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.

Only One Race: The Human Race

Only One Race: The Human Race

Thomas Allen

The notion that only one race, i.e., the human race, exists is globalist propaganda — be it from the Catholic Church of years gone by, which many gullible or ignorant Protestants still believe, or today’s globalist elite. It meshes seamlessly into their nightmare of a one-world state with its one-world government and one-world religion. To achieve this globalist goal, humanity must be homogenized into a monochromatic, mongrel man with as little individual distinction as possible. 

Proponents of “only one race, the human race, exists,” which is also known as the “unity of man doctrine,” are, in essence, calling Martin Luther King a liar. King’s agenda was based on the existence of multiple human races. Fervently, he advocated giving Negroes special privileges. If the Negro race does not exist, it cannot receive special privileges. The existence of the Negro race with special privileges necessitated the existence of other races. (For more on King, go to https://tcallenco.weebly.com/social-issues.html.)

Adherents of “only one race, the human race, exists” assert that all the races (or people groups, as many prefer) came into being following the Tower of Babel dispersal.  Only two actions could have caused the formation of the human races: the miraculous or the natural. The miraculous requires God to create the races. Although Acts 17:26b supports the miraculous approach, they reject it. The natural requires Darwinian principles, i.e., evolution, although they reject evolution.  (See “Jeremiah on the Fixity of Race” and “Analysis of ‘How did all the different “races” arise (from Noah’s family?’” by Thomas Allen.) Curiously, these adherents deny the existence of the various human races while describing how they came to be and acknowledging that various races or people groups have recognizable features.

Most likely, adherents of “only one race, the human race, exists” reject the miraculous approach because it interferes with their unity of man doctrine. If God created the human races, then obviously, He would want them preserved. Consequently, they would have to support policies that protected them: segregation and separation. However, their unity of man doctrine requires, even demands, integration, miscegenation, and amalgamation: policies that destroy them. Thus, they promote the demise of the races that God created.

Often, proponents of “only one race, the human race, exists,” like to ask people who reject their doctrine of the unity of man, “Is there a superior race?” or similar questions. (If races do not exist, a superior race cannot exist.) They seem to expect as a response, “Yes, the White or Aryan race,” or words to that effect. They do not expect or accept any person, especially a White, to identify the superiority of another race.

For example, in general, Negroes are superior to Whites as boxers. They have the innate advantage of thicker skulls and, therefore, can better withstand blows to the head. Also, they have longer arms and can, thus, hit a White target before a White gets close enough to hit them.

Another example is that Blacks in general are superior to other races at playing basketball. The dominance of Black players in the National Basketball Association proves this superiority. Approximately 72 percent of NBA players are Black. Likewise, since this example conflicts with their doctrine of the unity of man, they also reject it.

One more example that the proponents of “only one race, the human race, exists,” reject is the superiority of Blacks over Whites in surviving and reproducing in the lower latitudes. Because their pigmented skin prevents ultraviolet light from destroying vitamin B-12, which is necessary for reproduction, Blacks are superior to Whites in surviving and reproducing in low latitudes. Nevertheless, these proponents must likewise find this example unacceptable because it also conflicts with their doctrine of the unity of man.

Adherents of “only one race, the human race, exists” are also proponents of the races-are-social-construct school. To any extent that distinguishable features of various people groups (races) exist, they are social constructs. They certainly are not biological.

As shown above, adherents of “only one race, the human race, exists” reject everything, including all facts, that contradict or interfere with their doctrine of the unity of man. 

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Why I am not a White Nationalist — Where They Are Wrong Economically

Why I am not a White Nationalist — 

Where They Are Wrong Economically

Thomas Allen

White Nationalists advocate adopting highly invasive, liberty-destroying, and immensely destructive economic and monetary programs. A discussion of some of them follows.

– Managed economy. White Nationalists have a low opinion of the free market, free enterprise economic system; like most people, they confuse it with capitalism. (See “Capitalists and Socialists” by Thomas Allen.) Even those who do not confuse it with capitalism have an especially low opinion of it. Since White Nationalists have more trust and confidence in bureaucrats than they have in the people, even White people, they prefer a governmentally managed economy to a free market, free enterprise economy.

– Communist threat to capitalists. Contrary to what many White Nationalists believe, capitalists do not have to be threatened with communism. Few White Nationalists know that if it were not for capitalists’ succor, communism would have died a stillbirth. (See “Soviet Union” and “China” by Thomas Allen.)

– Welfare. Although White Nationalists oppose Martin Luther King’s social justice (discrimination against Whites and special privileges for Blacks and other nonwhites), they not only want to implement his economic justice but also expand it. Like King, they are proponents of the welfare state. They seem to admire President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society (except the civil rights and immigration parts of it). Their primary objection to the Great Society is the recipients of the benefits. The principal problem that White Nationalists seem to have with King’s economic justice is that he did not go far enough. Like King, they have no qualms about forcibly taking property from producers and giving it to nonproducers.

