Yankees Need the South

Yankees Need the South

Thomas Allen

Yankees need the South and Southerners, but Southerners do not need Yankees. Furthermore, Southerners are better off without Yankees. 

Yankees are extremely self-righteous, arrogant, hypocritical, greedy, disagreeable, and bossy. They possess the typical Puritan attitude: they lust to remake America and the world into the perfect image of themselves. (For more descriptions of the Yankee, see “The Yankee,” “The Puritan Yankee,” and “Cusson’s Description of the Yankee” by Thomas Allen.)

Although many Northerners are not real Yankees, many, unfortunately, have become Yankeefied. Likewise, many scalawag Southerners have become Yankeefied. (Most governors of Southern States have been Yankeefied: Examples are Nikki Haley of South Carolina and Roy Cooper of North Carolina. Two recent Southern governors are real Yankees: George Bush and Jeb Bush.)

Because of their need for Southerners, Yankees could not let the South go in 1861 and cannot let them go today. Furthermore, Yankees believe that the solution to America’s problems is to rule the South with an iron fist.

Yankees have a psychological need for the “Lost Cause” of the Confederacy.  Could it be that Yankees know in their hearts that the leaders of the Confederacy were morally and ethically superior to Lincoln and the leaders of the North? Yankees needed and still need the “Myth of the Lost Cause” to reassure themselves that Southerners were and still are fiendish, diabolical, and abominable to justify their power, privilege, and amour propre.

Being void of virtue, Yankees need to steal virtue from others. Since the South is part of the American empire, stealing virtue from the South is convenient and easy. Thus, every good thing that comes out of the South is not really Southern; it is American, i.e., Northern, especially New England.

Moreover, Yankees need to belittle Southerners to feed their self-esteem. Without having Southerners to disparage, Yankees would be nothing. Thus, Yankees view themselves as righteous and Southerners as evil.

Although Yankees have lure and ideology, Yankeedom has no civilization; they have no culture. Therefore, they need the South to provide them with a culture.

Sanctimonious Yankees need Southerners so that they can have someone to whom feel superior. Condemning the South gives Yankees a sense of identity and importance because they feel superior to Southerners.

Additionally, Yankees need a scapegoat to blame for their sins and failures.  Being part of the American empire makes the South a convenient scapegoat. Consequently, every undesirable thing that happens in the North, such as racial strife in Northern cities, results from the sins of the South. Yankees blame Southerners for the racial hatred and social pathologies in the North. Moreover, they blame Southerners for the evil that Yankees have caused. Thus, all economic, social, and psychological problems are the fault of Southerners. Needing someone to blame for their failures, Yankees blame Southerners.

No Yankee is going to let the truth detour his hatred of and hostility toward Southerners, whether they are reconstructed or remain unreconstructed.

Appendix

In America, two primary branches of Protestantism compete with each other. They are the Yankee religion and the Southern religion.

The Yankee religion is Calvinist and Puritan, that is, disciplined, communal, and focused on the purification of the community. It places evil in the object, e.g., drugs, guns, and the living environment. Thus, it seeks power and stresses social improvement. Being on the right side of history is a personal virtue. Out of the Yankee religion have come abolitionism, millennialism, progressivism, prohibition, feminism, the civil rights movement, neoconservatism, political correctness, social justice, wokeism, and Antifa. Furthermore, it is the parent of the the concept of "the city on the hill.”  Usually, the sermons of the Yankee religion are on current events.

The Southern religion is spiritually Anglican, although it is not structurally Anglican. That is, it is folkish and focuses on the individual and his soul. It places evil in the hearts of men. Thus, it seeks sanctification and manifests in a person’s private life, and goes unnoticed by intellectuals and historians. It stresses faith and piety with the notion of a Christian gentleman. A virtuous person is valuable to his fellow man. Usually, the sermons of the Southern religion are on salvation.

The Yankee religion represents worldly power and prestige more than does the Southern religion.

Reference

Wilson, Clyde N. Defending Dixie: Essays in Southern History and Culture. Second edition. Columbia, South Carolina: Stonewall Publishing LLC: 2005, 2025.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern articles.

Some Observations Pertaining to Race

Some Observations Pertaining to Race

Thomas Allen

 

Discussed below are the option of racial separation, the social construct of the races, school integration, and the future of the American Negro.

Many Whites are racial nihilists and pretend to be Negrophiles. (One cannot be a racial nihilist and at the same time be a Negrophile. A racial nihilist claims that race is irrelevant, while a Negrophile claims to love Negroes, which requires the relevancy of Negroes.) In reality, White racial nihilists hate Whites and have no qualms about annihilating the American Negro if their annihilation results in the genocide of Whites.

Racial Separation Is Not an Option

In “Mamdani’s Commie Housing Official Is a Lunatic,” January 7, 2026, (https://amac.us/newsline/politics/mamdanis-commie-housing-official-is-a-lunatic/?utm_objective=website_traffic&dderh=4b6c02be5961e5a13b9d052b0611dda2), the author wrote, “There are many policy options available to the voters of this country, but communism and racial separation are not among them.” If racial separation is a policy option not available to the voters of this country, then racial amalgamation is the policy forced on the country. Racial amalgamation is genocide of the races, as the races cease to exist when amalgamated. Why does this author hate the American Negro so much that he wants to genocide them? (See “Miscegenation Is Genocide” by Thomas Allen.)

Furthermore, the author writes, “This is not a communist country, and our system is not compatible with communism’s demands.” For a country that is not communist, the United States have gone a long way toward implementing the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto. The United States have adopted about 80 percent of these planks (five fully and five partially). The country may not be a fully communist country, but it is almost there. (See “Are the United States a Communist Country?” by Thomas Allen.)

Are the Races Social Constructs?

