as the two become one.)

King asserts that America’s “powerful economic resources to eliminate poverty from the earth,” must be used to eliminate domestic and global poverty. (Thus, he promotes the redistribution of wealth.)

Next, King discusses the church. He notes, “When the church is true to its nature, it knows neither division nor disunity.” (P. 148.) (When the church replaced the gospel of Jesus with the gospel of King, which grew into wokeism, the church became so divisive that many people left it.) He sees the multiplicity of denominations as a tragedy. (A nineteenth Methodist clergyman agreed with King. He believed that all the denominations should unite as one. According to him, when all these denominations agreed that the Methodist doctrines were the correct doctrines, then they could become one.) King is a proponent of ecumenicalism. (So are Communists and Communist sympathizers [ see “Ecumenism” by Thomas Allen].) He endorses the National Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches and notes that most major denominations are affiliated with one or both councils. (Members of these councils have abandoned the gospel of Jesus and preach the gospel of King, wokeism, amalgamation, and the LBGTQ+ agenda.)

Continuing, King complains about having a White church and a Negro church. (In the South, both Whites and Negroes went to the same church until Negroes wanted to segregate. They wanted to be independent. King wanted to strip them of this independence. Did he prefer Negroes being dependent on Whites?)

Then, King moans about Christians using the Bible to justify segregation and to assert that the Negro is innately inferior. (First, many stories in the Bible teach segregation. Few, if any, teach integration. Second, King does not define what he means by inferior. In surviving and reproducing in the higher latitudes, Whites are superior to Negroes. In surviving and reproducing in the lower latitudes, Negroes are superior to Whites. Turanians are superior to both because they can naturally survive and reproduce in both the higher and lower latitudes. Further, in boxing, Negroes have an advantage over Whites because they have thicker skull bones and a longer arm reach.)

To support his claim that the Bible supports integration, King cites Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” (I assume that King is emphasizing “neither Jew nor Greek.” Jews and Greeks are ethnicities of the same race, the White race. So it does not support racial integration. Moreover, if Paul is taken literally, he is endorsing transgenderism and bisexualism —”neither male nor female.” [If Christian integrationists can use this verse to support integration, then LGBTQ+ adherents can use it to support transgenderism and bisexualism. After all, it more clearly supports transgenderism and bisexualism than it does integration.])

Continuing, King cites Acts 17:26: “. . . hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth.” (P. 149.) (First, whatever blood means in this verse, it is not what King implies. A person’s race can be identified with a high degree of accuracy from an analysis of his blood [for a detailed discussion, see “Of One Blood” by Thomas Allen]. Second, King fails to quote the end of this verse, which reads, “and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.” He does not cite it because it supports segregation. More than supporting segregation, it supports racial separation.)

After citing these verses, King urges Americans “to be rid of every aspect of segregation.” (P. 149.) (Americans did get rid of every aspect of segregation. It has granted Negroes benefits and privileges beyond King’s imagination. It has opened its borders to unlimited numbers of nonwhites. Integration has been so successful that some Negroes now seek segregation. White America is dying and traditional American culture is dead. The Constitution is meaningless trash. Queerdom, wokeism, and Zionism, which controls all, now dominate. Black power has replaced White power. Is the country now better off following King than it was before 1960?)

King claims that segregation “destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible.” (P. 149.) (Integration has been far more destructive. America was much more unified under segregation than under integration. Integration is tearing the country apart — that is the mentality behind integration is tearing the country apart.)

Further, King hopes that “the churches of America will play a significant role in conquering segregation.” (P. 150.) (They did, and the country is dying because of their victory.) The church must challenge the status quo. (Since integration is now the status quo, King would object to the church challenging today’s status quo.) “The church must move out into the arena of social action.” (P. 150.) (It did and now the church is dying. That is the price it paid for replacing the gospel of Jesus with the gospel of King, wokeism, and social justice.)

