Review of The Negro Revolution in America -- Part 1

Review of The Negro Revolution in America -- Part 1

Thomas Allen

[Editor's note: Some of the endnotes have been replaced with links.]

    The following is an analysis of The Negro Revolution in America by William Brink and Louis Harris (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1964). Much of this book is based on surveys. Their words and my paraphrases or summaries of their words, I have italicized. My commentary is in roman letters. I have provided references to pages in his book and have enclosed them in parentheses
    As one would expect from the subject matter of this book, it is anti-White and especially anti-Southerner. Like nearly all pro-Black-civil-rights writers, the authors express a great deal of bigotry and prejudice toward Southerners.
    Chapter 1 discusses the Black race awakening — what the Negro wants. Brink and Harris claim that Blacks “wanted nothing less than full equality” (p. 20). Before 1980 not only had Blacks become the White man’s equal, they had become his superior. Blacks can segregate themselves from Whites, but Whites cannot segregate themselves from Blacks. Blacks can have Black beauty pageants, Black caucuses, Black scholarships, etc. Whites cannot. Blacks are allowed to have Black-only clubs at public universities, but Whites are not allowed to have White-only clubs.
    Blacks can discriminate against Whites, but Whites cannot discriminate against Blacks. Whites feel compelled to declare that they have Black friends. Blacks feel no obligation to claim White friends. To the contrary, many feel compelled to deny that they have White friends. The country now has Jim Crow in reverse, but only worse.
    Brink and Harris contend that the writers of the U.S. Constitution intended for it to apply to Blacks (p. 20). They did not. The Constitution is clear about whom it is written. The Preamble reads “. . . . secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution. . . .” Thus, the writers of the Constitution, who were all White, intended it for their posterity, who would be White. The illegally adopted Fourteenth Amendment was and is used to give Blacks certain rights and privileges. (This  Amendment also stripped most Southern leaders of their political rights and privilege of holding public office.)
    Brink and Harris quote a White man saying, “They only expect the same rights that we have. They only want the same chances we have for a better life” (p. 21). (One wonders how many Blacks lived in this man’s town, Vestal, New York —  probably less than 1 percent.) Brink and Harris quote a Black dentist as saying, “I’d like to see the Negro change from a second-class citizen to a first class-citizen” (p. 21). Eventually Blacks not only achieved equal rights, but they achieved special rights. Not only did they cease being second-class citizens, doting Whites elevated the Negro to a deity, at least in the abstract. (Yankees are notorious for placing the abstract above the concrete.) At the same time, these Whites reduced far too many Blacks to wards of government via welfare programs. By trading the old plantation master for the new government master, Blacks have really come a long way. At least under the old plantation master, they had the pride and dignity of working for their keep.  (They consumed about 90 percent of their production.) Under their new government masters, they have been degraded to little more than breeding and offering jobs for their caretakers. Under the old plantation system, Blacks worked to support Whites. Under the new welfare system, Whites work to support Blacks. Can a person really be a first-class citizen while he is on the public dole?
    Brink and Harris remark that the Negro’s struggle for equal rights had been essentially nonviolent (p. 23). That depends on one’s definition of “nonviolent.” Is violating the property of others nonviolent? Is threatening violence nonviolent? Is deliberately creating a situation that will evoke a violent response nonviolent? They wrote in 1963. The great waves of violence would come with the race riots of the mid-1960s and later. The more Whites surrendered to Blacks, the more violent Blacks became. Why should not they? The more Whites surrendered, the less respect Blacks had for Whites.
    Brink and Harris note that the crime rate for Negroes is too high (p. 25). Civil rights and equality have not reduced the Negro crime rate. If anything, the crime rate of Blacks is even worse today than then.
    Brink and Harris also note the high rate of illegitimate births among Negroes (p. 25). Not only has the civil rights movement raised the illegitimacy of Negroes from 20 percent in 1960 to 72 percent by 2013, but it has also raised the illegitimacy rate of Whites from 2 percent in 1960 to 29 percent by 2013.
    “Negroes (and white sociologists) point out, of course, that these things are produced by the vicious circle that has ruled their lives if they were not downtrodden they would not resort to crime; if their family structure had not been undermined as far back as slavery they would have more stable marital relations; if they had better job opportunities they would not need relief. But the further point that the Negroes make is that they will never be able to improve all of these conditions unless they are granted equal rights now” (p. 25). The Negro won the civil rights war. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on the war on poverty and to enhance Negro health and education. Negroes have been preferentially treated in the job market; they are hired and promoted over better-qualified Whites. Yet none of this has made any difference. They have received what Whitney Young of the National Urban League argued for: a better-than-an-even break, a massive domestic Marshall Plan, and special and preferential treatment. To the extent that all these programs have affected Black crime and illegitimacy, they have raised them. At least Negroes can still blame it on something that none have ever experienced: slavery.
    Brink and Harris quote Martin Luther King’s “I Got a Dream” speech where he talks about judging people by their character and not the color of their skin (pp. 26-27). Contrary to his speech, the legislation and policies that King and other civil rights leaders pushed judged people by the color of their skin and not by their character. The civil rights act, fair housing act, the equal employment opportunity program, and other similar laws and programs were biased in favor of Blacks and discriminated against Whites. They stripped Whites of rights and privileges while granting Blacks special rights and privileges.
    Chapter 2 begins with Gunnar Myrdal’s An American Dilemma and an overview of Negro slavery and the Negro in America up to 1960.
    Myrdal was a Swede and a Marxist economist and sociologist who despised the U.S. Constitution as it was a White man’s document. When ordering the integration of public schools, the U.S. Supreme Court relied on Myrdal’s work instead of the U.S. Constitution. In effect, it declared his work the supreme law of the land.
    Brink and Harris note that the first load of Negroes brought to Virginia in 1619 were “promptly sold into slavery” (p. 29). This is not true. As Francis Springer shows in War for What?, these Blacks became indentured servants like many Europeans who came to America to pay for their passage. They were treated the same as European indentured servants. When they had worked their time to pay for their passage and initial upkeep, they were set free. A Negro brought slavery to Virginia when he refused to let his Black indentured servant go free. He got the court to rule in his favor to bind the Black indentured servant to him for lifetime servitude.[1]
    Brink and Harris imply that Whites threw Blacks out of White churches (p. 33). This may be true of some Northern churches. In the South, most Negroes voluntarily left White churches. They wanted their own churches so that they could be independent of Whites. They realized that they could never be free and independent of White rule and oversight if they remained under White rule and oversight. Such independence and freedom require separation instead of integration. Most Black civil rights leaders either forgot or ignored this truism.
    Brink and Harris comment on DuBois and the founding of the NAACP (p. 35). They failed to mention that DuBois was the only Black involved in the founding of the NAACP. Nevertheless, they did note that he later left the NAACP and joined the Communist Party (p. 35). Although they identified the other founders as liberals, they failed to identify them as what they really were: radicals, socialists, and Communists. They do name some of the White founders: John Dewey (who destroyed education in the United States with his progressive education — Whites must be brought down to the Negro’s intellectual level), Jane Addams (who advocated diluting the electorate by forever expanding the privilege of voting and by that diluting the power of the electorate and making it irrelevant), and Lincoln Steffens (who was a journalist and a supporter of the Soviet Union) (p. 35).
    Brink and Harris comment on the great Negro migration from the South to urban areas in the North (p. 38). Much of the Northern support for the civil rights act and related laws resulted from the desire to keep the Negro in his place, i.e., in the South.
    Brink and Harris discuss the rise of black power and the rights and privileges that Blacks need to have to trump the rights and privileges of Whites (pp. 40-41). Under the Communist-led civil rights movement and the integrationist regime, just about every gain that the Negro has made has been at the expense of Whites. Most of what the Negro has received has been given to him by Whites, most of whom have Marxist leanings and all of whom are statist. For the most part, the Negro has not earned what he has received. The whole objective of the civil rights movement has been to increase the power of the federal government, that is, to increase the power of the ruling elite (globalists, one-worlders, heads of major foundations, international financiers, chief executives of multinational corporations, Zionist leaders, leaders of the occult, and other elitists) and to destroy America and the White race.
    Brink and Harris discuss the school integration issue and the slowness of integration (pp. 30-41). School integration ultimately rests on the theory that Negroes are so stupid and intellectually inferior that they are incapable of learning unless they are sitting next to an intellectually superior White student.  Somehow Blacks will absorb the superior intellectual genes of Whites by sitting next to them in the classroom. Also, proponents of school integration declare that Blacks are too stupid and incompetent to teach Black students unless White students are in the classroom to provide intelligence genes.
