King on Our God Is Able

King on Our God Is Able

Thomas Allen

In “Our God Is Able,” Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 109–117, Martin Luther King, Jr. discusses the importance of God, evil, colonialism, and segregation. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

Beginning, King declares that Christians are convinced that God exists and that He can “do exceedingly abundant things in nature and in history.” (P. 109.) Moreover, the God whom Christians worship is neither weak nor incompetent.

King rejects the notion “that only man is able” (P. 109) and the substitution of “a man-centered universe for a God-centered universe.” (P. 109.) “The laboratory began to replace the church, and the scientists became a substitute for the prophet.” (P. 110.) Correctly, King writes, “Man is not able to save himself or the world.” (P. 110.)

However, events cause people “to question the ableness of God.” (P. 110.) Evil, both manmade and natural disasters, leads people to question God’s abilities. Why “do these things occur if God is able to prevent them?” (P. 110.) King’s answer is “that there is and always will be a penumbra of mystery surrounding God.” (P. 110-111.) (Instead of admitting their ignorance, especially about questions about God, most preachers will assert that it is a mystery, which may be true, but why do they not simply say that they do not know? Moreover, much confusion about God results from manmade doctrines.)

Although man may believe that he is the master of the physical universe, God sustains it. To defeat man-centered arrogance, King describes some of the things that God has done, such as the God-created solar system.

Then, King discusses God’s ability “to subdue all the powers of evil.” (P. 112.) To Christians, evil is real. “History is the story of evil forces that advance with seemingly irresistible power only to be crushed by the battering rams of the forces of justice. There is a law in the moral world — a silent, invisible imperative, akin to the laws in the physical world — that reminds us that life will work only in a certain way.” (P. 112.) To support his claim, King cites some examples.

To King, colonialism is one of the world’s great examples of evil. (Whether or not colonialism was evil, it brought a great deal of benefits to Africa. Before the arrival of Europeans, the people of sub-Sahara Africa sat on vast unused agricultural and mineral resources. Europeans taught Africans how to develop and use these resources. Europeans greatly improved the health and safety of the Africans. Furthermore, they brought the Africans the gospel of Jesus. Because of the colonial exploitation of European powers, Africans enjoy a much higher standard of living today than they would have if the Europeans never arrived. Nevertheless, colonialism has led to the destruction of the colonial powers. Consequently, contrary to what King would argue, Africa has benefitted more from colonialism than has Europe. To King, Africans exploiting Europe is justice.)

Also, to King, segregation is another great evil. (Since God is the Great Segregationist, how can segregation be evil? While the Bible endorses and teaches segregation and separation, it condemns integration and amalgamation.) Further, King claims that segregation “inflicted the Negro with a sense of inferiority, deprived him of his personhood, and denied him his birthright of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” (P. 113.) (If true, integration should have liberated everyone, both White and Black, from the debilitating effects of segregation. Then, why are Negroes still complaining in this fully integrated America where Negroes have benefits and privileges that Whites never had? Why are Negroes segregating themselves from Whites? Why do so many Whites feel so deprived of personhood that they hate their own race and long for its genocide? Why are Whites being denied their birthright of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — what are affirmative action, quotas, and many other privileges and benefits that Negroes have that are denied Whites if not a denial of the birthright of Whites? In the 1960s, the righteousness of integration slew the evil of segregation. If integration is righteous and segregation is evil, why have the United States been disintegrating ever since? Now the United States are on the verge of shattering.)

King sees the end of colonialism and segregation as “the passing of systems that were born in injustice, nurtured in inequality, and reared in exploitation. They represent the inevitable decay of any system based on principles that are not in harmony with the moral laws of the universe.” (P. 113.) He views the end of colonialism and segregation as evidence of “God working through history for the salvation of man.” (P. 113.) (As noted above, Africans have benefitted more from European colonialism than have the Europeans. Moreover, segregation is in harmony with the moral laws of the universe. Integration is disharmony, which is why the integrated Western world is dying. Integration replacing segregation has nothing to do with the salvation of man. More correctly, the replacement is God working through history to chastise Whites.)

Next, King states, “God is able to conquer the evils of history.” (P. 114.) (Thus, hope exists that God will eventually conquer the evils of integration and amalgamation, which His holy book condemns.) He laments that integration is not progressing as quickly as he desires. Further, he asserts that God is walking with the Negro in his “sometimes difficult and often lonesome walk up freedom's road.” (P. 114.) (Now, Negroes have walked so far up freedom’s road that they can steal and wantonly destroy property with immunity. Moreover, Negroes have enslaved Whites to support them through welfare, job preferences [more qualified Whites have to give their jobs to less qualified Negroes], etc. If a person is unfamiliar with the demographics of the United States, watching American television would convince him that a majority of Americans are Negroes, and American television commercials would convince him that most marriages are interracial. Since the days of King, Negroes have come a long way.)

Continuing, King notes that if people disobey the absolute moral laws of the universe, these laws will break them. (Since racial segregation and separation is a moral law of the universe, the country grew stronger while practicing it. However, since America has abandoned racial segregation and separation in favor of integration and amalgamation, it has been deteriorating toward its death.)

Next, King states, “Christianity affirms that God is able to give us the power to meet them [problems and disappointments]. . . . He is able to provide inner peace amid outer storms.” (P. 115.) Then, he discusses the good times leading people away from God and the bad times drawing them back. Also, people relying on gods other than the one true God results in disasters. (America is witnessing the disastrous results of relying on King and his gospel instead of Jesus and his gospel.)

In closing, King gives a brief discussion of how the Montgomery protest affected him.

In this essay, King gives an excellent discussion on the necessity and importance of God. However, his discussion of evil begins well but ends with erroneous assertions about colonialism and segregation being evil. Colonialism has benefitted Africa far more than it benefitted the European colonial powers. Also, since the Bible teaches, endorses, and promotes segregation, it can hardly be evil.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

King on Shattered Dreams

King on Shattered Dreams

Thomas Allen

In “Shattered Dreams,” Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 87–97, Martin Luther King, Jr. discusses people’s reactions to shattered dreams and peace. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

King begins by writing, “One of the most agonizing problems within our human experience is that few, if any, of us live to see our fondest hopes fulfilled.” (P. 87.) (This statement is one of the most truthful ones that King ever wrote.) Continuing, King asks, “Is there any one of us who has not faced the agony of blasted hopes and shattered dreams?” (P. 87.) Then, he comments on the shattered dreams of some famous men. “Shattered dreams are a hallmark of our mortal life.” (P. 88.) (King may have thought that his dreams were shattered just before he died, but they were not. Most came to pass after his death. He failed to live long enough to see the Negro become the White man’s superior. Nor did he live long enough to see himself and the Negro idolized, and one of his speeches become a founding document of modern-day America. Within a few years after his death, America adopted almost everything that he advocated. However, a guaranteed income is one of his dreams that has yet to come true. Though he did not live to see the fulfillment of his dreams, most of them came true. Now that America is on the verge of shattering, have his dreams made America a better place?)

Next, he comments on reactions to shattered dreams. “One possible reaction is to distill all of our frustrations into a core of bitterness and resentment.” (P. 89.) Such people frequently “develop a callous attitude, a cold heart, and a bitter hatred toward God, toward those with whom he lives, and toward himself. Because he cannot corner God or life, he releases his pent-up vindictiveness in hostility toward other people. . . .  He loves no one and requires love from no one. He trusts no one and does not expect others to trust him. He finds fault in everything and everybody, and he continually complains.” (P. 89.) This type of reaction often leads to various physical ailments and mental problems.

About another reaction to shattered dreams, King writes, “Another common reaction by persons experiencing the blighting of hope is to withdraw completely into themselves and to become absolute introverts.” (P. 89.) These people do not enter the lives of others or allow others to enter their lives. “Such persons give up the struggle of life, lose their zest for living, and attempt to escape by lifting their minds to a transcendent realm of cold indifference.” (P. 89.) They become detached from the world, and cynicism often cripples them. Such a person may become schizophrenic. 

Next, King describes a third reaction to shattered dreams. “A third way by which persons respond to disappointments in life is to adopt a fatalistic philosophy stipulating that whatever happens must happen and that all events are determined by necessity. Fatalism implies that everything is foreordained and inescapable.” (P. 90.) These people succumb without resistance to whatever they consider their fate. They believe that they have no freedom and that external forces control them. “To sink in the quicksands of fatalism is both intellectually and psychologically stifling.” (P. 91.) With his discussion of fatalism, he concludes, “But fatalism stymies the individual, leaving him helplessly inadequate for life. Fatalism, furthermore, is based on an appalling conception of God, for everything, whether good or evil, is considered to represent the will of God.” (P. 91.) (An obdurate Calvinist might dispute King on this issue. To the obdurate Calvinist, man is just a robot executing his God-given program. Otherwise, if man had any freedom, God would not be sovereign. [See “God the Great Programer: Predestination Theology” by Thomas Allen.])

