Separation Versus Integration

Separation Versus Integration

Thomas Allen

After reading some of Martin Luther King’s works, I discovered that I, a racist bigot, have a much higher opinion of and more confidence in the American Negro than King did. King believed that Negroes were incapable of raising themselves without altruistic White aid. That is, King believed that Whites were solely responsible for raising Negroes from their unpleasant conditions; Negroes had no responsibility. Whites were to give Negroes everything, and Negroes were to take everything.

Like  Malcolm X and Roy Innis, I believe that Negroes are capable of raising themselves independently of Whites. Unlike King, who was an integrationist, they were separationists. Also, unlike King, who promoted the destruction of Negro culture and even the Negro race, they advocated the preservation and enhancement of Negro culture and the Negro race.

According to King, Negroes were blameless for their condition and, thus, had no responsibility for improving their condition. Whites were solely responsible for improving the conditions of the Negroes. However, under separation, Negroes have the primary responsibility for improving their conditions. Consequently, separation would have taught Negroes responsibility, independence, and self-reliance. It would have freed them from the slave mentality. Ironically, Jim Crow was teaching these lessons to Negroes and freeing them from the slave mentality until the civil rights movement killed Jim Crow. Unfortunately, under integration, most Negroes have failed to learn responsibility, independence, and self-reliance, and thus, the slave mentality continues to possess them.

If the country had followed the separationist road instead of the integrationist road, race relations would be much better than they are today. Now, race relations are so great that they are tearing the country apart.

Under separation, Negroes would know that what they have, they earned by their own efforts. Under integration, Whites have given Negroes much of what they have today. Consequently, Negroes do not know whether they earned what they have or whether they have been given what they have. Knowing that they earned what they have would give them more self-respect and the respect of others.

Moreover, under separation, the country would not have wasted trillions of dollars on the War on Poverty. (According to one study, the United States have spent more money on the War on Poverty than all other wars combined.)

Further, under separation, diversity, inclusion, and equity (equality of outcome and discrimination against Whites) would not have torn the country apart as they are doing today. (Ironically, inclusion destroys diversity. To be preserved, diversity requires segregation and separation. Inclusion requires integration and amalgamation.)

Another result of separation is that the White race would not be filled with self-hatred and the uncontrollable urge to genocide itself. Whites would not have opened the borders to third-world colonists, who are mostly Turanians from Asia and Latin America (Indians and mestizos) and Melanochroi from India, Pakistan, the Arabian Peninsula, and the Horn of Africa. Not only are these colonists destroying Whites, but they are also destroying Negroes.

Under integration, most Whites have become racial nihilists and practice the new morality of sacrificing the White race on the altar of humanity. Under separation, most Whites would have continued to practice the old morality of preserving, protecting, and promoting their race and would have become racial preservationists. 

Under integration, Negroes have become Black supremacists and practice the old morality. However, under separation, Negroes would have become racial preservationists while practicing the old morality.

Life in America under separation would not be a utopia. However, it would not be the dystopia that it has become under integration. Most likely, Negroes would have advanced further under separation than they have under integration. Under separation, their advancement would not have required bringing down the White race as has happened under integration. Moreover, wokeism would never have been born, and queerdom would have remained in the shadows.

Separation would have led to a society similar to that envisioned by Booker T. Washington. The races would be separated socially; little social interaction would occur between them. However, economically, the races would be interconnected; they would interact with each other economically.

Separation accords with God’s law, while integration rebels against God’s law.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Nullification and Fugitive Slave Laws

Nullification and Fugitive Slave Laws

Thomas Allen

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due. (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 of the US Constitution)

When the States became members of the United States, they agreed to return fugitive slaves. As time passed and the Puritan Yankee abolitionists became highly influential in New England, New York, and the upper Midwest, the Northern States began refusing to aid in the return of runaway slaves. In other words, they began nullifying fugitive slave laws.

After the enactment of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, several Northern States effectively nullified it. (Presumably, Illinois and Indiana had no problem with the fugitive slave laws because they prohibited Blacks from entering them.)

Not unexpectedly, South Carolina objected to the nullifications. One reason that South Carolina gave for seceding was that various Northern States had nullified the fugitive slave laws. The reason that South Carolina listed slavery as a reason for its secession was that it was a prime example of the North’s hostility toward it and the North’s refusal to live by the Constitution.

Ironically, when South Carolina seceded, the Northern States no longer had a constitutional obligation to return runaway slaves to South Carolina. Thus, South Carolina’s secession effectively ended the need for the Northern States’ nullification, as far as South Carolina was concerned, because it was now a foreign country.

For South Carolina to secede to preserve slavery was absurd. Despite Northern States nullifying fugitive slave laws, slavery was better protected in the Union than outside it. Regardless of abolitionist rant, Republicans stressed that they had no intentions of abolishing slavery (see “Slavery Not the Reason” by Thomas Allen).

If South Carolina wanted to keep slavery intact, it would not accomplish that goal with secession. When it seceded, the United States ceased having any obligation to return runaway slaves to it.

Nevertheless, New England’s Puritanism, lust for plunder, and hatred of Southerners prevented them from letting South Carolina and the other Southern States leave the union in peace. The Yankee Puritans had seen the righteous, holy light, and they were determined to ram their vision of a sinless world down the throats of the Southern States despite the desiderata of the South. Puritans must free the world of sin so that Jesus can return — postmillennialism. (While the underlying principle of  postmillennialism is that the Holy Spirit becomes stronger, the underlying principle of today’s popular premillennialism is that the Holy Spirit becomes weaker.) Moreover, they would make the South pay for their liberation from sin by stealing as much wealth from the South as possible. (To the abolitionist Puritans, the greatest sin of all was slavery, despite the Bible not condemning slavery, which is why they abandoned the Bible.)

Jefferson, Madison, Calhoun, and most other proponents of nullification taught using it to void unconstitutional federal acts. Although Madison approved of nullifying constitutional federal acts that a State disliked, most of the others did not teach using it to void constitutional acts of the federal government that a State disliked.

According to Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3, which is quoted above, the Constitution authorized fugitive slave laws. Moreover, it obligated States to return runaway slaves. Consequently, Northern States nullified fugitive slave laws not because they were unconstitutional, but because they disagreed with them. (Since the Northern States controlled Congress, why did they not repeal the fugitive slave laws or rewrite them to address their concerns?)