Many left-wingers and brainwashed right-wingers who want to be politically correct claim that the human races are social constructs and do not exist biologically. If the human races are social constructs, how can dogs distinguish a Black person from a White person without ever seeing the person? Furthermore, bacteria, which know even less about human racial constructs than do dogs, can distinguish a Black person from a White person. Different odor-causing bacteria grow on Blacks than grow on Whites. For this reason, dogs can differentiate between the races.

Furthermore, and even more shockingly, computers can identify a person’s race from medical images. Computers must be identifying some kind of biological features that distinguish one social construct race from another, which means that races are biological rather than social constructs. (Rachel Gordon, "Artificial intelligence predicts patients' race from their medical images/' MIT News, May 20, 2022:[https://news.mit.edu/2022/artificial-intelligence-predicts-patients-race-from-medical-images-0520] and “AI recognition of patient race in medical imaging: a modelling study” [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35568690/].)

Amazingly, the blood (see “Of One Blood” by Thomas Allen) and skeletons (see “Skeleton Differences of Human Races”) of these socially constructed races differ. Even more amazingly, they differ in nonphysical characteristics. (See “Nonphysical Racial Differences” by Thomas Allen.) 

Miraculously, socially constructed races correspond almost perfectly with biological races — both physically and physiologically. It must be one of those great, inexplicable coincidences.

School Integration

Northerners and especially Yankees supported school integration in the South primarily for two reasons. First, they, especially Yankees, supported it because they hated Southerners and wanted to use Blacks to destroy them and their way of life. Second, they wanted to keep Blacks where they belonged — in the South. If they integrated schools in the South but not in the North, fewer Blacks would migrate to the North. (Initially, federal integration laws were written to apply only where segregation was statutory [in the South] and not where segregation was customary [in the North]. Unfortunately for the North, judges started doing what they always do and ignored the parts of the law with which they disliked and started applying integration laws in the North.) Almost no Northerners, especially Yankees, were concerned about the welfare of Blacks. Blacks were merely weapons to destroy the South. Now, the monster that they created is destroying all of White America, as Whites have become second-class citizens in the country that they created.

Future of the American Negro

When Hispanics allied with East Asians and South Asians reach critical mass, Whites will, most likely, remain second-class citizens. However, Blacks will be demoted to fifth-class citizens. Unfortunately for Blacks, they will not be able to control this alliance with false guilt, as they have controlled Whites. The typical Hispanic, East Asian, and South Asian has less use for Blacks than the stereotypical Klansman.

Under White supremacy, Blacks were at least allowed on the bus, although they were usually restricted to the rear of the bus. Under the nonwhite-nonblack supremacy, they may not even be allowed on the bus.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Carthage and the United States

Carthage and the United States

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: This article was submitted in 1988 for the “Southern National Newsletter” of the Southern National Party.]

[Since this article was written, the roles have been reversed. The United States are now Rome, and Russia is Carthage. Unlike disarmed Carthage, Russia possesses a large arsenal of nuclear weapons against which the United States seem to possess no defense. While Russia has a large-scale civil defense system to protect its civilians, the United States have none except for the oligarchs and high-ranking politicians and bureaucrats — it was abolished to appease the Soviet Union.]

As post-World War II history demonstrates, the United States are following the path that Carthage followed more than 2100 years ago. If the United States go the way of Carthage, the South will too, if it remains part of the present union.

By the second century B. C., the primary foreign policy of Rome had become the annihilation of Carthage, for Rome envied the prosperity of Carthage. After Rome defeated Carthage in the Second Punic War, Carthage agreed not to engage in war with any ally of Rome. If a Roman ally attacked Carthage, Carthage was to appeal to Rome to settle the dispute. Numidia, which was an ally of Rome, took advantage of Carthage’s predicament and attacked her. Carthage appealed to Rome to end the conflict. Rome resolved the conflict unfairly in favor of Numidia. The next time Numidia attacked Carthage, Carthage defended herself instead of appealing to Rome. She knew that Rome would not provide any aid or justice. Carthage feared that Rome would use this conflict as a pretext for war, and events soon proved her right. Fearing reprisal from Rome, Carthage sought appeasement. She inquired of Rome about the conditions necessary to secure peace. Rome demanded and received three hundred children of noble birth to hold as hostages. With the hostages in hand, Rome then demanded that Carthage surrender all weapons of war. Hoping to win Rome to clemency, Carthage complied. After the weapons were surrendered, Rome then demanded the city itself. The inhabitants were told that they could march ten miles inland and build a new city, but Carthage had to be destroyed. With this demand, Carthage finally realized the perfidy and baseness of her enemy. Without weapons, she prepared for war. The Carthaginians were able to manufacture enough weapons to resist the Roman siege for four years. In 146 B. C., Carthage finally fell to the Roman army. Rome utterly destroyed her. The city was burned and leveled. Carthage was no more.

Just as Rome’s foreign policy was to destroy Carthage, so is the Soviet Union’s foreign policy to destroy the United States. Ever since the days of Lenin, the foreign policy of the Soviet Union has been the destruction of the United States. Just as Rome expanded and absorbed all those around her, so has the Soviet Union. Following the path of Carthage, the United States have met the Soviet threat with appeasement. They seek to appease their Rome, the envious Soviet Union. With rhetoric, the United States mildly object to Soviet expansion. With deeds, they restrain and hamper those who seek to defend themselves from Soviet imperialism. Whereas Carthage was forced to prostrate herself before Rome as a result of defeat in war and entered into a one-sided treaty that favored Rome, the United States have voluntarily entered into one treaty after another that favors their enemy, the Soviet Union. The United States have entered into several arms-control treaties with the Soviet Union. However, the Soviet Union abides by these treaties only as long as it suits its purposes and ignores them when convenient. The United States abide by these treaties even if they have never been ratified. Now, the United States are going down the road of disarmament with a known liar and deceiver. Whereas Rome held only three hundred Carthaginians hostage, the Soviet Union is rapidly approaching the point where she will hold 240,000,000 Americans hostage. The Soviet Union has an effective civil defense and antimissile system. Yet, the United States have neither and are determined to acquire neither. The day may soon come when the Soviet Union will demand that the United States disarm themselves completely or be destroyed. If the United States resist, most likely war will result. If they do as Carthage did and disarm, they will perish as Carthage did. (Envy is a powerfully destructive force.) However, the United States will not have the luxury of rearming and making a last stand as Carthage did. Just as an envious Rome achieved her objective of obliterating prosperous Carthage, so will an envious Soviet Union achieve hers of obliterating the prosperous United States.