    Brink and Harris write, “The proliferation of Negro leadership organizations points up a significant fact of the Negro’s revolution, that it has lacked any clear-cut, centralized direction.” (p. 43). That is not exactly true. Behind the prominent civil rights organizations has been the Communist Party. Its control of the civil rights organizations and the civil rights movement has been mostly through fronts and sympathizers and fellow travelers instead of card-caring Communists although they have been heavily involved. Communists have controlled and guided King’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and King’s front, the Students Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). Likewise, Communists and Communist sympathizers and fellow travelers were heavily involved in the NAACP and Congress of Racial Equality (CORE).
    At least Brink and Harris comment on some of the victims of the “nonviolent” civil rights movement (pp. 43-47). However, like true integrationists, they blame the violence on Whites. All these violent outbursts and those that followed led cowardly Whites to surrender unconditionally to Black demands. Unfortunately, for Blacks in America, the unconditional surrender was not only to them. It was also to non-Whites across the globe.  This surrender has led to massive immigration of non-Whites, primarily Turanians (mostly East Asians and Latinos). To the Negro’s detriment, these Turanians hate Blacks more than the integrationist’s stereotypical Southerner ever did (few Southerners ever really hated Blacks; more Northerners hated Blacks than did Southerners). Moreover, these Turanians do not suffer White guilt and will never be made to feel guilty about their treatment (mistreatment) of Blacks. Once they reach critical mass, probably in less than 20 years, the Negro will look on the days of segregation and Jim Crow as a time of freedom, respect, and opportunity. The Turanians will suppress them to the lowest rung of society — perhaps even lower than they enjoyed under slavery.
    In Chapter 3, Brink and Harris discuss what it is like to be a Negro. Brink and Harris state, “Negroes believe whites don’t understand them, don’t understand what it is like to be discriminated against and segregated” (p. 48.). Southerners do have some idea of what it is like to be discriminated against. They have been discriminated against and belittled since 1865. Except Indians, they are the only group that the U.S. Constitution specifically denied the privilege of holding public office. (At least the Indians did not have to pay taxes.) Today, the Southerner is one of the few ethics that can be disparaged with impunity. Movie makers seem obliged to belittle and ridicule him as he is seldom presented positively. Like Whites in the North and West, he is also discriminated against in favor of non-Whites.
    Moreover, if a Southerner wants to know what it is like to be a second-class citizen, all he has to do is to read a pro-integration book written in the 1950s or 1960s: They all treat Southerners as second-class citizens and often worse.
    (I have had Blacks discriminate against me. Once, when my office took our secretaries to lunch to celebrate secretary’s day, I had a Black secretary. While returning to the office, my secretary and I stopped at an ice cream shop for ice cream. A Black woman was behind the counter. She gave my secretary two heaping scoops of ice cream and me, two puny scoops. Such discrimination did not humiliate me, make me feel like a second-class citizen, or drive me to protest.
    My wife experienced discrimination in the army. When a Black woman was placed in charge of a work detail, she gave the White women laborious and dirty jobs. She gave the Black woman easy jobs and minimal tasks — they mostly lofted.)
    Much of the poverty suffered by Negroes come from the radical Republicans’ (most radical Republicans were abolitionists) policies and programs to destroy the South during the War and Reconstruction. (Perhaps Southerners need civil rights for Southerners to preserve what remains of their culture, heritage, ethnicity, race, etc.) A major motivation behind the civil rights movement is to bring down the South and Southerners. It has been primarily a war against the South, although it quickly spread to Northern urban areas.
    How and why segregation made the Negro a second-class citizen and how and why integration ends this status is not fully explained. Regarding the Negro, Roy Innis did not see integration as elevating the Negro. He states, “Under segregation, black people live together but their institutions are controlled by whites. Under integration, black people are dispersed and the institutions, goods, and services are still controlled by whites. In effect, the two are the same. But under separatism, black people will control their own turf.”[2]
    Brink and Harris comment that Negroes believe that Whites consider Negroes worthless (p. 49). If true, the Negro is not going to overcome this problem by forced association. Force association creates resentment. More often than not, it reinforces the stereotype. The more a person associates with a group, the more likely he will find examples fitting the stereotype. Moreover, respect has to be earned; it cannot be forced or given. Until the Negro stands on his own in spite of real or perceived discrimination without any governmental aid, he cannot really be respected by himself or others. Innis seems to have realized this when he argued for separation. With separation and without any aid from Whitey, the Negro can prove that he can stand on his own and deserves the respect that he believes that he is entitled.
    Brink and Harris claim that Blacks in the military were degraded during World War II because far too many were relegated to engineering (road construction) and transportation (driving trucks and guarding airports) instead of being mortar meat in front-line combat units. Many Whites on the front line probably would have gladly traded places with these Blacks if given a choice.
    Judging by what Brink and Harris write in Chapter 3, the Negro’s self-esteem depends almost entirely on what Whites think of him and how they treat him. At least the Negro’s problem with self-esteem has been overcome. Blacks now have much more self-esteem than Whites, many of who loath and hate themselves.
    Brink and Harris claim that part of the cause of the Negro’s problem is that nearly half the Black married women worked while less than a third of White married women worked in 1960 (p. 51). The civil rights movement and accompanying programs have made this problem worse. More married women have been forced into the workforce to support the civil-rights welfare state. Also, most Black fathers have been driven from the home so that the government can support their children. Many of these absent fathers end up being supported in the prison system.  Thus, has the civil rights movement advanced the Black race.
      A typical excuse recorded by Brink and Harris for Blacks dropping out of high school is that “they feel they don’t have a chance, so why struggle? I got honors in high school, but I can’t get a decent job.” (p. 57). If Southerners had held this attitude after the devastation of the War and Reconstruction, the South today would be little more than a third-world country. Although Southerners took nearly a century to rebuild the South, they did so. If the South were an independent country, it would be one of the top-tier countries in the world. It rebuilt itself in spite of Yankee discrimination. It made its greatest strides during Yankee neglect. No Marshal Plan was available to rebuild the South. The Negro needs to look to himself and not to others.
    A major complaint of Blacks during the era of Brink and Harris’ writing was the poor education received by Blacks (pp. 56-58). The civil rights-integrationist movement has solved this problem by reducing the quality of public education for everyone. Now Blacks, White, and all others are poorly educated (but well indoctrinated). Most consider the generation of the founding fathers as the greatest generation ever produced in this country. Yet not one of them had a public education. Perhaps we should follow their example for education.
    In Chapter 4, Brink and Harris describe the weapons of the Negro Revolution. These weapons include riots, demonstration marches, picketing stores, boycotts, sit-ins, etc. They discuss the effects that the Freedom Rides and other demonstrations had on Negroes (pp. 66ff). Like most integrationists, Brink and Harris blame all the violence on Whites instead of the Black agitators seeking a violent reaction (p. 64). (One wonders how many federal agents and operatives had been implanted in White resistant groups to urge Whites to do what the integrationist provocateurs wanted: to react violently.)
    Brink and Harris describe Whites attacking Black Freedom Riders in Montgomery in 1961. They discuss CORE, which had organized the Freedom Riders (pp. 63-66). James Farmer was the national director of CORE then. A basic tactic was that Farmer and CORE threatened to bring violence to a community unless the community surrendered unconditionally to the demands of King and SCLC. (SNCC was also used to threaten violence unless the community surrendered unconditionally to King.)
    Like most integrationists, Brink and Harris declare the Negro demonstration to be nonviolent on the part of the Negro (pp.65-66). Whenever people deliberately undertake an action that they know will provoke a violent response, they are not completely innocent of the resulting violence.
    According to Brink and Harris, the Freedom Riders were trained to love those who attacked them (p. 65). If these Freedom Riders really loved their White attackers, they would have never knowingly created a situation to provoke Whites into attacking them.
    Brink and Harris remark that the civil rights movement taught Blacks that “going to jail is no longer shameful blot on their record; it has become a badge of honor” (p. 68). Perhaps this in part explains why so many Black men end up in prison. Going to prison is a badge of honor — a hangover from the glory days of the civil rights movement.
    Brink and Harris comment on Rosa Park being arrested for refusing to give up her bus seat to a White and the boycott that followed. They state that she was a seamstress (p. 70). However, they fail to mention that she was a Communist agent who had been trying to create an incident.
    In a sense, this boycott was a failure. It did not end the law that segregated seating on buses in Montgomery. White men on the U.S. Supreme Court ended it (p. 70).
    Brink and Harris do admit that the Negro is ready to use weapons to get what he wants (p. 71) — so much for nonviolence. As the years that followed show, the Negro was much more militant than Brink and Harris were ready to admit.
    Brink and Harris note that some Negroes felt “that the potential for violence lies chiefly in the South and will not be much of a factor in the North” (pp. 71-72). Were these Negroes wrong! The worst race riots inflicted on the country were outside the South. Most of these riots resulted in destructing Black neighborhoods and Black businesses — so much on teaching Whitey a lesson. Nevertheless, White taxpayers ended up paying for the reconstruction.
    Brink and Harris quote several Northern Negroes saying how much Southerners hated Blacks and wanted to kill Blacks. Some of those interviewed expressed hatred of Whites and Southerners in particular (p. 72). An irony of the civil rights movement is that race relations have generally been better in the South than in the North and West. That must be a great surprise to anti-Southerners.