Nevertheless, if a State disagrees with a federal law that is constitutional, it has the right not to participate in its enforcement. However, it has no right to actively intervene or interfere with its enforcement, as some Northern States did when they nullified fugitive slave laws. If the law was unconstitutional, which the fugitive slave laws were not, a State has the right to interfere with its enforcement.

If the Puritan Yankee abolitionists found slavery so reprehensible that they would destroy the country and its constitution and cause the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives in the process, they could have bought the slaves and set them free much more cheaply and without destroying the country and its constitution. These abolitionists cared only about Black slaves in the abstract. They did not care for them personally as did their owners.

Reconstruction showed how little Northerners cared about Blacks. They threw the slaves into the free-labor market. Most slaves had few skills beyond farm labor, and most had little training in taking care of themselves. Their masters had provided their housing, food, clothing, tools, medical care, etc., and took care of them in old age and when they were unable to work. After emancipation, they immediately had to learn to do all these things for themselves. Many failed, and many died.

Also, the North could have provided freed slaves with farmland in the territories. Yet, it did not because the territories were reserved for Whites.

Unfortunately, too many Blacks still have not escaped the slave mentality. Through various federal and State welfare and civil rights programs, they depend on governments to take care of them, as they had depended on the master — they have enslaved themselves to governments. Worse, they have enslaved taxpayers to support them.

During the Jim Crow Era, Blacks were making great strides in learning how to care for themselves and to free themselves from a slave mentality. Discrimination and segregation in the North and the South forced them to become independent and rely on themselves. Then came the Civil Rights Era. Consequently, this progress was retarded and thwarted.

Appendix. The Tenth Amendment Center

The Tenth Amendment Center (TAC) is a strong supporter of nullification. However, it goes beyond the teachings of Jefferson and Calhoun. While they wrote that a State has the right to nullify federal acts that it finds unconstitutional, as far as I know, they never promoted the nullification of constitutional acts with which a State disagrees. (When the Northern States nullified fugitive slave laws, they nullified constitutional laws with which they disagreed.) 

However, TAC goes beyond nullifying unconstitutional federal acts. It not only endorses a State nullifying unconstitutional federal acts but also endorses a State nullifying constitutional federal acts that it dislikes — except for Southern States nullifying civil rights acts of the federal government, including those that are unconstitutional, such as school desegregation and integration. (I have not found TAC expressly opposing or condemning the Southern States and communities attempting to nullify federal acts outlawing segregation and forcing integration. However, it does support Communist agents and Communist-front organizations nullifying State and local segregation laws and practices. Consequently, I infer that it opposes States and communities attempting to nullify these federal acts.) Thus, TAC supports Northern States' nullifying fugitive slave laws and opposes South Carolina's objection.

TAC seems to have a low opinion of Calhoun, despite him probably being the most brilliant and original political philosopher that the Western Hemisphere has ever produced, because he supported giving nullification real teeth. Calhoun argued that a State could prevent the enforcement of an unconstitutional federal law within its borders by vetoing it and thus making it unenforceable, as did Vermont’s nullification of the fugitive slave laws, which authorized arresting and penalizing federal officials attempting to enforce the fugitive slave laws. TAC objects to giving nullification teeth — at least in practice. Consequently, TAC rejects a State enforcing its nullification by jailing federal agents who attempt to enforce the nullified act in that State. In its opinion and Madison’s, such nullification allows one State to impose its will on the other States by preventing the enforcement of a nullified act within the nullifying State but not in the other States. Yet, TAC only weakly, if at all, objects to other States imposing their will on the nullifying State. In short, while Calhoun advocates nullification-heavy, TAC and Madison advocate nullification-light.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

 More political articles.

Three Facts About the South

Three Facts About the South

Thomas Allen

Discussed below are the States’ right of secession, music, and the South was right.

States’ Right of Secession

Nowhere does the Constitution deny a State the right to secede. Secession is not expressly stated in the Constitution because the States reserved that right in the Tenth Amendment. 

Each of the original 13 States had seceded twice when they ratified the Constitution of 1787. First, they had seceded from Great Britain, and then they seceded from the Union formed by the Articles of Confederation. That the States would deny themselves the right to secede from the Union formed by the Constitution of 1787 is absurd — especially since the Constitution did not expressly deny them this right. Even New York and Virginia declared in their ratification that they retained the right to secede. Further, the New England States claimed that they had the right to secede. Moreover, the Declaration of Independence asserted that the States (the colonies) had the right to secede. Thus, the Southern States had the right to secede in 1861.

Besides, when the States drafted the Constitution of 1787 and joined the federation created by that Constitution, they retained their sovereignty. (Because the States were republics and the Constitution guaranteed each State a republican form of government, the States could not surrender their sovereignty and still remain republics. [See “Returning Republican Governments to the States” by Thomas Allen.]) Sovereigns have the power to secede from any union or federation to which they have acceded.

When the Southern States seceded, they were merely exercising their right as sovereigns to leave the Union peacefully as the States did from the Union created by the Articles of Confederation. The Tenth Amendment guaranteed the right of secession.

For a more detailed discussion of a State’s right to secede, see Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States: Its Causes, Character, Conduct, and Results, volume 1, by Alexander H. Stephens, 1868.

Music

How long will it be before American music is outlawed? Why should American music be outlawed? Because, with rare exception, all neoconservatives, establishment conservatives, liberals, progressives, and libertarians are Dixiephobes. They loathe the South and Southerners. Therefore, they disdain everything Southern.

What does this have to do with music? All significant genres or styles of American music of any significance originated in the South. Thus, American music is the product of slavocracy, Jim Crow, White supremacy, and their descendants. Rock ‘n roll, jazz (including ragtime, boogie-woogie, Dixieland, and swing), blues, country, bluegrass, rhythm and blues, soul, funk, Tejano, Cajun, zydeco, gospel, spiritual, sacred harp, barbershop, and more are Southern. All of them came out of the South.

Because of their hatred of the South, neoconservatives, establishment conservatives, liberals, progressives, and libertarians seek to destroy everything that is Southern. Consequently, American music, which is really Southern music, must be destroyed. They have to destroy Southern music before it completely contaminates the virtues of Yankeedom.