If the Southern States wish to avoid the fate of Carthage, they must separate from the present union. To remain part of the United States is to die. The United States no longer have the will to defend themselves. They desire only to appease their enemy. Only in an independent South can Southerners ever hope to build a civil defense and antimissile system to protect themselves from Soviet blackmail. Only in an independent South can Southerners ever hope to live in peace. The time has come for a free and independent confederation of Southern States.

As paradoxical as it may appear, an independent South may be the only way that the United States can be saved from the Soviet Union. An independent South would seek to defend itself from Soviet aggression and thus retard that aggression. Not only that, but the trauma of losing their Southern colonies may destroy the lethargy of the United States, force them to recognize their vulnerability and cause them to defend themselves from Soviet aggression, which would totally thwart her potential threats and prevent war.

[Fortunately, under President Reagan’s leadership, the United States woke up and thwarted the Soviet threat so greatly that the Soviet Union collapsed. Now, the Marxist mantle of destroying the United States has passed to China. However, Marxists within the United States are giving China stiff competition, which is un-Marxist, to bring down America. Like good Marxists, these American Marxists are destroying the history of the country by starting with the removal of anything about the Confederacy or the antebellum era. They push disarmament of the people and other Marxist laws to enslave Americans — many in the name of the war on terrorism. Unlike the United States, at least, traitors within her gates did not control Carthage.]

Copyright © 1988, 2025 by Thomas C. Allen.

More history articles.

A Nullification That Failed

A Nullification That Failed

Thomas Allen

From the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s, the Southern States failed in their attempt to nullify federal acts that forced desegregation and integration, following the recommendations of Madison, which the Tenth Amendment Center (TAC) endorses. Not only did the Southern States dislike these acts,  but most of them were unconstitutional. 

In Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the US Supreme Court based its desegregation ruling primarily on personal biases, sociology, and politics, with the US Constitution playing only an insignificant role. When Congress proposed the Fourteenth Amendment, it did not intend for it to apply to schools. Shortly after its ratification, Congress established a racially segregated school system for the District of Columbia.

According to TAC, Madison identified four appropriate methods that a State and “we the people” of that State could use to oppose and nullify an unconstitutional federal act or even a disliked federal act. A discussion of these four follows.

1. Popular protest by the people. “We the people” of a State may vigorously and vociferously protest against an unconstitutional or even disliked federal act. Southerners protested resolutely and vehemently against forced federal integration acts, but the federal government successfully suppressed their protest. Their protest did nothing more than bring more federal oppression and less liberty.

2. Refuse to cooperate with the federal government. Wholeheartedly, the Southern States not only refused to cooperate with the federal government, but they also interfered with its enforcement of federal integration acts. With great fervor, they opposed federal integration acts. Their disobedience and lack of cooperation did nothing except invigorate the federal government’s resolve to become more tyrannical and oppressive.

3. Formal protest by the governor. Few governors have ever protested unconstitutional acts of the federal government as did Governor Faubus of Arkansas and Governor Wallace of Alabama. All their protest did was cause the federal government to use military force against Arkansas and Alabama to quell their protest. Other governors protested, but to no avail. Their protest led to more subjection and despotism.

4. Legislative action. Legislative action includes resolutions formally protesting the federal government’s usurpation and unconstitutional acts. Legislatures may forbid agents of the State and its local governments from cooperating with the federal government in enforcing the federal act. It may even include interfering to prevent the federal government from enforcing an unconstitutional federal act. However, legislative action does not extend to preventing federal agents from enforcing unconstitutional federal acts with imprisonment or fines. State legislatures of the Southern States took actions to thwart the enforcement of federal integration acts, short of jailing federal agents. Again, the results were the same: more oppression, tyranny, and loss of liberty.

Madison believed that if adjoining States protested against a federal act and sought to nullify it with the aforementioned actions, their actions would cause the federal act to become void. Madison was wrong. The Southern States were unified in their protest of the federal government’s integration acts. Yet, their unity did nothing to stop the federal government’s tyranny.

The Southern States did not resort to jailing federal agents attempting to enforce school integration. However, this action would have also failed because the philosophy of "might makes right" dominated the country. (With the possible exceptions of the Cleveland, Harding, and Coolidge administrations, this philosophy has been the dominant governing principle of the federal government since 1861 — even superseding the Constitution.) Since the federal government used military force against Arkansas and Alabama in response to much milder forms of nullification, it would have used even greater force against a State that jailed its agents. (If a State had nullified these federal acts following Calhoun’s philosophy instead of Madison’s, these acts would not have applied in the nullifying States. Consequently, the federal government could not have lawfully used the military to enforce them because they did not exist in the nullifying States. However, since the federal government ceased following the Constitution in 1861, it would have used troops anyway.)

As a result of the Southern States’ failure to nullify the federal government’s integration acts, America’s education has deteriorated significantly. Worse, their defeat gave birth to racial quotas, political correctness, diversity-equity-inclusion, wokeism, and ultimately the death of the White race, Christianity, and Western Civilization. Such has been the goal of the Puritan Yankees since the mid-nineteenth century. Only the South stood in the way of this goal; that is why Lincoln and the Republicans had to destroy the South.

Madison may have wept over the utter defeat of the Southern States’ failure to nullify these unconstitutional federal acts. However, based on inferences from its writings, TAC has not.

However, the Southern States’ attempted nullification did lead to two of the three wars that the United States have won since World War II: Eisenhower’s war against Arkansas, Kennedy’s war against Alabama, and Reagan’s war against Grenada. Defeating these three world superpowers is the height of US military prowess in the post-World War II era.

