Aryan as a Racial Name

Aryan as a Racial Name

Thomas Allen

Although many people objected to using “Aryan” as the name for the White race  (or more correctly, the White species, Homo albus), it is an appropriate term. Caucasian, which is commonly used for the White race, suffers a major problem. It covers both White Caucasians, who should be called “Aryans,” and Brown Caucasians, who should be called Melanochroi (H. brunus).  Thus, “Caucasian” generally includes many people, such as the inhabitants of India and Ethiopia, who do not properly belong to the White race. (They are part of the Melanochroic species.) Similarly, “European” also suffers from problems and is even more misleading and confusing when used to refer to people in the Middle East and northern Africa who are White Caucasians. 

A major objection to using “Aryan” is that it is a name for a language group, a subclass of the Indo-European language family. This argument is fallacious, and those who use it are inconsistent. Many racial types have the same name as the language that they speak. Examples of language names used as names of races or racial types are Celt, Semitic, Berber, Tungus, Chinese, Turk, Mongolian, Malay, Polynesian, Lapp, Eskimo, Bantu, Hamite, Arab, Khoisan, and Melanesian. 

Nearly all people identified as Aryan speak an Indo-European language, which in former times was referred to as Aryan. (The notable exceptions are the Basques, Finns, Hungarians, Southern Mediterraneans of North Africa, and various peoples of the Caucasus and Middle East.) Except for Melanochroic Indians and various peoples who have acquired Aryan languages in recent centuries from Aryan imperialism, Aryan languages are spoken only by Aryans. Another advantage of using “Aryan” as the name for the White race (H. albus) is that no nationality or geographical area is known by this name. Thus, the use of this name prevents confusion with a particular nationality or geographical area. These facts make “Aryan” preferable to “Caucasian” as a name for this species. (A minor disadvantage to using Aryan is that some people limit it strictly to Nordics or Alpines. Also, Aryan was the name of an ancient but now extinct tribe that invaded India several thousand years ago.) “Aryan” was commonly used in the nineteenth century and into the early twentieth century as a racial name. Further, the word rolls off the tongue better than other names for this species. For these reasons, among others, “Aryan” is the preferable name for the White race (species), although the primary reason is to prevent confusion with what “Caucasian” has come to represent.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More anthropology articles.

More Wars

More Wars

Thomas Allen

Discussed below are Trump, the peace president, and the wars that the United States have won since World War II.

Trump the Peace President

During his campaign, Trump gave the impression that he would be a peace president. Thus, he would quickly end the war between Russia and Ukraine and the war between Israel and Gaza. (What is occurring in Gaza is hardly a war. Israel, with a heavily armed army and air force, invaded a country with no army, no air force, and no navy.) 

Trump could have quickly ended these wars by ending aid to Ukraine and Israel. Yet, he has not. By aiding the continuation of these wars, he has betrayed many of his supporters. Moreover, he has started new wars with Iran and Venezuela.

Strangely, warmongering Trump believes that he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. He must have gotten this idea from observing warmonger Obama. Despite carrying on existing wars and launching new ones during his presidency, Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. (Granted, he received the award shortly after he became President. However, when it became obvious that he was a warmonger, the  Norwegian Nobel Committee lacked the fortitude to revoke the award, and Obama lacked the integrity to return it.)

As for the war between Russia and Ukraine, Trump is working hard to cause Russia to attack a NATO country. If he succeeds, the United States and its NATO puppets will be at war with Russia. A high probability exists that the war will quickly become a nuclear war. As a result, Western Civilization will cease to exist. Moreover, the White race will be reduced to nonexistence. Satan will rejoice because his demonically possessed Western leaders will have succeeded in eradicating the White race, the race created in God’s image (see "What Race Was Adam?" by Thomas Allen). [This was written before Trump's latest peace proposal between Russia and Ukraine; now, he seems to be trying to defuse the situation.]

Has Trump joined the Bushes, the Clintons, Obama, and Biden and become demonically possessed?

Wars that the United States Have Won Since World War II

Many people believe that the United States have not won a war since World War II. They are wrong. The United States have won three wars. Since World War II, the United States have defeated three of the world’s greatest superpowers: Arkansas, Alabama, and Grenada. 

In 1957, Eisenhower defeated Arkansas. Following this great victory, Kennedy defeated the great superpower of the South, Alabama, in 1963. In 1983, Reagan defeated the great superpower of the Caribbean, Grenada.

Contrary to what many people believe, the United States have won some wars after World War II. Since their defeat, these three formerly great superpowers have not been a threat to world peace — only the winner has been. They have been reduced to insignificance.

Nevertheless, Arkansas did avenge its defeat by cursing the country with the Clintons. One even became President, who used war as a cover for his improprieties.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Do Human Races Exist? –Main Article

Do Human Races Exist?

Thomas Allen

Do human races exist? I discussed this issue in comments to two different articles. First, I discussed it with RN1 in comments to an article in “We Love Trump Report”: “Boston Mayor Defends Sending Out Invitations For Segregated Holiday Party” by Russell Bartlett at https://wltreport.com/2023/12/14/boston-mayor-defends-sending-invitations-segregated-holiday-party/. Second, I discussed it with RN2 in comments to an article in The New American: “Burundi’s President Calls for Public Execution of Homosexuals”  by Angeline Tan January 2, 2024, at https://thenewamerican.com/world-news/africa/burundis-president-calls-for-public-execution-of-homosexuals/#comment-6359761180. I have changed the pseudonyms of the commenters to protect the guilty. The discussions are in the appendices.

If human races do not exist, how can racial discrimination occur? How can a nonexistent race discriminate against a nonexistent race? Further, if races do not exist, then White supremacy and White privileges cannot exist because the White race does not exist. Yet, progressives and liberals who are the most adamant in the notion that races do not exist are the most vociferous at decrying White supremacy and White privilege.

Most progressives and liberals claim that the various human races are social constructs and do not exist genetically. Many conservatives, such as RN1 and RN2, act as though they agree with them. Conservatives do so by asserting that only one race, the human race, exists; races are merely artificial constructs created by evolutionists. Most proponents of the racial social construct theory are racial nihilists, who believe that human races do not exist or if they do, they are irrelevant. 

According to the racial social construct theory, genetics does not determine a person’s race; societies’ arbitrary choice and selection determine it. Consequently, if races are social constructs, then merely abolishing the White racial construct can abolish White privileges and White supremacy.

The best answer that racial nihilists, like RN1 and RN2,  can give to the question of racial discrimination is that the races exist as social constructs, and, therefore, they and their names are fluid and can change at a whim. (In a limited sense, this is true of everything in nature. The names of everything in the universe can and do change from one culture to another and from one era to another. However, the substance or essence of the thing whose name is changed remains the same.) However, contrary to their belief, the genetics of the races is fixed and cannot change — unless the theory of evolution is correct.

Moreover, many White conservatives, like RN1 and RN2, pride themselves on denying the existence of races or at least not noticing a person’s race. They declare that only one race exists: the human race. Are these conservatives ignorant, stupid, liars, or self-deceivers? Even the nonwhites whom these conservatives seem to be trying to placate openly admit the existence of genetic races. These conservatives are racial nihilists who are practicing the new morality of sacrificing their own race, the White race (a.k.a. Aryan, Adamite, or Homo albus), on the altar of humanity. (See "Old Morality – New Morality” by Thomas Allen.)

Although racial nihilists, most of whom are Whites, claim that human races do not exist, nearly all nonwhites claim that they do exist. Thus, nonwhites show more intelligence and honesty concerning race than do White racial nihilists. (See “Views on Race” by Thomas Allen.)

People who assert that only one race exists are calling Moses and God liars. God  through Moses declares in Deuteronomy 23:2, “No half-bred [mongrel] may be admitted to the assembly of the Yahweh; not even his descendants to the tenth generation may be admitted to the Assembly of Yahweh.” (See “Commentary on Deuteronomy 23:2” by Thomas Allen.) If only one race exists, mongrels cannot exist. Since, according to the Bible, mongrels exist, then more than one race must exist.

