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.