Since Lincoln’s War, States have been highly successful at nullifying federal acts against vice, e.g., prohibition, which the Constitution authorized the federal government to prohibit the manufacturing, sale, and transportation of intoxicating liquors, and marijuana, which the federal government has no constitutional authority to outlaw or regulate. However, the nullification of most unconstitutional federal acts has been highly unsuccessful. The only nullifying acts that States are allowed are unenforceable protests and resolutions, and not participating with the federal government in enforcing federal laws (even this one seems to be fading under Trump).

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

King on Pilgrimage to Nonviolence

King on Pilgrimage to Nonviolence

Thomas Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Antisouthernism

Antisouthernism

Thomas Allen

“Our” political leaders are falling all over themselves to kowtow to Jews — especially Zionist Jews. They are pushing laws that punish people for antisemitism, which includes making negative remarks about Jews, Israel, or Zionism. 

Yet, none of “our” political leaders oppose antisouthernism. On the contrary, most are antisoutherners and seek to destroy Southerners and Southern heritage and culture.

Merriam-Webster defines “Southernism” as “an attitude or trait characteristic of the South or Southerners especially in the U.S.”  American Heritage Dictionary defines it as “a trait, attitude, or practice characteristic of the South or southerners, especially in the United States.” Thus, Southernism is the attitudes, traits, or characteristics of Southerners or the South; i.e., Southernism is Southern heritage and culture. “Anti” means “against, opposed to, [or] prejudicial to” (Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary). Therefore, antisouthernism is being against, opposed to, or prejudicial to the South, Southern culture and heritage, and Southerners. Antisoutherners are Dixiephobes; that is, they have an intolerance for, an aversion toward, a dislike of, and a disrespect for the South, Southern culture and heritage, and Southerners.

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism “is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” (https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism, accessed May 9, 2024.)

A good description of antisouthernism can be obtained by applying IHRA’s definition of antisemitism and the examples that it gives. Thus, antisouthernism is a certain perception of Southerners that may be expressed as hatred toward Southerners (we see this frequently in movies and the news). Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisouthernism are directed toward Southerners or their property, toward Southern communities and institutions (we saw a great deal during the Martin-Luther-King era of the civil rights movement and during and following the Black Lives Matter riots and in between these two).

Using IHRA illustrative examples as a guide, we find the following:

– Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing (presently a minor issue) or harming Southerners (a persistent problem) in the name of a radical ideology or political views. (The destruction of the South and its culture and heritage and the genocide of Southerners have been occurring since the beginning of Lincoln’s War.)

– Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Southerners. (This is easily seen in movies, television shows, books, and articles. Most of the time, Southerners are presented derogatorily.)

– Accusing Southerners as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoings committed by a single Southerner or group, or even for acts committed by non-Southerners. (An example is that Southerners are solely responsible for slavery, which, according to many antisoutherners, did not exist before Southerners created the institution.)

–Identifying the facts, scope, mechanisms, or intentionality of the genocide of Southerners and the deliberate destruction of the South and its heritage and culture during Lincoln’s War, the First Reconstruction, and the Second Reconstruction, especially during the Civil Rights Era. 

–Denying Southerners their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of the Confederate States of America was and is a racist endeavor. (Denying Southerners the right of self-determination was the primary objective of Lincoln’s War despite Lincoln and most Northerners being more racist than most Southerners.)

–Applying double standards by requiring of Southerners a behavior not expected or demanded of any other people, especially Yankees and nonwhites.

–Associating the South with Nazi Germany and Southerners with Nazis (national socialists).

Far too many Southerners are antisoutherners. Most political leaders in the South are either scalawags (i.e., traitors) or carpetbaggers (those who move to the South to plunder it or, worse, those who want to remake Southerners in their own Yankee image). Unfortunately, many Southerners who are not scalawags are antisoutherners. They offer no resistance to antisouthernism and usually go along with the destruction of Southern heritage and culture.

An example of antisouthernism is the treatment of Silent Sam on the campus of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC). It was a monument erected to honor students of UNC who defended their country and State from an invading horde. Antisouthern protestors tore down the statue. Instead of sending these vandals to prison for the destruction of property, most political leaders supported the destruction of the statue and, therefore, offered no opposition. An antisouthern judge defeated the few who tried to save the statue.

Another example is Governor Cooper of North Carolina, who supported the removal of Silent Sam. To the disgrace of his ancestors, Cooper showed his hatred of the South by removing the Confederate monuments from the State Capitol grounds. Also, he violated his COVID-19 ukases by marching with Black Lives Matter to demonstrate his antisouthernism — his loathing of the South, its culture and heritage, and his hatred of his ancestors. Cooper is an excellent example of a scalawag, i.e., a traitor.

Cooper is just one of the many scalawags that North Carolina has produced during the Second Reconstruction, which began in 1954. Among the few political leaders in North Carolina who are not scalawags and are true Southerners are I. Beverly Lake Sr. and Jr.

Nikki Haley is another example of an antisoutherner, a Confederaphobe, and a Dixiephobe. As governor of South Carolina, she supported removing the Confederate flag from the State Capitol grounds and succeeded in getting it removed. At least, she initially and correctly said that Lincoln’s War was not about slavery.  However, she soon repented of her heresy and claimed that war was about slavery.

Not to be outdone, Georgia produced three consecutive antisouthern Confederaphobic governors. Governor Zell Miller announced his intention to replace the Georgia State flag because it contained the Confederate battle flag; however, he failed. Then, his successor Governor Roy Barnes managed to replace the flag with a flag that had only a minor reference to the Confederacy. Next, Sonny Perdue was elected governor of Georgia, partially on a platform of allowing Georgians to choose their own flag in a State referendum. Yet, he did not allow them to choose the flag that Barnes had replaced, which would probably have been the flag chosen if the voters had been allowed to choose it. These three governors showed their Confederaphobia, which is antisouthernism.