Most White Nationalists advocate a welfare state for the benefit of the working and middle classes. Contrary to what many of them believe, mostly the working and middle classes will pay for this welfare state. Moreover, the welfare state benefits the oligarchs more than anyone else since it makes the working and middle classes more dependent on the government, which the oligarchs control. When a person is receiving financial benefits from the government, he is less likely to object to governmental actions even if they are detrimental to him because he fears losing his benefits. Some White Nationalists find such control desirable.

– Protectionism. Like many statists, White Nationalists are proponents of protectionism. They want to protect politically favored industries from competition. Thus, they are enamored with government-business partnerships, i.e., corporate welfare; protectionism is just a form of corporate welfare.

Protectionism may give workers in the protected industry higher pay, but it does so at the expense of other workers with higher prices, which lowers their standard of living. Protectionism is of little benefit to construction workers, plumbers, carpenters, electricians, medical faculty workers, teachers, hospitality workers, and most service providers. Often, protectionism adversely affects workers in the protected industries. Owners of the protected industries are the primary beneficiaries. (For more discussion on protectionism, see “Questions for Protectionists,” “Do We Really Need to Return to Hamilton,” and “A Letter: Tariffs” by Thomas Allen.)

Instead of giving politically favored industries special advantages with tariffs and quotas at the expense of consumers, a more prudent approach that would save taxpayers money and encourage manufacturers not to build their plants overseas should be used. This approach ends all subsidies that encourage them to locate their factories overseas. Moreover, the US armed forces would not be used to protect their property in foreign countries. Also, reducing regulations on domestic manufacturers would reduce the incentive to move outside the country. One thing that most people forget is that imports are bought with exports. The more a country imports, the more it must export. (Currently, a major export of the United States is the fiat US dollar.)

– Interest. Some White Nationalists want to outlaw interest. When the government suppresses the rate of interest, the country consumes its capital. As a country uses its capital for consumption, its economy deteriorates and poverty grows. Eventually, all its capital is consumed and it returns to the hunter-gatherer stage. (For a more detailed discussion on interest, see “Usury” and “Questions for Anti-Usurers” by Thomas Allen.)

– Fiat money. Like all statists, White Nationalists adore fiat money and abhor commodity money (gold and silver). (For the difference between fiat money and commodity money, see “What Is the Difference Between Commodity and Fiat Money” by Thomas Allen.) Unlike the founding fathers, who trusted the people and left control of the money supply directly in the hands of the people, White Nationalists trust politicians and bureaucrats to regulate and control the money supply. Under the gold coin standard contained in the US Constitution, the people decided how many gold coins were needed by the quantity of gold they brought to the mint for coinage and the quantity of gold coins they melted for nonmonetary uses. (See "Constitutional Money" by Thomas Allen.) The same is true for the silver standard. (For more on the gold standard, see “What is the Gold Standard?” by Thomas Allen.) Moreover, gold extinguishes debt, while fiat money merely discharges debt by passing it to another. (See “Extinguishing Debt” by Thomas Allen.) A major reason that fiat money adherents hate the true gold-coin standard is that the government cannot control the money under the gold-coin standard.

When accompanied by the real bills doctrine, enough money is created to clear the market of newly produced goods. Most of the money created under the real bills doctrine goes initially to the workers and suppliers of material used to manufacture the products. Further, when money created under the real bills doctrine has done its work, it is automatically removed from the market and does not cause inflation. A chief flaw of all fiat monetary systems is a lack of a mechanism to remove excess money from the economy; consequently, fiat monetary systems nearly always have problems with inflation. (For more discussion on the real bills doctrine, see “Real Bills Doctrine” by Thomas Allen.)

– Social credits. Some White Nationalists prefer the social credit fiat monetary system. This system is highly flawed and will fail to do what its supporters claim it will do. It is highly invasive and greatly swells the ranks of governmental bureaucrats. Moreover, it demands enormous amounts of record-keeping, reporting, and data analysis. Nevertheless, most White Nationalists probably know nothing about the social credit system, and many have never heard of it. (For a detailed discussion of the social credit system, see “Analysis of Richard Cook’s Monetary Reforms as Presented in We Hold These Truths” by Thomas Allen.)

Central bank digital currency is ideal for the social credit economy because it makes tracking private spending transparent and, therefore, easier. Further, it reduces the time between collecting and analyzing data and the injection of new currency. Also, it can be used to force people to spend by directly stealing their savings. (Most social credit advocates despise savings.)

Moreover, since the social credit economy requires an administrative state, it is compatible with an administrative state. (An administrative state is a state ruled by experts and technocrats for the benefit of the oligarchs.) Most other fiat monetary reform schemes also require an administrative state. Furthermore, the administrative state eliminates checks and balances by merging the executive, legislative, and judicial functions into one agency, which is what many White Nationalists seem to want.

