King on Paul’s Letter to American Christians

King on Paul’s Letter to American Christians

Thomas Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

King on How Should a Christian View Communism

King on How Should a Christian View Communism

Thomas Allen

In “How Should a Christian View Communism,” Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 99–108, Martin Luther King, Jr. discusses Communism as a rival to Christianity, the incompatibility of Communism and Christianity, Christianity and social justice, and capitalism. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

King begins by identifying three reasons why Christian ministers need to speak to their congregations on Communism. All three reasons are correct at the time he wrote.

“The first reason recognizes that the widespread influence of Communism has, like a mighty tidal wave, spread through Russia, China, Eastern Europe, and now even to our hemisphere.” (P. 99.) Nearly a billion people believe its teachings with many embracing it as a new religion. (People whom Communism oppressed did not believe in it. Probably, most of the Communist leaders did not believe in it. They used it to feed their insatiable lust for power.)

“A second reason is that Communism is the only serious rival to Christianity.” (P. 99.) Although Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam are possible rivals to Christianity, “Communism is Christianity’s most formidable rival.” (P. 100.) (Now, Communism has fallen by the wayside. Hinduism and Islam are the fastest-growing rivals of Christianity. Along with Judaism and Zionism, wokeism has infected nearly every Christian denomination. Ironically, if King were alive today, most likely, he would be preaching wokeism as the new Christianity since it is a natural outgrowth of his civil rights movement.) 

“A third reason is that it is unfair and certainly unscientific to condemn a system before we know what that system teaches and why it is wrong.” (P. 99.) Then, King states, “Communism and Christianity are fundamentally incompatible.” (P. 99.) (Yet, King spent his career associating with known Communists. Communists trained him, financed his movement, and wrote many of his speeches. Although he never became a member of the Communist Party, never did he seriously denounce them — even after the Kennedys urged him to avoid them. Based on his works, King was not a true Christian. Though he preached from the Bible, his heart was with Communism. Based on his actions, he did not consider Communism incompatible with Christianity — at least it was not incompatible with his perverted version of Christianity.)

Then, King proceeds to condemn Communism. “First, Communism is based on a materialistic and humanistic view of life and history. According to Communist theory, matter, not mind or spirit, speaks the last word in the universe.” (P. 100.) It is secularistic and atheistic. God is a fiction, and religion grows out of ignorance and fear. Communism “thrives on the grand illusion that man, unaided by any divine power, can save himself and usher in a new society.” (P. 100.) Conversely, Christianity believes that God exists, and He “is the ground and essence of all reality. A Being of infinite love and boundless power, God is the creator, sustainer, and conserver of values.” (Pp. 100-101.) Correctly, King writes, “Man cannot save himself, for man is not the measure of all things and humanity is not God. Bound by the chains of his own sin and finiteness, man needs a Savior.” (P. 101.) (Unfortunately, King did not believe what he wrote. He was much closer to Communism than he was to Christianity.)

Next, King discusses the second reason that Christianity is incompatible with Communism. “Second, Communism is based on ethical relativism and accepts no stable moral absolutes. Right and wrong are relative to the most expedient methods for dealing with class war.” (P. 101.) (This relative right and wrong was an underlying principle of King’s civil rights movement.) Correctly, “Christianity sets forth a system of absolute moral values and affirms that God has placed within the very structure of this universe certain moral principles that are fixed and immutable.” (P. 101.) Christianity rejects the philosophy that the ends justify the means. (King and his civil rights movement have resorted to Communist tactics: lying, deception, law-breaking, violence, intimidation, etc.) Then, King writes, “Destructive means cannot bring constructive ends.” (P. 101.) (King and the civil rights movement have used destructive means to achieve their ends. Consequently, America is in its death throes.)

Next, King discusses the third reason that Christianity is incompatible with Communism. “Third, Communism attributes ultimate value to the state. Man is made for the state and not the state for man.” (P. 101.) (King fails to explain what the state is. The state is the people who control it; it is the oligarchs who control the government and the country through their political, economic, and social power. They use their control of the state to protect and increase their wealth and especially their power.) In theory, under Communism, the state is supposed to fade away when a classless society is achieved. (However, such a society is never reached. The oligarchs ensure that such a society cannot be achieved.) Nevertheless, as long as the state exists, a classless society is its ostensible end. “Man is a means to that end. Man has no inalienable rights. His only rights are derived from, and conferred by, the state. . . . Man must be a dutiful servant to the omnipotent state.” (P. 102.) Correctly, “Christianity insists that man is an end because he is a child of God, made in God’s image.” (P. 102.) Moreover, man “is a being of spirit, crowned with glory and honor, endowed with the gift of freedom.” (P. 102.)

Again, correctly, King notes, “The ultimate weakness of Communism is that it robs man of that quality that makes him man.” (P. 102.) Being confused about God, Communism is also confused about man. Then, King remarks that “never can we, as true Christians, tolerate the philosophy of Communism.” (P. 102.) (Thus, King proves that he is not a true Christian. He not only tolerated the philosophy of Communism, but he also promoted much of it. Like the Communists, he advocated the civil rights movement, which Communists organized and guided. Likewise, King advocated such Communist programs as the welfare state, transferring wealth from the rich to the poor, a guaranteed income, public housing, etc. Further, I have not found him speaking against any of the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto.)