Then, King describes how people should react to shattered dreams. “The answer lies in our willing acceptance of unwanted and unfortunate circumstances even as we still cling to a radiant hope, our acceptance of finite disappointment even as we adhere to infinite hope.” (P. 92.) People should accept their shattered dreams, but they should not forget their dreams. They should turn their defeat into an asset.

Next, King turns his discussion to the Negro. “We Negroes have long dreamed of freedom, but still we are confined in an oppressive prison of segregation and discrimination.” (P. 93.) (Negroes have gained their “freedom.” They have been so successful at slaying segregation that many now seek segregation. [See “More Social Issues Related to Blacks” by Thomas Allen.] Negroes have turned discrimination against Negroes into discrimination against Whites. Has this freedom of which King dreamed made the country any better?)

King asks should Negroes conclude that segregation is God’s will and resign themselves to it. (If they believed the Bible, they should have because the Bible teaches segregation and condemns integration. Nevertheless, King does not appear to believe the Bible and, like Lincoln, quotes it to deceive people.)

King condemns the failure to oppose segregation as blasphemy. (Although it is biblically ordained,) segregation is unjust and should be opposed using his “nonviolent” tactics. “By recognizing the necessity of suffering in a righteous cause, we may possibly achieve our humanity’s full stature.” (P. 93.) (The Negro leaders of the civil rights movement did not suffer much, at least not in King’s sense of the word. Most were well-paid and got to integrate with Whites. Unfortunately, the Negro achieved King’s goals not so much by raising the Negro as by pulling down the White race. The decline in educational standards is evidence.)

King writes, “Our present suffering and our nonviolent struggle to be free may well offer to Western civilization the kind of spiritual dynamic so desperately needed for survival.” (P. 94.) (Regrettably, King’s civil rights movement did not provide Western civilization the kind of spiritual dynamic that it needed to survive. What his movement did was to provide Western civilization with evil spirits that have hastened its demise.)

Continuing, King states, “We must accept finite disappointment, but we must never lose infinite hope.” (P. 94.) Following this advice was the secret to the survival of the Negroes’ slave foreparents. (How does King know?) Then, he describes how he saw slavery. (The slaves who survived the trip and were sold in what became the United States were better off than if they had remained in Africa. If they remained in Africa, most likely, their captors would have killed them because they had no value. On the other hand, if no market existed for slaves, they may not have been captured. Nevertheless, most of their descendants would live a better life in slavery than they would have lived in Africa in freedom — although except for the autocratic kings, witch doctors, and perhaps a few others, no one was really free in the Western sense of the word. For whatever reason, most Negroes seemed doomed to live undesirable lives, whether remaining in Africa or living in slavery in the Americas. However, some slaves in the Americas gained their freedom. In Haiti, all slaves became free in 1804, but their lives did not improve and, in some respects, became worse. If given a choice in the 1950s, most Haitians would have gladly left the land of the free to live in the land of segregation and discrimination.)

King remarks that people should not let adversity stop them from pursuing their dreams. Then, he comments on Paul facing adversity. Although Paul never achieved his dream of going to Spain (as far as we know), he never quit doing the Lord’s work. Paul was never complacent. He had learned “the distinction between spiritual tranquility and the outward accidents of circumstances.” (Pp. 95-96.)

King concludes with a brief discussion of peace. To the world, peace is beautiful weather, plenty of money, a body and mind free of aches and pains, and the achievement of dreams. However, these are not true peace. True peace “is a calmness of soul amid terrors of trouble, inner tranquility amid the howl and rage of outer storm, the serene quiet at the center of a hurricane amid the howling and jostling winds.” (P. 96.)

Through faith in Jesus, a person obtains true peace. (I wonder if King ever obtained true peace. If he is judged by his works, it is doubtful.)

In closing, King writes, “Our capacity to deal creatively with shattered dreams is ultimately determined by our faith in God.” (P. 97.) “The Christian faith makes it possible for us nobly to accept that which cannot be changed, to meet disappointments and sorrow with an inner poise, and to absorb the most intense pain without abandoning our sense of hope, for we know . . . in life or in death. . . . ‘that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.’” (P. 97.)

In this essay, King discusses various ways people respond to shattered dreams. He offers sage advice on how people should react. This essay is one of his more inspiring ones.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

King on the Man Who Was a Fool

King on the Man Who Was a Fool

by Thomas Allen

In “The Man Who Was a Fool,” Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 65–73, Martin Luther King, Jr. discusses the deleterious effects of pursuing wealth, poverty, materialism, theistic humanism, and the importance of the spiritual. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

King begins with the parable of a certain rich man found in Luke 12:16-20, a theme that he carries throughout this essay. If this rich man lived today, “he would be considered ‘a big shot’ . . . with social prestige and community respectability. He would be one of the privileged few in the economic power structure.” (P. 66.)

Continuing, King remarks that Jesus did not call this man a fool because he was rich but because he misused his wealth. “The rich man was a fool because he permitted the ends for which he lived to become confused with the means by which he lived.” (P. 66.)

King contends that each person “lives in two realms, the internal and the external.” (P. 66.) The external world is the material world. It is how a person lives, while the internal world is the purpose of a person’s life, its ends.

Then, King moves toward his social justice: “Religion at its best realizes that the soul is crushed as long as the body is tortured with hunger pangs and harrowed with the need for shelter.” (P. 67.) (Thus, King justifies governments taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Unfortunately, he seems unconcerned that governments only give a small amount of what they take to the poor; they keep most for themselves. Unlike King, Jesus was not a proponent of the welfare state. He wanted the rich man to give voluntarily to the poor because of concern for the poor.)

Correctly, King notices that the pursuit of wealth often makes a person intellectually and spiritually poor. People who make the pursuit of wealth their goal often fail to realize their dependency on others and God. They are “I” people instead of “we” people. They are victims “of the cancerous disease of egotism.” (P. 68.) (Often, King seems to suffer from the cancerous disease of egotism.)

Next, King applies this parable to the present world. He writes, “Our nation’s productive machinery constantly brings forth such an abundance of food that we must build larger barns and spend more than a million dollars daily to store our surplus.” (P. 68.) He urges giving the excess to the poverty-stricken people in Asia, Africa, and South America and the poor in America. (The United States have followed King’s recommendation. Yet, poverty still exists. King fails to investigate why some countries are rich while some are poor. He would discover that the innate differences of the people are the cause of most of the differences. Rich countries exploiting poor countries account for only a small part of the difference. For example, Africans sat on an abundance of mineral resources, but they did little with this treasure until the Europeans arrived and taught them how to extract and use the minerals. Likewise, with enormous agricultural potential, African agriculture was barely above subsistence level before the arrival of Europeans.) Erroneously, King asserts that “we can store our surplus food free of charge in the shriveled stomachs of the millions of God’s children who go to bed hungry at night.” (P. 68.) (Moving food from where it is produced to the stomachs of God’s children is not free of charge. Such action costs a great deal — often more than leaving the food in storage — especially if governments are involved in the movement.) “We can use our vast resources of wealth to wipe poverty from the earth.” (P. 68.) (Too many people are becoming wealthy from the poverty industry to allow poverty to be eradicated. Besides, today, politics is the cause of most poverty.)

Continuing, King discusses people’s dependency on other people and other countries. Then, he follows with one of his favorite statements: “ I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be, and you can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be.” (P. 69.) (Since no one has ever become and never will become what he ought to be, King never became what he ought to be. Because King never became what he ought to be, no one can become what he ought to be.)

Again, correctly, King notes that “man-centered foolishness [ignoring man’s dependence on God] has had a long and offtimes disastrous reign in the history of mankind.” (P. 69.) Then, he condemns the doctrine of materialism. “Having no place for God or for eternal ideas, materialism is opposed to both theism and idealism.” (P. 70.) Next, he discusses some of the absurdities of materialism.

After that, King condemns theistic humanism, which is another attempt to make God irrelevant, and discusses its flaws. It deifies man: “Man is the measure of all things.” (P. 70.)

Using the atomic bomb as an example, King remarks that “science can give us only physical power, which, if not controlled by spiritual power, will lead inevitably to cosmic doom.” (P. 71.) Then, he quotes Alfred the Great, “Power is never a good unless he be good that has it.” (P. 71.) (Unfortunately, most of the time, bad people end up wielding power.) Thus, he writes, “We need something more spiritually sustaining and morally controlling than science.” (P. 71.) When people forsake God, disasters follow.

Continuing, King states that a person dies when he fails to distinguish “between the means by which he lived and the ends for which he lived and when he failed to recognize his dependence on others and on God.” (P. 72.) 

King notices that the abundance that Western Civilization has produced has not brought peace of mind or serenity of spirit. “Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power.” (P. 73.) The hope of mankind lies in people reestablishing the spiritual ends of their “lives in personal character and social justice.” (By social justice, King means integrating and giving Negroes everything that they demand.)