– Guaranteed income. Like King, White Nationalists promote a guaranteed annual income. A guaranteed annual income is the foundation of the social credit system.

– Economic summary. The difference between the monetary and economic system that White Nationalism promotes and that fascism and socialism promote is difficult to distinguish. (Since the United States have adopted at least 80 percent of the planks in the Communist Manifesto, distinguishing between the US government and a communist government is often difficult. See “Are the United States a Communist Country?” by Thomas Allen.) All want to use the government to force people, ultimately under the penalty of death, to do what most people do not naturally want to do. 

Conclusion

Many White Nationalists seem to overlook the necessity of a firm moral foundation. Christianity used to provide this foundation. However, between World War I and World War II, it began earnestly to be phased out. During the civil rights era, this foundation has been nearly eradicated as Christian denominations replaced the gospel of Jesus with the gospel of King and wokeism. To replace dying Christianity, a few White Nationalists promote paganism, especially Nordic paganism. Yet, paganism offers no firm moral foundation. Various forms of paganism are prominent in America today; the three most popular are the worship of Hermes (sports), Gaia (climate change), and Moloch (abortion). Most White Nationalists seem to want to replace Christianity with the welfare state and the worship of the state.

Only a few White Nationalists seem to realize that the political and economic policies and programs that they advocate lead to despotic tyranny even if the country is entirely White. Although they deplore totalitarianism, their worship of the state and their proposed economic system leads to totalitarianism.

Their love of statism, support of the welfare state, and the proposed monetary and economic system disqualify me from being a White Nationalist. Nevertheless, they are generally correct in their solution to racial problems and many other social issues. However, their ignorance of economics knows no bounds. As abysmal as the current monetary and economic system is in the US, the proposals of White Nationalists are far worse.

Further, the primary difference between the typical White Nationalist and the typical left-winger is racial and social issues. Other than these issues, they mostly agree on other issues at least in principle although they may differ in details.

In summary, the foreign and social policies of White Nationalism are excellent. However, its political and economic policies are horrendous.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

 Part 2

More political articles.

Do Human Races Exist: Appendices

Do Human Races Exist: Appendices

Thomas Allen

Appendix 1. Discussion with RN1 in comments to an article in “We Love Trump Report.” 

RN1: Mayor Wu should NOT be apologizing for having the emails sent to ALL Council Members! She should be apologizing for NOT intending to invite the whites in the FIRST PLACE! Plain. And. Simple. PERIOD!

Me to American Patriot: Nonwhites segregating themselves from Whites is the only thing that will save the suicidal White race. Since most Whites are racial nihilists, they are determined to sacrifice themselves on the altar of humanity. Since most people of other races are racial supremacists or racial separationists, they seek to protect, preserve, and promote their race — something White stopped doing decades ago.

RN1 to Me: But we’re all the same race. The human race!

Me to RN1: You prove my point. Are you so stupid that you cannot distinguish between a Korean and a Zulu? If you are correct, then why do we have all these laws and policies that prohibit discriminating against nonexisting nonwhites while encouraging discrimination against nonexisting Whites? Why do we have all these laws and policies that give nonwhites benefits and privileges that are denied nonexisting Whites? Even the great archconservative Martin Luther King could identify the races of humans and wanted Negroes (his word) to have special benefits and privileges. Apparently, these nonexisting Whites can distinguish the race of man that God created. Even toddlers and dogs know that races of humans exist. Only stupid racial nihilists like you are unable to identify a person’s race, which is an insult to that person because his race is an essential part of his identity. Racial nihilists do prove one thing: They prove that nonwhites are more intelligent than Whites where race is concerned. Furthermore, following your logic, there are no differences between men and women because both are of human race. Thus, you must be a proponent of transgenderism since you have proven the proponents of transgenderism correct.

RN1 to Me: What in the world are you even saying? You don’t make much sense. We are ALL of the HUMAN race! With that said, there are different ETHNICITIES within our same race! And there are only TWO genders (male and female)! It's VERY simple to understand! Where did I not make sense to you?

Appendix 2. Discussion with RN2 in comments to an article in The New American.

Original Commenter: Feminize [sic] the males and masculinize [sic] the women; there is such a mass desire to get rid of all God’s creations and some Christians have had enough. 

IMHO messing with God’s formulations is not only dangerous it is downright cruel. The children are the victims; mRNA, drug enhancement vaccines, drugs to trans, drugs for depression, sex edu. at age 4, etc. Sex isn’t in the organs it’s in the mind that controls the organs and the natural hormones. Mess with the minds and hormones of children and you have a mess. Their minds and bodies are not ready for sex or hormones as infants and toddlers......but it's being forced on them; cruelty.

God Help US

Me to Original Commenter: Don’t forget the genociding of the races that God created and that has been pushed since the 1960s.