Endnote

1.  Francis W. Springer, War for What? (Nashville, Tennessee: Bill Coats Ltd., 1990), pp. 8-9.

2. Francis X. Gannon, Biographical Dictionary of the Left, III (1972), p. 462.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 2 

More articles on social issues.

A Review of The South and Christian Ethics -- Part 2

A Review of The South and Christian Ethics -- Part 2

Thomas Allen

    Throughout Chapter 3, Sellers preaches, “We are to love our neighbor.” One of the highest forms of love, if not the highest, is integration. As integration leads to the death of the races, how can this be love? As integration destroys the uniqueness of the races and racial identity, how can this be love?
    In Chapter 4, Sellers claims that the Bible supports integration and condemns segregation. As noted above and in Integration Is Genocide, False Biblical Teachings on the Races and Interracial Marriages, and People of the Flood, the opposite is true: The Bible supports segregation and condemns integration. To support his claim, Sellers makes a few broad statements, but offers no Biblical proof.
    Based on Sellers comments about White preachers in the South at the time that he wrote (p. 118), most preachers then are like most preachers now. They were not going to oppose the Marxist Communist agenda.
    Sellers describes segregation as a system of belief (p. 118ff). If true, then integration, its opposite, also has to be a system of belief. The major difference between the two beliefs is that segregation has much more Biblical support than integration. (V. “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation.”)
    If segregation is the theology of “the unrepentant Southern kingdom of God” as Sellers asserts (p. 119), then integration is the theology of the unrepentant Yankee kingdom of Lucifer. If segregation is a comforting temptation as Sellers purports, then integration must also be a comforting temptation.
    He states that segregationists use the same Bible verses to justify segregation as slaveholders used to justify slavery (p. 120). That may be true to a limited degree. However, one could point to a host of Biblical passages in both the Old Testament and New Testament on slavery. None condemn slavery with the possible exception of the Israelite slaves in Moses’ day. These slavery verses had little relevance for segregationists. Because the Bible is void of antislavery and antisegregation verses, integrationists, like abolitionists, have to abandon the Bible to justify their position. If they do refer to the Bible at all, it is with vague broad abstractions. Sellers is guilty of this broad vagueness when talks about “neighborliness,” “brotherhood of man,” etc.
    Sellers contends that the Bible does not support slavery and that slavery and segregation are rebellion against God (p. 120). He must not have read the Bible. If his claim is true, why does the Bible not clearly condemn slavery as a sin and forbid it? On the contrary, both the Old Testament and New Testament present slavery as an acceptable institution. Both set forth a code on how masters are to treat their slaves and how slaves are to act. The South probably came closer than any other slaveholding society in following the Scriptural rules on slavery.
    If Southerners sinned by being slave owners, then Northerners must have sinned by dealing in slaves. They bought the slaves from African chiefs and sold them to Southern slave owners. Surely, buying and selling slaves is as sinful as owning them. Sellers does not mention the sins of the Northern slavers. Nor does he mention the sins of the African chiefs, who grew rich by African standards, in capturing and selling their fellow Africans. If God punished the South because a small percentage owned slaves, why did He not also punish the North for its Northern slavers?
    According to Sellers, Southerners see segregation as the road to salvation (pp. 120-121). If true, then Yankees and quisling Southerners must see integration as the road to salvation. If Sellers believes what he writes about segregationist theology and salvation, then he should believe in integrationist theology and salvation. (As discussed below, he does equate integration to salvation.)
    Sellers maintains that the reason that White segregationists object to their daughters marrying Blacks is pride (p. 121). It never occurs to him that the basic reason could be obedience to God’s word. Numerous passages condemn interracial marriages, even to the point of not allowing mixed breeds in God’s assembly (Deuteronomy 23:2). (V. “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation.”)
    Sellers appears to believe that God cannot be the Father of all unless the races are integrated (p. 122) and eventually produce motley mongrel man. He ignores the last part of Acts 17:26. This verse states that God created the races (“and hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth”) and assigned them their habitat (“hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation”). Thus, God did not intend for the races to commingle. To the extent that he recognizes this verse, Sellers like most integrationists only recognizes the first part and ignores the second part.
    Sellers suggests that Christ has nothing to say in support of segregation (pp. 122-123). On the contrary, Christ reiterates five of the Ten Commandments that condemn the fruit of integration, miscegenation. (V. “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation.”)
    To him, Christ teaches a love that precludes segregation and requires, if not forces, one to be an integrationist (pp. 122-124). Why he believes Christ would support, even advocate, situations that encourage men to destroy the races that God created by breeding them out of existence, he does not explain.
    In Chapter 4, Sellers questions the Christianity of segregationists. He has difficulty believing that segregationists can be Christians. To him segregation and Christianity are incompatible.
    Sellers seems to have little use for the Old Testament (p. 124, passim). Perhaps he degrades the Old Testament because it supports segregation far more than it supports integration.
    Sellers accuses segregationists of selecting passages from the Bible that support their argument (p. 124). He does the same thing. Well, not exactly. Sellers does not cite specific passages to support integration, perhaps because none exists. He just makes vague references to Jesus’ teachings on love and neighborliness.
    Sellers finds segregationists guilty of racial pride — pride in the White race (p. 116). Throughout his book, he condemns segregationists for the sin of pride. Yet Sellers is proud of being an integrationist, but he does not perceive himself guilty of the sin of pride. A proud segregationist is a sinner; a proud integrationist is never a sinner.
    An objective of integration has been to instill Blacks with pride in the Black race. Yet Sellers finds no fault with Black racial pride.
    Sellers has nothing but praise for the Communist front-man Martin Luther King (v. “Appendix: Martin Luther King” in “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement.”) and the Communist-run Southern Christian Leadership Council (v.  “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement”). He also praises the highly violent Student Non-Violent Coordination Committee and the Congress of Racial Equality, (v. “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement”) both closely allied with Communists (pp. 128-129).
    He implies that all violence that has occurred during the civil rights movement is the fault of Southerners. They are guilty of not surrendering to Blacks fast enough (p. 129).
    Sellers castigates the orthodox Southern liberal and all others who did not want to surrender to the Negro unconditionally and immediately. He even chastises what he calls the unrealistic Negroes, such as middle-class businessmen (they were the ones whom the Communists wanted to destroy), for not giving complete, unhesitating, unquestionable support to Black radicals (pp. 130-132). (V. “Black Nationalism.”)
    Sellers seems to believe that once full integration is achieved, the United States would be a color-blind democracy (p. 142). The United States have had full integration for more than forty years. Yet race consciousness is greater than ever, especially among non-Whites. The predominant race consciousness that Whites have is hatred of the White race, a feeling in common with the other races. We have come a long way in race relations under integration, have not we! Sellers should be proud.
    He has no problem with sacrificing principle for appearance in the name of moderation if the principle sacrificed is one with which he disagrees.
    Sellers blames Whites, especially Southerners, for most of the problems encountered with the civil-rights-integration movement. They are the blame because they had not elevated Blacks to “full-fledged human beings” (p. 153). Most likely, Sellers would be blaming Southerners today for the race problems, although Blacks had reached godlike status by the 1980s. Today the self-esteem of Whites is far lower than the self-esteem of Blacks ever was during segregation or slavery. If Sellers is correct, Whites need to be raised to “full-fledged human beings,” and Blacks lowered to “full-fledged human beings.”
    Sellers quotes Roger Mehl: “The primary condition for communicating is respect for the otherness of the other” (p. 153). How can a self-respecting Negro respect cowardly, debasing, self-hating, self-destructive Whites?
    Sellers writes, “White men have tended to regard benevolence as their sole obligation to the Negro. But between adults, there is another obligation: neither love nor mercy nor benevolence, however well-meant, can stand in lieu of recognizing the recipient as possessing independent, mature selfhood” (p. 153). Knowingly or not, he has chastised the White liberal, who has been the primary promoter of this benevolence. The welfare state that has accompanied the civil rights movement has stripped many Blacks of their independent, mature selfhood by making them wards of the State. As he is a good liberal, I would be surprised if Sellers would or did oppose the growing welfare state.
    Sellers asserts that the Negro “is not going to accept the white man’s benevolence in preference to asserting his manhood” (p. 154). If true, why are so many Blacks on welfare of one sort or another?  If they valued manhood over benevolence, they would reject all welfare even if they qualified for it.
    Sellers writes a good deal about justice (p. 156ff). Where is the justice of taking the property of another and holding it hostage?
    He seems to place much more importance on justice than love. Justice should always trump love. According to him, justice builds manhood; love destroys it. Justice should always have priority over love. Furthermore, integration is justice. If he is correct, justice has prevailed. However, it has done nothing to improve race relations, which would surprise Sellers. If anything, race relations are just as bad today, probably worse, than in 1962. The hostility is just better concealed. (V. “The Dirty War: America’s Race War.”).
    Sellers also presents the civil rights movement, especially the part led by King, as nonviolent (p. 157). If King were nonviolent, why did he leave a trail of blood everywhere he went? Why would a nonviolent man coordinate his activities with violent men as King did? The civil rights movement has been extremely violent. What else would one expect from a movement led by Communists? (V. “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement.”) Blacks have been warring against Whites since the movement began. However, this war has been concealed and is revealed in crime statistics. Whites are far more often the victims of Blacks than Blacks are of Whites. (V. “The Dirty War: America’s Race War.”)