Also, Jeremiah writes, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?” (Jeremiah 13:23a). (See "Jeremiah on the Fixity of Race" by Thomas Allen.) The implication is that a leopard cannot change its spots. God created the leopard the way it is; genetics fixes its appearance, character, temperament, etc. Likewise, the Ethiopian cannot change his skin. That is, when God created the Melanochroi and the other races, he genetically fixed their physical appearances and genetically influenced their intelligence, character, temperament, etc. Therefore, the racial characteristics of the human races are fixed and cannot change. They are immutable because God fixed them when he created the races. (Although both RN1 and RN2 give God the credit for creating man, they do not give Him credit for creating the various human races. Instead, they resort to Darwinism, although they deny that they are doing so.)

Nearly all race deniers like RN1 and RN2 confuse race, which is genetic, with ethnicity, which is cultural. Almost everyone can distinguish between a Norwegian and a Swede, who are Aryans (Whites) of the Nordic racial type, on the one hand, and a Zulu and a Tswana, who are Negroes (Blacks) of the Bantu racial type, on the other hand. Anyone who claims that he cannot tell the difference is either brain-dead or a liar. However, almost no one can distinguish between Norwegians and Swedes based on physical appearance. Likewise, almost no one can distinguish between Zulus and Tswana based on physical appearance. Norwegians and Swedes are ethnicities of the Aryan race, and Zulus and Tswana are ethnicities of the Negro race. Thus, races and ethnicities are not the same. Ethnicities are subdivisions of a race and are based on culture. (See “Some Comments on Race and Ethnicity” by Thomas Allen for further explanation of the differences between race and ethnicity.) 

Furthermore, a person’s race can be identified with a high degree of accuracy from his skeleton (see “Skeleton Differences of Human Races” by Thomas Allen). Moreover, a person’s race can also be identified with a high degree of accuracy from his blood (see “Of One Blood” by Thomas Allen). Also, races differ significantly in nonphysical characteristics (see "Nonphysical Racial Differences” by Thomas Allen).

Human races are as genetically fixed as are human sexes. (Nevertheless, human races [species] can crossbreed and produce hybrids, as can some species of Canis [the dog, wolf, coyote, and jackal] and Bos [the gaur and the gayal, the American bison and the yak, the American bison and the wisent, the American bison and the domestic cattle, and the wisent and domestic cattle].) Although RN1 and RN2 recognize some of the genetic differences between the races, they reject the existence of the human races.

Moreover, RN1 and RN2 and people like them claim that human races do not exist because the Bible does not specifically use “race” in the biological sense. If they are consistent, they would argue that fungi and bacteria do not exist because the Bible does not mention them. Yet, these people accept the existence of fungi and bacteria. Many things exist that the Bible does not mention. Because the Bible does not mention “race” does not mean that human races do not exist.

Both RN1 and RN2 are racial nihilists and consider themselves conservatives. While denying that human races exist, they claim that they can distinguish between the human races.

RN2 displaces far more intelligence than does RN1. RN1 can only repeat catchphrases that he has heard or been taught. He believes that only one race, the human race, exists. He shows little understanding of why he believes that human races do not exist other than he has been told that they do not exist. 

At least, RN2 can explain why he believes that human races do not exist. Although he is wrong, he can offer a plausible argument for his belief.

RN1 criticizes Mayor Wu of Boston for not inviting Whites to her party. Then, he has the audacity to declare that “we’re all the same race. The Human race.” If we are all of the same race, then her party could not have been racially segregated, as RN1 and the article assert. How could she apologize to Whites if Whites do not exist? Likewise, like most people of his kind, RN1 confuses race, which is genetic, with ethnicity, which is cultural.

RN2 rejects the notion that God created the human races. According to him, Darwinian principles, such as mutation, natural selection, and adaptation, explain the origin of the various human races. Although he denies that he is an evolutionist, he uses evolutionist principles. Furthermore, he claims that evolutionists created biological classification. Yet, the first known classifier was Adam, who named the animals. Moreover, modern-day biological classification preceded Darwin’s theory of evolution by about a century. 

Although RN2 states that the principle of “each after its kind” is correct, he implies that it does not apply to humans. If true, we should see East Asians producing Negroes regularly. Despite asserting that human races do not exist, he claims that he can distinguish between East Asians and Negroes.

Like many Christian “creationists” who use evolutionary principles to explain the origins of human races, RN2 prefers using “people groups” instead of “race.” Many evolutionists prefer “geographical populations” instead of “race.” 

Moreover, he errs when he states that “species” is a term that evolutionists invented in the fourteenth century. Since the theory of evolution came into being in the nineteenth century, evolutionists could not have invented a term that came into being four hundred years earlier.

Also, when RN2 asserts that God does not prohibit mongrels in His assembly, he errs. As quoted above, Deuteronomy 23:2 clearly states that God does not allow mongrels in His assembly. RN2 claims that this verse means that pagans are not allowed in God’s assembly. Thus, he translates the Hebrew word for “mongrel” as “pagan.” He is the only person whom I have encountered who gives such a translation. Most others erroneously translate the Hebrew word for “mongrel” as a person of “illegitimate birth,” “illicit birth,” “illegitimate or unlawful marriage,” “forbidden marriage,” “born out of wedlock,” or a similar phrase.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 2: Appendices.

More social issues articles.

White Privilege

White Privilege

Thomas Allen

Whites are accused of having “White Privilege,” which supposedly gives them all sorts of advantages over and at the expense of nonwhites, especially Blacks. “White Privilege” is the unearned assets, advantages, and benefits that White people have merely because they are White. Whites have what they have solely because of their skin color.

   In “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack,” Peggy McIntosh identifies 50 things that she considers “White Privilege.” Some of them are absurd, irrelevant, and insignificant. A few insult Blacks. Some result from the desire of Blacks to be thought highly of by other Blacks. Even a few are wrong: The opposite is true. However, a few are correct. [See “Black Privilege” by Thomas Allen.]

The following is a short, but incomplete, list of the privileges that Whites have today. They greatly disagree with McIntosh’s list of privileges.

1. The privilege of being second-class citizens in the country that their ancestors founded and built.

2. The privilege of having their God-given unalienable rights as citizens of a State subordinated to civil rights granted by Congress and federal agencies to nonwhites.

3. The privilege of being led by Albusphobic Whites.

4. The privilege of being obligated to be disloyal to the White race.

5. The privilege of not defending the interests of the White race.

6. The privilege of being denied equal rights and equal protection under the law.

7. The privilege of having the legal system weaponized against them (lawfare) instead of having the legal system protect them.

8. The privilege of going to prison for trying to save the life of a Black thug as happened to  Derek Chauvin.

9. The privilege of being the victim of Black criminals (see “The Dirty War: America’s Race War” by Thomas Allen).

10. The privilege of being the only race that can commit hate crimes.

11. The privilege of going to jail for peacefully protesting while nonwhites, especially Blacks, are rewarded for highly destructive riots.

12. The privilege of dying in foreign wars for people and institutions that loathe them.

13. The privilege of not being allowed to hear political speeches at church while nonwhite churches can have political speeches.

14. The privilege of being domestic terrorists.

15. The privilege of having less qualified nonwhites hired for a job instead of more qualified Whites because of race.

16. The privilege of losing their jobs to nonwhites.

17. The privilege of being fired because they are White.

18. The privilege of being victims of affirmative action and racial quotas.

19. The privilege of having nonwhites steal the credit for discoveries, inventions, and works of Whites.

20. The privilege of granting nonwhites benefits and privileges that Whites never enjoyed.

21. The privilege of being sacrificed for racial justice.

22. The privilege of being responsible for the substandard behavior of Blacks.

23. The privilege to support nonwhites.

24. The privilege of having their country destroyed.

25. The privilege of having their culture destroyed.

26. The privilege of having their history destroyed.

27. The privilege of having statues and memorials of Whites destroyed.

28. The privilege of participating in the destruction of statues and memorials of Whites.

29. The privilege of not segregating while nonwhites may segregate.

30. The privilege of not being allowed to attend meetings of nonwhites.

31. The privilege of not discriminating against nonwhites while nonwhites may discriminate against Whites.

32. Privilege of being discriminated against and not being allowed to object to such discrimination without being penalized.

33. The privilege of having nonwhites refer to Whites with racial slurs and being sued if responding by referring to nonwhites with racial slurs.

34. The privilege of being the only race that has to endure hate speech.

35. The privilege of enjoying wokeism.

36. Privilege of being the only race that can be racist.

37. The privilege of not being allowed to speak about race except to degrade Whites.

38. The privilege of worshiping archconservative St. Martin Luther King the Divine. 

39. The privilege of being racial nihilists while not allowed to be racial supremacists or racial preservationists although nonwhites may be racial supremacists or racial preservationists (See “Views on Race” by Thomas Allen.)