(Reference: Daniel, Tom. “Academy of Southern Music.” Abbeville Institute: The Abbeville Blog, June 1, 2021. https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/bthe log/academy-of-southern-music/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=d073b88d-f677-448c-9c41-191b5e0c631f accessed June 2, 2021.)

The South Was Right

In “The Power of the Powerless” (November 4, 2020), James Rutledge Roesch provides an excellent description of the Puritan Yankee mentality that wars against the South, which proves that the South was right (https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/the-power-of-the-powerless/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=c24f9d1b-a791-4b69-be6a-ca8b5d96ed4b):

In the meantime, however, we can take some bittersweet solace in the fact that despite the sadistic iconoclasm against the symbols of the American South, the polarisation/radicalisation of American politics, the dysfunction of the American system of government, the corruption of the American party system, the degeneracy of American culture, and the disintegration of American society represents the ultimate vindication of the Southern critique of American millenarianism (i.e. “The City Upon A Hill” and “The Last, Best Hope for Mankind”), American gnosticism (i.e. “The More Perfect Union” and “The Indissoluble Union”), American teleocracy (i.e. “The Proposition Nation” and “The Redeemer Nation”), American hubris (i.e. “The Exceptional Nation” and “The Indispensable Nation”), and other Hebraic-Puritan “isms” and “ologies” from the Left and the Right to which our compatriots up north have proven so susceptible throughout our country’s very young life.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern articles.

King on Loving Your Enemy

King on Loving Your Enemy

Thomas Allen

In “Loving Your Enemy,” Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 45–52, Martin Luther King, Jr. discusses loving one’s neighbor and its necessity, meaning, and importance. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

Beginning, King writes, “Probably no admonition of Jesus has been more difficult to follow than the command to ‘love your enemies.’”  (P. 43.) (King failed to obey this commandment. He showed little love for Southerners and none for segregationists. If he truly loved Southerners, he would not have deliberately created situations that he knew would injure them and destroy their property. Moreover, he would not have advocated their cultural genocide.)

Continuing, King writes, “Upheaval after upheaval has reminded us that modern man is traveling along a road called hate, in a journey that will bring us to destruction and damnation.” (P. 44.) Then, he comments that Jesus’s commandment is not that of a utopian dreamer; it “is an absolute necessity for our survival.” (P. 44.) Moreover, it “is the key to the solution of the problems of our world.” (P. 44.) (Today, most Negroes reject King’s advice as the riots, other acts, and the protests of Black Lives Matter prove. Pure hatred motivated their removal and destruction of monuments of Southern heroes — and one with which King probably would have agreed.)

Next, King discusses the practical application of Jesus’s command. He asks, “How do we love our enemies?” (P. 44.) First, people must be able to forgive. Without forgiveness, loving one’s enemy is impossible. Forgiveness “must always be initiated by the person who has been wronged.” (P. 44.) (In King’s mind, Negroes had been wronged because of segregation and discrimination. King never forgave segregationists. Today, many Negroes cannot forgive Whites because Whites have wronged them by not giving them every privilege and benefit that they demand. Now, the great wrong is not paying them reparations for acts that today’s Whites never did.)

King writes, “Forgiveness does not mean ignoring what has been done or putting a false label on an evil act. It means, rather, that the evil act no longer remains as a barrier to the relationship.” (P. 45.) Then, he says, “But when we forgive, we forget in the sense that the evil deed is no longer a mental block impeding a relationship. . . . Forgiveness means reconciliation, a coming together again. Without this, no man can love his enemies.” (P. 44.) (Thus, King showed that he never forgave segregationists. He could never reconcile himself to segregation. As long as segregationists remained segregationists, they created a mental block for him that impeded his relationship with them. Only if segregationists converted to integrationists could King forgive them.)

Then, King notes that if a person finds some good in his enemy, he is less prone to hate his enemy. (King seems never to find any good in a segregationist.) He writes, “We recognize that his [i.e., the segregationist] hate grows out of fear, pride, ignorance, prejudice, and misunderstanding.” (P. 44.) (His comment may be true of Northern segregationists, but it is not true of most Southern segregationists. Southerners did not base their attitude toward Negroes on ignorance, prejudice, or misunderstanding. The attitude of Southerners toward Blacks was based on 400 years of observation, knowledge, thought, reason, and facts. Consequently, they were not prejudiced against Negroes; they were not prejudging Negroes. Likewise, with 400 years of observation and knowledge, ignorance did not guide them. If they feared Negroes, it was because Negroes are more prone to violent acts than are Whites.)

Next, King writes that “we must not seek to defeat or humiliate the enemy but to win his friendship and understanding.” (P. 45.) (Whenever King failed to win the friendship and understanding of a segregationist, he sought to defeat him. That is why his “nonviolent” movement was so violent. Moreover, friendship depends on more than understanding. Understanding often leads to hostility.)

Continuing, King discusses why people should love their enemy. Returning hate for hate leads to more hate. (Returning hate for hate, whether real or perceived, has been the modus operandi for much of the civil rights movement. It has been so successful that it has gotten Whites to hate Whites in the name of loving Negroes.) “Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” (P. 47.) (Thus, King shows that the civil rights movement rests on hatred and not on love. After all the benefits and privileges that Whites have given them, most Negroes still believe that Whites hate them. Further, more racial hatred and division exists today than during the Jim Crow Era. However, most of this hatred is directed toward the White race. Even many Whites hate their own race.)

Correctly, King writes, “The chain reaction of evil — hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars — must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.” (P. 47.) (Most policies and programs promoted by King plus Zionism and Communism, both are a Jewish creation, prevent the chains of evil from being broken.)

Again, King correctly notes that “hate scars the soul and distorts the personality. . . . [H]ate is an evil and dangerous force.” (P. 47.) He comments on the bloodthirsty mobs inflicting unspeakable violence on Negroes. (In the years following the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, bloodthirsty mobs of Negroes have inflicted unspeakable violence on Whites and other races. Thus, the civil rights movement has been successful in flipping victims and perpetrators.)