In this essay, King makes several correct observations. He condemns materialism, theistic materialism, and scientism, although he does not use this term. He stresses the importance of not forsaking God or one’s fellow man. Also, he shows the importance and necessity of the spiritual. However, he is somewhat of a Luddite.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Ophir

Ophir

Thomas Allen

King Solomon built a fleet of ships at Ezion Geber, which is near Eloth on the shore of the Red Sea, in the land of Edom. And Hiram sent with the fleet his servants, seamen who were familiar with the sea, together with the servants of Solomon; and they went to Ophir, and brought from there gold, to the amount of four hundred and twenty talents; and they brought it to King Solomon. (1 Kings 9:26–28)

Ophir was famous for its gold: “. . . three thousand talents of gold, of the gold of Ophir . . .” (1 Chronicles 29:4) and, also, Isaiah 13:12, “I will make men more rare than fine gold, and mankind than the gold of Ophir.” Psalm 45:9 reads, “. . . at your right hand stands the queen in gold of Ophir.” Job 28:16 reads, “It cannot be valued in the gold of Ophir. . . .” Other verses mention Ophir concerning gold.
To voyage from Ezion-Geber to Ophir and back required three years: “For the king had a fleet of ships of Tarshish at sea with the fleet of Hiram. Once every three years the fleet of ships of Tarshish used to come bringing gold, silver, ivory, apes, and peacocks [or baboons]” (1 Kings 10:22). Ezion-Geber was a seaport of Edom (Idumaea) on the northern extremity of the Gulf of Aqaba near modern Aqaba and Eilat (Elat) and was part of Solomon’s kingdom.
Ophir must have been a port and located where ivory, apes, and peacocks (or baboons) were naturally available or could be imported. Several locations have been proposed for Ophir. They are the Arabian Peninsula, India, southern East Africa, Malaysia, and Peru.
1. The Arabian Peninsula is the most popular location, although people disagree where on the peninsula Ophir is located.
One possibility is the southwest coast along the Red Sea, where gold was once mined. Thus, Ophir was located in modern-day Yemen. According to Genesis 10:29, Ophir was adjacent to Havilah and Jobab and was associated with the Queen of Sheba (1 King 10:1–10), “the queen of the south” (Matthew 12:42). Ophir may have included part of the adjacent African coast. In ancient times, Yemen was known for its gold production. (To traverse the length of the Red Sea and return should have taken much less than three years. An excuse offered for taking three years is that the ships had to halt when the weather became excessively hot.) Unger, Fausset, Davis, and the Millers favor this location.
Another proposed location is southern Arabia (modern-day Oman) bordering the India Ocean. Smith favors this location.
Still, another possible location of Ophir is between Susa and the Persian Gulf. Because of the winds, a voyage from Ezion-Geber to this location and back might have taken three years. (If this was the location of Ophir, then overland caravans would have been quicker.) Thayer favors this location.
2. India offers several possibilities for the home of Ophir. Favoring India is the algum or almug tree, which is apparently sandalwood, a native of India. Also, the other products mentioned being obtained in Ophir are found in India.
One of the proposed locations of Ophir is the Malabar Coast near Goa. Another possible location is the east side of the Indus River delta. If this is the correct location, the gold of Ophir would have come from Kashmir. Josephus favors the Indus River delta.
3. Several locations along the east coast of Africa have been suggested. They range from the Red Sea to Mashonaland (a region in Zimbabwe). The ruins found in Zimbabwe have been offered as the location of Ophir. Gold has been mined in this area. However, Sofala, an old but now ruined port in Mozambique, which was once known for exporting gold, is a more logical location.
4. Mount Ophir in Johor, Malaysia, is a possible location. This area is known for producing gold. Three years may be needed to journey to here from Ezion-Geber and back.
5. Dankenbring presents the most speculative location of Ophir: Peru. In the evidence that he gives to support Peru is that hieroglyphs on tablets similar to those used in Solomon’s time have been found in Peru and Brazil. Moreover, gold was abundant in ancient Peru. Traveling from the northern part of the Red Sea to Peru and back certainly would have required three years.
Although the location of Ophir is not known and may never be known with certainty, many places have been offered as possible locations. They include Arabia, India, Africa, Malaysia, and Peru.

References
Dankenbring. William F. Beyond Star Wars. Omak, Washington: Triumph Prophetic Ministries 2009.

Davis. John D. A Dictionary of the Bible. Fourth Revised Edition. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1957.

Davis, John D. The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible. Revised by Henry Snyder Gehman. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1944.

Fausset, A.R. Fausset’s Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1949.

Miller, Madeleine S. and J. Lane Miller. Harper’s Bible Dictionary. 6th ed. New York, New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1959.

Smith, William. A Dictionary of the Bible. Revised and edited by F. N. and M. A. Peloubet. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1979.

Thayer, Charles S. “Ophir.” A New Standard Bible Dictionary. Melanchthon W, Jacobus, Edward E. Norse, and Andrew C. Zenos, editors. New York, New York: Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1926.

Unger, Merrill F. Unger’s Bible Dictionary. 3rd edition. Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1960.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Balaam and the Doctrine of Balaam

Balaam and the Doctrine of Balaam

Thomas Allen

Balaam (d.c. 1459–1452 B.C.), son of Beor, lived in Pethor. He was an enchanter, a soothsayer, whom the Spirit of Yahweh touched. Chapters 22 through 24 of Numbers presents the story of Balaam.

The Story
Balak, King of Moab, summoned Balaam, who had come under the power of Yahweh, to come and curse the Israelites with his demonic magical powers. Balak promised to reward Balaam, if he cursed the Israelites. The Israelites had just defeated the Amorites, and Balak feared them.

Initially, Balaam told Balak that Yahweh had forbidden him to comply with Balak’s request. Again, Balak implored Balaam to come and curse the Israelites. This time God allowed him to go, but he had to deliver only the message that God gave him. Balaam went. However, instead of cursing the Israelites as Balak wanted, Balaam blessed them — foreshadowing their strength, the beauty and fruitfulness of their land, and their victories. Three times Balak sought Balaam’s curse; three times Balaam blessed the Israelites. Further, he foretold that Moab, Edom, Amalak, and Kail would become part of the Israelite empire. Later the Israelites slew Balaam in a battle with the Midianites (Numbers 31:8).

Needless to say, the blessings did not please Balak. He became angry with Balaam, ordered him to leave, and gave him no payment.

Later, Balaam went to the Midianites and delivered them a plan to defeat the Israelites with the fornication of miscegenation. Midianite women, who were Melanochroi or possibly Melanochroi-Aryan hybrids, seduced the Aryan Israelite men and corrupted them. (Corruption through miscegenation and interracial mating became known as the “Doctrine of Balaam.”) As a result of the sin of interracial mating, which led to idolatry, God delivered a heavy judgment on the Israelites.

Besides the “Doctrine of Balaam,” Balaam is also known for the “Way of Balaam” and the “Error of Balaam. “Balaam is a type of mercenary prophet, ambitious to exploit his gift financially” (Unger, p. 133) — hence, the Way of Balaam in 2 Peter 2:15. Also, Balaam blunders “in reasoning that God of necessity must curse the nation Israel because of its sins” (Unger, p. 133) — hence, the Error of Balaam in Jude 11. Fausset identifies the Error of Balaam as running greedily for a reward. Kennedy argues that the Way of Balaam and the Error of Balaam are synonymous with the Doctrine of Balaam, i.e., teaching fornication via interracial mating.

Apparent Contradiction

Numbers Chapter 22 – 20 And God came unto Balaam at night, and said unto him, If the men are come to call thee, rise up, go with them; but only the word which I speak unto thee, that shalt thou do. 21 And Balaam rose up in the morning, and saddled his ass, and went with the princes of Moab. 22 And God’s anger was kindled because he went; and the angel of Jehovah placed himself in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him.

In verse 20, God tells Balaam to go with the men. In verse 22, God is angry with Balaam for going with the men as God had told him to do. Why?

Fausset opines that Balaam did not wait for the men to come and call. He writes “Certainly ‘God’s anger was kindled because he went’; for his going was in spite of the former plain prohibition; and the second voice was a permission giving him up in judicial anger to his own perversity (comp. 1 Kings xxii. 15), a permission too resting on the condition, which B[alaam] did not wait for, ‘if the men come to call thee’” (Fausset, p. 71, col. 3).

Clarke agrees with Fausset. In his eagerness, Balaam went to meet the messengers of Balak instead of waiting for them to come to him as God had directed. Because Balaam went without the messengers calling him, God became angry with him.

Smick opines that God became angry with Balaam because of his motive. Balaam went to receive the reward that Balak had promised instead of going to declare Yahweh’s message.

Longacre and Wade claim that the apparent contradiction occurs because verses 20 and 22 come from different sources. Verses 20 and 21 are from the Northern Israel narrative (E), which refers to the Deity as Elohim (God). Verse 22 comes from the Judahite narrative (J), which refers to the Deity as Yahweh (Jehovah or Lord in most English translations).

The Doctrine of Balaam

Revelation 2:14: But I have a few things against thee [the church of Pergamum], because thou hast there some that hold the teaching [doctrine] of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumbling block [sin] before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit fornication.