40. The privilege of practicing the new morality of scarifying the White race on the altar of humanity while not allowed to practice the old morality of preserving their race although nonwhites can practice the old morality of preserving their races (See “Old Morality – New Morality” by Thomas Allen.)

41. The privilege of being loathed by nonwhites, especially Blacks.

42. The privilege of hating themselves and their race.

43. The privilege of living in environments that are hostile to Whites.

44. The privilege of being victims of racism.

45. The privilege of being marginalized.

46. The privilege of being humiliated.

47. The privilege of feeling guilty about being White.

48. The privilege of being victims of antiwhite inquisitions.

49. The privilege of not having their lives matter.

50. The privilege of having less qualified nonwhites admitted to a university instead of more qualified Whites because of race.

51. The privilege of having their children taught to hate their race.

52. The privilege of not being allowed to protect their children.

53. The privilege of having their education lowered to accommodate nonwhites, especially Blacks.

54. The privilege of enduring diversity training and sensitivity training.

55. The privilege of being indoctrinated with Critical Race Theory.

56. The privilege of not having college courses designed specifically for Whites.

57. The privilege of being stupid and apathetic;

58. The privilege of trying to placate nonwhites whose lust for vengeance can never be satisfied, for example, many Blacks.

59. The privilege of being degraded and bullied for being White.

60. The privilege of being masochists.

61. The privilege of being held to a higher standard than nonwhites.

62. The privilege of being blamed for all of the world’s problems and being considered the cancer of the universe.

63. The privilege of being guilty of all evils until proven innocent, which they can never do.

64. The privilege of the sin of whitism, a sin of which they can never repent.

65. The privilege of kowtowing and groveling to unappreciative nonwhites, especially Blacks.

66. The privilege of begging nonwhites, especially Blacks, for forgiveness for things that Whites have never done.

67. The privilege of being demonized.

68. The privilege of having their reputation destroyed. 

69. The privilege of being penalized because of their massive contribution to mankind.

70. The privilege of being replaced by nonwhites.

71. The privilege of not having a homeland while all other races may have a homeland.

72. The privilege of participating in their own annihilation.

73. The privilege of being abolished, i.e., genocide.

74. The privilege of being the stupidest race to ever exist.

75. The privilege of being the most frightened cowards who ever existed.

According to diversity, inclusion, and equity (DIE) adherents, all the aforementioned White privileges are unearned benefits that Whites enjoy and that give them advantages over other races. Merely by being born White, they earn these privileges. Because of their White supremacy, they refuse to share these privileges with others.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles,

King on a Tough Mind and a Tender Heart

King on a Tough Mind and a Tender Heart

Thomas Allen

In “A Tough Mind and a Tender Heart,” Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 1–9, Martin Luther King, Jr. discusses tough-mindedness, soft-mindedness, and tenderheartedness. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

King begins with what makes a man strong: “The strong man holds in a living blend strongly marked opposites.” (P. 1.) Accordingly, a strong man is the synthesis of opposites. (Needless to say, King considered himself a strong man.)

King envisioned himself as following Jesus’ directions in Matthew 10:16. He saw himself as being as tough as the serpent but as soft as the dove. So, naturally, he saw himself as having a tough mind and a tender heart. (He had neither. He may have had a stubborn mind, but it was dull. Moreover, he displayed little tenderness toward Southerners and especially segregationists.)

Then, King discusses the characteristics of a tough mind: “incisive thinking, realistic appraisal, and decisive judgment.” (P. 2.) Furthermore, a tough mind is sharp, astute, and discerning. It breaks “through the crust of legends and myths and sifting the true from the false.” (In short, a tough mind requires a level of intelligence and intellect that King lacked. A good example of people who lack a tough mind is those who idolize King. They cannot break “through the crust of legends and myths sifting the true from the false.”)

Correctly, King remarks that a tough mind is one of man’s greatest needs. (Unfortunately, a tough mind is almost absent in Whites concerning race.)

King writes, “Nothing pains some people more than having to think.” (He is being generous. He should have written, “Nothing pains most people more than having to think.”)

Continuing, King notes that gullibility is a sign of a weak mind. (An example of weak-minded gullible people is those who believe the government’s and the establishment media’s lies and propaganda about COVID-19 and its so-called vaccine.)

Correctly, King remarks that “authentic channels of information— the press, the platform, and in many instances the pulpit—do not give us objective and unbiased truth.” (P. 3.) (This claim is even more true today. Few people critically judge what they read and hear to discern fact from fiction. People who idolize King are a good example. Moreover, King illustrates that he lacks the toughness of mind to discern — for example, his reliance on Communists.)

Turning to the soft-minded man, King writes “The soft-minded man always fears change. He feels security in the status quo, and he has an almost morbid fear of the new.” (P.3.) For King, most Southerners and all segregationists were soft-minded. Soft-minded people prefer ignorance to knowledge. (Thus, soft-minded people do not see the world as King thinks that they should. Hence, integrationists are tough-minded, and segregationists are soft-minded.)

Then, King notes that dictators manipulate soft-minded people with emotions to submit to the dictators’ will. (King and other civil rights leaders used emotions to incite their followers, both Black and White, because they knew that their followers were soft-minded people.)

Next, King remarks, “Soft mindedness is one of the basic causes of race prejudice.” (P.4.) On the other hand, tough-minded people evaluate the facts before they reach a conclusion — they postjudge. Soft-minded people reach a conclusion before they evaluate the facts — they prejudge. He writes, “Race prejudice is based on groundless fears, suspicions, and misunderstandings.” (P. 5.) (Consequently, King proves that Southerners are tough-minded people concerning racial issues. Instead of prejudging, Southerners postjudge. Having lived, worked, and associated with Negroes for more than 400 years, Southerners have more than 400 years of experience with and knowledge of the Negro. Their knowledge of the Negro far exceeds that of Northern integrationists. Therefore, Southerners are void of racial prejudices. Since integrationists judge Southerners and segregationists before examining the facts, they are soft-minded people; they prejudge and are, therefore, prejudiced.)

Continuing, King asserts that segregationists, whom he considers soft-minded people, want to perpetuate segregation “because Negroes lag behind [Whites] in academic, health, and moral standards.” (P. 5.) According to King, segregation and discrimination caused Negroes to lag behind Whites in academic, health, and moral standards. (After more than 50 years of integration where Negroes have received vastly more benefits and privileges than Whites ever had during the height of Jim Crow and White supremacy, Negroes still lag behind in academic, health, and moral standards. Consequently, the soft-minded people, according to King, were correct and the tough-minded people were wrong. Whatever caused Negroes to lag was not segregation or discrimination.)

(A tough-minded person would have studied the facts and discerned that the shortcomings of Negroes were innate. Segregation did not cause them, so integration would not eliminate them. Consequently, King proves himself to be soft-minded for failing to realize that genetics causes the Negro’s problem and not segregation. However, if King knew it, he was hypocritically deceiving his followers.)

Next, King discusses tenderheartedness. “Tough mindedness without tenderheartedness is cold and detached. . . . The hardhearted person never truly loves.” (Pp. 5-6.) 

A hardhearted person is a utilitarian who values people according to their usefulness to him. “He is unmoved by the pains and afflictions of his brothers.” (P. 6.) (King, his followers, and integrationists in general were unmoved by the pains and afflictions that they brought upon Southerners. Many even enjoyed causing Southerners pain and afflictions. Therefore, they were hardhearted people.)

King notes that hardhearted people may give to charity, but they never give their spirit. “The hardhearted individual never sees people as people, but rather as mere objects or as impersonal cogs in an ever-turning wheel.” (P. 6.) (King insinuates that Southerners who opposed integration did not care about their Negro neighbors. Otherwise, they would have integrated with them. They merely saw Negroes as cheap labor.  Only, Northerners, especially Northern integrationists, saw Negroes as real people who were equal to Whites. On the contrary, Southerners saw Negroes as real, concrete people. Northern integrationists saw Negroes as abstractions. They were merely tools to execute their Dixiephobic war to genocide Southerners. While most Southerners personally interact with Negroes daily, many Northerners may not personally interact with Negroes for a week or more. According to King’s description of hardheartedness, Northerners were more hardhearted than Southerners.)