    Sellers firmly believes that morality and ethics can be legislated (pp. 161-163).
    He presents the integration of the armed forces as good and as a good example of improving racial relations (p. 162). The primary reason for integrating the armed forces had nothing to do with justice, elevating Blacks to full manhood, or improving race relations. On the contrary, it degraded the Negro. The armed forces integrated because Black in segregated units often broke and ran instead of holding their ground when the enemy attacked them during the Korean War. (Perhaps, Blacks displayed more intelligence than Whites in this insistence. Why should they die for some foreign territory that meant nothing to them?) Dispersing them among the White troops gave them the fortitude to stand firm in the face of the enemy. (A friend of mine once told me about an experience that he had in basic training years after the armed forces were integrated. In his integrated unit was a Northerner from a place that had few Blacks. After being around Blacks for a while, the Northerner, who had had his fill of Blacks, asked my friend, who was a Southerner, “Why have you let them [Blacks] live?” Obviously, integration has not created all the neighborliness that Sellers prophesied.)
    Sellers sees himself as a witness for God pushing integration. However, he does caution against identifying legal decisions and governmental directives with the word of God (p. 165).
    To dampen his earlier discussion on justice, he brings love into his argument. He notes that justice is not enough. After justice is achieved, the races must be made to love each other (pp. 166ff). However, he maintains that no one can demand the right of fellowship (p.169). Yet the ostensible purpose of civil rights laws, which Sellers surely supports, is to force fellowship. (The real purpose of civil rights laws is to give those who really control the government more power over the people.) Then he contradicts himself with “the Church has a duty to preach the commandment of love itself as a fulfillment of all external, compulsory commandments which deal in forced togetherness” (p. 168). Thus, once the government corals with force various groups, the job of the Church is to brainwash the people forced together to love one another and their overlords who forced them together. After all, these despotic overlords are only executing God’s justice.
    Sellers condemns the concept of “voluntary association” when it results in segregation (pp. 169-170). Presumably, he has no problem with voluntary association if it results in integration. According to him, governmental coercion should trump freedom of association.
    Sellers does offers some excellent advice to Northerners: Clean up your own house before telling Southerners what to do beyond desegregation (p. 171). He has no fault with Northerners forcing integration on the South. An irony to come out of the civil rights movement has been that the worst race riots have been outside the South. I doubt that Sellers expected this. I am sure that few Northerners foresaw this outcome. (V. “The Cold War.”) Most likely, they expected integration would keep the Negro where he belonged: down South. It would even encourage Blacks in the North to migrate to the South. The civil rights law was written to desegregate areas where segregation was enforced by statute, that is in the South. It did not apply where segregation was by custom, that is in the North. However, some renegade judges soon changed that and brought integration to the North. Most likely, Sellers approved of that.
    Sellers seems to have found a new road to salvation: integration (pp. 171-172). Apparently faith in Jesus is not enough. Whites must also integrate with Blacks. Not only must they integrate, they must also love the Negro to achieve salvation.
    Sellers seems to follow the blueprint of the radicals of the French Revolution for rebuilding society. (V. “The French Revolution – Part II: The Revolution.”) First, tear it down completely, then rebuilt it anew in the radical image. He despises the love that Southerners had for Blacks during segregation because Blacks were subordinate. So, he tears the South asunder with forced integration imposed from outside. Next, he rebuilds the South on integration and elevates the Negro with special privileges above Whites. By now he has destroyed the love. Then he wants to bring back the love that has been destroyed. All he has achieved is arrogant demanding Blacks and self-hating, fearful, and cowardly Whites. The love that was may never return.
    Sellers has no use for segregated churches — at least White segregated churches. He has no use for White churches that oppose integration. The only honorable churches are those that preach the virtue and holiness of integration (p. 172ff). As God is a segregationist and an anti-integrationist, (v. “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation” and “Is Integration a Moral Law?”) Sellers has no use for churches that preach these biblically revealed aspects of God. People are to love and accept indiscriminately. Apparently, they are to love even those whom God hates. Seemingly, only churches that preach breeding out of existence the races that God created are preaching the love of man and the love of God. How willingly destroying what God created is love is not explained.
    Unlike many integrationists, at least Sellers realizes that fellowship cannot be imposed by force. To attempt to do so makes matters worse (p. 176).
    Throughout his book, Sellers preaches the virtues of neighborliness by the White race. However, the only neighborliness that he will tolerate is the one that he wants to be created. He despises the neighborliness that existed under segregation. He and his fellow integrationists succeeded in destroying that neighborliness in the name of what he calls “justice.” Then he complains about the lack of neighborliness!
    Sellers condemns racial pride as a great sin. It is rebellion against God — especially racial pride by Whites (p. 180). At least Whites are no longer guilty of this sin. Whatever racial pride that they may have had has been replaced by hatred of their race. If Whites have any racial pride, it is pride in the colored races.
    Sun Moon seems to have achieved the church-driven neighborliness that Sellers espouses. (V. “New Age Religions.”) Moon’s congregations are highly integrated. Many marriages in his church are interracial. What would one expect from a church led by the Messiah, as Moon claims to be?
    At least the motley mongrel man ends racial pride as he is of no race. How soon would it take the motley mongrel man to discover that some mongrels have darker skin than others and take pride in that? Thus, skin pride replaces racial pride.
    Sellers believes that churches should teach the truth (p. 180). If they did, they would oppose much of what he advocates.
    Like most integrationists, Sellers condemns prejudice. Throughout his book he condemns it. Yet he displays prejudice against Southerners, segregationists, white supremacists, Christian fundamentalists, and others throughout his book.
    Although Sellers did not believe that integration would bring about utopia, he did expect it to cause a significantly higher level of morals and ethics. Furthermore, he expected a higher level of justice. However, the opposite has happened. Since integration replaced segregation, morals and ethics have been declining. Abortion is commonplace. Homosexuals are now considered normal and acceptable, even to the point of being able to marry each other. Miscegenation (adultery) is accelerating. Divorce is rampant. With Waco, Oklahoma City, and 9-11, the United States government has declared war on the American people. Furthermore, America is no longer a Christian country. Church membership has been declining (perhaps justifiably so as many churches have abandoned the Bible). Children are no longer educated but are taught to be slaves. America is the greatest debtor country in history. Decadence, moral decay, crime, gambling, pornography, and drug abuse are growing. Self-reliance, freedom, security, and prosperity are fading. The law has ceased to protect the races and individuals, but it grants special privileges to the politically powerful at the expense of everyone else, White or Black. Scoundrels with sufficient political power are now more than ever above the law — so much for justice.
    Out of the integration-civil-rights movement has grown political correctness and the death of freedom of speech. White people, especially those in the public, have to watch every word that they say for fear of being called a racist, which is now the most feared smear word in the language, having surpassed “fascist” and “anti-Semitic.”
    Because of integration, the great bastions of free discussion, free thought, and free expressions — universities — have gone as far as to suppress discussion, thought, and expression with speech codes. Anyone found guilty of violating the speech code is expelled. University administrators, most of whom are White, condemn Whites upon the mere accusation of a Black without any proof. Even after the White person proves his innocence (the burden of proof is always on the White victim), he is still guilty as far as the university is concerned. Would Sellers be politically correct and mold himself into political correctness?
    Thus, censorship has become the norm. Only the extremely politically incorrect utters any condemnation of integration, Martin Luther King, and miscegenation. Anyone who says or writes anything that the powers-that-be considers “racist” (a seldom defined ambiguous term) becomes persona non grata until he sufficiently grovels before the proper parties — and even then he is never fully forgiven.
    One wonders what Sellers would think of America’s maturing police state. Most likely, he would approve as it grows from the same mentality that spewed forth integration and the civil rights movement.
    I don’t know if Sellers is still alive. If he is and if he retains his consistency, he would be arguing for “homosexual rights” and being neighborly with homosexuals. He would support the coming pedophile agenda, which will be the next group to be granted special privileges in the name of “equal rights.” Most likely, he would be using the same arguments of justice tempered with a little bit of love. He would contend that Jesus would have accepted both. In the eyes of Jesus and the Bible, neither homosexual sex nor pedophilia is a sin, but White racism is (racism by Blacks and other races is not a sin).
    The battle against the homosexual agenda and the pedophile agenda was lost by 1965. All the opponents of these agendas are doing now is fighting a rear-guard action. They are like the German army in 1945. They have already lost the war. The war against the homosexual and pedophile agendas cannot be won unless the communist civil rights movement is abandoned. That cannot happen unless Whites abandon their false guilt and self-hatred and once again love their race and what their forefathers gave them.
    The solution to the race problem is not what Sellers promotes and argues. It is not a return to segregation of yesteryear either. The solution is along the proposals that Marcus Garvey, Mittie Maud Gordon, Roy Innis, and a few other brave, forward-thinking Blacks have put forth: separation. That is the solution in keeping with God’s original plan: “determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.” For that reason, it will be the last solution considered.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 1

More articles on social issues. 