Like Cooper, Haley, and the governors of Georgia, most political, academic, business, and religious leaders in the South are antisouthern. They have supported the removal and destruction of Confederate monuments and have removed or destroyed them. They have renamed buildings named after prominent Southerners. Even the federal government shows its antisouthernism by renaming military installations named after Confederate officers. Memorials to the Confederacy and prominent Southerners, such as Washington and Jefferson, are razed throughout the South and in the rest of the country.

Antisouthernism prevails throughout America, especially in the South. Jews are treated much better in America than are Southerners. Far more Southerners are victims of antisouthernism than are Jews of antisemitism. 

When protesters demonstrate against Jews, Israel, or Zionism, most political leaders rush to the aid of the Jews. However, when protestors demonstrate against Southerners or the South, most political leaders rush to join the protestors.

A Jew may display Jewish symbols and show pride in his Jewish heritage and ancestry without fear of reprisal from school administrators. However, a Southern cannot display Southern symbols or show pride in his Southern heritage and ancestry without fear of reprisal. If he does, most likely the school administrator will censor him and may even expel him. The same is true of many businesses and governmental establishments; they support Jewish symbols, etc. but are intolerant of Southern symbols, etc. 

Antisouthernism reveals the hypocrisy of the diversity and inclusion ideologues. If diversity and inclusion ideologues believed what they promote, they would not be antisouthern, yet nearly all of them are. They go out of their way to exclude true Southerners although they may occasionally accept traitorous scalawags. To these ideologues, Southern heritage and culture and even Southerners themselves are only worthy of annihilation.

The population of Southerners far exceeds that of Jews, both in the United States and worldwide. Yet, the political, economic, and social influence and power of Southerners are insignificant compared to that of Jews. Perhaps that is why Southerners, like Afrikaans, are personal non grata. Like Afrikaans, Southerners are slated for extinction. Genocide is their destination.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern articles.

King on the Death of Evil upon the Seashore

King on the Death of Evil upon the Seashore

Thomas Allen

In “The Death of Evil upon the Seashore,” Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 75–86, Martin Luther King, Jr. discusses evil, Israelites gaining their freedom from the Egyptians, colonialism, slavery, and segregation. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

King begins by discussing the reality of evil and comments on the Biblical description of evil. Evil exists; it is real. He remarks, “We see it [evil] expressed in tragic lust and inordinate selfishness. We see it in high places where men are willing to sacrifice truth on the altars of their self-interest.” (P. 76.) Evil is seen “in imperialistic nations crushing other people with the battering rams of social injustice.” (P. 76.) It is also seen in war.

Next, King discusses the Israelites held as slaves in Egypt. “Egypt symbolized evil in the form of humiliating oppression, ungodly exploitation, and crushing domination, and the Israelites symbolized goodness in the form of devotion and dedication to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” (P. 77.) (King uses the Israelite enslavement in Egypt as an analogy. Egypt represents the South, which is evil, and the Israelites represent the Negroes, who are holy.) “Pharaoh [Southerners] stubbornly refused to respond to the cry of Moses [King]. . . .” (P. 77.) When the Israelites were freed from their slavery, they left Egypt. (Here, King departs from his analogy of the Egyptians enslaving the Israelites. When the Israelites gained their freedom from Egyptian oppression, they left Egypt. They did not integrate with the Egyptians. If King were true to his analogy, when he freed the Negroes from the oppression of segregation and discrimination, he would have led them out of the South. Instead, he led them to integrate with their oppressors [Southerners].)

Then, King notes “that evil is recalcitrant and determined, and never voluntarily relinquishes its hold short of a persistent, almost fanatical resistance.” (P. 77.)

Continuing, King notes that the story of the enslavement of the Israelites and their subsequent freedom “is revealed in the contemporary struggle between good in the form of freedom and justice and evil in the form of oppression and colonialism.” (P. 79.) Then, he comments on colonialism. According to King, “most of the Asian and African peoples were colonial subjects, dominated politically, exploited economically, and segregated and humiliated by foreign powers.” (P. 77.) (Most Asian and African countries subjected to European imperialism have a higher standard of living today than they would have without European imperialism.) With a focus on India, he comments on the colonies freeing themselves from European powers.

Next, King discusses the Negro’s struggle for freedom and justice. “In America the Negro slave was merely a depersonalized cog in a vast plantation machine.” (P. 80.) (Southern compassion brought down the South. When the Jewish Dutch slavers brought their leftover slaves that they failed to sell in the Caribbean to Virginia to sell, the Virginians should have refused to buy and let the Dutch dump their unsold slaves in the ocean. Instead, being compassionate, they bought the Negroes and treated them as indentured servants. When they had worked off their purchase price, they were set free. However, one Negro, Anthony Johnson, refused to let his Negro servant go free and got the court to declare him a lifetime servant, i.e., a slave. [See, “Two Great Black Leaders” by Thomas Allen.] Thus, a Negro brought Negro slavery to what would later become the United States.)

King writes, “For more than two hundred years Africa was raped and plundered, her native kingdoms disorganized, and her people and rulers demoralized.” (P. 80.) (He gives the impression that Europeans did the plundering.  On the contrary, Negroes did the plundering. Negroes would raid neighboring tribes and sell their captives to Europeans and Arabs.)

King comments on Jefferson’s opposition to slavery and the agony that it caused him. (However, King does not comment on Jefferson’s recommended solution, which was the physical separation of the races — the Biblical solution.)

Then, King comments on Lincoln and his Emancipation Proclamation. According to King, the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves. (Like most people, King fails to understand that the Emancipation Proclamation freed no slaves. It only applied to slaves in areas beyond the control of the Union army. Slaves in the Union States and slaves in the parts of the South controlled by the Union army remained slaves. Moreover, slaves in the South gained their freedom before slaves in the Union States gained theirs.)