RN2 to Me: The races that God created? From what I read, God created man kind, both male and female. “Race” is a divisive goo to you evolutionist invented classification. We are all being genocided — black, white, male, female, homosexual, straight, American, European, etc... I know you don’t believe we came from monkeys who came from pond scum, which came from an explosion of nothing.

Me to RN2: If you are correct, evolution is proven. Like begets unlike. Each kind after a different kind. End of story. By the way, Adam invented classification when he named the animals. Consequently, according to your reasoning, Adam must have been an evolutionist. Moreover, since I wrote that God created the races, that precludes me from being an evolutionist. However, the scenario that you describe and seem to support requires you to be an evolutionist.

RN2 to Me: No, not if I'm correct. If scripture is correct, after God created animals, He created man in His image — a clear distinction and separation between animals and man kind. If scripture is correct, then each animal brings forth creatures after their kind. That being the case, and considering the clear distinction between animals and man, it stands to reason that man also brings forth his kind as supported and evidenced by our own eyes and experience. Dogs can only bring forth dogs, cats can only bring forth cats, man can only bring forth man. No animal has or can evolve into another kind of animal, nor has or can any animal evolve into man. There is no evidence that one kind became another. I've not read any scripture that indicates that God created races or different “kinds” of man, just man. Differences in skin color, is not a result of evolution. There are no races. Not if I’m correct. If scripture is correct, God created Adam, and God created Eve. Adam and Eve brought forth their kind in His image. Evolution is NOT proven.

Me to RN2: If God did not do it, what causes the difference in skin color? Since races do not exist, then you must be unable to tell the difference between an East Asian and a Sub-Saharan African. If races do not exist, why do Republicans work so hard to get the Black vote? If races do not exist, why do Blacks have so many benefits and privileges denied Whites, and Whites are discriminated against? If races do not exist, how can one identify a person’s race with a high degree of accuracy from his blood? https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2015/12/of-one-blood.html. If races do not exist, how can one identify a person's race with a high degree of accuracy from his skeleton? https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2016/05/skeleton-differences-of-human-races.html. If races do not exist, why do groups differ greatly in nonphysical traits? https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2022/02/nonphysical-racial-differences.html. Only one kind of man is created in God’s image: https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2016/06/what-race-was-adam.html.

RN2 to Me: What makes you think I can not distinguish between an East Asian and a Sub-Saharan African? I have eyes that work the same as all man kind (with the exception of defect, of course), just as the people of those regions do and can see the differences in Anglo-Americans. How are your political prejudices a scientific determinant of so called ‘race?’ How are benefits and privileges a scientific determinant of so called ‘race?’ All of these are a result of the fall of man kind. God did not cause the fall. He therefore did not cause the variations you call ‘race,’ and certainly not man’s prejudices. “If races do not exist, how can one identify a person's race...” <== This is a logic trap within your question. It is circular and can't be answered.

This article based on scripture and science will answer your questions about skin color, facial features, blood characteristics, bone structure, etc. It is certainly too long to paste here.

“How did all the different ‘races’ arise (from Noah’s family)?” https://dl0.creation.com/articles/p040/c04018/chapter18.pdf.

Me to RN2: If you can distinguish between East Asians and Sub-Saharan Africans, you have identified two distinct races. I have glanced at the article you referenced and will review it in more detail when time permits. It seems like a covert evolutionist article claiming to be a creation document by doing the impossible with genetics. If all mankind descended from Noah and his family, then evolution is proven. A tribe or nation (nationality) has a common ancestral origin, which makes them monoracial (of the same people group) and are not hybrids. Moreover, skin color is a minor racial characteristic. An albino East Asian can be easily distinguished from an albino Sub-Saharan African, although they have the same skin color. The authors of the paper prefer “people group” to “race”; I prefer species, which is a much more accurate term. Here are two articles that show that most fundamental Christians are covert evolutionists: https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2020/05/fundamental-christians-and-evolution.html and https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2019/11/christians-and-creationism.html. Moreover, if races do not exist, why does God prohibit mongrels, mixed breeds, or multiracial people in his assembly https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2017/05/commentary-on-deuteronomy-232.html. However, I doubt that you will read or even look at this article and the previous ones that I linked. In closing, I quote Jeremiah, who 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.

RN2 to Me: No, I have not identified two distinct races. I have identified two groups of people, each with common characteristics resulting from many generations of environmental adaptations and mutations, not different creations of God. All are descended from one. Not evolution (one kind becoming another). Not separate creations. Descendants. “And [God] hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; ‘Species,’ the term you prefer over ‘people groups,’ nations and tribes, is a 14th Century invention by evolutionists. It cannot more accurately describe that which existed thousands of years before it.