Continuing, King writes, “To have serpentlike qualities devoid of dovelike qualities is to be passionless, mean, and selfish. To have dovelike without serpentlike qualities is to be sentimental, anemic, and aimless.” (P. 6.) The two need to be combined. (King’s serpent-like qualities far outweighed his dove-like qualities.)

Finally, King writes, that Negroes “cannot win the respect of the white people of the South or elsewhere if we are willing to trade the future of our children for our personal safety and comfort.” (P. 7.) (Negroes succeeded in destroying the respect that Whites had for the White race. Consequently, Negroes failed to gain the respect of Whites. People who cannot respect their own race cannot respect others.)

Concluding, King urges his (so-called) “nonviolent resistance, which combines tough mindedness and tenderheartedness and avoids the complacency and do-nothingness of the soft minded and the violence and bitterness of the hardhearted.” (P. 7.) (King’s tactics were not nonviolent. They were designed to cause violent reactions, and were highly successful in achieving violent responses to provocations — so much for tenderheartedness.)

In closing, King compares himself and his “nonviolent” tactics to God. The Bible shows God’s “tough mindedness in his justice and wrath and his tenderheartedness in his love and grace.” (P. 8.)

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

A Discussion with an Idiot

A Discussion with an Idiot

Thomas Allen, editor

Below is a discussion between me and an idiot. This discussion resulted from a comment that I made to a comment that another person made to an article. The article is titled “Police Officer Arrests Man Reciting Bible Verse at Pride Rally” at https://wltreport.com/2023/06/06/police-officer-arrests-man-reciting-bible-verse-at-pride-rally/#comment-6210524182. [Note: If you go to this site, you will not see my comments because it has banned me. Apparently, I objected too much about it censoring my comments telling the truth about God’s chosen people and their political movement.]

The idiot is somewhat arrogant and a racial nihilist. As a racial nihilist, she does not care about persevering the American Negro and seems to rejoice in the Negro’s demise. On the contrary, she denies that the Negro race, the White race, and any other race exists. (I use “she” and “her” for pronouns for this idiot because she did not specify which one of the 100 plus pronouns is her preferred pronoun.)

Moreover, this idiot is a worshiper of St. Martin Luther King the Divine and probably considers herself a conservative. Further, she is convinced that King had a high moral standard, was a strict follower of biblical morality because that is where King got his morality, and was faithful to his wife. Thus, she has a weird understanding of the Bible and seems to believe that the Bible does not condemn illicit sex. For someone who mentions the Bible as frequently as she does, she has a shallow understanding of the Bible. Also, she understands the Bible through the lens of wokeism.

Moreover, although she idolizes King, her comments show that she knows little about him. One would think that anyone who idolizes King as much as she does would know about his infidelity, which is common knowledge. Either she is too stupid to know or she rejects what she knows is true because it tarnishes her idol.

Originally, I thought that this person was ignorant. Later, I discovered that she was stupid. Ignorance can be fixed with knowledge; stupidity cannot be fixed. However, I did not find her stupid because she disagreed with me. I found her stupid by the way that she disagreed and what she wrote. (I have had many people disagree with me whom I do not consider stupid. An example is King.)

Furthermore, this person is not the only idiot that I have encountered. For example, one moronic person claims that he knows more about what a clause in the Constitution means than does the person who wrote it.

I have left the idiot’s comments and the other comments as they were posted. To one of my comments, I have added some clarification and have enclosed it in brackets. I have substituted “Idiot” for her pseudonym, “Me” for my pseudonym, “Original Commenter” for the person who commented on the article, and “Third Party” for the person who commented during our discussion. 

The comments are not in chronological order but are in the order that they appear in the comment section. The discussion follows.

 Original Commenter: In the Last Days what is good will be called evil and what is evil will be called good. This is a fine example of that scripture. The good man was trying to warn of the consequences of sin. We don’t make the laws, God does and still have consequences for disobedience.

Me: Martin Luther King writes, “An unjust law is one in which people are required to obey a code that they had no part in making because they were denied the right to vote.” Thus, the ten commandments and the other laws that Moses wrote in the Old Testament are unjust because no one had any part in making them. According to King, people should not obey unjust laws.  https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2023/05/the-real-king.html

Idiot: Em, the ten commandments are the laws that God gave mankind for mankind’s benefit. Which of these laws would you propose we not obey, and why? Just curious ...

Thou shall not murder perhaps? Thou shall not bear false witness? Do these seem “unjust” to you?

Me: I did not say that we should not follow the ten commandments. I am saying that the greatest conservative ever, the archconservative St. Martin Luther King the Divine said that no one is obliged to obey any law that they did not help make by voting for those who made the law.

Idiot: oh, btw, Martin Luther King said we are not obliged to follow IMMORAL laws. Big difference.

“One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” Martin Luther King Jr.

Note the “MORAL responsibility” - WHERE do you suppose REVEREND King got his “morality” from, hmmm?

Idiot: I didn’t say to not follow the ten commandments either.

YOU said any law we didn’t have a part in making, we are not obliged to follow.

We didn’t have a part in making the ten commandments, so we shouldn’t be obliged to follow them.

So I asked YOU which of these laws would you NOT follow?

Soooo?

Me: I did not say that we are not obliged to follow laws that we didn’t have a part in making. King said that. King defines an unjust law as one in which people had no part in making because they were denied the right to vote. According to King’s definition, the ten commandments are unjust because people had no part in making them and, therefore, they are not obliged to obey them.

Idiot: The quote YOU provided was about something totally different. People who are denied the right to vote shouldn’t have to follow laws they had no say in making. We actually fought an American Revolution for this very reason. Britain throwing people in jail without trial by jury and imposing tax laws on Americans when Americans had no say in parliament, where the laws were coming from.

It was a quote about people who are denied the right vote.

Me: But the principle is still applicable to OT laws since people were denied the right to vote and neither the Israelites nor anyone else beyond God had a say in making them. Throughout most of history, all laws have been unjust because people who were required to obey them had no part in making them. Even today, the same is true for minors because they have no part in making laws that apply to them.

Idiot: No, it does not apply. That was not even close to what King was referring to. For one, he definitely said we have a moral responsibility to follow just laws. Where did REVEREND King get his morality, and just laws from? THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.

Me: “Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood.” Then, “I don’t expect that anything I write will change the minds enclosed in concrete already...."

Third Party: You cannot use reason to debate or convince or inform someone who has rejected reason.

If reason is your argument, and he won’t hear it, you are wasting your breath and conceding any hope before you begin.

Idiot addressing Third Party: Yep, you perfectly described why Me has desperately avoided answering where Reverend King got his morality from. :-) When you avoid reasoning and facts you have rejected them. When your mind is that closed, you will never be able to learn anything new. Sad, isn't it?

Idiot: Oh Lord, I don’t want to admit where Reverend King got his morality from! Noooo! It'll make me look stupid!

Me: I don’t know where King got his morality and just laws from, but I do know that he did not get them from the Bible.

Idiot: You don’t know where REVEREND King got his morality from, but you somehow do know it wasn’t from the Bible??????

Liar. You tried to avoid the question because you DO know, and didn’t want to answer. :-)

I suspect that you know exactly where King got his morality from. Everybody else does.

You just exposed yourself, dear. Good job!

Me: Where did King get his morality? Although you seem to think that he got it from the Bible, he did not. King was an integrationist and hated segregationists. The God of the Bible is the great segregationist; therefore, King loathes him. Proof that God is a segregationist: The world’s two greatest segregationist events were the Noachian Flood (where God segregated Noah and his family from the rest of the people) and the Tower of Babel. God was the cause of both of them. Further, God told the Israelites that when they entered Canaan not to integrate with the inhabitants, i.e., segregate themselves. Also, God segregates the saved from the unsaved. Thus, while God teaches segregation, King teaches integration.

According to Acts 17:26, when God created the races, He determined the boundaries of the habitats. Did God create the races of man, or did they evolve? The Bible supports creation; you probably support evolution. King's racial policy of integrating the races leads to amalgamation and, therefore, the destruction of the races. Do you support the deliberate destruction of what God created? God so despises amalgamation that He forbids mongrels, multiracial people, to enter His assembly. https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2017/05/commentary-on-deuteronomy-232.html

King seems to have got his morality from Satan, but that is speculation on my part.