The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement -- Part 3

Martin Luther King 

Thomas Allen

[Editor's note: Footnotes in the original are omitted.]
    In 1955 Rosa Parks, a Negro and a Communist party activist,[101] began what became the Montgomery boycott when she refused to move to the back of a bus. She worked for the NAACP and had been instructed in agitation at the communist Highlander Folk School (HFS). Thus, Parks was not a simple seamstress; she was a communist operative. After deliberately violating the Montgomery bus ordinance, she was arrested and fined. As a result, she became a heroine of the Communist Party. Thus, Communists through front operations began the civil rights movement in 1955.
    The Montgomery bus boycott was not a spontaneous event; it was planned. Parks had previously defied bus segregation laws. She was chosen to initiate the Montgomery boycott. King was chosen to lead it.
    Martin Luther King’s rise from obscurity to a godlike statue began with the Montgomery boycott. He conducted the boycott through the Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA). Fred Shuttlesworth formed MIA. Bayard Rustin, King’s secretary and advisor, joined them in leading the boycott. (Rustin later accompanied King to Oslo, where King received the Nobel Prize for Peace.)
    In 1957 King, Shuttlesworth, and Rustin formed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC). King became its president, and Shuttlesworth, its vice president. (Later Shuttlesworth became the president of the Southern Conference Education Fund [SCEF], a communist front.) Andrew Young was the program director of SCLC.
    Also, in 1957 King attended a workshop at the HFS where he spoke. He praised Audrey Williams, a Communist, and Myles Horton, director of HFS. King was a sponsor of this workshop.
    In 1959 King invited Anne Braden and her husband Carl to join SCLC. Both were Communists and leaders in SCEF. King also fellowshipped with James Dombrowski, a Communist and executive director of SCEF. Moreover, SCEF provided financial support to King.
    King supported Jesse Gray. Gray promoted the use of violence to achieve Negro racist goals. King's support of Audrey Williams, Gray, and the SCEF shows that King did not abhor the use of violence. Furthermore, King wrote the foreword to Negroes With Guns by Robert Williams, a Communist, who promoted guerrilla warfare by blacks. He showed no aversion to associating with Communists and promoters of violence. Contrary to his reputation, he was not a peace-loving man. King associated with known Communists and communist sympathizers and with communist fronts. (FBI surveillance under the direction of Attorneys General Robert Kennedy and later Nicholas Katzenbach, who succeeded Kennedy, shows that King was closely associated with known Communists.)
    King supported, sponsored, promoted, and otherwise associated with communist fronts besides SCEF. These fronts included the National Appeal for Freedom, the National Committee on Un-American Activities, and Highlander Folk School.
    In 1963, state and local police seized internal documents when they raided SCEF’s headquarters in New Orleans. Based on these documents, the Louisiana Joint Legislative Committee on Un-American Activities issued a report exposing the close relationship between SCEF and King and his SCLC and SNCC. Commenting on this report, columnist Holmes Alexander noted:

        It links the Fair Play For Cuba Committee, a Castro front, by common membership to the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee and the Southern Conference Educational Fund. It ties Martin Luther King to Communist leaders like James Dombrowski, Benjamin Smith and Bruce Waltzer, all three under indictment for multiple violations of the Louisiana anti-Communist statutes.
        . . . It traces the Communist-led race riots, which began in the South and moved to the North, through a maze of names like Bayard Rustin and King which reappeared last summer in the march on Washington.[102]

    A 1963 letter to Lee Lorch, a Communist,[103] from Dombrowski showed that the Communist party lobbied for the Civil Rights Act and that King collaborated with them. The letter reads in part:

        As part of a massive letter writing campaign, we propose to place a full-page ad in at least one newspaper in each of these 15 states.
        We enclose a layout and text for the ad to be signed by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference; Dr. Martin Luther King, president; the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee; and SCEF.
        SCEF will raise the money. . . .[104]   

       Another 1963 letter, this one from Carl Braden to Dombrowski, also reveals King’s close affiliation with Communists. This letter in part reads:

        The pressure that has been put on Martin [Luther King, Jr.] about [Hunter Pitts] O’Dell helps to explain why he has been ducking us. I suspected there was something of this sort in the wind.
        The UPI has carried a story quoting Martin as saying they have dumped O’Dell for the second time because of fear that the segreationists [sic] would use it against them. He expressed no distaste for Communists or their beliefs, merely puts it on the pragmatic basis that SCLC can’t handle the charges of Communism.[105]

    Uriah Fields, King’s secretary during the early years, wrote, “King helps to advance Communism. He is surrounded with Communists.”[106]
    Soon after the King Holiday became law, Michael Parenti wrote a letter to the New York Times that stated, “What if communists had links to Dr. King? The three areas in which King was most active — civil rights, peace and the labor struggle (the latter two toward the end of his life) — are also areas in which U.S. Communists have worked long and devotedly.”[107] Parenti, who was a frequent contributor to Political Affairs, an official magazine of the Communist Party, shows that the civil rights movement is a communist movement and that King was a frontman for the Communist Party.
    Senator Jesse Helms remarked in the Congressional Record:

    . . . there is no evidence that Martin Luther King was a member of the Communist Party, but the pattern of his activities and associations in the 1950s and 1960s show clearly that he had no strong objection to working with and even relying on Communists or persons and groups whose relationships with the Communist Party were, at the least, ambiguous. It should be recalled that in this period of time (far more than today) many liberal and even radical groups on the left shared a strong awareness of and antipathy for the anti-democratic and brutal nature of Communism and its characteristically deceptive and subversive tactics. It is doubtful that many American liberals would have associated or worked with many of the persons and groups with whom King not only was close but on whom he was in several respects dependent. These associations and, even more, King’s refusal to break with them, even at the expense of public criticism and the alienation of the Kennedy Administration, strongly suggest that King harbored a strong sympathy for the Communist Party and its goals.[108]

    Although he was not a member of the Communist Party, King was a Marxist and an advocate of political, social, and economic egalitarianism. He told his SCLC staff, “We must recognize that we can’t solve our problems now until there is a radical redistribution of economic and political power.”[109]
    King was a powerful promoter and advocate of the Negro Revolution. In a 1968 interview, he stated:

America is deeply racist and its democracy is flawed both economically and socially. . . . the black revolution is much more than a struggle for the rights of Negroes. It is forcing America to face all its interrelated flaws — racism, poverty, militarism, and materialism. It is exposing evils that are rooted deeply in the whole structure of our society. It reveals systemic rather than superficial flaws and suggests that radical reconstruction of society itself is the real issue to be faced.[110]

    In 1967 he told his SCLC staff:

For the last twelve years we have been in a reform movement. . . . But after Selma and the voting rights bill we moved into a new era, which must be an era of revolution. I think we must see the great distinction here between a reform movement and a revolutionary movement [which would] raise certain basic questions about the whole society. . . . this means a revolution of values and of other things.[111]

    Congressman John Ashbrook said before the House of Representatives, “King has consistently worked with Communists and has helped give them a respectability they do not deserve.”[112] Ashbrook “found King to be an apostle of violence and lawlessness, a racist, a power-hungry tyrant, an associate of ‘the most radical elements in our society,’ an individual who ‘has done more for the Communist Party than any other person of this decade.’ Ashbrook described King’s methodology as ‘criminal conduct and conspiracy, not civil disobedience.’”[113] Ashbrook was privy to many confidential reports on King.
    William Hoar described King as “a notorious libertine who was trained, backed, and advised by top Communists to provoke violence and build racial hatred as efficiently as any Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.”[114]
    If one were to judge King by his character instead of his race, one would find him as anti-white, anti-freedom, anti-American, anti-morality, anti-free-market economy, anti-Western Civilization, and anti-South.
 [Editor's note: The list of references in the original are omitted.]