Fornication is any type of illicit sexual act. It means more than extra-marital sex. It means any proscribed sexual act, which includes interracial sex and mating. For example, homosexual acts are illicit sex and, therefore, fornication. Homosexual acts do not cease to be fornication if they take place within a marriage. Likewise, with interracial sexual acts, they do not cease to be fornication if they take place inside a marriage. Just as the Scriptures do not recognize same-sex marriages, they do not recognize interracial marriages. The fornication that Balaam taught was interracial sexual acts and miscegenation.

Additionally, the Doctrine of Balaam teaches the brotherhood of man and that only one race exists: the human race. Consequently, it promotes integration and interracial mating.

The open borders policy of the United States and nearly all other (formerly) predominantly White countries with their unlimited, unrestricted third world immigration greatly facilitates the Doctrine of Balaam. Most likely, that is why the Luciferian leaders of the West promote open borders. They seek to genocide the race created in God’s image: the Adamite, the Aryan, the White race. With nonwhites flooding these countries, can miscegenation be far behind? Interracial rape is now common in Western Europe. It has been common in the United States for decades.

The Doctrine of Balaam has become the controlling doctrine of the (former) White world. So far, for the most part, the other races have not fallen victims to the Doctrine of Balaam. Most African countries, especially those controlled by Negroes, seek to drive Aryans and even Melanochroi from their midst. The Turanian countries of Asia severely restrict immigration. Thus, the Doctrine of Balaam is primarily a White man’s disease and sin.

Interracial mating leads to hybridization. Total hybridization extinguishes the races that God created. God hates hybrid humans so much that He forbids a mixed bred person (mongrel, “bastard” in the King James) from entering His assembly (congregation) — 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” – NJB.) According to Ezra, if people are in an interracial relationship, they must separate, and if married, divorce. (The only act for which Jesus approves of divorce is fornication [Matthew 19:9]).

Any clergyman who does not teach about the sin advocated by the Doctrine of Baal, interracial mating and marriages, is failing his flock — especially in this age of forced integration and the flooding of the (formerly) White world with nonwhites. Any clergyman who accedes to the Doctrine of Baal or worse teaches it, is a disciple of the Devil. He deliberately leads his flock astray.

References
Allen, Thomas Coley. False Biblical Teachings on the Origins of the Races and Interracial Marriages. Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Company, 2001.

Clarke, W.K. Lowther, editor. Concise Bible Commentary. New York, New York: MacMillan Publishing, 1953.

Davis, John D. The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible. Revised and rewritten by Henry Snyder Gehman. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Westminster Press, 1944.

De Witt, Adam. “Be Ye Not Unequally Yoked Together Through Deceptive Love.”

Douglas, J.D., editor. The Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962.

Jacobus, Melancthon W., Edward E. Nourse, and Andrew C. Zenos, editors. A New Standard Dictionary. New York, New York: Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1926.

Kennedy, Arnold. “Balaam’s Doctrine –What Is It?”

Longacre, Lidsay B. “Number.” The Abingdon Bible Commentary. Editors Frederick C. Eiselen and Downey. New York, New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1929.

Peloubet, F.N. Treasury of Biblical Information. 1913.

Smick Elmer, “Numbers.” The Wycliffe Bible Commentary. Editors Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison. Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1962.

Tenney, Merrill C., editor. The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing Company, 1967.

Unger, Merrill F., Unger’s Bible Dictionary. 3rd ed. (Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1960).

Wade, G.W. “Numbers” A Commentary on the Bible. Editor Arthur S. Peake. New York, New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, n.d.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

A Letter: South Africa

A Letter: South Africa

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The following is a letter written in 1986 responding to an article by Ms. Frances Kendall in Reason magazine.]

    The solution to South Africa's problem offered by Frances Kendall is interesting. If implemented, I would be surprised that her solution would work without some significant changes. Based on the information in her article, her solution contains several major flaws.
    First, she recommends drawing cantonal boundaries without regard to tribal or racial boundaries. Thus, she proposes to commit the same error that has been committed in the rest of Africa. The colonial powers drew political boundaries with little regard to tribal or ethnic boundaries. When they withdrew, the colonial boundaries remained. The result of this disregard for tribal and ethnic boundaries has led to oppression and bloodshed all over Africa. This has happened in spite of the constitutions that most of these countries have which guarantee all sorts of rights for the people. There is no reason to believe that South Africa would be any different. Besides, most Swiss cantons are racially, ethnically, and culturally homogeneous. The German-Swiss and French-Swiss have much more in common than do the Zulu and Xhosa, who are traditional enemies. They certainly have much more in common than these two tribes have with the Afrikaner.
    Another flaw is the erroneous belief that a bill of rights is compatible with democracy. A bill of rights is as antidemocratic as a true monarchy. In a democracy the majority rules. The will of the majority must prevail if democracy is to live. The purpose of a bill of rights is to limit the political power of the rulers, which in a democracy is the majority. But if the power of the majority is limited, i.e., the majority cannot change the bill of rights at its whim, then some sort of minority rule exists. Where a minority rules, a democracy cannot exist.
    Another flaw is the absurd idea that the antidiscrimination provisions of the constitution would be used only against the central and cantonal governments, but not against private companies, associations, and individuals. One needs only to look at the Second Reconstruction of the South in the United States to see how ridiculous this concept is. During the Second Reconstruction of the South, antidiscrimination laws have been aimed as much at, or perhaps even more so, the private sector as they have been aimed at the State and local governments. There is no reason to believe that the Black rulers of South Africa would allow Whites even in a totally White canton to refuse to sell, rent, or provide services to a Black who enters or tries to enter that canton.
    She also proposes to allow communists and other terrorists to participate in formulating a new government for South Africa. Unless she desires despotic socialism, which she seems to abhor, allowing communists to participate is highly questionable. Although there may be one, I know of no instance in the third world where communists have been allowed to participate in formulating a government without the communists or at least despotic socialists eventually ruling.
    In her article, she offers no method to keep the central government from becoming more powerful by usurping the rights and powers of the cantonal governments and the people as the central government has done in the United States and, to a lesser degree perhaps, in Switzerland. Most likely, the usurpation would occur more quickly and more completely in South Africa for at least two reasons. First, there is no tradition of independent cantonal government. Second, her solution seems to require the central government to antedate or be created simultaneously with the cantonal governments; thus, the cantonal governments will appear to be creations of the central government.
    The only difference between her solution and the predictions of the prophets of doom is the method by which the Afrikaner will perish and the amount of time involved. If war comes as the prophets of doom predict, the Afrikaner may perish. But he will die like a man fighting for his race, culture, and homeland. (Oh, if only the rest of the West had this courage!) If her solution is implemented, the Afrikaner will surely perish. But he will die like a wimp as he is bred out of existence. (To die like wimps seems to be the insatiable desire of the West, not only for the Afrikaner, but for all that is European in race and culture.)
    There is, I believe, a better solution to the South Africa problem than the cantonal solution offered by Kendall, and that is, what I would term, the States’ rights’ solution, which, unlike her cantonal solution, requires true decentralization and dispersal of political power.
    First, the boundaries of the cantons should be drawn along tribal, ethnic, racial, cultural lines. This would ensure that the inhabitants of a given canton would have a common language, tradition, culture, heritage, etc. It would greatly reduce internal conflict within a canton.
    Next, instead of adopting a democratic form of government for the central and cantonal governments where rule is by the will of the majority, a republican form of government where rule is by law and where each important political faction and segment of society can be guaranteed some degree of representation should be adopted. The principle of “one man, one vote” should be abandoned. Representation should be proportioned primarily on the basis of the tax base and not on the basis of population. Voting should be weighted in accordance with the amount of taxes paid. The more taxes a person pays, the more votes he should have. This is the market concept of the more wealth a person has, the more “votes” he has in the market, applied to the political process.
    Perhaps the reason that Switzerland is among the freest of countries is that it was one of the last (maybe the last) in the non-Islamic world to grant suffrage to women. In the United States, the rapid acceleration in the growth of government and the decline of liberty began within a decade after women gained the “right” to vote. With few, if any, exceptions, as the franchise has expanded, the government has grown and liberty has declined. With political equality, democracy, has come economic equality, socialism. If liberty is one of Kendall’s objectives, democracy is not the panacea that she believes it to be. As John Randolph of Roanoke proclaimed “I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality.” In other words, one can have liberty; one can have equality; one can have neither; but one can never have both.
    Perhaps the most important principle that needs adopting is Calhoun’s doctrine of concurrent majority. Under this principle, each canton would have the right and power to veto acts of the central government, as far as that canton is concerned, that are, in the opinion of the canton, unconstitutional or unduly infringe upon the rights of the canton and its citizens. This principle could be applied at the cantonal level where important segments of society could have the power to veto acts of the canton as far as the acts apply to that segment. Likewise, each canton should possess the ultimate veto and have the right to secede without molestation or armed conflict.
    To protect the cantons from the central government and to preserve their rights and the rights of their citizens, the cantonal governments should have control of a significant part of the armed forces.
    The plan proposed by Kendall probably will not solve South Africa’s problems. It will surely not save the Afrikaner. The plan that I have briefly outlined above may not solve South Africa’s problems either. However, it does offer the Afrikaner a much better chance of surviving. (I am convinced that the West will accept no solution short of turning South Africa into a Soviet colony with a Black-led puppet government.)
    As an unreconstructed Southerner, my sympathy and empathy are with the Afrikaner. I believe that Western civilization may well live or die with him. Just as the South stood against the world and fought and died for all the nobleness of Western civilization 125 years ago, so today does the Afrikaner. I wish him victory.