Once more, King correctly remarks, “Hate is just as injurious to the person who hates. . . . Hate destroys a man’s sense of values and his objectivity. . . .  It causes him . . . to confuse the true with the false and the false with the true.” (P. 48.) (The deleterious effects of hate are seen in the Antifa and Black Lives Matter riots and other race riots of recent decades. Hate has destroyed the sense of values and objectivity of many Negroes and Whites. It has caused them to replace the truth with falsehood and beauty with ugliness.)

Then, King writes, “There will be no permanent solution to the race problem until oppressed men [i.e., Negroes] develop the capacity to love their enemies.” (P. 50.) (For once, King places some responsibility for improving racial relations on Negroes. Usually, he places all the responsibility on Whites. Nevertheless, love did not overcome the race problem. Force did this by shifting the oppressed from Negroes to Whites. That is, Whites are now the oppressed and Negroes are the oppressors. [In reality, the oligarchs are the oppressors. They have merely switched the oppressed race and the oppressing race.]) Although the Negro has suffered racial injustice, either real or perceived, he should not abandon the obligation to love. Negroes should overcome their opponents’ capacity to inflict suffering by enduring suffering. “We shall meet your physical force with soul force.” (P. 50.) (Most Negroes, including King, rejected this advice. They overcame suffering with force and violence and not with endurance. They meet physical force with physical force. Often, they meet passivism with physical force.)

Continuing, King states, “Do to us what you will, and we shall continue to love you. We cannot in all good conscience obey your unjust laws [i.e., segregational laws], because noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good.” (P. 51.) (Many Negroes failed to continue to love their enemies because they did not love them to begin with. Although King does not define an unjust law here, he does elsewhere. An unjust law is a law that affects people who are denied the right to vote; these people are not obliged to obey that law. See “The Real King” by Thomas Allen.)

King concludes, “Love is the most durable power in the world.” (P. 51.) He condemns the use of force. (If King condemned using force, why was his civil rights movement based and built on force? Force, not love, overthrew the South and segregation in both the South and North. As King remarks, empires built on force crumble. Since the civil rights movement was built on force, it is now crumbling. It is tearing the country apart.)

Like nearly all humans, King failed to live up to Jesus’s commandment to “love your enemy.” Most of the programs and policies that King promoted prevented people from loving their enemy, even in the sense that Jesus meant. 

King always considered segregationists as his enemy. He may or may not have loved them; he probably convinced himself that he did. However, if he is judged by his fruit, that he loved them is highly questionable because he always displayed ill will toward them.

King fails to discuss indifference. Most people neither hate nor love people about whom they know nothing. They are indifferent; they give them no thought. Before people love or hate someone, they have to think about him. No one thinks about everyone all the time. No one thinks about people whom he does not know exist.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social articles.

King on the Dilemma of Negro America – Part 2

King on the Dilemma of Negro America – Part 2 

Thomas Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 1.

More social issues articles.

King on Racism and the White Backlash – Part 1

King on Racism and the White Backlash – Part 1

Thomas Allen

In “Racism and the White Backlash,” Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? (Boston: Beacon Press, 1968), pages 71–108, Martin Luther King, Jr., discusses White backlash, White supremacy, racism, slavery, the American Indian, liberals, and the church. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

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

King writes, “It would be neither true nor honest to say that the Negro’s status is what it is because he is innately inferior or because he is basically lazy and listless or because he has not sought to lift himself by his own bootstraps.” (P. 71.) (Many, but not all, Negroes proved King correct during the Jim Crow Era. Although many were lazy and listless, many were not, and they lifted themselves up. A vibrant Negro middle class was rising, which is why Stalin sent agents to destroy the Negro middle class. During the Civil Rights Era with all the benefits and privileges given to the Negro, people of all races suspect that the Negro race is inferior to all the other races. If it were not, it would not need these special benefits and privileges. Moreover, the welfare state reveals that many Negroes are lazy and listless.)

King blames all the Negro’s problems on Whites. (The Negro is not responsible for any of his problems.) White America bears the guilt of the Negro’s inferior status (as though genetics affecting nonphysical traits has nothing to do with the Negro’s status). (Because of genetics, races vary significantly in nonphysical traits such as intelligence, reaction time, behavior, rate of maturity, and proneness to certain diseases [see “Nonphysical Racial Differences” by Thomas Allen])

Erroneously, King declares that “since the birth of our nation, white America has . . . proudly professed the great principles of democracy. . . .” (P. 72.) (All the founding fathers who commented on democracy condemned it.)

King describes White backlash as the “old prejudices, hostilities and ambivalence.” (P. 72.) (Southerners, whom King loathed, were not prejudiced toward Negroes. Collins English Dictionary defines prejudice as “an opinion formed beforehand, esp an unfavourable one based on inadequate facts.” Random House Kernerman Webster’s College Dictionary defines prejudice as “an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.” The attitudes of Southerners toward Blacks were based on 400 years of observation, knowledge, thought, reason, and facts. Consequently, they were not prejudiced against Blacks.) Continuing, King writes, “The white backlash is an expression of the same vacillations, the same search for rationalizations, the same lack of commitment that have always characterized white America on the question of race.” (P. 72.) (Again King errs. The founding fathers and nearly all Americans before World War I had no ambivalence, vacillations, or lack of commitment concerning race. They were fully committed to the White race. For the founding fathers, the first nationalization law proves that commitment as it only allowed Whites to be nationalized. Moreover, they wrote the Constitution for Whites. [See “For Whom Is the Constitution Written?” and “Addendum to ‘For Whom Is the Constitution Written?’” by Thomas Allen.] Further, the commitment of latter generations is shown by the treatment and severe restrictions placed on immigrants from Asia. The Negro was a problem for which they had no viable solution although, before Lincoln’s War, many believed that repatriation was the best solution. Even Lincoln favored this solution.)

King writes much about White racism. He uses Dr. George Kelsey’s description: “‘Racism is a faith. It is a form of idolatry.’” (P. 73.) To this, he adds Ruth Benedict's explanation: “‘the dogma that one ethnic group is condemned by nature to hereditary inferiority and another group is destined to hereditary superiority.’” (P. 73.) “Since racism is based on the dogma ‘that the hope of civilization depends upon eliminating some races and keeping others pure,’ its ultimate logic is genocide.” (P. 74.) (Today, racism is Negro racism and not White racism. Negroes adore their race and seek to advance it as the superior race. In this endeavor, they have been highly successful. On the other hand, most Whites are racial nihilists, and many Whites are albusphobes and desire the genocide of the White race. Only the White race is being deliberately genocided. The ever-growing numbers of Negro supremacists far outnumber the almost extinct White supremacists.)