Endnotes --- Continued

101. Henry Makow, “Rosa Parks & Our Communist Corporate Elite,” Dec. 1, 2010, http://www.henrymakow.com/001228.html, accessed Dec. 8, 2010.

102. Stang, It’s Very Simple, p. 127.

103. Francis and Helms, p. 32.

104. Francis and Helms, p. 32.

105. Francis and Helms, p. 33.

106. “Chapter 4. Communism and Racial Tension,” The Modern History Project, http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php ?Article=FinalWarn04, accessed Nov. 5, 2005.

107. Francis and Helms, p. 6.

108. Francis and Helms, pp. 42-43.

109. Francis and Helms, p. 43.

110. Francis and Helms, p. 43.

111. Francis and Helms, p. 43.

112. Francis and Helms, p. 44.

113. Gannon, I, p. 400.

114. Hoar, Architects of Conspiracy, p. 317.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.
 
Part 2

More articles on social issues.

The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement -- Part 2

The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement

Thomas Allen

The leading Negro organizations were founded, organized, and controlled by Communists and communist sympathizers. These organizations included the Civil Rights Congress (CRC), Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), Highlander Folk School (HFS), National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), National Negro Congress (NNC), National Urban League (NUL), Revolution Action Movement (RAM), Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), Southern Conference Educational Fund (SCEF), and Student Nonviolence Coordinating Committee (SNCC)

In 1946, the NNC, International Labor Defense (the legal arm of the Communist party), and the National Federation for Constitutional Liberties (all three were communist fronts) merged to form the CRC. Representing NNC was its president Max Yergan, a Communist. Vito Marcantonto, president of ILD and a member of many communist fronts, represented ILD. Milton Kemnitz, executive secretary of NFCL, represented NFCL. “In 1957, the Subversive Activities Control Board said that the merger ‘was created and established by the Communist Party as an organization which would utilize defense of civil rights for Party purposes and raise and maintain mass defense and bail funds for Party use. . . . [The Civil Rights Congress’] major activity became the defense of Party leaders, and the Party continued to assign functionaries and members as officers of or to work in the Civil Rights Congress to insure that the CRC would operate in accordance with the Party program. . . .’” In short, the CRC is a communist front.

In 1942 James Farmer and George Houser formed CORE. Rustin was the field secretary of CORE during the 1940s. King was a member of CORE’s national advisory committee. King’s SCLC and CORE collaborated on the southern campaigns. CORE promoted violence while SCLC offered a nonviolent solution. The message was “give King what he demanded or Farmer’s CORE will attack you.” That is, “save yourself from CORE’s violence by acceding to King’s demands.” With this tactic, the civil rights movement advanced.

As national director of CORE, McKissick stated, “CORE has many friends. Some might be Black Muslims or the Communists.” In 1965 CORE allied with the Black Muslims.

CORE’s basic tactic was to take over a person’s property and then force that person to either divide the property with CORE members or forcibly remove CORE members from the property. If the property owner chose the latter, he was castigated for doing a great moral wrong. Farmer, CORE’s national director, declared “CORE is the hard-cutting edge of the civil right movement. We’re much more militant than Malcolm X — we’re activists.” Known Communists were highly active in CORE and its demonstrations.

About CORE, Gannon writes, “Despite CORE’s leaders’ constant prattling about nonviolence, CORE demonstrations were fraught with violence. This was not an unusual development because the same situation held true for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and Martin L. King’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the two organizations which were the main collaborators in CORE's demonstrations.”

HFS was a communist front that Myles Horton established with the assistance of Don West. West was the district director of the Communist Party of North Carolina. The purpose of HFS was to train religious leaders and others to subvert churches and labor unions to get them to support communist causes like the civil rights movement.

The NAACP was founded in 1909 to facilitate race wars in the United States and to bring down the white people. Behind organizing the NAACP was Jacob Schiff, head of Kuhn, Loeb and Co., head of the Russian Section of the Jewish International World Government, and a financier of the Bolshevik Revolution through Trotsky. W.E.B. DuBois and seven whites constituted its initial governing body. Most of the early members were white radicals, socialists, and Communists. Throughout its history, the NAACP has maintained close ties with Communists. In 1958 more than 61 percent of the top leaders of the NAACP were involved with communistenterprises. Since the founding of the NAACP, radicals have used it to advance their social and other statist agendas.

In 1923 Communists began financing the NAACP through the Garland Fund, which Communists ran, and continued to do so until at least 1934. A few years later Communists began taking control of the NAACP. By the late 1930s, the NAACP had become associated with communist organizations and fronts, such as the National Negro Congress, World Youth Congress, and American Youth for a Free World. In 1941 it cooperated with the Communist party in establishing Progress Citizens of America. The Communist Party endorsed the NAACP in 1953 and encouraged its members to support the NAACP’s campaigns. Another endorsement was given in 1957. The permanent attorneys associated with the NAACP were affiliated with communist fronts and projects.

Before 1960 the NAACP had focused on legal and educational programs. Then it followed SCLC and CORE and adopted an activist program. It became involved in “peace” marches, boycotts, picket lines at stores, and sit-ins.

Robert Thompson, a Communist, wrote the following about the NAACP in Political Affairs: “The emergence of a powerful left, anti-imperialist, anti-fascist current among the Negro people is unmistakable and is clearly discernible in the NAACP.”

About the NAACP, Manning Johnson declared, “National Association for the Advancement of Colored People set up the situation that erupted into racial violence at Little Rock . . . the main danger and handicap to the Negro is not the southern school, but the persecution and hate complex the NAACP and the Reds are trying to create.”

Gannon writes about the NAACP:

From its inception to the present, no matter the protestations of Langston Hughes or any other NAACP apologist, the organization’s officials and its known members, collectively and individually, have represented the influential left, the leadership of Communist fronts and leftwing political and pacifist groups, and the most effective of the anti-anti-Communist establishment. The NAACP has two seemingly contradictory objectives. One is to foment racial tensions, which intensifies barriers between Negroes and other races, especially whites. The other is to bring down barriers that separate Negroes from other races, especially whites. These two objectives are not really contradictory. Both use the Negro as a weapon to destroy the white people and the United States, which are the ultimate goals of the NAACP and kindred organization.

In 1947 The NNC merged with the CRC. James W. Ford, a Communist and a vice president of the League of Strength for Negro Rights (a communist organization), and the Negro Commission of the Communist Party established the NNC in 1935. Another organizer was Ralph Bunche. Communists who were active in the NCC were James W. Ford, Benjamin Davis Jr. (secretary of the NCC), Louise Thompson (member of the Communist Party’s central committee), and Louise E. Strong.

“In 1942, Attorney General Francis Biddle reported: ‘The National Negro Congress, throughout its existence, has closely followed the Communist Party line, espousing causes and adopting issues sponsored by the Party, and with regard thereto, has sought to affiliate itself and form “united fronts” with other organizations. It has characterized all legislation deemed a threat to the civil liberties of Communists or any alien or minority group as “repressive and fascist.” . . .’” Under Whitney Young’s leadership, NUL threatened the United States government into funding a social revolution to prevent an armed revolt. Actually, the ruling elite wanted to increase spending on social programs. Social programs make people dependent on the government, which the ruling elite control. Thus, social programs facilitated their control of the masses.

RAM’s “avowed goal was the violent overthrow of the United States Government.” Its leaders openly aligned themselves with the Vietcong. It sought to infiltrate and subvert other Negro organizations. About RAM, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover stated, “[RAM is] a highly militant, secretive organization following the Chinese oriented Marxist-Leninist line and believes in replacing the capitalistic system with socialism.”

King, Shuttlesworth, and Rustin founded SCLC in 1957. Among the guests at the SCLC organizational meeting were Ella J. Baker (spiritual mother of SNCC) and Charles Hayes (a Communist and district director of United Packinghouse Works of America).

Levison provided financial, organizational, and public relations services for King and SCLC and was responsible for much of SCLC’s finances. In 1956, Rustin introduced King to Levison, a Communist. Afterwards, Levison and King became close friends. Besides his other services to King, Levison wrote speeches for King.

SCLC collaborated with HFS to train Negro leaders in the civil rights movement.

The Louisiana Joint Legislative Committee on Un-American Activities found that SCLC was “substantially under the control of the Communist Party through the influence of the Southern Conference Education Fund and the Communists who manage it.” King and SCLC were closely associated with Dombrowski and other Communists.