Copyright © 1986 by Thomas C. Allen.

More political articles.

Fundamental Christians and Evolution

Fundamental Christians and Evolution

Thomas Allen

Fundamental Christians attack evolution, Darwinism, as a false science. Then, with a few exceptions, these same fundamental Christians resort to Darwinism to explain the origins of the species (races) of man.

With rare exceptions, fundamental Christians are Darwinists, evolutionists. All have the various races descending from Adam and Eve. Since nearly all fundamental Christians believe that the Noachian Flood was global and killed all mankind except Noah, his wife, his sons, and their wives, they believe that the species of man descended from Noah through his sons and their wives.

Consequently, like the Christian evolutionists, they ignore the biblical principle of according to its kind or after its kind, i.e., like begets like —at least so far as humans are concerned. Many believe in the fixity of every species except the human species. They reject Jeremiah’s teaching and believe that an Ethiopian can change his skin. Jeremiah declared the immutability of the races (species) of man when he said, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?” (Jeremiah 13:23a). The implication is no. Thus, Jeremiah testifies that fundamental Christians err when they maintain that all the species of man descended from Adam and Eve or from Noah through his sons and their wives.

According to the typical fundamental Christian, all the species of man descended from Noah’s sons and their wives. Nearly all of them hold that Noah’s sons were of the same race as Noah and his wife. Most seem to agree that Noah, his wife, and his sons were Aryans (Whites); nevertheless, whatever their race is, it is irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion.

However, some fundamental Christians teach that Noah’s sons’ wives were of different races than their husbands. Many believe that Shem’s wife was an Aryan  (Homo albus) and Japheth’s wife was probably Aryan, although a few believe that she was a Turanian (Homo luridus). Most of this school contend that Ham’s wife was a Negro (Homo niger). Since the great sin that brought about the Noachian Flood was miscegenation (v. People of the Flood by Thomas Coley Allen, 2008), that Noah’s sons’ wives were of different races than their husbands is highly unlikely. However, if Noah’s daughters-in-law were of different races, then their races had to evolve sometime between Adam and Noah.

Most fundamental Christians believe that Noah, his wife, and his sons and their wives were of the same race. The typical fundamental Christian believes that the Aryan and probably Turanian came from Japheth. From Shem came the Hebrews, who are Aryans, and the true Arabs, who are Melanochroi (Homo brunus). The Negro came from Ham. Fundamental Christians are fuzzy about the origin of the Melanochroi — probably because nearly all of them fail to recognize this species. Usually, they lump the Melanochroi of Africa with the Negro. They lump the Melanochroi of the Middle East with either Shem, i.e. the Aryans, or the Negro of Africa. About the Melanochroi of India, nearly all of them are silent. As for the Khoisan (Homo khoisanii) and Indo-Australian (Homo australis) species, they usually lump them with the Negro.

Thus, fundamental Christians have a multitude of evolutionary occurrences. If Noah’s family are Negroes, then Ham’s family has bred true, if the Khoisans, Indo-Australians, and Melanochroi usually lumped with the Negro are ignored. Japheth’s descendants evolved into two species: the Aryan and the Turanian. Shem’s descendants also evolved into two species: the Aryan and Melanochroi.

However, if Noah’s family are Aryans, some of the descendants of Shem and Japheth have bred true; others have not. Ham’s descendants have not bred true; they have evolved into the Negro and probably the Khoisan and the Indo-Australian. Some of Japheth’s descendants have bred true as Aryans while others evolved into Turanians. Likewise, some of Shem’s descendants have bred true as Aryans while others evolved into Melanochroi. Why some of Japheth’s and Shem’s descendants remained Aryans and others evolved into other species is not explained.

If the fundamental Christians are correct about the origins of the species (races) of man, only a few generations are needed for one species to evolve into another species. If they are correct, why have no new species of man evolved in the last few centuries? Sufficient time has passed for new species to appear in the last thousand years, but they have not. Why have they not? Fundamental Christians do not explain. If the fundamental Christians are correct, new species (races) should be appearing frequently. (Racial crossing results in racial mongrels, hybrids, and not in new races.)

While fundamental Christians deplore evolution, they resort to it when it is needed to support their doctrine — although most would deny using evolutionary principles. Some may haggle over details, such as, they believe in microevolution, but reject macroevolution. (The difference between the two is the starting point and the time required for one species to change into another species. Microevolution usually starts at the family or genus level and requires only a few generations for one species to change into another species. Macroevolution starts with the first single-cell living entity and requires many generations for one species to change into another species. Both deny the immutability of a species, i.e., according to its kind or after its kind — like begets like. Consequently, they call Jeremiah a liar.) Thus, the fundamental Christian’s disagreement with the orthodox evolutionist is not one of principle, but the starting point and the time involved for a species to change to another species.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Cush and Ethiopia

Cush and Ethiopia

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: Footnotes in the original are omitted. The footnotes contain the King James Version of the scripture being discussed.]