Although White America has not sought deliberately to genocide the Negro, according to King “it has, through the system of segregation, substituted a subtle reduction of life by means of deprivation.” (P. 74.) (If true, why was the Negro middle class growing under segregation?) Again erroneously, King maintains, “If a man asserts that another man, because of his race, is not good enough to have a job equal to his, or to eat at a lunch counter next to him, or to have access to certain hotels, or to attend school with him, or to live next door to him, he is by implication affirming that that man does not deserve to exist.” (P. 74.) (This statement is void of logic, common practices, and common sense. Nevertheless, since segregation laws applied to Whites as well as Negroes, and if King were consistent, he was claiming that Whites did not deserve to exist. [He did seem to believe that Southerners did not deserve to exist.] On the contrary, segregation preserved the Negro while integration genocides him.)

Next, King writes, “Racism is a philosophy based on a contempt for life. It is the arrogant assertion that one race is the center of value and object of devotion, before which other races must kneel in submission.” (P. 74). (Based on King’s assertion, today’s the Negro is the superior race because Whites literally kneel in submission before Negroes. During the height of Jim Crow and White supremacy, Negroes were not expected to kneel literally in submission to Whites.)

Again, King errs when he writes, “For more than two hundred years before the Declaration of Independence, Africa had been raped and plundered by Britain and Europe, her native kingdoms disorganized, and her people and rulers demoralized.” (P. 75.) (Negro Africans captured Negroes and sold them to the Europeans. Since they grew rich from the slave trade, these Negro African rulers were hardly demoralized. Moreover, the European slave trade probably would have quickly died if Europeans had to venture inland to capture slaves.)

King credits the Negro as “the creators of the wealth of the New World.” (P. 76.) (If it were not for White management, these Negroes would have created little above subsidence. Haiti illustrates this. Under White rule and management, Haiti was one of, and perhaps, the wealthiest colony in the New World. Under Negro rule and management, it degenerated to become one of the poorest countries in the world.)

Next, King chastises religious leaders for not only not condemning slavery but for using the Bible to justify slavery. (Does King also condemn the Bible? Nowhere does the Bible condemn slavery. Instead, it sets forth a code for the treatment of slaves. Jesus never told slave owners to free their slaves. Neither did Paul nor Peter; rather they told slaves to be obedient to their masters. Because the Bible does not condemn slavery, the abolitionists abandoned it.)

Another error that King makes is that in the Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court “affirmed that the Negro had no rights that the white man was bound to respect.” (P. 79.) (The Supreme Court ruled that like Indians and unnaturalized immigrants, Negroes were not citizens under the Constitution [see “Addendum to ‘For Whom Is the Constitution Written?’” by Thomas Allen]. Its rulings did not authorize Whites to do as they pleased to Negroes. If a White man murdered a Negro, he was guilty of murder — Whites had to respect the lives of Negroes.)

Correctly, King affirms that the founding fathers preferred the White race to the Negro race. None believe that the Negro race was equal to the White race. (Except for albusphobic Whites and racial nihilists, most people prefer their own race and believe that it is superior, whatever that means, to other races. Negroes do not want equality with Whites, they want to be and are now superior to Whites — except the White oligarchs.)

Next, he discusses the struggle that Washington and Jefferson had with slavery. At least, King comes closer to what Jefferson meant by “all Men are created equal” than most of today’s conservatives. “Jefferson’s majestic words, ‘all men are created equal,’ meant for him, as for many others, that all white men are created equal.” (P. 81.) (Some understand the phrase even more narrowly to mean that all Englishmen were equal in their rights. When Jefferson and others wrote about their struggles with slavery before the abolitionist movement, their dislike for the institution of slavery was the issue and not the Negro. They had no desire to make Negroes the political and social equals of Whites. Certainly, they would have detested making the Negro their superior as has been done today. Moreover, King failed to mention that many, maybe most, Americans before Lincoln’s War thought the solution to slavery was repatriation. Societies were established to repatriate freed slaves. They even established a country, Liberia, in Africa for the freed slaves. Suddenly freeing the slaves as the Republicans did at the end of Lincoln’s War and filling the country with freed Negroes was the last thing that they wanted. Correctly, they thought that the two races could not live harmoniously in the same country — and today’s race problem proves them right.)

Then, King discusses the torment that slavery caused Lincoln. Lincoln believed that the solution to the Negro problem was to colonize the Negro in Africa or the West Indies. Lincoln held this position well into his war. Later, he changed his position and “issued the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing the Negro from the bondage of chattel slavery.” (P. 83.) (Like most people, King errs when he claims that the Emancipation Proclamation freed the Negro from slavery. It did not free any slaves in areas under the control of the Union army. It only freed slaves beyond the control of the Union army. Moreover, Lincoln lacked the constitutional authority to free slaves. But then, like Lincoln, King never cared about the Constitution. Consequently, no King-idolizing conservative should care about the Constitution. The Emancipation Proclamation was primarily issued as war propaganda. Likewise, Congress had no constitutional authority to free slaves — thus, the need for the thirteenth amendment. [This amendment freed no slaves in the defunct Confederate States because they were free before this amendment was ratified. It only freed slaves in the Union States.])

Then, King complains, “Four million newly liberated slaves found themselves with no bread to eat, no land to cultivate, no shelter to cover their heads.” (Pp. 83-84.) (Unfortunately for these Negroes, they were liberated into a society without a welfare state, although Congress established the Freedmen’s Bureau to provide some assistance, where playing the race card was meaningless and where merit determined one’s survival.) According to King, to free these Negroes without the government supporting them was a great injustice. (Apparently, King wanted these Negroes to exchange their plantation masters for federal bureaucrat masters. Moreover, if the White man had to support these Negroes, how could they be the White man’s equal?)

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Allen.

Part 2

More social issues articles.