God does not prohibit ‘mongrels’ from His assembly. “Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.” A better question would have been, “Why did God make the prohibitions of Deut. 23?” Not because they were a different creation. Not because they evolved from animals. Not because they were a different ‘species.’ Not because of the color of their skin. He prohibited them because they were pagans, worshipers of false Gods, workers of evil. He prohibited them so Israel would not be destroyed. He prohibited them for the same reason he prohibited Israelites from marrying foreign nationals from cultures of evil. Even then, God allowed some that were converted.

Why doubt that I read the articles you linked when you could simply ask? Because you did not read the article I linked? Because you cannot convert me and initiate me into the evolutionist cult? Yes, I read them, and they don’t hide their Aryan “master race” scripture twisting ideologies. They make false claims such as, “They imply, if not outright claim, that the blood of the races of humans is identical. Thus, races cannot be distinguished by blood.” No, they don’t. They do not imply or claim there are ‘races,’ rather nations and tribal groups. They do not imply or claim the blood of people groups are identical. This is explained in the article I linked that you did not read. They do not imply or claim that ethnicity groups cannot be distinguished by blood (also explained).

You “closed” by partially quoting Jeremiah who did NOT declare “the immutability of the races (or species — a term loved by Darwin and invented thousands of years after God spoke to Jeremiah). The full quote is “Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.” This in no way indicates that skin can not change over time and through generations. In fact, we know that skin can change with environmental factors, and can actually change quite abruptly with conditions doctors call “vitiligo.” What the Lord is saying is that the evil people of Judah have ignored God’s words for so long and are so accustomed to doing evil, that changing their hearts is as likely as the heavily pigmented Ethiopian changing his own skin or a leopard changing its spots — so unlikely He will destroy them.

So, now I will close by saying, you and I have a different belief system. Neither you nor I will change our hearts. Evolution is pseudo-science. There are no races, and the only master is the Messiah.

Me to RN2: As interesting as it is, I must close this discussion. After decades of studying this issue, I am convinced that I am correct, and you are not going to change my mind. Moreover, I am not going to correct your errors. Anyway, I congratulate you for not resorting to name-calling, as many commenters do when they cannot counter an argument. By the way, you believe that I am an evolutionist; I am more of a creationists than you are since I credit God with creating the races of humans (which your article calls people groups), and you resort to evolutionary methods. Further, I do not believe in a master race.

RN2 to Me: I thought you had already closed. “In closing, I quote Jeremiah,...” Perhaps, you meant only to close your prior comment. If so, fair enough.

I am not sure why you insist on making projections toward me. First, you doubted I would read your links, when in fact I already had. Second, you state as fact that I believe you are an evolutionist — ignoring my very first comment. I do NOT believe you are an evolutionist. You said you are not. I know you are not. I believe TC Allen is manipulating words to convolute what is obvious to “creationists,” just as you believe the author and contributors of Chapter 18 of Creation Answers Book 8th Edition is (not to be confused with “The Creation Answer Book,” by creation and biblical apologist Hank Hanegraaff).

“Only one kind of man is created in God’s image” is indicative of a master kind, or ‘race’ and ‘species’ as you prefer. TC Allen states that whites [only] are created in God’s image and have dominion over the earth, which would include the other supposed ‘races’ and ‘species’ of man. If these beliefs are not a belief in a master ‘race,’ I do not know what is.

“After decades of studying this issue, I am convinced that I am correct, and you are not going to change my mind.” Sound like Jeremiah 13:23? Keep an open mind, Me. Everyone can be deceived. Even the apostles and others who literally walked the earth with Messiah have been deceived. Don’t place all of your trust in TC Allen’s writings. I don’t place all of mine in the people at Creation Ministries International.

God bless and keep you. I’m out. The final word is yours.

Part 1: Main Article.

More social articles.

King on Pilgrimage to Nonviolence

King on Pilgrimage to Nonviolence

Thomas Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

King on Paul’s Letter to American Christians

King on Paul’s Letter to American Christians

Thomas Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

King on The Answer to a Perplexing Question

King on The Answer to a Perplexing Question

Thomas Allen

In "The Answer to a Perplexing Question," Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 133–143, Martin Luther King, Jr. discusses evil and faith. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

Beginning, King writes, “Human life through the centuries has been characterized by man’s persistent efforts to remove evil from the earth.” (P. 133.) Throughout this essay, he discusses evil. Most people seldom adjust to evil. No matter how much they may relish evil, their conscience lets them know that they are wrong. (This statement is not true for people who have been indoctrinated in wokeism. Much of what they perceive as evil is not evil, and much of what they perceive as not evil is evil. Also, psychopaths, who often occupy high-ranking positions in governments, businesses, and other institutions, have no conscience and, therefore, do not consider their evil actions as evil.)

However, man cannot “conquer evil by his own power.” (P. 134.) He needs the Divine to conquer evil — which is true.