    There is good evidence that “Cush” or Kûwsh, son of Ham, is not synonymous with the region south of Egypt, biblical African Ethiopia. In the Scriptures, it is seldom, if ever, used as a synonym for biblical African Ethiopia. This is especially true for Genesis 2:13, 10:6ff; Numbers 12:1; 2 Samuel 18:21; 2 Chronicles 14:8ff, 21:16; Psalm 87:4; Isaiah 11:11, 20:3, 43:3, 45:14; Ezekiel 28:10; and Habakkuk 3:7.
    Most, if not all, biblical dictionaries identify Cush with Ethiopia, a region south of Egypt. However, most mention the existence of an Arabian Cush. The biblical African Ethiopia stretched from Aswan in present-day Egypt through northern and eastern present-day Sudan into northern present-day Ethiopia. It was the region between the junction of the Blue and White Nile to the First Cataract, the location of present-day Aswan and biblical Syene.
    In the Septuagint and Vulgate, “Cush” is usually translated “Ethiopia.” In the King James Version, Kûwsh is translated “Cush” eight times and “Ethiopia” nineteen times. Kûwshîy (“Cushite”) is translated “Ethiopian” eight times and “Ethiopians” twelve times. Many other translation follow the King James Version. The Hebrew words should have been consistently and correctly translated “Cush” or “Cushite.” Such translation would have avoided the confusion of identifying Cush with modern-day Ethiopia, Nubia, or biblical African Ethiopia.
    Most often, Cush refers to a people or region in Arabia instead of the region in Africa south of Egypt. As noted above, a number of Scriptural passages support this conclusion. Some of them are reviewed below.
    First, Moses married a Cushite woman (Numbers 12:1) of Midian (Exodus 2:16,21; 3:1). Midian is in northwest Arabia and eastern Sinai. Zipporah is the only wife of Moses mentioned in the Pentateuch. Did Moses travel to the Upper Nile to Nubia or Abyssinia to find his wife or did he take a wife in eastern Sinai or northwest Arabia? The latter. (Some commentators claim that Zipporah is not the Cushite woman. Their argument is based on rejecting Midian as part of Cush. However, if Cush was Arabia, as most Scriptures referring to Cush imply, instead of Abyssinia or Nubia, then this claim loses its weight.) Cushites include Midianites and other Arabic people. In Habakkuk 3:7 Cushan is mentioned in parallel with Midian identifying two names for the same region. (In Hebrew “cushan” (kûwshân) is believe to be derived from “cush”(kûwsh).  Hence, “cushan” is another name for “cush.”) In Judges 1:16, Moses’ father-in-law is called a Kenite. The Midianites, Kenites, and Cushites referred to in these passages are all the same people.
    Second, in Ezekiel 29:10, God says that He will make Mizraim (or Egypt) a land of desolation from the tower of Syene (Seveneh) to the borders of Cush. Syene was Aswan near the Nile’s first cataract on the border of Egypt and Nubia (Ethiopia). If Cush is synonymous with Ethiopia, then the passage reads, “from Ethiopia to Ethiopia,” which is nonsensical. However, from Syene to Cush beyond the Isthmus of Suez gives the passage sense. Cush refers to Egypt’s eastern border, not its southern border. Hence, Cush refers to Arabia or a region of Arabia.
    Third, in Genesis 10:7-8, lists the descendants of Cush: Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, Sabtechah, Sheba, Dedan, and Nimrod. Nimrod is associated with Mesopotamia. The remainder are associated with the Arabian Peninsula. However, Seba appears to have crossed over to Africa and settled along the coast of present-day Ethiopia and Djibouti.
    Fourth, in Genesis 2:13, before the Noachian Flood, Cush was identified with Mesopotamia. This identification assumes that Eden was in or near Mesopotamia. However, because “Cush” is translated “Ethiopia,” some place Eden in present-day Ethiopia. Thus, the four rivers flowing from Eden are the White Nile, The Blue Nile, the Atbara, and the Tekezé (Takkaze). More likely, Eden was where the Pamir Plateau of Central Asia is now with the four rivers being the Indus, the Jaxartes (Syr Darya), the Oxus (Amu Darya), and the Tarim (see Allen’s Adam to Abraham for a more detailed discussion). This would place the original Cush in Central Asia. In any event, it is not in Africa where the King James version places it. However, if the Noachian Flood was global, trying to locate Eden based on post-Flood geography is ridiculous. After the Flood washed away all land and covered much of the planet with sedimentary deposits, which in some place is more than a mile thick, the geography before the Flood bears no resemblance to the geography after it.
    Fifth, the description given in Isaiah 11:11 indicates that Cush is Arabia. This verse names countries to which the Jews were dispersed during the Exile. Pathros was part of Egypt (Ezekiel 29:4). Hamath was north of Phoenicia. Elam and Shinar bordered the Persian Gulf. Islands of the sea were the islands of Greece and the Mediterranean. Cush must have represented Arabia and not some country 1500 miles away. If Cush is Arabia, then the countries named circumscribe Judea. That Jews were dispersed to nearby Arabia, part of which was under the rule of Babylon, is highly probable and likely. That Jews were dispersed to a far away country beyond the southern border of Egypt and beyond Babylon’s rule is highly improbable and unlikely. Furthermore, if Cush here is not equivalent to Arabia, then this immense peninsula, which was very familiar — much more so than Ethiopia — to the Judeans, would be omitted from the list of countries around Judea. (The King James Version got this one right.) Moreover, the Jews were recalled from the regions in which the remnant remained. However, at that time, the Jews had never colonized Ethiopia and were never carried there in their captivity.
    Sixth, according to 2 Chronicles 14:13, the Cushites (or Ethiopians) fled to Gerar, which is located in southern Palestine in the foothills of Judean mountains in southern Philistia; it was between the Kingdom of Judea and the wilderness of Shur and Paran. Hence, it is the extreme northwest of Cush (Arabia) to which Zerah fled. Thus, the battle was in northwest Arabia. Zerah was probably a powerful chieftain coming out of Arabia instead of a Nubian from south of Egypt.
    Seventh, in 2 Chronicles 21:16, the Arabs are described as being near, living near, or located by the Cushites (or Ethiopians in most translations). In this verse, Cushites must be in Arabia instead of Africa. Arabs at this time were much nearer Arabia than Africa.
    Eighth, in Psalm 87:4, the Psalmist names Rahab (or Egypt), Babylon, Philistia, Tyre, and Ethiopia (Cush). This verse describes the countries encompassing Zion or Judea: Rahab to the south and southwest, Philistia to the west, Tyre to the northwest and north, Babylon to the north and east, Cush to the southeast and south. Here Cush must refer to Arabia, not Africa, to complete the encompassing.
    Several verses are occasionally cited to prove that Ethiopia (Cush) was south of Egypt and, therefore, Ethiopians were Negroes. These verses include 2 Kings 19:9; 2 Chronicles 14:9-14; Isaiah 20:3-5, 43:3, 45:14; Jeremiah 13:23, 46:9; and Ezekiel 30:5, 38:2-6. A few of these are discussed below.
    First, Jeremiah 13:23 is used to prove that Ethiopians were Negroes; thus, Ethiopia would then be in Africa south of Egypt. This verse does not identify the race of the Ethiopians and, therefore, does not prove that Ethiopians were Negroes (they were Melanochroi regardless of their location in Nubia and Abyssinia or Arabia). However, this verse does imply the immutability of the races, species, of humans.
    Second, in 2 Kings 19:9, Tirhakah, king of Ethiopia (Cush) was more likely an Arab than an African. The king of Assyria observed Tirhakah advancing toward Hezekiah. The Assyrian king’s ambassador advised Hezekiah that Tirhakah would not save Judea from the Assyrians. Was it more likely that the Assyrians learned of an African army before Hezekiah, whose kingdom was contiguous Africa? Or, was it more likely that the Assyrians would have notice an army coming out of Arabia before Hezekiah did? One point in favor of Tirhakah coming from Africa instead of Arabia is that African Ethiopians had recently gained control of Egypt.
    Third, excluding Magog, which is unidentifiable, although some believe it is Russia, the nations described in Ezekiel 38:2-6 are in or around Assyria if Cush is understood to mean Arabia instead of the region south of Egypt and Libya is not the region west of Egypt. The King James Version translates bow as Libya. Most other translations translates bow as “Put” (In Genesis 10:6 and 1 Chronicles 1:8, the King James Version translates bow as Phut, and elsewhere it translates it as “Libya” or “Libyans.”) Although the location of Put or Phut is disputed, most place it in Africa. It is most commonly identified with Libya. It is also identified as east Africa bordering the Red Sea, i.e., from Upper Egypt to Somaliland. Based on the assumption that Cush is the region south of Egypt, Put has been identified with Punt, present-day Somaliland. If Cush is in Arabia and Lud refers to the Lydians in northeast Egypt (see the discussion on Lud below), then Put would be to the east of Egypt. “According to Glaser the name [Put] first referred to E. Arabia, was then transferred to the S. Arabian incense coast, and was eventually applied to the African coast of Somaliland” (Davis p, 504).
    Fourth, Ezekiel 30:5 mentions Cush (Ethiopia, KJV) together with Put (Libya, KJV), Lud (Lydia, KJV), and Chub. Chub or Cub is probably Lub or Lubim. Like Lub, Cub is generally identified as Lybia. Likewise, Lud or Ludim is often identified as Libya. However, some identify Lud with the Lydians who came from Lydia in Asia Minor and settled in northeast Egypt. Others identify Lud with a Berber tribe, a tribe in Cyrenaica, or Ionian and Carian mercenaries. Another possibility is mercenaries from Lydia in Asia Minor. In any event, Lubim were mercenaries, who were famous as archers. Nevertheless, the connection of the countries mentioned in Ezekiel 30:5 implies a geographical proximity. However, the proximity may be to the east of Egypt as well as to the south of Egypt. Arabia is a better choice because the Cushites are known to have settle in Arabia. However, that the Cushites or any other Hamites settle south of Egypt is doubtful.
    When the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek, the Septuagint translation, the translators translated “Cush” as “Ethiopia.” It is this maltranslation that has led to confusion of the Arabs with Nubians and the Arabian Peninsula with the Upper Nile.
    In Greek “Ethiopian” means “scorched-face” or “burned-face.” Hence, “Ethiopian” is a dark-complexioned person, such as a suntanned Arab. It was applied to the inhabitants of Arabia and northwest India. Herodotus described Asiatic Ethiopians in the army of Xerxes, who were different from the African Ethiopians. Only later, after 525 B. C., did the Greeks become aware of the Nubians, who were Melanochroi, and true Negroes south of Egypt. Over time “Ethiopian” became reserved only for these people.
    In summary “Cush” refers to Arabia in its widest sense and Arabian tribes, who are mostly a dark-complexion, Melanochroi, in chapter ten of Genesis. With perhaps the exception of a few passages in the later books of the Bible where geographical precision is sacrificed for poetry, “Cush” means Arabia not Abyssinia or Nubia. Where it may refer to an African people, it refers to Nubians and true Ethiopians, neither of whom are Negroes, but who are Melanochroi. It never includes any of the Negro races.

References
Allen, Thomas Coley. Adam to Abraham: The Early History of Man. Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Company, 1998.

Allen, Thomas Coley. Integration Is Genocide. Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Company, 1997.

Davis, John D. The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible. Revised by Henry Snyder Gehman. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1944.

Douglas, J.D. et al., editors. The New Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids: Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962.

Fausset, A.R. Fausset’s Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1949.

Jacobus, Melanchthon W., Edward E. Norse, and Andrew C. Zenos, editors. A New Standard Bible Dictionary. New York, New York: Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1926.

Miller, Madeleine S. and J. Lane Miller. Harper’s Bible Dictionary. 6th ed. New York, New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1959.

Unger, Merrill F. Unger’s Bible Dictionary. 3rd edition. Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1960.

Winchell, Alexander. Preadamites or a Demonstration of the Existence of Men Before Adam; Together with a Study of Their Condition, Antiquity, Racial Affinities, and Progressive Dispersion over the Earth. Fourth Edition. Chicago, Illinois: S.C. Griggs and Company, 1888.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Economic Advantage

Economic Advantage

Thomas Allen

One argument that libertarians and other proponents of free trade use is economic advantage. That is, if country A excels in producing agricultural products and country B excels in producing agricultural implements, A benefits from trading its agricultural products for country B’s agricultural implements instead of manufacturing them itself — and vice versa.

For example, the South excelled in producing cotton and tobacco. Great Britain excelled in manufacturing fabric, tools, and other manufactured products. So, the South traded its agricultural products for British manufactured goods and vice versa. For that reason, the North imposed protective tariffs on manufactured products to give itself an economic advantage over Great Britain.