King on Where Are We

King on Where Are We

Thomas Allen

In “Where Are We?,” Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? (Boston: Beacon Press, 1968), pages 1–22, Martin Luther King, Jr., discusses what the Negro wanted and expected following the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

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

In signing the Voting Rights Act into law, President Johnson said, “Today is a triumph for freedom as huge as any victory that’s ever been won on any battlefield . . . today we strike away the last major shackle of . . . fierce and ancient bonds.” (P. 2.) Whatever these ancient bonds were, the slavery of the welfare state soon replaced them.

Johnson understood the common Negroes better than King did. King thought that the common Negroes wanted to be like the White man: having self-respect, accepting the responsibility of taking care of his family, planning for the future, being punctual, delaying gratification, and being polite. The only things holding Negroes back from achieving this goal were education and segregation. Johnson knew that the common Negroes did not want responsibilities; they did not want to plan for the future or delay gratification. In short, they did not want to abandon the slave mentality. They wanted cradle-to-grave care with someone else making their decisions and quickly satisfying their gratification. And that is what Johnson gave them. The last 55 years have proven Johnson right. (One great irony is that Negroes behaved more like Whites during the Jim Crow Era than they have during the Civil Rights Era.)

King discusses the protests that the Voting Rights Act received. Negroes rioted in several Northern and Western cities. Most Northerners and Westerners had supported the civil rights movement because they thought that it only affected the South and Southerners. Most never thought that civil rights and related laws would apply to the North, but now it was too late to halt the movement.

Negroes wanted power not only in the South but also in the rest of the country — and the White oligarchs gave it to them. Moreover, Negroes wanted to be equal to Whites. Although most Whites treated Negroes decently, they did not treat them as equals — King complained. Not only did the Negro become the White man’s equal, he eventually became his superior with privileges that White never dreamed of having.

Continuing, King writes, “White America was ready to demand that the Negro should be spared the lash of brutality and coarse degradation, but it had never been truly committed to helping him out of poverty, exploitation or all forms of discrimination.” (P. 3.) So, Johnson declared his War on Poverty with all sorts of welfare for Negroes. Moreover, laws and court orders led to affirmative action, quotas, set-asides, and similar acts that discriminated against Whites in favor of Negroes. (Since the greatest conservative ever supported Johnson’s War on Poverty, King-idolizing conservatives should support the War on Poverty, the welfare state, and discrimination against Whites.)

King laments that “the white segregationist and the ordinary white citizen had more in common with one another than either had with the Negro.” (P. 4.) (What has occurred since he wrote these words would bring him joy. Although ordinary Whites still have more in common with each other than they have with Negroes, the White oligarchs, who have backed the civil rights movement from the beginning, have turned Whites against Whites and have caused the genocide of the White race, especially Southerners. Further, the oligarchs have maneuvered most Whites into kowtowing to the Negro with many, especially conservatives, deifying King.)

Moreover, King regrets that Southerners were not beaten into submission. (Not long after his death, an unrelenting genocide of Southerners began and this genocide has been vigorously pursued ever since. King would rejoice in the genocide of Southerners. After all, he loathed Southerners more than the Democrats loathe Trump.)

King demanded that Whites pour ever more money into the education of Negroes (— as though more money would overcome the genetic intelligence and intellectual disadvantages of Negroes). Also, he demanded more high-paying jobs for Negroes (— affirmative action and quotas solved this problem). Further, he demanded the eradication of slum housing (— urban renewal accomplished much of this although many Negroes were driven from their homes in the process).

(Although Johnson planned to use his War on Poverty to enslave Negroes to the Democratic Party, which he accomplished,) King favored the War on Poverty. Whites should be taxed for the benefit of Negroes.

King erred when he claimed that when the Constitution was adopted, the Negro was considered only 60 percent of a person. (Free Negroes were considered as a whole person. Only slaves were considered as 60 percent of a person. King’s despised South wanted to consider all Negroes as a whole person while the North wanted to consider them not a person all.)

King described how bad life was for the Negro. He writes, “Economic discrimination is especially deeply rooted in the South. In industry after industry there is a significant differential in wage scales between North and South.“ (P. 7.) (A major cause of the difference in the wage scale and the large degree of poverty in the South was Lincoln’s War and Reconstruction.  Yankees so plundered the South that more than a century was required for its recovery — and it still has not fully recovered.) However, King blamed the lower Southern pay scale on cheap Negro labor. (At that time, many Negroes worked as farm laborers, which was among the lowest-paid jobs.) According to King, Southerners prevented Negroes from moving into higher-paying industrial jobs. (He overlooked that Whites in the South received lower pay than Whites in other parts of the country. Even Southerners in industrial jobs received lower pay.)

Citing polls, King remarked that 88 percent of Whites “would object if their teenage child dated a Negro. Almost 80 percent would mind it if a close friend or relative married a Negro.” (P. 8.) (He seemed to have wanted to break down all barriers to interracial mating. Now, he can revel in knowing that the barriers to interracial mating have been dismantled as both Whites and Negroes genocide each other through interracial mating. Equality, which King, liberals, progressives, and King-idolizing conservatives advocate, can be accomplished with the races  amalgamating and homogenizing — so they believe.)

For King and the Negro, equality means that Negroes have the same economic standing as Whites, i.e., equality of outcome, now called equity. Yet, for most Whites, equality means the opportunity for improvement, i.e., equality of opportunity. (King-idolizing conservatives who preach equality of opportunity need to follow the archconservative King and start preaching equality of outcome.)

Continuing, King writes, “The Negro on a mass scale is working vigorously to overcome his deficiencies and his maladjustments.” (P. 9.) (Statistics for crime, abortion, single-parent households, dependency on welfare, deteriorating cities governed by Negroes, etc. show that the Negro has failed to overcome his deficiencies and his maladjustments. Despite receiving massive sums of money and more benefits and privileges than Whites ever received during the height of White supremacy and Jim Crow, the Negro has failed. King must not have understood his people as well as he thought he did.)

King disagreed with many Whites who supported the Supreme Court’s desegregation decision. For these Whites, desegregation meant an end to legalized segregation and giving Negroes the opportunity to attend White schools. (For example, T.B. Maston, see “Review of Segregation and Desegregation” by Thomas Allen.) For King, desegregation meant forced integration. (Consequently, all King-idolizing conservatives should ardently support forced integration — and many do.)