Then, King proceeds to discuss how evil can be cast out. The first way “calls upon man to remove evil through his own power and ingenuity in the strange conviction that by thinking, inventing, and governing, he will at last conquer the nagging forces of evil.” (P. 134.) If people are given “a fair chance and a decent education,” (p. 134) they can save themselves. In the modern world, this approach is the most common. (Contrary to what King would claim, this approach is what he used to overcome segregation. He used the earthly approach of raw, naked force of governments.) Continuing, he discusses how man has used this approach to solve his problems. “Armed with this growing faith in the capability of reason and science, modern man set out to change the world.” (P. 135.)

After describing how science has greatly improved people’s lives, King notes that “in spite of these astounding new scientific developments, the old evils continue and the age of reason has been transformed into an age of terror.” (P. 138.) Despite expanding educational opportunities and enacting more legislative social policies, selfishness and hatred still exist. (First, being sinners, people will never rid themselves of hatred and selfishness. King did not. Second, the public schools and universities indoctrinate their students to hate Whites. Further, selfishness is the primary force behind most legislation – forcibly taking from some and giving to others.) Then, King answers why man has failed: “Man by his own power can never cast evil from the world.” (P. 136.) Correctly, he states the reason that the secular humanist’s approach has failed: It places “too great an optimism concerning the inherent goodness of human nature.” (P. 136.) It has failed because it has forgotten “about man’s capacity for sin.” (P. 136.)

Next, King discusses the second approach to removing evil from the world. “The second idea for removing evil from the world stipulates that if man waits submissively upon the Lord, in his own good time God alone will redeem the world.” (P. 137.) (When it came to replacing segregation with integration, King could not wait on the Lord. He took the humanist approach of violent protest, which he called nonviolent [just as the violent protests of Black Lives Matter were called peaceful protests], and the violent force of governments.) The second approach is based on “a pessimistic doctrine of human nature, this idea, which eliminates completely the capability of sinful man to do anything.” (P. 137.) This approach “was prominent in the Reformation, that great spiritual movement that gave birth to the Protestant concern for moral and spiritual freedom and served as a necessary corrective for a corrupt and stagnant medieval church.” (P. 137.) While the Reformation overstressed the corruption of man, the Renaissance was too optimistic. The Renaissance “so concentrated on the goodness of man that it overlooked his capacity for evil . . . [whereas the Reformation] so concentrated on the wickedness of man that it overlooked his capacity for goodness.”

King condemns a theology that emphasizes “a purely otherworldly religion, which stresses the utter hopelessness of this world and calls upon the individual to concentrate on preparing his soul for the world to come.” (P. 137.) Such theology ignores the need for social reform and divorces religion from the mainstream of human life. (It seems that the more a Christian denomination focuses on social reform, the more that denomination fades into irrelevance.)

According to King, religion should deal with both body and soul. That is, “the church must seek to transform both individual lives and the social situation that brings to many people anguish of spirit and cruel bondage.” (P. 138.)

Then, King writes, “The idea that man expects God to do everything leads inevitably to a callous misuse of prayer.” (P. 138.) (Thus, King justifies his violent nonviolent tactics.) He does not believe that Negroes should wait for God to answer their prayers for integration; they should protest. (That God would answer their prayers for integration is doubtful since God is a segregationist. Consequently, King is correct when he asserts that Negroes need to protest for integration instead of waiting for God.)

For King, prayer is supplemental to his struggle for social justice for his people. (In other words, God is to play a minor role in the civil rights movement so that King could get most, if not all, the credit and glory.) Negroes must not depend on God to bring them social justice. (Social justice means special benefits and privileges for Negroes and discrimination against Whites.) 

Although they should pray, Negroes must organize themselves into violent nonviolent action and employ all their resources to obtain social justice. Likewise, Negroes need to take the same action for economic justice, i.e., a better distribution of wealth, both nationally and globally.

King is convinced that God will not remove evil from the earth even if people do nothing. (His thinking is contrary to the Bible. Evil, sin, remains until Jesus returns and establishes his kingdom. These actions of Jesus depend on God’s will regardless and independent of man’s actions. One of King’s theological problems is that he believes that people are inherently good, especially nonwhites, instead of being inherently sinners — except Southerners and segregationists, who are inherently evil.)

However, King is correct when he writes that “man is neither totally depraved, nor is God an almighty dictator.” (P. 139.) Then, he writes, “How can evil be cast out of our individual and collective lives?” (P. 140.) The answer is that “both man and God, made one in a marvelous unity of purpose through an overflowing love as the free gift of himself on the part of God and by perfect obedience and receptivity on the part of man, can transform the old into the new and drive out the deadly cancer of sin.” (P. 140.) Thus, God works through people in faith. (To accomplish this goal, man would have to become like Jesus, which he cannot do as long as he possesses a sinful nature. Further, it will not work for King’s idea of social justice because his idea is contrary to God’s.)