However, few libertarians and other proponents of economic advantage see any advantage of one race or culture over another. To them, all cultures and, especially, races are equal. If they acknowledge that races and cultures cause economic advantage, then they would have to advocate policies to protect and preserve racial and cultural differences and, consequently, racial and cultural advantages. To keep the advantages of different races and cultures from disappearing, they would have to promote segregation and separation, which is highly politically incorrect.

Libertarians and other proponents of free trade either ignore or fail to realize the importance of race and culture. Race determines culture, and culture determines economic advantage.

Although the natural resources of a country are important, race and culture are more important. They decide if anything is done with them and what is done with them. Africa is a prime example of race and culture determining economic advantage. Great mineral treasures and agricultural potential lie in Sub-Sahara Africa. From their creation, Negroes and Khoisans have inhabited this region. Yet, they did little to develop it. Until the Aryan settlers arrived, the Negro’s most important export was slaves — first to the Melanochroi and then to the Aryans of Europe and later New England. Aryans developed Africa’s mineral resources and agricultural potential.

An example of cultural impact on economic advantage occurred in Europe during the Middle Ages. The Church prohibited the charging of interest on loans. So, if a clergyman, king, nobleman, or merchant needed to borrow money, they had to borrow from the Jews, who were not covered under the Church’s anti-usury edict. Thus, culture gave Jews an economic advantage in lending and later banking.

To retain and maintain economic advantage, racial and cultural advantages, i.e., differences, have to be protected and preserved because economic advantage grows out of racial and cultural advantages. To retain and maintain cultural advantage, races have to be protected and preserved because culture grows out of race. (Race precedes culture and, therefore, makes a culture.) Segregation and separation are the only sure way to preserve and protect the races, and, thus, they are the only ways to maintain economic advantage. Goods and services can cross borders without people (immigrants) crossing borders freely — especially, immigrants of different races and alien cultures.

Contrary to what libertarians and other proponents of free trade may believe, racial and cultural diversity and, therefore, advantages and differences are at least as important as, if not more important than, economic advantage. All are necessary for the well-being of mankind. Economic advantage depends heavily on culture, and culture is the product of race. Therefore, if economic advantage is to be retained and maintained, the races have to be protected and preserved. Only segregation and separation can protect and preserve them, and, by that, retain and maintain economic advantage.

Copyright © 2019, by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on economics.

A Letter: Communist Democracy, Genocide, Fascism

A Letter: Communist Democracy, Genocide, Fascism

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The following is a letter written in 1990 responding to Mr. Howard Ruff about an article that he wrote for his newsletter, “The Ruff Times.”]

    I agree with your comments in the March 12, 1990, issue of “The Ruff Times” about the dangers of Gorbachev consolidating power in his hands. Anyone who prefers liberty to despotism seeks to decentralize and disperse power rather than to centralize and concentrate it as Gorbachev is doing.
    However, I disagree with you that “communist democracy” is an oxymoron, much less the oxymoron of the year. Enclosed is a short article that I wrote for the “Southern National Newsletter” about a year ago in which I aver that democracy is much more compatible with and akin to socialism, of which communism is just one branch, than a free market economy and that democracy has little to do with freedom — at least in the sense that freedom was thought of before the coming of the welfare state. If you want to pursue an oxymoron, try the ever-popular, ever-present oxymoron “Judeo-Christian.” [Judaism teaches that Jesus was a bastard, sorcerer, blasphemer, and worse. How does that compare the teachings of the Christian New Testament about Jesus?]
    As for South Africa, your prognostication is not as dismal as mine. The Afrikaner is on his way to extinction. The genocide of the Afrikaner will be both by the more traditional violent method typically practiced in Africa and by the more subtle method typically practiced in the United States and the rest of the Western Hemisphere. [The Black controlled government of South Africa is now actively promoting genociding the Afrikaner and other White South Africans.] Most likely, Apartheid will win in the end. As the various South African tribes war with each other for supremacy, South Africa will become divided into several countries. There will be only four winners: the Black African leaders who survive to become dictators, the British multinational corporations, the international bankers, and the Soviet Union. [We can now omit the Soviet Union from the list. I guess that the globalist, i.e., the multinational corporations and international bankers, no longer have any use for the Soviet Union. Most likely, China will take the place of the extinct Soviet Union in South Africa.]
    Perhaps the reason that “genocide” is such an abused term is to conceal from the American public that genocide, as defined by the Genocide Convention, is an official governmental policy of the United States. Enclosed is an article that I wrote for the “Southern National Newsletter” after Congress approved legislation to implement the Genocide Convention in which I aver that according to the Convention, genocide is an official governmental policy in the United States.
    To conceal from the American public that they live in a fascist country, albeit a democratic fascist country if you want an apparent oxymoron, is perhaps why the term “fascist” is abused as much as if not more than “genocide.”  The United States are a fascist country. It has adopted the welfare state and it has total control of all property in the United States — both of which are key elements of fascism. As in the autocratic fascist countries about 50 years ago [now 75 years ago], individuals are allowed to own property, pay taxes on their property, and are held responsible and liable for their property.  However, the government tells them what they may, can, and shall do with their property and what they may not, cannot, and shall not do with their property. (The government may not be involved in all areas of property usage, but the people have conceded it the right to be so.) The government has the benefits of ownership while the property owners have the responsibility.

Copyright © 1990, 2019 by Thomas C. Allen.

More political articles.

Libertarians and Open Borders

Libertarians and Open Borders

Thomas Allen

Most libertarians favor open borders and unlimited immigration. According to them, everyone ought to be free to live wherever he wants to live if the taxpayer does not have to pay for it. These libertarians place no value on countries (territory) or nations (people). However, most libertarians refuse to acknowledge that open borders and unlimited immigration are highly destructive to liberty — the thing that most libertarians claim to adore, ranking it just behind unrestrained capitalism.
Libertarians who advocate open borders and unlimited immigration are willing to sacrifice their ideology for the sake of their ideology. Do they really believe that if 100 million Latinos, 100 million Asian Indians, and 100 million East Asians migrated to the United States over the next several decades, they would become more libertarian than they are today? Do they really believe that people who have authoritarianism instilled in them for generations really appreciate liberty? If they did, they would already be living in countries that practice libertarian values.
Moreover, most of these people come from countries where only the opinions of people who wield power matter. Only members of the ruling faction have any rights; the purpose of government is to advance their agenda; rulers are above the law. Furthermore, the powerful are not expected to subordinate their ambition to the wishes of others. Political leaders are expected to loot the country. If given the chance, most of the oppressed in these countries would imitate their oppressors. Yet, libertarians want to flood the United States with people who hold these beliefs.
Only countries where the population is White or mostly White (at least 85 percent) have pursued libertarian ideas. When non-White countries have adopted libertarian ideas, Whites have nearly always imposed such ideas on them, and the remainder have copied them from Whites. When Whites withdraw or dwindle below a critical number, libertarian ideas vanish. Africa is a prime example.
One major cause of the United States becoming more Marxist and having a larger and more intrusive government is the influx of people from highly statist societies. Adding ever increasing numbers of these people will move the country further away from libertarian ideas.
Moreover, Marxists and their kindred control the school systems in the United States. Thus, they are indoctrinating the children of these new arrivals and the children of native-born Americans with Marxist ideas. Unless libertarians are willing to do an unlibertarian thing and capture control of the public school systems and teach these children libertarian ideas, rare will be a student who knows any libertarian ideas.
A historical example of immigration moving the United States from libertarianism toward statism occurred with the failed Revolution of 1848. Many radicals involved in that conflict fled to the United States. Soon afterward, they joined with the Yankee abolitionists and Puritan industrialists and established the imperial president in the person of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln rewarded them by destroying the US Constitution and concentrating all political power in the US government. If a few thousand radicals uniting with the Puritan Yankee could cause this much destruction, imagine what several hundred million aliens united with the progressive liberals, who are descendants of the Puritan Yankee and 1848 radicals, could do to destroy what little remains of the United States. (Although progressive liberals despise nearly everything that libertarians advocate in the economic and political realm, they agree with libertarians on nearly everything that they advocate in the social realm.)
Additionally, many libertarians teach the idea that people should act like atomized individuals with no loyalty to their race, nation (ethnicity), or gene pool — especially those who follow Ayn Rand’s Objectivism. Like the neo-conservatives, these libertarians push the notion that the United States are a concept country. With their actions, they adamantly oppose the notion that the United States are a genetic country — or, perhaps more correctly today, were a genetic country since they have degenerated into a multiracial, multicultural empire. Furthermore, most libertarians seem to want to eliminate political borders altogether, which is a goal of the globalists, who are scheming to form a totalitarian global government.
Most libertarians have an uncontrollable compulsion to turn the United States into a third world ghetto with their open borders and unlimited immigration policies. Do they really believe that libertarianism could and would thrive in such an environment? So far, it never has. To the contrary, libertarianism has never even been considered in such an environment. People in such a society are too concerned about their next meal or even surviving the day to bother with libertarian ideas. America’s accumulated capital can only last so long. When it is consumed, such poverty will be the norm.
Open borders and unlimited immigration will end all hope of a libertarian society. Are libertarians this ignorant? Are they suicidal? Are they a front for the ruling elite, who want a one-world totalitarian government? Do they hate Whites and Western Civilization? What is their reason for promoting a policy that will destroy their goal of a libertarian society?