Idiot: God forbids “mongrels” and “multi-racial” people from His assembly??

Quote the Chapter and verse FROM THE BIBLE that proves this????

Good luck with that one, dear. :-)

Me: The New Jerusalem Bible reads, “No half-bred may be admitted to the assembly of the Yahweh; not even his descendants to the tenth generation may be admitted to the Assembly of Yahweh.” The Hebrew word translated “half-bred” means “mongrel.” If you had consulted the link that I gave you, you would have learned this. [I did fail to cite the verse, which is Deuteronomy 23:2; however, it was cited in the link of my previous comment. Obviously, she had not read the linked article.]

Idiot: Once again you have failed. Source? Chapter and verse please.

Idiot: You also know nothing of the Bible but you are revealing yourself in very profound ways.

oh, btw. The Bible NEVER mentions anything about different "races."

Different people groups, such as the Hittites, Cushites (African tribes), Israelites, etc. But NEVER different races because there is only ONE race in the Bible. THE HUMAN RACE.

The ONLY segregationist here honey, is YOU.

God separated the people at the tower of Babel because His plan was NEVER for a “one world order.” Thank God for that!

And different races don’t “evolve.” That's a non-sensical [sic], totally UN scientific statement. DUH! What is WRONG with you???? Doesn’t even relate to “evolution or creation.” The ignorance here is astounding.

And how the hell does God “dispise amalgamation????”

So glad you posted that last post. You discredited yourself beyond repair. My dear, you are your own worst enemy.

Reverend King, and ALL Christians, get their morality from the BIBLE. The living word of God. Period. Now go back to your mummy's basement before you hurt yourself.

Me: Obviously, you suffer from intellectual hernias, racial nihilism, invincible ignorance, terminal ignorance, mental imprisonment, cognitive dissonance, arrested development, delusional psychosis, and dissociation of sensibility. People like you are causing the dying of the country, the decaying of Christianity, and the growing genocide.

Further, your knowledge of the Bible is appalling. Cush is Arabia (https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2020/03/cush-and-ethiopia.html) The Bible NEVER mentions anything about “the United States,” “Russia,” “nuclear war,” and many other things that people find in the Bible. Some translations do use the word race in the sense of ethnicities. Also, the Bible speaks of tribes and nations. Ethnicities, tribes, and nations are monoracial in the biological sense and are subdivisions of a race — thus, implying race in the biological sense.

When God separated the people at Babel, He segregated them; He certainly did not integrate them. “How the hell does God ‘dispise amalgamation”?” He told the Israelites not to integrate (amalgamate) themselves with the people of the promised land; instead, He told them to segregate from them.

I never said that the races evolved. God created them; therefore, we should promote policies that protect and preserve them (segregation and separation) and not policies that genocide them (miscegenation and amalgamation). Why do you want to destroy the races that God created? You must since you oppose policies that protect and preserve them and endorse policies that genocide them.

If King got his morality from the Bible, why was he a fornicator? Why was he, like you, a promoter of policies that resulted in the genocide of Blacks?

Idiot: What makes you think that King was a fornicator? oh, wait, are YOU judging him by BIBLICAL standards?

Whatever. What policies did King promote that resulted in the genocide of Blacks?

Name one. I dare ya.

Me: Since King’s morality comes from the Bible and since King had sex with women other than his wife, then, according to you, biblical morality approves of people having sex with women other than their wives.

King promoted integration. Integration leads to interracial marriages and mating. Interracial marriages and mating lead to the breeding of the races involved out of existence. And that is genocide. King promoted interracial marriages. You also want to genocide Blacks.

Idiot: So according to you, interracial marriage promotes genocide? wow. Just wow. How sick and pathetic.

You also need to educate yourself on the definition of “genocide.”

(Spoiler alert: the definition does not include interracial marriage)

Idiot: I don't know if King was faithful or not. Who was the other woman?

Well?

Idiot: “according to me???” Quote me where I said that the Bible supports adultery.

Waiting ....

Idiot: Em, no. The Cushites are descendants of CUSH. Grandson of Noah, and the father of Nimrod. The land of Cush in the Bible is ETHIOPIA.

The African lands south of Egypt. Please read a Bible before you post.

There is NO translation of the Bible that uses the term "race." Never. None, Nada, Zip, Zilch.

All Bibles were translated from the original Hebrew (and some Aramaic like the Book of Daniel) into the other languages DIRECTLY.

Hebrew > Greek

Hebrew > Latin

Hebrew > English

etc. etc etc.

So we know there is no reference to different “races” at all. Only different tribes. That is just a fact.

And yes you did say the races “evolved.” Try to be more clear and specific because when you pose a question about “creation vs evolution” in the same breath, that is the obvious assumption.

As for your idiotic question, “Why do you want to destroy the races that God created?”

I do not want to destroy anything. But as far as mixed marriages, I have no problem with that.

As for your “ass-umption,” it doesn’t even make sense, : “You must since you oppose policies that protect and preserve them and endorse policies that genocide them.”

What the hell does that even mean? What the hell policies would “protect and preserve races” without being blatantly racist???

And just explain to me how anyone would “genocide races??” Well?

Me: The American Standard Version, which may be the best literal translation of the Bible, uses the word “race.” If you had consulted the link that I gave you, you would have learned that Cush was Arabia and not a region south of Egypt.

Idiot: Actually, the best literal translation is The King James Bible.

And please quote chapter and verse where any Bible uses the word “race.”

Idiot: Whaaa !!! ????

Ok, so explain “intellectual hernias, racial nihilism, invincible ignorance, terminal ignorance, mental imprisonment, cognitive dissonance, arrested development, delusional psychosis, and dissociation of sensibility.”

What does any of that even mean, and how does it intellectually bolster your opinion?

Mmmmm? Waiting ...............................

Me: I thought that you were ignorant and could be educated. However, I have discovered that you are stupid and beyond hope. Therefore, I must follow Mark Twain’s advice.

Idiot: FAIL! Was Mark Twain’s advice to crawl away with your tail between your legs? LMAO!

Cya.

Me: Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. – Mark Twain

I have been arguing with an idiot and do not want to be dragged down to your level.

Idiot: LOL! Look at your posts dear. Do who see whole paragraphs of childish invectives in mine? Nope.

I did not let you drag me down to YOUR level, as evidenced by our posts for all the world to see.

Nice try, no fly. You're done here.

Idiot: Sorry kiddo. We ALL KNOW where pastors and reverends, including Rev. King, get their morality from. THE BIBLE. EVERYBODY already knows that. You cannot deny that and maintain any illusion of credibility or integrity. End of that story.

Me: You claim that pastors and reverends, including Rev. King, get their morality from the Bible. Consequently, homosexual pastors and fornicating pastors like King get their morality from the Bible — really?

Idiot: ??? We all know that Pastors and Reverends get their morality from the Bible, as do all Christians. Once again you are desperately trying to create a diversion to get out of the corner you are painted in to.

Yes, Reverend King got his morality from the Bible. It's that simple.

Idiot: OH Lord, I can’t answer the question, so let me divert with childish ad hominems [sic] so I don’t have to admit how closed my mind is! Worse than concrete! lmao!

Idiot: Actually YOU did say that. And ONLY you since you misquoted King.

Martin Luther King NEVER said we shouldn’t follow laws we didn’t vote for, except in the context of those who were DENIED the right to vote. It wasn’t a reference to the general population.

Martin Luther King said we had a duty to NOT follow *IMMORAL* laws. I provided his quote for you. And this pertained to EVERYONE.

Big difference.

And my question to you, was which laws that we did not vote for (ie; the Ten Commandments) should we not follow, since we obviously didn’t vote for these laws.

THE END

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

King on the World House – Part 2

King on the World House – Part 2

Thomas Allen

To solve international poverty, King writes “The rich nations must use their vast resources of wealth to develop the underdeveloped, school the unschooled and feed the unfed.” (P. 189.) (In other words, reverse colonialism: Instead of Whites countries exploiting nonwhite countries, nonwhite countries exploit White countries. This exploitation has been extended to allow nonwhites to invade White countries without restrictions or limits while granting these nonwhites the privilege to plunder, oppress, rape, maim, and kill Whites with little or no penalty. On the contrary, Whites who complain about being maltreated by nonwhites are penalized.)