Because many Whites who had earlier supported the civil rights movement showed less alacrity in their support as time passed, Negroes lost confidence in themselves. (Why should their confidence in themselves depend on Whites, King failed to explain?)

King remarks, “The increases in segregated schools and the expanded slums are developments confined largely to the North. Substantial progress has been achieved in the South.” (P. 13.) (Thus, while Negroes progressed in their despised South, they regressed in their beloved North. In the minds of many Northerners, the civil rights act and related laws were only supposed to apply in the South where the Negro was hated and never in the North where the Negro was loved. Consequently, in the early years of the civil rights movement, the North cheered the Negro destruction of the South. However, after Negroes had defeated the South, they turned their attention to the North, and the North protested. Nevertheless, Negroes eventually defeated the North.)

Unsurprisingly, King blames racism in the North and West on Southerners who had migrated to the North and West. These Southerners brought their prejudice and discrimination with them. Southerners caused segregation in the North. (First, although Northerners may have been prejudiced against Negroes, Southerners were not. Collins English Dictionary defines prejudice as “an opinion formed beforehand, esp an unfavourable one based on inadequate facts.” Random House Kernerman Webster’s College Dictionary defines prejudice as “an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.” The attitudes of Southerners toward Blacks were based on 400 years of observation, knowledge, thought, reason, and facts. Consequently, they were not prejudiced against Blacks. Second, antebellum history shows that Northerners discriminated against Negroes more than did Southerners — and this was before many Southerners migrated to the North.)

King believes that if it were not for Southerners, the United States would have been fully integrated a century ago (and Negroes would have been amalgamated out of existence), and the United States would be at least as socialistic as Western Europe. (Thus, only Southerners defended liberty from despotic government, which King wanted, and the preservation of the races including the Negro race.) Consequently, King writes, “Until the disproportionate political power of the reactionary South in Congress is ended, progress in the United States will always be fitful and uncertain.” (P. 14.) (As the political power of Southerners waned, progressivism waxed. Since progressivism and socialism now dominate the country, King should be happy.)

Continuing, King discussed the hardships that Negroes had endured and their rebellion. He commented on the changes that Negroes had brought and their victories. Nevertheless, much more is needed.

Following the death of segregation in the South, the Negroes needed to gain control of the social and economic systems of the United States and to change them for the benefit of the Negroes. (They have accomplished this goal, and King-idolizing conservatives ought to be rejoicing.)

King boasted about his nonviolent approach, which resulted in a great deal of violence, to civil rights. He condemned the Black Power movement because it promoted riots. (In the end, the open violence of the Black Power movement worked better than the concealed violence of the nonviolent movement. At least the Black Power movement was less hypocritical. What has excited Negroes most about the civil rights movement has been the violence of their protests and riots and the lucre that these acts have brought them.)

King laments, “Yet the civil rights revolution appeared to drain energy from the North, energy that flowed South to transform life there while stagnation blanketed Northern Negro communities.” (P. 19.) Negroes needed to turn their attention to the North and liberate the Northern Negro.  (And they did and destroyed much of the North in the process.)

To get Northern cities to capitulate to the Negro’s demands, King described what he considered nonviolent tactics. If enough Negroes marched in the city, they can force its operations to cease. Then, the city will surrender to the Negroes demands. According to King, such a protest does not harm persons or property. (He is wrong. When city services that people depend on cease, they suffer harm. Moreover, the city must tax their property to pay for the Negro’s demands. This is hardly nonviolence although the violence is more subtle than a riot.)

King declares, “Northern white leadership has relied too much on tokens and substitutes, and on Negro patience. The end of this road is clearly in sight.” (P. 22.) (He was right. Several years after his death Negroes defeated the North just as they had defeated the South. Since then, the oligarchs have used Negroes to control the country although mestizos and Indians from Latin America and queers are now replacing Negroes.)

King closes his essay by urging Whites to pressure their local and State governments and the federal government to implement the reforms that the Negro demands to prevent riots. (So much for nonviolence.) “Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention.” (P. 22.)

Throughout his essay, King expresses disdain for segregationists, Southerners, the South, and all that is related to them.

One wonders what King would think about the way that Negroes have turned out 55 years after he wrote this book. Despite all the privileges and benefits that Negroes have received over the years, in many respects, most are no better off than they were under Jim Crow — however, they are materially better off because of the welfare state. Most of the Negroes who have advanced probably would have done just as well under Jim Crow. In many respects, the Civil Rights Era has been a failure unless the objective was destroying liberty with a despotic government and the genocide of the White race while the wealth of Whites was being stolen for the benefit of nonwhites with the oligarchs taking a large cut.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues.

King on What the Negro Wants

King on What the Negro Wants

Thomas Allen

In his speech, “Where Do We Go from Here?” (1967), I Have a Dream: Writings and Speeches that Changed the World (James Washington, ed., Harper Collins Publishers, 1986, 1982), Martin Luther King, Jr., presents what the Negro desiderates. A discussion of some of King’s demands follows.

Most conservatives claim that King is an archconservative. Many believe that he is the greatest conservative ever. Some have even deified him. Therefore, these conservatives should not only agree with all the demands of the greatest conservative ever, but they should also ardently promote them.

Like all integrationists, King blames the poor academic performance of Negroes on segregated schools. He notes, “In elementary schools, Negroes lag one to three years behind whites, and their segregated schools receive substantially less money per student than the white schools.”(p. 170.) Although schools have been integrated for half a century and standards have been lowered to accommodate Negroes, they still lag behind Whites by one to three years academically in elementary and even further behind in high school. Whatever the cause of Negroes lagging behind Whites, it has nothing to do with segregation. Does it ever occur to King, conservatives, and other integrationists that the reason that Negroes lag behind Whites is genetics and not segregation?

(In “The Rising Tide of Racial Consciousness” [1960] of the same book, King describes the high academic achievements that Negroes had accomplished during the Jim Crow Era [p. 64-65], which contradicts much of the agreement of the integrationists. Segregated schools had not held Negroes back academically.)

King declares that Negroes “must no longer be ashamed of being black.” (p. 170.) At least the Negro has overcome this problem. The self-esteem of the typical Negro far exceeds that of the typical White.