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

People of Africa

People of Africa

Thomas Allen

    Many people mistakenly believe that all Africans are Negroes except the late arriving Aryans of southern Africa. A result of this misconception has resulted in the claim that Negroes created the ancient civilization of Egypt. The people who created the ancient Egyptian civilization were the Mizraim, an Aryan nation, who arrived in Egypt around 3200 B.C.
    Five of the six races, species, of humans inhabit Africa. They are the Khoisan (Homo khoisanii), Negro (Homo niger), Melanochroi (Homo brunus), Aryan (Homo albus), and Turanian (Homo luridus). The Khoisans are the original inhabitants of Africa; they originated in Africa probably around 75,000 years ago. Next came the Negroes, who appear in Africa between 55,000 and 40,000 years ago. Following them were the Melanochroi, who arrived around 35,000 years ago. Next came the Aryans, who probably began arriving around 7500 B.C. with more substantial numbers arriving shortly after 1500 B.C. These later Aryans are the ancestor of most Aryans of North Africa. Finally came the Turanians, who landed in Madagascar starting in the first century A.D. with substantial settlements by 1100 A.D. Most Madagascan Turanians are from these settlers.
    The following map, which is based on Carleton Coon’s map,[1] shows the approximate areas inhabited by Khoisans, Negroes, Melanochroi, Aryans, and Turanians around 1500 A.D. During the last 500 years, the major changes that have occurred has been the area inhabited by the Khoisans has greatly contracted as Negroes encroached from the north and Aryans from the south. Also, large numbers of Melanochroi from British India were imported into the British colonies of East and South Africa. Along with a significant number of these later Aryans, a significant number of these Melanochroi still inhabit South Africa.

    The Negro is the primary human species inhabiting Africa. The racial types of Negroes found in Africa are Sudanese (True Negroes, Nigritians), Palaenegroes (Forest Negroes), Pygmies (Negrillos, Twides), Nilotes (Nilotic Negroes), Nilo-Hamites (Negro-Hamites), Bantus (Kaffirs), and Negro Malagasy.
    Sudanese are found predominately along the Guinea coast of West Africa from Senegal to Cameroons. They are a principal type in the countries along the Guinea coast from Gambia to Cameroons, and in southern Mali and Burkina Faso (Upper Volta). Included among the Sudanese are the Ashanti, Felup, Hausa, Ibo, Krus, Mandingo (Malinke, Bambara, Dyula, Kassonke, Soninke, (Jallonke), Mossi, Sara, Serer, Songhai, Toucouleur (Tacuror), and Wolof.
    Palaenegroes live in the interior forests of west and central Africa. Included among the Palaenegroes are the Balunda and Batoka.
    Pygmies are found predominately in the equatorial forests of Africa. They live in Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo, Zaire, Rwanda, Burundi, and Zambia, but are only a minor part of the populations of these countries. Included among the Pygmies are the Bambutis, Batwa, and Babinga.
    Bantus are found predominately in central and southern Africa. They are a principal type in Zaire, Zambia, Angola, Tanzania, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, South Africa, and other countries of southern Africa. They are also found in Uganda, Kenya, Cameroon, and Gabon. Included among the Bantus are the Eastern Bantu (Buganda, Bunyoro, Chaga, Karagwe, Kikuju, Luyia, and Rwanda Rundi), the Western Bantu (Bassa, Bemba, Duala, Fang [Pangwe], Kuba, Luba, Lunda, Mbala, Soko, Songo-Meno, Teke, and Tetela), and the Southern Bantu (Herero, Ndebele [Tebele], Shona, Shoto, Tsonga, Tswana, and Zulu).
    Nilotes are found predominately in the upper Nile valley and adjacent lands from Khartoum to Lake Kioga and the northeast shores of Lake Victoria. They are a principal type in eastern Sudan and much of Uganda. Included among the Nilotes are the Abaka, Abukaya, Anuak, Beir, Belanda, Dinka, Jaluo, Kamasia (El Tuken), Latuka, Lendu, Luba, Madi, Mittu, Moru, Nuer, Shilluk, and Wira.
    Nilo-Hamites are found predominately in east and east central Africa. They are a principal part of the population of Kenya, Uganda, and northen Tanzania. Included among the Nilo-Hamites are the Lotuko, Lumbwa, Kipsigis, Masai, Nandi, Suk, Teso, Toposa, and Turkana.
    Negro Malagasy are found predominately in Madagascar and account for a majority of the island’s population. They include the Antankarana, Antandroy, Bara, Betsileo, Betsimisaraka, Sihanaka, and Mahafaly).
    Tables 1 and 2 describe six racial types of Negroes: Sudanese, Negro Malagasy, Bantu,Nilote, Nilo-Hamite, and Palaenegro. Excluded is a description of the pygmy[2].

    

    Next to the Negro in importance is the Melanochroi.  Three racial types of Melanochroi are found in Africa; they are the Saharan-Hamites (Moors, Saharan-Berbers), Eastern-Hamites (Ethiopians), and Egyptians.
    The Saharan-Hamites are predominately found in and around the Sahara Desert. They are a principal type in central and southern Morocco, central and southern Algeria, Mauritania, northern Mali, Niger, northern Chad, and southern and central Libya. Included among the Saharan-Hamites are the Bale, Fulas, Mangbattus of Chad, Niam-Niam (Zandeh) of Chad, Shluh of Morocco, Tibbus (Tedas) in the Fezzan, Tibesti, and Tuaregs of the Sahara.
    Eastern-Hamites are predominantly found in the countries between Egypt and Kenya and east of the Nile River. They are a principal type in eastern Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Somalia. Included among the Eastern-Hamites are the Agau, Amhara, Barabra (Nubians), Bejas, Beni-Amer, Berberine, Bilins, Bisharin, Bogos, Danakil (Afar), Ethiopians, Falasha (black Jews), Gallas, Hadendoas, Kafacitos, Saho, Sidamo, Somali, and Wata.
    Egyptians are found predominately in Egypt where they are a principal type. They include the Fellahins.
    Table 3 describes three racial types of Melanochroi found in Africa. They are the Saharan-Hamite, Eastern-Hamite, and Egyptian.

    In the Maghreb is the Aryan racial type Southern Mediterranean. Southern Mediterraneans are predominately found in Morocco and Algeria from the southern slopes of the Atlas Mountains northward to the Mediterranean. They include the Berbers of Tunisia and Cyrenaica, sedentary tribes of Jebel Nefuse of Libya, the Kabyle, Mzab, and Shawia of Algeria, and the Riffian of Morocco. Except for recent arrivals in South Africa, they are the only type of Aryan  commonly found in Africa. Recent arrivals from to South Africa are primarily from the Netherlands and Great Britain.
    In Madagascar is the Turanian racial type Malayan Malagasy. Malayan Malagasy are found mainly in Madagascar on the central Imerina Plateau. They make up less than a third of the island's population.
    The Khoisan is the least populous human species inhabiting Africa. They include the San (Bushmen), Khoi (Hottentots), Sandawe, and Hatsa (Kindiga). The Sans and Khoi are found primarily in Namibia,  Botswana, and southern Angola. The Sandawe and Hatsa live in Tanzania. Khoisans are also found in South Africa in the form of the hybrid coloureds. Except for the coloureds of South Africa, Khoisans are a minor to insignificant part of the populations in the countries where they are found.
    Table 4 describes the Southern Mediterranean, Malagasy, and Khoisan.

References
Allen, Thomas Coley. Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis. Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Company, 1999.

Comas, Juan. Manual of Physical Anthropology. English edition. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1960.

Coon, Carleton S. and Edward E. Hunt, Jr. The Living Races of Man. New York, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1965.

Coon, Carleton S., Stanley M. Garn, and Joseph B. Birdsell. Races . . . A Study of the Problems of Race Formation in Man. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1950.

Deniker, J. The Races of Man: An Outline of Anthropology and Ethnography. London, England: Walter Scott, Limited, 1900.

Haddon, A. C. The Races of Man and Their Distribution. New York, New York: The Macmillian Company, 1925.

Keane, A. H. Ethnology. Cambridge, England: The University Press, 1896.

Kroeber, A. L. Anthropology Today: An Encyclopedic Inventory. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1953.

Peschel, Oscar. The Races of Man, and Their Geographical Distribution. New York, New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1885.

Seligman, C.G. Races of Africa. 3rd edition. London, England: Oxford University Press, 1957.

Taylor, Griffith. Environment, Race, and Migration. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1937.

Endnotes
1.  Carleton S. Coon and Edward E. Hunt, Jr., The Living Races of Man (New York, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1965), p. 26.

2.  A description of the Pygmy is found in Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis by Thomas Allen, pp. 101-103.

Copyright © 2017 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on anthropology.