Continuing, King states that the great and rich countries must “provide capital and technical assistance to the underdeveloped areas.” (P. 188.) These countries need to provide much more aid than they have provided — enough to sustain economic growth. Wealthy countries “must promptly initiate a massive, sustained Marshall Plan for Asia, Africa and South America.” (Pp. 188-189.) (Although not at the level that King wanted, rich countries, especially the United States, have provided an enormous amount of aid. However, they send aid to the government of the recipient country; consequently, only a small portion goes to the people who need it. Most of the aid goes to enrich officials of the recipient government and to the politically connected in the country receiving the aid and the country sending the aid. As for the Marshall Plan idea, European countries that received the most aid, e.g., Great Britain, under the Marshall Plan took longer to recover than countries that received little or nothing, e.g., Germany.)

Continuing, King writes, “The aid program that I am suggesting must not be used by the wealthy nations as a surreptitious means to control the poor nations.” (P. 189.) (That is, aid must be given with no conditions attached and no oversight.) Moreover, aid must be given with “a compassionate and committed effort to wipe poverty, ignorance and disease from the face of the earth.” (P. 189.) (Thus, if aid is given with an inappropriate motivation, it does the recipient country no good. How absurd! Despite the motivation, the recipient will use his lucre the same way if it comes without conditions.) Nevertheless, King implies that much of the aid will be wasted instead of improving the health, education, and wealth of the people. Such waste is caused by these colonies becoming independent countries. 

King credits the economic growth of the West to being relatively underpopulated and an abundance of iron ore and coal. (If true, when the Europeans landed in the Americas, they should have found a level of economic prosperity similar to what Europe had. The Americas were relatively underpopulated and coal, iron ore, and other natural resources exceeded that of Europe. Likewise, with Africa, when the Europeans landed in sub-Sahara Africa, they should have found a level of economic prosperity similar to Europe’s. Like the Americas, Africa was relatively underpopulated and had natural resources that far exceeded Europe’s. King errs because he fails to account for nonphysical genetic differences.)

Because the emerging new governments of former colonies, “confront staggering problems of overpopulation. There is no possible way for them to make it without aid and assistance.” (P. 190.) (Thus, King admits that nonwhites are inferior to Whites because Whites made it without aid and nonwhites cannot. Moreover, the primary reason that these new countries were “overpopulated” was that the European colonial powers created conditions conducive to population growth.)

King declares, “that we must use our resources to outlaw poverty.” (P. 191.) (Thus, King declares that Jesus erred when he said that the poor will always be with us. Jesus did not mean that we should not help the poor from our personal estates, which we should. However, one should not plunder [tax] another person and give the loot to the poor — as King wanted to do.)

About one thing, King is correct: “A final problem that mankind must solve in order to survive in the world house that we have inherited is finding an alternative to war and human destruction.” (Pp. 191-192.) (On this point, King-idolizing conservatives, especially neoconservatives, ignore the greatest conservative ever, the archconservative King. Most of these conservatives adore every war that they have ever seen. People with the right connections can make a great deal of money from war.)

Continuing, King writes, “There is no need to fight for food and land. Science has provided us with adequate means of survival and transportation, which make it possible to enjoy the fullness of this great earth.” (P. 192.) (King sounds like a proponent of free trade.) He detests the notion of fighting wars in the name of peace and condemns leaders who do so. These leaders seek “a peaceful world order, a world fashioned after their selfish conceptions of an ideal existence.” (Likewise, King sought a peaceful world order fashioned after his selfish conception of an ideal existence.) He contends that peaceful ends must be pursued through peaceful means.

Then, King suggests “that the philosophy and strategy of nonviolence become immediately a subject for study and for serious experimentation in every field of human conflict” (p.194) including relations between nations. (King seems to want countries to resolve conflicts among themselves following his method of “nonviolent” protests. For decades, the CIA has been following King’s method. If a government [a segregated State or city] does not bow to the CIA’s [King’s] demands, the CIA supports the opponent’s [openly violent civil rights groups] of the government and brings it down via a coupe, civil war [riots], etc.)

Then, King states, “The United Nations is a gesture in the direction of nonviolence on a world scale.” (P. 195.) (If true, the United Nations is a failure. As many, and probably more, violent conflicts have occurred since its creation than before. However, the real purpose of the United Nations is not to prevent violent conflicts. Its purpose is to serve as a foundation for a despotic world government that a few oligarchs control.)

Next, King writes that “true nonviolence is more than the absence of violence. It is the persistent and determined application of peaceable power to offenses against the community.” (P. 195.)  (What is this application of “peaceful power?” It looks a lot like the application of legalized coercion, i.e., war. Covert war is what King used to destroy the South.)

King argues for “a revolution of values to accompany the scientific and freedom revolutions engulfing the earth.” (P. 196.) (King had a warped sense of freedom. Traditionally, freedom means that the government does little beyond the minimum to protect life, liberty, and property. Freedom means no welfare state, no guaranteed income, no affirmative action or quotas, no public school system, and none of the many other things that King wanted governments to do. Concerning race relations, just about the only acts that a government could take are those necessary to prevent or discourage genocide.)

Continuing, King declares, “We must . . . shift from a ‘thing’-oriented society to a ‘person’-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.” (Pp.196-197.) (King-idolizing conservatives take note: You need to oppose the free market economy. Either King is exposing his ignorance of a free market economy or he hates it. A free market economy is people-oriented. If producers do not provide people with what they want or need at a price that they can afford, they make no profit. Without property rights, i.e., the right to use their property as they think best, producers are hampered in providing people what they desiderate. The foundation of a free market economy is cooperation. Moreover, a free market economy does a better job of conquering the great triplets than does King’s approach of massive governmental intervention that is based on envy and the lust for power.)

Then, King describes capitalism and Communism. (His description of Communism is accurate. His description of capitalism is what happens when governments interfere in a free market economy for wars, favorites, or picking winners and losers.)

King argues for a fascist economy — the melding of capitalism and Communism. “The good and just society is neither the thesis of capitalism nor the antithesis of Communism, but a socially conscious democracy which reconciles the truths of individualism and collectivism.” (P. 197.) (This is a description of fascism: the concatenation of the collective and the individual with oligarchs deciding what is a good and just society. Moreover, King should be rolling over in his grave with joy since nearly every country in the world today has some form of fascist political economy, and most did at the time he wrote.)

With his Luddite tendencies, King declares “With righteous indignation, it [the true revolution of values] will look at thousands of working people displaced from their jobs with reduced incomes as a result of automation while the profits of the employers remain intact, and say: ‘This is not just.’” (P. 198.) (King seems to want nonwhite countries to industrialize. Yet, industrialization, i.e., automation, costs people their jobs. Over the centuries many jobs have been lost to automation. Most automation has replaced people in grueling, dangerous, or monotonous jobs that most people dislike doing. Automation has freed them to perform more interesting work. The industrial revolution has been built on automation. Besides, if everything is so automated that no jobs exist, then companies would quickly go out of business because no one could buy their products. What King and most other people fail to realize is that the final customer decides what jobs are needed and the pay of workers and not employers, capitalists, etc. If the government intervenes to fix wages, prices, etc. shortages occur, and the country as a whole is poorer. Nevertheless, King has a point about companies taking much more money out of a community than they invest there — this is an argument to favor small businesses over multinational corporations.)

King complains, “There is nothing but a lack of social vision to prevent us from paying an adequate wage to every American citizen.” (P. 199.) (As noted above, the final customer decides the pay that a worker receives by what he is willing to pay for the product or service. Obviously, King did not know much about economics. But, here, he is promoting his guaranteed income for every family. That is, he wants the government to plunder producers and divide the stolen loot among families or individuals.)

Then, King states, “that our greatest defense against Communism is to take offensive action in behalf of justice.” (P. 200.) (That is, the United States need to flood the world with money with no conditions attached.)

Continuing, King declares, “These are revolutionary times.” (P. 200.) (True. It was the revolution of tyranny and despotism over freedom and liberty. In the name of King’s social justice, tyranny, and despotism won.)

Next, King writes, “Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal opposition to poverty, racism and militarism.” (Pp. 200-201.) (If this is our only hope, we are doomed. Poverty is still with us as Jesus said it would be. Black racism, Yellow racism, and Brown racism have supplanted White racism, which is mostly dead. Militarism is as prevalent today as ever before as the United States seek to impose democracy and King’s social justice on every country in the world.)