Continuing, King declares that although “Negroes enjoyed certain political and social opportunities during the Reconstruction,” Southerners were determined to keep them in slavery. (During Reconstruction, many Southerners were stripped of their political rights. [About the Battle of Gettysburg and Reconstruction, H.L.  Mencken wrote, “The Confederates went into battle free; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision and veto of the rest of the country — and for nearly twenty years that veto was so effective that they enjoyed scarcely more liberty, in the political sense, than so many convicts in the penitentiary.”] To cope with the sudden flood of ignorant, gullible, freed Negroes on the labor market, the Southern States enacted labor codes modeled after those in the North. However, the federal government quickly voided these codes in the South. Before Lincoln’s War, both free and enslaved Negroes were more integrated in the South than they were in the North. Negro collaboration with carpetbaggers and scalawags during Reconstruction to plunder the South is a root cause of the racial problems in the South. Also, because of the large number of Negroes in the South, the South resorted to statutory regulation of race relations. Because of the small numbers of Negroes in the North, the North could rely on customs, deed restrictions, labor unions, etc. to regulate race relations.) King considers segregation a new form of slavery.

King writes, “Despite the patient cry of many a Moses, they refused to let the Negro people go.” (P. 81.) (When Pharaoh let the Israelites go, they left Egypt. Never did King have any intention of leading the Negroes out of the country. If they were going to leave the country, they would have received a great deal of support and almost no opposition. However, even if King had tried to lead them to another land, most Negroes would not have followed him. Despite segregation, discrimination, and oppression, they knew that life in the United States, even in the South, was better for them than anywhere else that they could go. Nevertheless, the Pharaoh-Moses approach would have solved America’s race problems.)

King approves the Supreme Court’s desegregation ruling. However, the ruling is just the beginning; more is needed. (The more needed was forced integration. The desegregation ruling quickly turned into forced integration. Desegregation allows a student to go to the school of his choice, i.e., a Negro child could go to a White school if he so chooses and vice versa. Integration, like segregation, assigns students to a school based on race. Desegregation quickly degenerated into integration because the only way that a school could prove that it was fully desegregated was to be fully integrated.)

Continuing, King notes, “that evil carries the seed of its own destruction.” (P. 82.) (Being contrary to God’s law, integration is evil and carries the seed of its own destruction. The deterioration of the United States is evidence of this seed of destruction.)

Next, King states, “Because sin exists on every level of man’s existence, the death of one tyranny is followed by the emergence of another tyranny.” (P. 83.) (We are currently living in the tyranny of the civil rights movement, Zionism, and fascism in its various forms.) People in the civil rights movement must “avoid a superficial optimism [and] . . . a crippling pessimism.” (P. 83.) 

Then, King comments on God working in the world. He is convinced that God is on his side. (Except for atheists and perhaps agnostics, most evil-doers are convinced that God is on their side. That God was on King’s side is questionable because what he promoted is contrary to what the Bible teaches. If God were on his side, it is in the sense that He was on the side of the Assyrians and Babylonians when He sent them to punish Israel and the Jews by removing them from their homelands.)

In closing, King discusses some of the evils that Negroes have endured. (First, despite all the evils that have been inflicted on Negroes in America, Negroes in Africa have endured worse evils. Second, all races have suffered from evil.)

Throughout this essay, King uses the analogy of Moses (King) freeing the Israelites (Negroes) and leading them across the Red Sea (out of the country). However, King had no intention of completing the analogy.  He was not going to lead the Negroes out of America or even the South. On the contrary, he wanted to do what God would have prevented Moses from doing. Unlike Moses, who wanted to lead his people from the evils of Egypt, King wanted to integrate his people into the evils of the South. (For King, everything was evil in the South except the Negro and Communists.)

King often implies, if not right out states, that the Bible commands integration and condemns segregation. However, the opposite is true. The Bible contains stories promoting segregation and separation — the Exodus story, which King uses in this essay, is the best known. I know of no stories in the Bible supporting integration and amalgamation. On the contrary, there are stories condemning such acts.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

King on a Knock at Midnight

King on a Knock at Midnight

by Thomas Allen

In “A Knock at Midnight,” Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 53–64, Martin Luther King, Jr. discusses various devastations facing mankind with an emphasis on the decline of moral standards, the church, and race. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

King begins by discussing the potential for a third world war and its devastation. Then, he mentions some of the devastation from which science has saved mankind. Unfortunately, science cannot save mankind from the destructive forces that he now possesses — nuclear weapons.

Such a bleak future causes many people to have emotional and psychological problems. Fear, anxiety, and depression paralyze many.

Next, King discusses the moral crisis. “Moral principles have lost their distinctiveness.” (P. 55.) For many people, absolute right and wrong become what the majority accepts. “Right and wrong are relative to likes and dislikes and the customs of a particular community.” (P. 55.)

Continuing, King remarks that the cardinal sin has become “Thou shalt not be caught.” Consequently, “the cardinal virtue is to get by.” (P. 55.) He writes, “The Darwinian concept of the survival of the fittest has been substituted by a philosophy of the survival of the slickest.” (P. 55.)

Then, King comments on the church. Church membership has grown, yet moral standards, i.e., not only sexual morality but also honesty, integrity, etc., have declined. (The church has continued to fail to achieve one of its important missions: instill high moral standards. Today, moral standards continue to decline along with church membership. Not only is sexual immorality rising, but so are lying, stealing, etc.)

King blames the rise of immorality on a loss of faith. “[M]en have lost faith in God, faith in man, and faith in the future.” (P. 57.) For many people, life is meaningless. Yet, without hope, a person cannot really live.

Next, King writes, “Everybody wishes to love and to be loved. He who feels that he is not loved feels that he does not count.” (P. 58.) (A person wants people whom he knows to love him — especially the people whom he loves. He seeks love in the concrete instead of in the abstract. King implies that people desire to be loved in the abstract. Abstract love is the type of love that abolitionists gave the slaves. Once the slaves were free, most abolitionists offered them no personal love or assistance. On the other hand, most slave owners loved their slaves, and most slave owners cared about their slaves when they were freed, and many tried to help them.)