Then, King describes two types of faith. “One may be called the mind’s faith, wherein the intellect assents to a belief that God exists. The other may be referred to as the heart’s faith, whereby the whole man is involved in a trusting act of self-surrender.” (P. 141.) For King, heart faith is much more important than head faith. (Heart faith is emotional; it is how one feels. Emotions come and go; therefore, heart faith is fickle. Head faith, intellect, is much more stable and changes slowly if at all.)

Continuing, King states, “Racial justice, a genuine possibility in our nation and in the world, will come neither by our frail and often misguided efforts nor by God imposing his will on wayward men but when enough people open their lives to God and allow him to pour his triumphant, divine energy into their souls.” (P. 141.) (From King’s perspective, social justice arrived not long after he died. Except for a guaranteed income, Negroes have received more benefits and privileges than King advocated. Further, God must hate Whites because Albusphobia now fills the planet. Thus, according to King, when God fills a person and that person opens his life by faith in God, the result is overflowing Negrophilia and Albusphobia — at least, that is the result of what he preached.)

Then, King applies his discussion of faith to personal lives. (Based on his womanizing and marriage infidelity, King failed to follow his advice. Did he fail because he tried to eliminate his evil habits on his own without God’s help? Or, did he fail because he expected God to eliminate his evil habits? Perhaps, he did not consider womanizing and marriage infidelity sins, and, therefore, he had no evil habits to eliminate.)

Concluding, King remarks, “Evil can be cast out, not by man alone nor by a dictatorial God who invades our lives but when we open the door and invite God through Christ to enter.” (P. 143.)

In this essay, King discusses evil and faith. However, he gives sinful man too much credit for his ability to eradicate evil from the world. Evil will remain until Christ’s return and the final judgments take place. Furthermore, what King considers good, racial integration, is what God considers sin.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

King on Antidotes for Fear

King on Antidotes for Fear

Thomas Allen

In "Antidotes for Fear," Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 119–132, Martin Luther King, Jr. discusses fear, courage, love, faith, and social justice. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

King begins with a discussion of fear crippling people, which for the most part is accurate. Overcoming fear is the theme of this essay. “Everywhere men and women are confronted by fears that often appear in strange disguises and a variety of wardrobes.” (P. 119.) Such fears include bad health, aging, insecurity, inferiority complex, and failure. Then, he comments, “A fear of what life may bring encourages some persons to wander aimlessly along the frittering road of excessive drink and sexual promiscuity.” (P. 120.) (King must have been a frightened man because he wondered the road of sexual promiscuity.) He remarks that “many people have permitted fear to transform the sunrise of love and peace into a sunset of inner depression.” (P. 120.) 

Continuing, King notes that economic fears are common. Business owners fear failure, and employees fear unemployment. 

  Other fears are the fear of death and the fear of racial annihilation. (Since King promoted miscegenation, which leads to racial annihilation, that he would mention it as a fear is strange. Today, the only race facing annihilation is the White race. Yet, most do not fear their annihilation — probably because they are living in denial. Further, many Whites are so Albusphobic that they look forward to their annihilation.)

Then, King comments on the fear of nuclear war. It has terrorized people to build fallout shelters while urging the government to increase the stockpile of nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, the quest to maintain “a balance of terror” only increases fear.

Although “fear drains a man’s energy and depletes his resources,” (p. 120) man should not seek to eliminate fear completely. King notes that fear warns of approaching danger and is, therefore, necessary for survival. Moreover, it is a powerful force. “If man were to lose his capacity to fear, he would be deprived of his capacity to grow, invent, and create.” (P. 121.) However, “abnormal fears are emotionally ruinous and psychologically destructive.” (P. 121.) Continuing, he remarks, “Normal fear protects us; abnormal fear paralyzes us.” (P. 121.)

To overcome abnormal fear, a person must seek its cause. Once the cause is discovered, then he may overcome his fear with courage. Then, King discusses courage, which “is the power of the mind to overcome fear.” (P. 123.)

Next, King contrasts courage and cowardice. “Courage breeds creative self-affirmation; cowardice produces destructive self-abnegation. Courage faces fear and thereby masters it; cowardice represses fear and is thereby mastered by it.” (P. 124.)

Continuing, King states that “fear is mastered through love.” (P. 124.) Then, he claims, “Hate is rooted in fear, and the only cure for fear-hate is love.” (P. 124.)

Next, King notes that fear is a major cause of war. This fear leads to hate, which in turn leads to war, which leads to greater hate. (The hostility between the Jews and Palestinians is an excellent example of King’s observation. Moreover, what he writes here can also be applied to personal relationships.) To King, the solution to war is love. “Only disarmament, based on good faith, will make mutual trust a living reality.” (P. 125.)