King was a cosmopolitan and a globalist. He urged everyone to place humanity as a whole above his particular tribe, race, class, and nation (a people as opposed to a country). Further, he calls “for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all men.” (P. 201.) (That is, all tribes, races, classes, and nations must sacrifice themselves on the altar of globalism under the rule of the global oligarchs. Now, it becomes clear why White oligarchs supported King and his destructive work.)

In conclusion, King states, “We can no longer afford to worship the God of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation.” (Pp. 200-201.) (Where Southerners were involved, King never did stop worshiping the God of hate or bowing before his altar of retaliation.)

For decades, the White oligarchs have been flooding the country with legal and illegal nonwhites. This flooding of nonwhites greatly threatens the hold that Negroes have on America. Because they are not White, these nonwhites are demanding and receiving the same benefits and privileges given to Negroes. Consequently, Negroes are beginning to lose their control of America to these nonwhites. Unfortunately for Negroes, they cannot control these nonwhites with guilt as they have controlled Whites. When these nonwhites reach a critical mass, they will push the Negro to the lowest rung of society. Then, Negroes will look at the days of segregation and Jim Crow as the days of privilege and prosperity. For this dismal future, Negroes can think King and his civil rights movement and social justice.

After reading his book, I discovered that I have much more confidence in the American Negro than King did. He believed that the Negro was incapable of bettering himself without the aid of Whites. Therefore, according to King, Negroes need Whites to solve their problems, to support them, and to give them special privileges and benefits. Although Whites gave the Negro everything that King demanded and more — except ending wars and a guaranteed income, many Negroes still have a slave mentality, however, a perverse slave mentality. Like the traditional slave, they remain dependent on Whites, but unlike the traditional slave, they expect Whites to serve them. By obeying King’s demands, Whites have greatly damaged the Negro. The Negro as a whole would have been better off today if King and his followers had not created the turmoil that they did in the 1960s and if the Negro had been left alone to solve his problems.

To resolve his problems the Negro should free himself from his dependency on Whites. Ironically as it may seem, especially to King, Negroes would have advanced further in a more segregated society. The Black Power folks were going in the right direction, but King subverted their movement. As a result, the Negro is not much better off today than in King’s day except economically. In many social respects, the Negro is worse off.

If the Negro had followed the Black Power road instead of King’s road, he would have had the satisfaction of knowing that he raised himself up and that he is responsible for his achievements. Because he followed King’s road, he will always question his achievements since Whites gave him just about everything that he has.

When King said that he had a dream, his dream was the genocide of the White race after all its wealth had been plundered. At least, that is the result of the policies that he advocated and promoted. Moreover, King-idolizing conservatives have been working diligently to achieve his dream — except in the economic realm where most continue to oppose guaranteed income and reparations.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on social issues.

Some Republican Views of the Negro

Some Republican Views of the Negro

Thomas Allen

On pages 265–267, in Facts and Falsehoods Concerning the War on the South 1861-1865 (Memphis, Tennessee: A. R. Taylor & Co., 1904), George Edmonds gives the views of several leading Republicans on the Negro during Lincoln’s War.

He writes, “It is known to all that the Creator has implanted in the very atoms of the human being, as well as in the being of animals, certain instincts for the preservation of life and the perpetuity of the race. Among these instincts is that of kinship. Our affections first go out to our parents, our children, our relatives. Next they go out to the people of our own country, our own color and blood. The white race loves white people more than it does the yellow, the red or the black. Negroes prefer their own color; they naturally affiliate with negroes in preference to whites, Chinese or Japanese. This is the law of kinship. [This law of kinship, most Whites today have forgotten or condemned. Most Blacks believe and accept this law.] Any reverse of this law is perversion — perversion is species of insanity. We have shown that in the year 1796 certain New England Federalists, to attain a certain object they had in view, set themselves to work to promulgate the gospel of hate toward the people of the South. By dint of teaching hate the teachers developed that feeling in their own hearts. As the teaching went on, the feeling increased in intensity until it became an insanity, a monomania utterly beyond the control or the influence of reason. Finally it came to pass that from this insanity of hate there sprung an insanity of love. The former was directed toward the white people of the South, the latter toward the negroes. Without evidence from the papers and publications of that day, the white men of this generation will not be able to believe that New England, as well as large numbers of the Republican party, came to admire and respect the negro race as morally and mentally superior to the white. At first this strange insanity only held that the negroes in the South were far superior in every way to Southern whites; but as time passed the insanity took on a more violent form, and those so afflicted believed and taught that as a race the negro was greatly superior, morally and mentally, to the whole Caucasian race, and not only this, they came to admire every peculiar quality of the negro, the blackness of their skins, their woolly hair. Their whole makeup New England orators and writers dwelt on with a sort of worshiping rapture and urged intermarriage between blacks and whites, not to elevate the former, but the latter.” (pp. 265-266.) The only thing that has changed since Edmonds wrote his book is that many Southerners have become inflected with this Negrophilic-Dixiephobic perversion.

To support his claim, Edmonds quotes several New England Republicans. First, he quotes Wendell Phillips, a leading abolitionist. Edmonds writes, “In the early stages of his insanity Wendell Phillips was fond of announcing to his audiences that ‘negroes are our acknowledged equals. They are our brothers and sisters.’ As time went on Mr. Phillips’ distemper became more heated. He was not satisfied with asserting that ‘negroes are our equals;’ he made the startling announcement that — ‘Negroes are our Nobility!’ And began to clamor that special privileges be granted to ‘our nobility.’ He wanted all the land in the Southern States divided and bestowed on ‘our nobility’ and their heirs forever. What ‘our nobility’ had done to deserve this rich reward Mr. Phillips did not explain. Perhaps he thought the fact that negroes had been brought from Africa in a savage state, and had acquired in the hard school of slavery some of the arts of civilization, fitted them to become a noble class.” (p. 266.)

Next, Edmonds quotes Governor Stone of Iowa. Edmonds writes “in a speech made at Keokuk, August 3, 1863, [Stone] was certainly in the first stages of this insanity when he said to his audience, ‘I hold the Democracy in the utmost contempt. I would rather eat with a negro, drink with a negro, and sleep with a negro than with a Copperhead’ (meaning a Democrat).” (pp. 266-267.) 

Then, he turns to Morrow Lowry. Edmonds writes, “The disease certainly had struck Mr. Morrow B. Lowry, State Senator of Pennsylvania, when at a large meeting in Philadelphia, in 1863, he said to his audience: ‘For all I know the Napoleon of this war may be done up in a black package. We have no evidence of his being done up in a white one. The man who talks of elevating a negro would not have to elevate him very much to make him equal to himself.’” (p. 267.)

Next, Edmonds cites the New York Independent. He writes, “The faithful old New York Independent sorrowfully wailed over the long delayed coming of the Black Napoleon, which all the insane negro-worshipers confidently looked for. ‘God and negroes,’ said the Independent, ‘are to save the country. For two years the white soldiers of this country have been trying to find a path to victory. The negroes are the final reliance of our Government. Negroes are the keepers and the saviors of our cause. Negroes are the forlorn hope of our Republican party.’” [One primary reason that Republicans promoted the Negro in the South was to establish Republican dominance in the South through the Negro. Now Republican racial nihilists complain that Blacks have double-crossed the Republican Party by supporting the Democratic Party. Another primary reason for promoting the Negro in the South was to genocide the Southerner.]

Then, Edmonds quotes James Parton. He writes, “James Parton, the noted biographer, was strongly touched with the prevailing disease — insane love of negroes. ‘Many a negro,’ wrote James Parton, in 1863, ‘stands in the same kind of moral relation to his master as that in which Jesus Christ stood to the Jews, and not morally only, for he stands above his master at a height which the master can neither see nor understand.’” 

Finally, he cites General Phelps. He writes, “J.W. Phelps, General in the Republican army, thought the negro race much better adapted to receive Christianity than the white. ‘Christianity,’ said Phelps, ‘is planted in the dark rich soil of the African nature. Negroes are as intelligent and far more moral than the whites. The slaves appeal to the moral law, clinging to it as to the very horns of the altar; he bears no resentment, he asks for no punishment for his master.’” (p. 267.)

If the people cited by Edmonds believed what they said, they had not spent much time around Blacks. To disprove their assertions, they needed only to look at Haiti.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern articles.