SCEF was a communist front used to promote Communism and communist goals to Southern Negroes. SCEF appeared soon after the Southern Conference for Human Welfare (SCHW) disbanded in 1947. The Communist Party established SCHW in 1938. Carl Braden, a member of the Communist party was the field director of the SCHW and later executive director and information director. His wife, Anne Braden, who was also a member of the Communist party, was the editor of the Southern Patriot, which SCHW published and which the SCEF continued to publish. Law partners Benjamin E. Smith and Bruce Waltzer were part of the overall management of SCEF. Both were indicted under the Louisiana Subversive Activities and Communist Control Act. Benjamin Smith was its treasurer. William H. Melish, a Communist, was the Eastern Representative of SCEF.

Aubrey Williams, a member of the Communist party, was the president of SCEF until 1963, and then he became president emeritus. Under President Roosevelt, Williams was director of the National Youth Administration, which made him Lyndon Johnson’s boss. Dombrowski, former executive director of SCHW and a member of the Communist Party, was the executive director of SCEF.

SCEF was the financial backbone of the civil rights movement and the Negro Revolution and many communist fronts. Without the financial aid of SCEF, SNCC would have collapsed.

In 1960 King founded SNCC (pronounced “snick”) to manage sit-ins. After the founding of SNCC, sit-ins and related demonstrations became commonplace throughout the South. SNCC soon gained the support of the U.S. National Student Association (which the CIA funded), the U.S. Department of Justice, NAACP, CORE, and SCLC.

Besides sit-ins, SNCC conducted “freedom rides” and “freedom schools.” Although it claimed to be nonviolent, SNCC used violence and the threat of violence to achieve its goals.

Like nearly all civil rights organizations, SNCC was closely associated with Communists. “Liberal columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak commented: ‘ . . . There is no doubt that SNCC is substantially infiltrated by beatnicks, left wing revolutionaries and worst of all — by Communists.’” It used mailing labels of the communist National Guardian.

SNCC received funds from SCEF and Dombrowski. Jack Rogers, counsel of the Louisiana Joint Legislative Committee on Un-American Activities, noted:

Without the help and backing of the Communist-led Southern Conference Educational Fund, the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee would collapse overnight. However it originally started, the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee is certainly now under the complete control of the Southern Conference Educational Fund through both money and leadership. . . .

The Committee finds that the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee are substantially under the control of the Communist Party through the influence of Southern Conference Educational Fund and the Communists who manage it.

In 1966 Carmichael became the chairman of SNCC, and SNCC abandoned the pretense of working for integration through nonviolence. Under Carmichael, SNCC pushed Black Power. SNCC formerly merged with the Black Panthers in 1968 for a few months after which SNCC expelled Carmichael and ended its merger with the Black Panthers. However, Carmichael left SNCC its rallying cry: “To hell with America . . . [which is] racist from top to bottom, from left to right.” What is left unsaid is that the racists are black and not the cowered whites.

Many more communist organizations have been involved in the civil rights movement. The ones discussed above are a few of the most important ones.

The Communists approached the civil rights movement with a two-pronged attack. They gave white America a choice to be destroyed by black violence or to be destroyed by black integration. Consequently, Malcolm X preached violence while King was presented as the symbol of nonviolence. If America did not give King what he demanded, it would have to answer to Malcolm X. Only King could save America from the violence of Malcolm X. Yet King seemed to leave a wake of Negro riots wherever he went. (King wrote that the purpose of his demonstrations was to provoke violence.)

Carmichael exposed the myth of “nonviolence” in the civil rights movement. During an interview in 1966, he declared:

This nonviolence bit is just a philanthropic handout. I don’t see why people keep thinking about that. The violence is inevitable. I don’t try to stop the fight. I try to prepare the people I am organizing so that when the right time comes they will be able to win it. Our country does not run on reason; it is run on violence. That’s the reality of how things are done here. It is to my benefit to get the Negro out on the streets to stop the machine which is keeping me from my rights. Whether they do it by marching, singing, dancing or fighting is irrelevant. Communists have been at the center of Negro riots. Former Communist Philip Abbot Luce stated, “All of us, as good Communists, were responsible for some work in the riots and each of us longed for the possibility that Harlem would herald the beginning of a nationwide guerilla war.”

Although many leaders of the civil rights movement are Communists, most members are not. The purpose of civil rights organizations is to get noncommunists to support the communist agenda of bringing the United States and the white race down via the Negro Revolution. (The Negro Revolution is one of several approaches being used to destroy the United States and the white race. Others include feminism and the homosexual movement. The same arguments are used in all three movements.) These noncommunist members, many of whom are naive or idealists, conceal the true masters controlling the civil rights movement: Communists and their lords, the ruling elite.

The communist influence is seen when the leaders talk about poor and working-class whites uniting with oppressed blacks to overthrow capitalism, which according to them is the cause of racism. Also, during their riots, Negroes often destroy many black businesses. Like Communists, civil rights organizations promote the welfare state and socialism. Consequently, they want to reduce blacks, whites, and everyone else besides the ruling elite to wards and slaves of the state. So much for freeing the Negro.

In essence, black leaders claim that, unlike people of other races, Negroes are too inferior to stand on their own. They need special privileges and handouts. If they do not believe that Negroes are inferior, then they reveal that they are more interested in promoting socialism than the welfare of Negroes.

One reason that Communists oppose segregation is that it causes the development of a Negro bourgeoisie. Pepper (Pogany) rightly blamed segregation for “. . . a rapid development of a Negro petit-bourgeoisie, a Negro intelligentsia and even a Negro bourgeoisie. The very fact of segregation of the Negro masses creates the basis for the development of a stratum of small merchants, lawyers, physicians, preachers, brokers, who try to attract the Negro workers and farmers as consumers. . . .” The Communists wanted to replace this independence and prosperity of the Negro people with hatred toward whites and dependence on the government — and they have succeeded remarkably well.

Furthermore, because the ruling elite feeds on crisis and turmoil, segregation was turned into a great social crisis. This crisis has been one of the most artificial crises ever created in the United States. Elitists, primarily through Communists, instigated it to add racial hatred to class hatred. Integration also serves the purpose of hastening the death of the white people as it destroys them with artificial guilt and helps breed them out of existence.

The Carnegie Foundation and the Ford Foundation have been important financial sources for the Negro Revolution and its civil rights movement. Carnegie foundations financed Whitney Young, a racial extortionist, and the National Urban League. Young and NUL also received funding from the Ford Foundation.

Besides NUL, CORE, SCLC, and NAACP received funds from the Ford Foundation. The Ford Foundation also funded Milton A. Galamision, LeRoi Jones, and Floyd B. McKissick.

Carnegie’s money also paid for Gunnar Myrdal’s study that purported proved that segregation caused all the problems of the Negro. If it were not for segregation, the Negro would be the white’s intellectual, economic, and social equal. Myrdal held that liberty must be sacrificed for the sake of social equality. He was a Communist who considered the U.S. Constitution to be a plot against the common people. Aiding him in his study were 16 people associated with communist fronts. At least four of them (Ralph J. Bunche, Doxy A. Wilkerson, Bernard J. Stern, and James E. Jackson) were Communists. The United States Supreme Court relied on Myrdal’s study to reject the U.S. Constitution and to impose integration. Stang described this study and its use by the Supreme Court as “the Communist weapon forged by these totalitarians for the purpose — as one of the main justifications for ordering the forced amalgamation of the races in the schools. And that decision leads straight to the forced bussing of today. In other words, forced bussing is nothing but a tactic in a long-range Communist strategy.” The purpose of this strategy is to subvert covertly the government of the United States into a dictatorship. To achieve this goal, the family must be destroyed. This destruction is the purpose of forced integration. Not only did the ruling elite use the financial might of their foundations to foment the Negro Revolution, they also used the money and power of the U. S. government. President Johnson’s civil rights law and War on Poverty were merely weapons that the ruling elite used through the Negro Revolution to destroy the constitutional government of the United States and the white people.

One ostensible object of the War on Poverty was to eliminate slums that agitators exploited to get Negroes to riot. Yet Communists and other agitators were hired to administer the War on Poverty. Actually, the real purpose of the War on Poverty was to create turmoil. (Before the riots of 1967 broke out, Sargent Shriver, director of the United States Office of Economic Opportunity, knew that the United Community Corp., an agency of the Office of Economic Opportunity, was organizing the riots.) President Johnson used the 1967 riots as an excuse for the expansion of his War on Poverty. Negro riots served the purpose of expanding the size, power, and intrusiveness of the U.S. government.

Black revolutionists gave the ruling elite an excuse to carry out compulsory racial integration in the United States. The organization of racial integration was assigned to Ronald Lippert of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and the American Jewish Congress. His program called for the destruction of the individual’s personal identity and his racial heritage — especially the destruction of white racial identity. The National Education Association was employed to execute this program. Controlling the National Education Association was the Stanford Research Institute. Controlling the Stanford Research Institute was the Tavistock Institute. The Tavistock Institute specialized in developing, teaching, and employing mind control and brainwashing techniques.