Moreover, King complains that the infant mortality rate of Blacks is significantly higher than White infant mortality rate (p. 170). Today, the leading cause of death of Negro infants is abortion. Although in this speech, King does not mention abortion; most likely, today, he would support abortion without restrictions because that is the progressive thing to do.

King was ahead of his time in changing and corrupting language. He favored eliminating negative connotations with “black” and positive connotations with “white” (pp. 170-171). Thus, King was woke decades before wokeism became the guiding principle of the country.

Continuing in his speech, King complains that the Negro contribution to American life has been ignored (p. 171). Black history month solved this problem. For a whole month, America is saturated with minor contributions of Negroes that make the work of Washington, Jefferson, and the other founding fathers pale into insignificance.

Next, King says, “‘Yes, I [the Negro] was a slave through my foreparents and I am not ashamed of that. I’m ashamed of the people who were so sinful to make me a slave.’” Contrary to what King may believe, the Bible does not condemn slavery or consider it a sin. Jesus never commanded that slaves be emancipated. Neither did Paul nor Peter. On the contrary, both Paul and Peter instructed slaves to be faithful to their masters.

Further, King complains about the lack of power that Negroes have (pp. 171-172). Negroes have overcome their lack of power. Today, they can bring down almost any White public figure by accusing him of being a racist, which now has at least 800 definitions, even without proof. Moreover, they have trained Whites to hate themselves so much that they will attack Whites who tell the truth about Negroes and smear them as “racists.”

Continuing, King says, “The problem of transforming the ghetto, therefore, is a problem of power.” (p. 172) Negro ghettoes are located in large cities, many of which Negroes govern. Moreover, these cities receive large influxes of federal grant money. For the most part, Negro ghettoes in these Negro governed cities are worse today than they were under Jim Crow when Negroes presumably had no power. Furthermore, the rest of these cities have deteriorated — this deterioration is directly proportional to the power of the Negro, just as it was in the South during Reconstruction.

Whatever the cause of the plight of the Negro during the Jim Crow Era, it had nothing to do with his lack of power. Where the Negro has had power, the condition of the Negro has not noticeably improved — except for those who govern and their cronies.

Then, King says “We must develop a program that will drive the nation to a guaranteed annual income.” (p. 173.) Consequently, since King is the greatest conservative ever, a guaranteed annual income is conservatism and not progressivism. All these King-worshiping conservatives are blaspheming their lord if they do not support and promote a guaranteed annual income. When are these conservatives going to institute and implement their lord’s demand for a guaranteed annual income?

Continuing with his speech, King argues for a war on poverty, which President Johnson gave him and every president has since continued (p. 174). (Since archconservative King advocated a war on poverty, then all good conservatives must fervently support the federal government’s war on poverty, the Constitution notwithstanding.) The country has been at war with poverty for 60 years and has little to show for it other than the squandering of trillions of dollars.

(In “The Rising Tide of Racial Consciousness” [1960] of the same book, King describes how Negroes were making enormous advances economically during the Jim Crow Era [p. 65]. And, they were doing so by their own efforts and merit, unlike today where their advancement depends mostly on handouts and governmental coercion such as affirmative action, quotas, set-asides, etc.)

Nevertheless, if all the noncash welfare benefits are considered, many of those identified as paupers live better than many taxpaying wage earners. Only a few homeless people are truly paupers. So, in this sense, the war has been won.

When King gave this speech in 1967, he said that riots were futile because “the local police, the state troopers, the National Guard and, finally, the army to call on—all of which are predominantly white.” (p. 175.) Today, many local police forces are predominately nonwhite — and the State police, National Guard, and the army are becoming ever more nonwhite. Most of the time, even Whites side with the Negro rioters. Consequently, riots can be and have been more effective in the twenty-first century than in the 1960s at cowardizing Whites into surrendering to Negro demands. 

One of the main reasons that King opposed a violent revolt by Negroes was that he believed that the Negro could not win such a revolt (p. 175). He was probably right. However, through propaganda, guile, threats, protests, and occasionally riots, the Negro could and finally did defeat the White man. Thus, following King’s advice, the Negro has not only defeated the White man; with the aid of self-hating Whites, the Negro is also well on his way to annihilating the White race.

Although King expressed a great desire for love and disdain for hate in his speech (pp. 175-176), his movement has led to a great deal of hatred toward Whites. This hatred is concealed in crime statistics of violent Negroes crimes perpetrated against Whites (see “The Dirty War: America’s Race War” by Thomas Allen). Worse, King’s movement has led to the hatred of White realists and White separatists by White albusphobes and Whites racial nihilists.

Like all good conservatives, King blames capitalism for poverty (p. 176). He favors an economic system between communism and capitalism — a blend of the two, which is what the country has today. Although he does not use the terms, what King is advocating is democratic welfare-state fascism, which is called democratic socialism in Europe. All good King-worshiping conservatives should support King’s economic philosophy.

Moreover, King opposed foreign investments because they exploited poor countries and led to the use of military force to protect foreign investments (p. 177). So far, King’s followers have failed to eliminate foreign investments and the concomitant wars. (Neoconservatives and establishment conservatives, who are the most ardent worshipers of King, are the most warmongering conservatives. Why have they ignored their god on this point?)

Also, in “Facing the Challenge of a New Age” (1957) of the same book, King writes:

There is nothing in all the world greater than freedom. It is worth dying for; it is worth losing a job; it is worth going to jail for. I would rather be a free pauper than a rich slave. I would rather die in abject poverty with my convictions than live in inordinate riches with the lack of self-respect. Once more every Negro must be able to cry out with his forefathers: “Before I'll be a slave, I'll be buried in my grave and go home to my Father and be saved.” (p. 27.)

Many of King’s followers have ignored his teachings about freedom. Many Negroes have enslaved themselves to the government via the welfare state. They prefer loafing in comfort with cradle-to-grave care to living free as a pauper.

Negroes have not gotten everything that King claimed that they wanted, such as a guaranteed annual income, although the welfare state comes close to it. In some respects, they have gotten more than they thought possible, such as getting Whites to genocide themselves. (Nevertheless, White supremacy will continue to exist long after the White race becomes extinct because White supremacy is so powerful that it will continue to dominate the world forever. Besides, Negroes cannot let White supremacy die because then they will have to accept responsibility for their failures instead of blaming Whites for their failures.)

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.