Then, King offers Negroes advice on overthrowing segregation. They should “[n]ever succumb to the temptation of becoming bitter.” (P. 150.) (Many did, and many still are although they have won nearly everything that King sought and are now the dominating race in America.) They should “move with dignity and discipline using love as your chief weapon.” (P. 150.) (Few Negroes followed this advice. Even King failed to follow it. He claims that love was his weapon, yet his chief weapons were violence and the threat of violence.) Further, they should never hate. (Again, King and many Negroes failed. He hated most Southerners and all segregationists.)

King writes, “If you sow the seeds of violence in yourself you sow the seeds of violence in your struggle, unborn generations will reap the whirlwind of social disintegration.” (P. 151.) (King and other civil rights leaders sowed the seeds of violence. Now, we are reaping the whirlwind of social disintegration.)

Continuing, King states, “In your struggle for justice, let your oppressor know that you have neither a desire to defeat him nor a desire to get even with him for injustices that he has heaped upon you.” (P. 151.) (King, most other civil rights leaders, and most Negroes wanted Whites to know that the Negro had defeated them. To let Whites know that the Negroes had soundly defeated them, Negroes demanded and Whites gave them benefits and privileges that Whites never enjoyed even at the pinnacle of White supremacy and Jim Crow. Thus, Negroes got their revenge.)

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Unitarianism Around 1860

Unitarianism Around 1860 

Thomas Allen 

In Unitarianism Defined: The Scripture Doctrine Father, Son and Holy Ghost; A Course of Lectures (Boston: Walker, Wise & Company, 1860), Frederick A. Farley, describes Unitarianism in the mid-nineteenth century. (Today, like most Trinitarian denominations, most Unitarian denominations believe in woke agnosticism that stresses social justice much more than the message of the Bible. Since man can save himself, the state has replaced Jehovah as the God and savior of mankind. Along with worshiping the state, they also worship Moloch and Gaia.) The following is quoted from his book, pages 255 to 259.

  Christian Unitarianism affirms in the first place — That there is One only God; that He is one Person, One Being; that He is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the God and Father of all mankind. It lays stress not only on the strict personal Unity of God, but especially on His Divine Fatherhood. “To us, there is but One God, the Father.” (1 Cor. 8:6. )

In the second place it affirms — That Jesus is the promised Christ; the Divinely-appointed Messiah or Anointed of God; pre-eminently the Son of God, preeminently the Son of Man: the most distinguished Messenger and Representative, the brightest visible Manifestation of the Invisible God; second only to God in the glory of that office and rank with which He has invested him; one with God by a moral union and harmony of wisdom, will, holiness, and love; acting with the delegated power and authority of the Supreme; by His indwelling Spirit given him without measure, the infallible Teacher of God’s holy Truth; and exalted with the right hand of God to be a Prince and All-sufficient Saviour, to give repentance and forgiveness of sins. “To us there is . . . One Lord, Jesus the Christ.” (1 Cor. 8:6.) 

In the third place it affirms — That the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit, is the Spirit of God; not a distinct person, or person at all; but by and through which, God is always present with us and ready to help, inspire, succor, comfort, enlighten, and sanctify the spirits of His children, will they but seek the precious Gift. (Luke 11:13.)

In the fourth place it affirms — That all men are born innocent; free at birth from all taint of sin and guilt, as they are destitute of holiness; gifted with a nature of glorious capacities, but exposed to temptation, liable to sin, actually sinners; needing the provision which God in His abounding mercy has seen fit to make in the Gospel of His Son for their regeneration and salvation; but free to choose, and therefore, free to accept or reject the offered grace.