Some Negro leaders, such as former Communists Helen Wood Birnie and Manning Johnson, had the intelligence and courage to oppose the evils of the civil rights movement. They realized that the ruling elite was using Negroes to advance their communistic, illuministic New World Order. Manning summed up school integration:

. . . the whole issue boils down to taking Negro children out of one school and transferring them to another so that they can be seated with white children on the assumption that only in this way will the Negro child get an education. What really is being implied is that the 113,000 Negro teachers in Southern schools are inferior, incompetent and unable to properly teach the children of their own race . . . it is a question of the liquidation of the Negro school and the Negro teacher under the guise of integration.

These Negro leaders were ignored or smeared with vile epitaphs. (Probably many Negro leaders, such as King and DuBois, who had sold their souls to the ruling elite, were aware of these evils and that their people were merely tools used to advance the illuministic New World Order.)

To show Americans, especially Southerners, that the resistance to the U.S. government and its despotic edicts was futile, President Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard and used it to invade Little Rock in 1957. Later, President Kennedy federalized the Mississippi National Guard in 1962 and used it to invade Mississippi. Thus, the ruling elite used these national guards against their own States.

Moreover, black organizations allied with communist fronts and liberal organizations have been highly successful in destroying Southern culture. Singing “Dixie” and displaying the Confederate battle flag have been banned. Statues honoring Confederate soldiers and heroes have been torn down. Streets and public buildings bearing the name of Confederate soldiers and nineteenth century. Southern political leaders have been renamed. In the name of tolerance, the South is drowning in a sea of intolerance.

Communists supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They correctly saw the law as greatly increasing the power of the U.S. government and the President over the people. Communist Benjamin Davis declared, “Communists believe the achievement of this program [legislation, etc.] will lay an indispensable basis not only for the further social progress of the country, but for its socialist and communist future.”

Lloyd Wright and John C. Satterfield, both past presidents of the American Bar Association, stated about the Civil Rights Act:

It is 10% civil rights and 90% extension of Federal executive power. If this legislation becomes law and is upheld by the Courts—

–It will, in fact, extend Federal control over business, industry and over individuals (with a corresponding destruction of State power) in a degree that exceeds the total of such extensions of power by all judicial decisions and all Congressional actions since the Constitution of the United States was adopted.

–It will, in fact, destroy the Constitutional checks and balances between the Federal Government and the States; and

–It will, in fact, destroy the Constitutional checks and balances between the Executive branch of the Government and the Legislative and Judicial branches.

—The “civil rights” aspect of this Legislation is but a cloak; uncontrolled Federal Executive power is the body.

Wright and Satterfield continue:

This legislation assumes a totally powerful National Government with unending authority to intervene in all private affairs among men, and to control and adjust property relationships, in accordance with the judgment of Government personnel.

It is impossible to prevent Federal intervention from becoming an institutionalization of special privilege for political pressure groups.

They conclude, “This must lead eventually, not to greater human freedom, but to an ever-diminishing freedom.”

Although the Civil Rights Act of 1964 expressly prohibited forced busing, federal judges soon replaced the clear language of the law with the communist agenda of forced busing for racial purposes. Thus, they replaced the “rule of law” with the “rule of man.” Congress did nothing and has done nothing to stop these illegal acts of federal judges. Forced busing has nothing to do with quality education for Negroes. It has everything to do with forcing integration.

To show the result of the civil rights law, Alan Stang comments on a barber prosecuted under the civil rights law of Illinois for refusing to cut the hair of two Negroes:

So in the United States of America — the land of the free — man can be sent to jail for six months, for refusing to cut somebody’s hair.

According to the Rev. Dr. King, what we have to worry about is slavery. It was slavery that made the problem. And is the “vestiges” of slavery that keep the problem alive. It’s slavery that we have to get away from.

What is slavery?

A slave is officially defined as: “One whose person and services are under the control of another as owner or master.” The point on the Old Plantation, according to Dr. King, was that some men’s services were under the control of other men as masters.

And according to Dr. King this was wrong. It was slavery.

But according to Dr. King it’s perfectly all right for the services of a man in Illinois to be under the control of another man as master. It’s perfectly fine that a man can be sent to jail for six months for refusing to cut another man’s hair. That’s wonderful, that’s okay.

That isn’t slavery.

It’s civil rights.

Yet the whole point to slavery, isn’t it, is that a slave can’t quit. Negro slaves couldn’t quit the Old Plantation — and Mr. Rehm apparently can’t quit in Illinois.

The civil rights movement along with forced integration has made race relations worse. It has heightened racial identity and consciousness among nonwhites and has done nothing to reduce racial stereotypes. It has increased intolerance. In the name of tolerance, the leaders of the civil rights movement have been highly intolerant. Conflicts have been elevated between Negroes and Latinos, Negroes and Somalis, Latinos and East Asians, and other racial and ethnic groups. (When left free to choose, most people prefer segregation to integration. They prefer being among others who are like them.) Integration has even created conflict between groups that historically never had conflict with each other until they came to the multiracial, multicultural United States. Communists and other statists feed on conflict as it fertilizes their power. That is why the ruling elite brought the civil rights movement to the United States and has pushed the multiracial, multicultural, open borders, “diversity is strength,” agenda. It destroys liberty and the white race while making the ruling elite all-powerful.

The whole civil rights movement is a hoax. Its purpose is not to grant Negroes “equal rights” per se. Its purpose is to enslave whites. The common excuse for Negro crime and Negro riots is that Negroes are rebelling against white oppression. Whites have denied Negroes their “rights.” Well, Negroes have not only been granted “equal rights,” they have been given superior rights. They have become the new aristocracy, a privileged class. Yet Negro crime grows, and the riots still occurred. However, whites have surrendered enormous freedoms in the name of “equal rights.” The more “equal rights” Negroes have acquired, the more socialistic (fascistic) the United States have become. The more “equal rights” Negroes acquire, the more political power is concentrated in the U.S. government and in the President — and fewer real rights anyone, black or white, has. As Pat Buchanan remarks, “Civil rights has become a racket.”

If whites are as vile and evil as proponents of the civil rights movement contend, why would blacks want to integrate with such hideous people? This is one of the great mysteries of the civil rights movement. That blacks want to integrate with such despicable cowards speaks volumes about blacks — and it is not complimentary. The answer to this mystery must be that blacks do not want to associate with whites. They want the wealth, property, and power that they perceive whites as having. At least they have achieved their goal of power over whites.

In the end, the civil rights movement and Negro Revolution do not benefit the Negro. They were never intended to benefit the Negro. They were intended to enslave everyone under the ruling elite. To see the future of the Negro in what is becoming a Latino-controlled America, one needs only to look at California, especially Los Angeles.

The Civil Rights Act reduced the States, especially the Southern States, to little more than administrative districts of the U.S. government. It has given the President almost absolute control over every business in the country, public education, housing, and the media. In the name of eradicating the vestiges of slavery, the Civil Rights Act has reduced all to slavery. According to King, slavery placed men’s services under the control of other men as masters, which is exactly what the Civil Rights Act that he supported has done. Furthermore, whites have been cowered into allowing their race and culture to be destroyed.

J. Edgar Hoover outlined the communist-led civil rights movement:

Communists seek to advance the cause of communism by injecting themselves into racial situations and in exploiting them (1) to intensify the frictions between Negroes and whites to "prove" that discrimination against minorities is an inherent defect of the capitalist system, (2) to foster domestic disunity by dividing Negroes and whites into antagonistic, warring factions, (3) to undermine and destroy established authority, (4) to incite Negro hostility toward law and order, (5) to encourage and foment racial strife and riotous activity, and (6) to portray the Communist movement as the “champion” of social protest and the only force capable of ameliorating the conditions of the Negro and the oppressed.

In his book Color, Communism and Common Sense, Manning Johnson describes the tactics that Communists used to control the civil rights movement. A chief tactic is to condemn racial strife while creating it. Smearing opponents is another.

The civil rights movement has followed the basic communist tactic of thesis (action), antithesis (reaction), and synthesis (solution). Blacks agitate, threaten violence, take over property, and riot — thesis (problem). Whites react to protect themselves — antithesis. (To ensure a violent reaction, often the reaction is led by agents of the ruling elite.) Agents of the ruling elite come forth with the solution, which is concentrating ever more power in the U.S. government and the President, whom the ruling elite controls if not own — synthesis (solution). It is all very simple.

The objective of the civil rights movement is to divide and destroy America and to bring down the white race. It has been remarkably successful because of the complete and unconditional surrender by whites.

As has been shown, the civil rights movement has been a communist movement from the beginning and continues to be one today. Its leaders have been Communists and communist sympathizers.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.
 
Part 1 Part 3

More articles on social issues.