Furthermore, fear-hate leads to hostility between the races. King asserts that love is the solution to ending racial hostility. (Although King preached a great deal about love and its virtues and seemed to have a good understanding of love, he was a failure at practicing it. If he truly loved, he would not have destroyed the South and later the United States to achieve his vain ambition.)

Continuing, King discusses what he calls social justice. Love is the solution to social justice. Then, he declares, “Racial segregation is buttressed by such irrational fears as loss of preferred economic privilege, altered social status, intermarriage, and adjustment to new situations.” (P. 125.) (These fears have all come to pass. Whatever preferred economic privileges that Whites had have long vanished. Now, with quotas and affirmative action, Negroes have more preferred economic privileges than Whites ever had. Today, unqualified Negroes are hired instead of qualified Whites. Now, Negroes have a higher social status than Whites. Proof: Negroes used to try to pass as Whites. Today, Whites try to pass as Negroes. Since the Supreme Court’s unconstitutional ruling in Loving v. Virginia (1967), which nullified miscegenation laws, interracial marriages have increased significantly. [See "Interracial Marriages" by Thomas Allen.] Consequently, Negroes and Whites are genociding each other via miscegenation.) 

Then, King discusses some of the techniques that Whites used to avoid his program of forced integration. “[S]ome seek to ignore the question of race relations and to close their mind to the issues involved.” (P. 125.) Others, using “such legal maneuvers as interposition and nullification, counsel massive resistance.” (P. 125.) (King counseled illegal massive resistance against segregation. Thus, the segregationists were merely following King, except they were using legal tactics. He should have been proud of them. Instead, he despised them.) Still, others resorted to violence against Negroes. (These segregationists were merely following the tactics of civil rights leaders who resorted to violence against Whites. King seldom objected to violence against segregationists.)

King blames the country’s racial problems on the fear of Whites. If Whites “are to master fear, they must depend not only on their commitment to Christian love but also on the Christlike love that the Negro generates toward them.” (Pp. 125-126.) (I do not know whether King is deceiving himself or is lying to deceive Whites. Most likely, it is the latter. One thing that the Negroes who follow King have not done is to show Christlike love toward Whites. Christlike love does not lead to riots, the destruction of property, and the deaths of innocent people — acts that Negroes have been notorious for committing against Whites since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Christlike love does not promote the genocide of Whites. That King would have actively opposed these acts of violence against Whites is highly unlikely since he supported violent acts — contrary to his assertions of being a man of peace. Most likely, he would have endorsed and promoted them. Other than King-idolizing conservatives, who lack any functioning brain cells when it comes to race, does anyone with a functioning brain cell believe that King would have opposed Black Lives Matter protestors? No, he would have supported them and their violence as did all liberals and many conservatives.)

Then, King writes, “A guilt-ridden white minority fears that if the Negro attains power, he will without restraint or pity act to revenge the accumulated injustices and brutality of the years.” (P. 126.) (When the Negro attained power, revenge is what he sought. Negroes have used their power against Whites since the beginning of the Civil Rights Era. Much of this revenge is concealed in crime. [See “The Dirty War: America’s Race War” by Thomas Allen.] Some of it is open like the Black Lives Matter riots and the destruction of statues. Moreover, many Whites have joined the Negro in his revenge against their White brothers. These acts of violence prove that Whites who fear that Negroes would use their power for revenge were correct.)

Next, King writes, “The Negro must show them that they have nothing to fear, for the Negro forgives and is willing to forget the past. The Negro must convince the white man that he seeks justice for both himself and the white man.” (P. 126.) (The Negro has failed. Most Negroes have shown no forgiveness or willingness to forget the past as the wanton destruction of statues and memorials and the renaming of buildings in the South proves. Moreover, Negroes have not sought justice for Whites as the conviction of Derek Chauvin and other innocent Whites prove.)

King declares that he knows the cure for the fear of integration: love. Moreover, he claims that God is on his side (although the Bible endorses segregation and denounces integration and amalgamation). 

Continuing, King states that “fear is mastered through faith.” (P. 127.) Deficiency of resources and inadequacy of life lead to fear. Then, he discusses the importance of positive religious faith and what it offers and does not offer. Also, he discusses the inadequacy of irreligion. He notes that a positive religious faith overcomes the fear of death.

In closing, King comments briefly on the Montgomery bus protest and Mother Pollard.

In this essay, King discusses four essential components in conquering fear: (1) discovering the cause of the fear, (2) having the courage to overcome the fear, (3) mastering the fear through love, and (4) mastering the fear through faith. However, he errs greatly when discussing the fear that segregationists had (their fears prove valid) and the loving, forgiving attitude of Negroes (most of whom lack a loving, forgiving attitude).

Although King could preach a good sermon, he drew the wrong conclusion concerning what he called social justice. Southerners and segregationists are not as evil as he presents them. His erroneous conclusion derives from his erroneous understanding of the Bible. Contrary to what he claims, the Bible does not support integration; it supports segregation.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

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.