In the fifth place it affirms — That the Atonement — At-one-ment — is the Reconciliation of man to God; not of God to man, for that could not be necessary. As the All-gracious Father, He never needed to be reconciled to his human family; but on the contrary, as the crowning expression of his exhaustless compassion and boundless Love, He sent His only-begotten Son into the world, to teach and bear witness to the truth, to labor, suffer, and die for us, that we might live through him. (1 John 4:9.) The divine instructions, the miraculous works, the sinless and perfect life and example, the sufferings and death, the Resurrection, Ascension, and present Intercession of Christ, being all part and parcel of the means appointed in the counsels of the Infinite Mind, for accomplishing this great Reconciliation and Salvation of the world. (Rom. 5:10; 8:30; 2 Cor. 5:18, 19.)

In the sixth place, it affirms — That the Bible is the History and Record of God’s Revelations to our race; furnishing, especially in the New Testament, the Divine, and therefore sufficient Rule of Faith and Practice to all Christian Believers; the Holy and inestimable Volume, which the Inspiration and Providence of God have caused to be written, preserved, and transmitted, for the Religious Instruction of mankind in every succeeding age.

Finally, it affirms — That the present is a life of moral discipline and probation, introductory and preparatory to a higher and an eternal life, in which a righteous judgment and retribution await all, and God will render to every man according to his deeds.

Thus much for the positive or affirmative side. But while thus on the one hand, in contradistinction to all systems of mere Naturalism or Rationalism, Christian Unitarianism affirms the reality of God’s last and fullest revelation in and by Christ and his Gospel, and these as the chief and leading doctrines of that Gospel; on the other, in contradistinction to the popular or received Orthodoxy of the Church, it denies and rejects the following dogmas, viz.:

1st. A Tri-personal God, or Three co-equal, co-eternal Persons in the Godhead.

2d. The Supreme Deity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. It holds, asserts, maintains as earnestly as any form of faith in the Christian Church, his Divinity — his Divine Mission, Office, and Authority; but denies that he is God over all, the Supreme and Eternal God.

3d. The Personality and Deity of the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit; denying that it is literally a Person; or God in any sense, except as the spirit of a man is the man himself.

4th. The expiatory, vicarious, and infinite Atonement of Christ; with the entire doctrinal scheme of Calvin.

Upon other points, Unitarians, recognizing in others and claiming for themselves the right of private judgment, do not entirely agree, viz. :

I. As to the metaphysical nature of Christ.

1st. Some believe him to have pre-existed, the first in order of time of all created intelligences [sic]; — 

2d. Some believe him to have been born of Mary, but miraculously conceived;—

3d. And some rest on his own declaration for the present, and await God’s pleasure for further light; — “No man (no one) knoweth who the Son is, but the Father.” (Luke 10:22.)

II. As to the Future Punishment of Sin. While they agree in rejecting the popular belief in the eternal damnation of the impenitent, and all believe in a righteous judgment and retribution hereafter; —

1st. Some believe, that the sufferings or punishment of the impenitent will terminate in their annihilation; — 

2d. Others, that all punishment under the righteous and benevolent government of God, must be disciplinary and remedial; and must finally result in the universal recovery of the lost to holiness and happiness;

Finally, others believe, that while progress is the law of the soul, the eternal consequences of unfaithfulness here will be realized hereafter, in the consciously lower plane on which the unfaithful and impenitent must enter, and forever relatively continue, in “the world to come.”

One important item that Farley does not discuss is salvation. Is salvation by faith and only by faith in Jesus and nothing else? Or, is it by faith plus something else, viz.:

– faith in Jesus plus baptism,

– faith in Jesus plus baptism and repentance,

– faith in Jesus plus good works,

– faith in Jesus plus reliance on and commitment to Jesus,

– faith in Jesus plus obedience;

– faith in Jesus plus perseverance until death,

– faith in Jesus plus membership in the correct church or denomination,

– faith in Jesus plus belief in the Trinity Doctrine,

– faith in Jesus plus believing that Jesus is the one true God, i.e., he is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,

– faith in Jesus plus speaking in tongues;

– faith in Jesus plus whatever.

Likely, most Unitarians of this era were like most Trinitarians: Salvation was by faith in Jesus plus something else.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.