Then, King discusses the plight of the Negro. Patiently, the Negro has knocked on the door of the Christian church begging for social justice. He chastises the church for not condemning racial segregation and failing to promote integration. (Today, King would praise the church. With rare exceptions, all churches condemn racial segregation and promote integration. The few who question integration are mostly mute. A strong correlation seems to exist between the church promoting integration and social justice and the decline of the relevance of the church and the rise of immortality [stealing, lying, sexual perversion, etc.]. Has the church’s replacement of the gospel of Jesus with the gospel of King made the country better?)

Continuing, King states, “What more pathetically reveals the irrelevancy of the church in present-day world affairs than its witness regarding war?” (P. 59.) (If King means to bring about peaceful solutions, he is right. If he means supporting bellicosity, he is wrong. Today, most churches seem to prefer war to peace — especially when Israel is involved.) He notes that during World War II, churches endorsed and supported the warmongers.

Next, King condemns the church for not siding with the poor over the rich. (That is, the church does not promote forced wealth distribution, the welfare states, a guaranteed income, etc. that King advocated as the solution to what he considered economic injustice. Most churches today advocate King’s economic policies. Nevertheless, such promotion has hastened rather than slowed the church’s decline into irrelevance.) King condemns the Russian Orthodox Church because it “became so inextricably bound to the despotic czarist regime that it became impossible to be rid of the corrupt political and social system without being rid of the church. Such is the fate of every ecclesiastical organization that allies itself with things-as-they-are.” (P. 59.) (Today, most likely, King would praise these churches that have allied with the federal government in implementing most of King’s social and economic recommendations. Does this explain the decline of the church into irrelevancy? These churches have to be abolished before people can free themselves from King’s crippling policies.)

Then, King remarks that the church is “the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state and never its tool.” (P. 59.) (Throughout the Civil Rights Era, the church has been a poor conscience. It has been more of a tool than a guide or critic.) According to King, if the church does not actively advance the struggle for peace, economic justice (the welfare state), and racial justice (integration, quotas, etc.), it will atrophy into an irrelevant social club. (Although the church has failed as a peacemaker, it has ardently advanced King’s economic and social justice. Still, it has atrophied into an irrelevant social club.)

King condemns the notion of a Negro church and a White church. The church should be fully integrated. (Apparently, King prefers a mongrel church and wants to destroy an important part of the Negro culture: the Negro church. Contrary to what King believes, Whites did not initiate racially separate churches; Negroes did — at least in the South. In the South, Negroes used to attend the same churches that Whites attended. However, they wanted their independence, so they established their own churches.)

Continuing, King describes two types of Negro churches. “One burns with emotionalism, and the other freezes with classism.” (P. 60.) The emotional church reduces “worship to entertainment, places more emphasis on volume than on content and confuses spirituality with muscularity.” (P. 60.) The class church “has developed a class system and boasts of its dignity, its membership of professional people, and its exclusiveness.” (P. 60.) Its “worship service is cold and meaningless, the music dull and uninspiring, and the sermon little more than a homily on current events.” (P. 60.) (King’s objection to both types of churches seems to be that they did not fervently preach King’s economic and social justice.)

King writes, “The church today is challenged to proclaim God’s Son, Jesus Christ, to be the hope of men in all of their complex personal and social problems. Many will continue to come in quest of answers to life’s problems.” (P. 61). (Many churches are failing this challenge because they preach the gospel of King and his disciples.)

In closing, King comments on the bus boycott in Montgomery, Alabama.

Like many people, King is good at identifying problems but poor at providing solutions. Although King does not offer specific solutions for most of the problems that he discusses, he implies that implementing what he advocates will solve them. However, his solutions only exacerbate the problems rather than alleviate them. One of his problems is believing that the Bible teaches integration and amalgamation. On the contrary, it teaches segregation and separation.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

King on Loving Your Enemy

King on Loving Your Enemy

Thomas Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social articles.

King on Love in Action

King on Love in Action

by Thomas Allen

In “Love in Action,” Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 31–41, Martin Luther King, Jr. discusses Jesus’s crucifixion and the lessons it teaches, such as forgiveness and spiritual blindness, and the need for moral enlightenment. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

Beginning, King cites Luke 23:34: “Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” (P. 33) (Once more, King does not practice what he preaches. He never seems to forgive Southerners and segregationists for resisting his agenda.)

Continuing, King praises Jesus for his ability to match his words with action. (King often fails to match his words with action. However, he does imply that he fails to meet the standards set by Jesus.) He chastises people for promoting the principles of Christianity but who practice paganism, who claim that they want peace while preparing for war, or who ardently plea for justice yet pursue injustice.

Next, King discusses Jesus’s teaching about forgiveness. (However, King seldom shows forgiveness for Southerners and never for segregationists.) He notes, “Forgiveness is not an occasional act; it is a permanent attitude.” (P. 33.) (King never acquires this attitude.)

Then, King writes, “Yet Jesus taught them that only through a creative love for their enemies could they be children of their Father in heaven and also that love and forgiveness were absolute necessities for spiritual maturity.” (P. 33.) (Based on his attitude toward Whites in general and Southerners and segregationists in particular, King never achieves spiritual maturity.)

Continuing, King comments, “The potential beauty of human life is constantly made ugly by man’s ever-recurring song of retaliation.”  (P. 34.) (In a sense, King’s movement is based on retaliation — getting even for wrongs, real or perceived. It is void of the forgiveness that Jesus taught and that King claims that people ought to have.)

Next, King states his opposition to capital punishment. “Capital punishment is society’s final assertion that it will not forgive.” (P. 34.) He seems to imply that criminals should not be punished for their crimes (except segregationists). (Perhaps the reason that he opposes punishing criminals for their crimes is that on a per capita basis, Negroes commit far more crimes than other races. Also, many of his followers are rioters who are arrested for various crimes although most are never tried.)