King on Black Power – Part 2

King on Black Power – Part 2

Thomas Allen

According to King, Black Power has many positive aspects compatible with the civil rights movement. However, he believes that its negative value prevents “it from having the substance and program to become the basic strategy for the civil rights movement in the days ahead.” (P. 45.) Further, “Black Power is a nihilistic philosophy born out of the conviction that the Negro can’t win. It is, at bottom, the view that American society is so hopelessly corrupt and enmeshed in evil that there is no possibility of salvation from within.” (P. 45.) (Regardless of Black Power, the Negro did win. Yet, now, many Negroes still believe, and many Whites agree, that American society is hopelessly corrupt and enmeshed in the evil of racism, whatever that means, and White supremacy, even though that died decades ago.)

After commenting on the hostile reaction that he received from the Black Power folks in Chicago, King concluded that they had lost patience because all the benefits that the civil rights movement promised had not come to fruition. (Within a decade, they not only received the benefits that King promised and advocated, but they also received much more. Now, they can even become doctors, engineers, executives of major corporations, high-ranking government bureaucrats, etc. with their race being their primary qualification and often their only qualification. One of the few high-paying occupations that they have earned by merits instead of race is athletics.)

King criticizes the Black Power movement because “it rejects the one thing that keeps the fire of revolutions burning: the ever-present flame of hope.  . . . The Negro cannot entrust his destiny to a philosophy nourished solely on despair, to a slogan that they cannot implement into a program.” (P. 47.) 

Next, King comments on the Negro’s disappointments and frustrations. (The Negro may have been disappointed in King’s day. However, today, he should have none, for he has far more privileges and benefits than King ever demanded. Yet, the Negro is still not satisfied and demands more — even the genocide of the White race. His insatiable greed and the kowtowing of Whites keep him from ever being satisfied.)

Continuing, King writes, “We Negroes, who have dreamed for so long of freedom, are still confined in a prison of segregation and discrimination.” (P. 47.).  (Whatever discrimination that Negroes face today is the result of merit and not of race, which is why Negroes want advancements and rewards to be based on race. Today, the White race is the only race discriminated against. If Negroes are still not free, it is because their demands have destroyed freedom for everyone.)

Comparing Black Power to Garvey’s Back to Africa movement, King writes, “The Black Power movement of today, like the Garvey ‘Back to Africa’ movement of the 1920s, represents a dashing of hope, a conviction of the inability of the Negro to win and a belief in the infinitude of the ghetto.” (Pp. 48-49.) (Although the Negro won, his connate traits still keep many in the infinitude of the ghetto. However, refusing to accept responsibility for his failure to escape the ghetto mentality, the Negro still blames nonexistent White supremacy. Moreover, if Garvey had succeeded, most of the race problems of the United States would not exist.)

King remarks, “Black Power is an implicit and often explicit belief in black separatism.” (P. 49.) King adamantly opposed Black separation. He preferred a society where all races are amalgamated and homogenized into indistinguishable mongrels. Such amalgamation is the objective of the oligarchs. Moreover, Black separation preserves the Negro and his uniqueness, which the policies that King promoted destroy. While King expressed a desire for Negro unity and Black identity, his integrationist policies destroy instead of preserving them. Moreover,  under Black separation, Negroes would govern themselves.)

Further, King declares, “that effective political power for Negroes cannot come through separatism.” (P. 49.) (So, Negroes governing themselves do not give them effective political power. Apparently, King thought that Negroes needed to integrate with Whites to govern themselves effectively. Thus, King implies that Negroes cannot effectively govern themselves without the assistance of Whites.)

Some Black Power adherents and King thought small — gaining control of and governing counties and cities. King’s small thinking is one reason that he opposed Black Power — controlling a few counties would give the Negro little influence in State politics. Instead, he preferred focusing on getting Negroes elected to Congress (where they could push the federal government to bully the States into surrendering unconditionally to King. If King had thought big, he would have advocated Negroes having an independent country ruled by Negroes.) While many Black Power adherents wanted the Negro to be independent of Whites, King did not.

Continuing, King writes that “the Negroes’ problem cannot be solved unless the whole of American society takes a new turn toward greater economic justice.” (P. 51.) The federal government has spent hundreds of billions of dollars to create new jobs, low-cost housing, quality integrated education, etc. for the benefit of the Negro. Also, State and local governments have spent many billions of dollars more for the benefit of the Negro. (Thus, for King, the solution to the Negro’s problem is looting Whites for the benefit of Negroes.)

In condemning Black Power, King remarks that “the weakness of Black Power is its failure to see that the black man needs the white man and the white man needs the black man.” (P. 54.) (Whites are not dependent on Negroes. However, if Negroes want to live in a technologically advanced society, they are dependent on Whites.)

King declares, “Negroes should never want all power because they would deprive others of their freedom.” (P. 55.) (Negroes have not gained all power — White oligarchs prevent that — but in alliance with progressive Whites, they have deprived Whites of their freedom. For example, no White can refuse to hire or serve a Negro because of his race, which makes him a slave of the Negro.)

Continuing his attack against Black Power, King asserts, “Probably the most destructive feature of Black Power is its unconscious and often conscious call for retaliatory violence.” (P. 56.) Nevertheless, King admitted many people in the Black Power movement were not advocates of violence. Yet, others believed that only violence would bring liberation.

Another reason that King opposed the violence of Black Power was that it would not work. (However, over time, riots and the threats of riots earned more booty for Negroes that did peaceful demonstrations.)

King notes that “power and morality must go together, implementing, fulfilling and ennobling each other.” (P. 61.) (Unfortunately, he errs. With rare exception, those who wield political power lack morality.)

About segregation, King writes, “Racial segregation is buttressed by such irrational fears as loss of preferred economic privilege, altered social status, intermarriage and adjustment to new situations.” (P. 61.) (Irrational or not, these fears have come to pass. Not only have Whites lost economic privileges, but they have also lost economic neutrality. Whites have to give Negroes preferential treatment in hiring [affirmative action and quotas]. Interracial marriages have soared since the late 1960s. No longer can Whites have any kind of public social activity without allowing Negroes to participate.) According to King, Whites should free themselves of these fears (and surrender unconditionally and genocide themselves along with genociding the Negro via integration and the resulting miscegenation. Of course, this genocide would be in the name of love.)

King states that the Negro will not “be totally liberated from the crushing weight of poor education, squalid housing and economic strangulation until he is integrated, with power, into every level of American life.” (P. 64.) (Now, Negroes are so thoroughly integrated that many of them desire segregation. Moreover, Negroes have more power, especially political power, than Whites except for the White oligarchs. Yet, integration and power have not liberated many of them from poor education, squalid housing, and economic strangulation. Although the welfare state has alleviated much of his economic strangulation, he still lags behind Whites educationally even as academic standards have been lowered to his level. His poor education is the result of his innate genetic lack of intelligence and intellectual capabilities. Again, King preaches the wrong solution to the Negro’s problems.)

Another flaw that King sees in ”the Black Power movement is that it talks unceasingly about not imitating the values of white society, but in advocating violence it is imitating the worst, the most brutal and the most uncivilized value of American life.” (P. 66.) Also, he condemned Negroes perpetrating violence against other Negroes.

King blames the Negro’s desperation for the rise of Black Power. If it were not for White supremacy and segregation, the Black Power movement would never have happened.

A major reason that King rejected the Black Power movement was that it competed with his Freedom Now movement and diverted resources and people from King’s movement. Moreover, in some respects, the Black Power movement accomplished more for Negroes than did King’s Freedom Now movement. Unlike King’s integration movement, which ultimately leads to the genocide of the American Negro, the Black Power separation movement seeks to preserve the American Negro.

Carmichael had a higher opinion of the common Negro than did King. While Carmichael believed that Negroes could advance independently of Whites, King believed that Negroes were dependent on Whites for their advancement. While history shows that the Jim Crow Era proved Carmichael right, the history of the Civil Rights Era has proven King right.

For King and most other Negroes, the Negro has no responsibility for his problems — either in causing them or in solving them. Whites, especially Southerners, are the cause of all the Negro’s problems. Therefore, Whites should solve the Negro’s problem by giving Negroes special privileges and benefits and all their wealth; in short, Whites need to enslave themselves to the Negro until their genocide is completed.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Allen.

Part 1.

More social issues articles.