Then, King remarks that Jesus “did not seek to overcome evil with evil. He overcame evil with good.” (P. 35.) (Once again, King falls short of Jesus’s teachings. His movement has brought far more evil than good.)

Besides forgiveness, King states that Jesus taught about people’s spiritual blindness. The men who urged his crucifixion “were not bad men but rather blind men.” (P. 35.) (Many of the men who advocated the crucifixion of Jesus were bad men, such as the Pharisees, who were disciples of Lucifer.)

According to King, people who consider war as the solution to the problems of the world, are not bad men but are blind. (Contrary to what King claims, many of these men are not blind; they are bad men. They are disciples of Lucifer; they are evil people.)

Correctly, King asserts, “Wisdom born of experience should tell us that war is obsolete.” (P. 36.) (The way that most political systems are designed, the worst men become rulers. Most rulers are power-hungry, sociopathic, sadistic miscreants. Most of the rest are stupid puppets whom power-hungry, sociopathic, sadistic miscreants manipulate and control. Rarely does a wise statesman rule.)

King is a proponent of disarmament. (King-idolizing conservatives take note: You need to promote disarmament even if it is unilateral.)

Then, King proceeds to comment on slavery. “Slavery in America was perpetuated not merely by human badness but also by human blindness.” (P. 37.) (Whereas King excuses most other evils, including the crucifixion of Jesus, as a result of human blindness, he declares that slavery in America resulted primarily from human badness.) “Men convinced themselves that a system that was so economically profitable must be morally justifiable.” (P. 37.) (No mention is made of Africans enslaving their fellow Negroes and selling Negro slaves for a profit to Europeans and others.) To justify slavery, theories of racial superiority were developed. (Racial supremacy did not disappear with the civil rights movement. It merely shifted from White supremacy to Black supremacy.) Religion, the Bible, philosophy, and science were mobilized to support White supremacy. (Now, religion, the Bible, philosophy, and science are mobilized to prove White inferiority.)

Continuing, King states that the blindness that justified slavery is found in racial segregation. He writes, “Although some men are segregationists merely for reasons of political expediency and economic gain, not all of the resistance to integration is the rear-guard of professional bigots.” (P. 38.) Some seek to preserve segregation because they believe that it “is best for themselves, their children, and their nation.” (P. 38.) (Segregation was less divisive and destructive than integration has been. Integration has been so demoralizing and destructive that today more Negroes are openly segregationists than are Whites.)

Correctly, King comments that segregationists claim that God is the first segregationist. Then, to disprove their argument, he offers the absurd example that some segregationists used: “Red birds and black birds don’t fly together.” (These segregationists failed to use an authentic and appropriate example of God being the first segregationist. God segregated Cain from his family after he killed Able.) 

Next, King claims that the segregationist argument that the Negro’s brain is smaller than the brain of the White man is pseudo-science. (The notion that Negroes have smaller brains on average is not pseudo-science. Actual measurements show that the average Negro brain is smaller than the average White brain.)

To support his assertion that the idea of an inferior or superior race is false, King cites several anthropologists, all of whom are left-wing Negrophiles. (If no inferior or superior races exist, why is the White race considered so inferior that it must be exterminated and policies are in place to genocide it? Such policies include miscegenation, unrestricted nonwhite immigration, affirmative action, and never-ending wars involving countries that are predominately White.)

Then, King says that the four primary types of blood are found in all races. (Nevertheless, a person’s race can be identified with a high degree of accuracy from his blood. See “Of One Blood” by Thomas Allen.)

Correctly, King writes, “Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” (P. 39.) (The history of the United States for the last 160 years proves this statement. Unfortunately, sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity have been accelerating at an accelerating pace as the years pass. The point has been reached that if the White race becomes any more ignorant and stupid, it will perish. When it perishes, so will Western Civilization and the material advantages that it has given the world.)

Then, King comments that the church is the moral guardian of the community. It must continuously remind people “that they have a moral responsibility to be intelligent.” (P. 39.) However, the church has often failed in this task. (Obviously, King is saying that the church has failed to condemn adequately the sin of segregation and to preach fervently the virtues of integration. Today, the reverse is true: Segregation is ardently condemned, and integration is fervently praised. Is the country, which now is close to splintering, any better off?)

Continuing, King remarks that Christians need to avoid intellectual and moral blindness. (That is, they need to support integration and oppose segregation. Also, they need to support a guaranteed annual income and the welfare states.) Not only must people conquer their sins, they must also conquer their ignorance.

King warns that if Western Civilization continues to degenerate, it will fall hopelessly into a bottomless void. (The programs and policies advocated by King, most of which Western Civilization has adopted, have hastened this deterioration.)

King notes that “intellectual and moral blindness is a dilemma that man inflicts upon himself by his tragic misuse of freedom and his failure to use his mind to its fullest capacity.” (P. 40.) (Unfortunately, King was never able to overcome his intellectual or moral blindness. On the contrary, he seemed to have reveled in them.) Continuing, he writes, “Only through the bringing together of head and heart —  intelligence and goodness — shall man rise to a fulfillment of his true nature.” (P. 40.) (Again, King failed. He never succeeded in uniting intelligence and goodness. He was seldom kind toward Southerners and never toward segregationists. Whatever intelligence that he had, he used to destroy them.) He defines intelligence as “a call for open mindedness, sound judgment, and love for truth.” (P. 40.) (Thus, since King was closed-minded, seldom showed sound judgment, and had little love for the truth, he lacked intelligence. To him, segregationists were closed-minded. Segregationists lacked sound judgment, while integrationists had sound judgment. Segregationists hated the truth, but integrationists loved the truth.)

Except in the eyes of King-idolizing conservatives, King, like the rest of us, falls far short of the example that Jesus gives us. He lacks forgiveness. Moreover, he is spiritually blind. Also, he suffers from sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. Regrettably, King fails to practice what he preaches, which is a common human trait.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.