Continuing, King comments on Communism and social justice. According to King, Communism is a protest “against the injustice and indignities inflicted upon the underprivileged.” (P. 102.) (If so, why has Communism fascinated the upper middle class more than the lower class? Why has the upper middle class promoted it more than the lower class?)

King notes that in theory, Communism emphasizes a classless society. According to him, this classless society includes not only the elimination of economic classes but also the elimination of all racial differences. (Thus, King promotes genocide. He would have all the races interbreed until only mongrel man exists. Moreover, all these mongrels would have the same income, wear indistinguishable uniforms, live in identical dwellings, etc. so that no class distinction of any kind exists.)

Continuing, King states that Christians need to be concerned with social justice. (King believes that miscegenation, forced wealth transfers, the welfare state, quotas, etc. are essential to the achievement of social justice.) He comments on the Bible expressing concern for the poor. (King’s proposals for expressing concern for the poor differ from the Bible’s. King wants the government to forcibly take property from the rich and give it to the poor. On the other hand, the Bible wants the rich to care so much about the poor that they will voluntarily help them.) Then, King remarks, “No doctrinaire Communist ever expressed a passion for the poor and oppressed such as we find in the Manifesto of Jesus.” (P. 104.) (True, however, Communists have often excelled in manipulating such people.)

King states that Christians should repudiate racism. (What does King mean by “racism?” At least 800 definitions of “racist” exist. [See “Are You a Racist?” by Thomas Allen.] Moreover, King disagrees with God about the races. Since God created the races, He must consider them important. However, King does not since he advocates breeding them out of existence. Further, while God commanded racial segregation and separation, which preserves the races, King promoted integration and miscegenation, which genocides the races.)

King writes, “Racial prejudice is a blatant denial of the unity that we have in Christ, for in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile, bond nor free, Negro nor white.” (P. 104.) (First, King is adding to the Scriptures. Negro and White in the sense that he is using the terms are not in the passage that he is paraphrasing. Second, racial prejudice does not exist in the South. Collins English Dictionary defines prejudice as “an opinion formed beforehand, esp an unfavourable one based on inadequate facts.” Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary defines prejudice as “an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.” The attitudes of Southerners toward Blacks are based on 400 years of observation, knowledge, thought, reason, and facts. Therefore, they are not prejudging Blacks.)

Then, King condemns the church for its lack of alacrity in preaching his idea of social justice. (Today, most churches preach King’s social justice instead of the Bible.) The church should focus on present evils on the earth rather than on salvation.

Next, King castigates the church for failing in its mission of social justice; consequently, it has failed Christ. (King seems to believe that his version of social justice is the heart of Christianity and thus its most important aspect. His version of social justice leads to Black supremacy and massive discrimination against Whites.) He chastises the church for not opposing colonialism and slavery. (Nowhere does the Bible condemn or outlaw slavery.)

Continuing, King writes, “The judgment of God is upon the church.” (P. 105.) (True. Ever since the church replaced preaching the gospel of Jesus with preaching the gospel of King, the church has been declining in relevance. Most denominations have degenerated so much that they are drowning in wokeism.)

Next, King discusses what he calls traditional capitalism. Part of the rise of Communism results from the weaknesses of traditional capitalism. He condemns capitalism because it “has often left a gulf between superfluous wealth and abject poverty, has created conditions permitting necessities to be taken from the many to give luxuries to the few, and has encouraged small-hearted men to become cold and conscienceless so that . . . they are unmoved by suffering, poverty-stricken humanity.” (Pp. 105-106.) Then, he condemns the profit motive because it “encourages a cut-throat competition and selfish ambition that inspires men to be more concerned about making a living than making a life. . . . Capitalism may lead to a practical materialism that is as pernicious as the theoretical materialism taught by Communism.” (P. 106.) (His observation of capitalism has some merit because capitalism has more in common with socialism than it does a free market, free enterprise economy. [See “Capitalists and Socialists” by Thomas Allen.] A free market, free enterprise economy depends on all the economic actors cooperating.) According to King, capitalism and Communism represent a partial truth. “Historically, capitalism failed to discern the truth in collective enterprise and Marxism failed to see the truth in individual enterprise.” (P. 106.) He advocates the melding of the two. (That is, King advocates a form of fascistic welfare state, which most countries have today.)

Continuing, King notes that Communists have a “zeal and commitment to a cause that they believe will create a better world.” (P. 107.) (Communist ideologues may believe that Communism leads to a better world. However, those in control see Communism as a means to feed their insatiable lust for power.) King states that Communists seem to have a greater passion to win others to Communism than most Christians have to win others to Christ. He urges Christians to “recapture the spirit of the early church.” (P. 107.) Then, he discusses the zeal of the early church.

King concludes that preaching the gospel of Jesus and turning people to Christ is the best defense against Communism. War cannot defeat Communism. (Although Communism fell at least in the Soviet Union, progressivism, fascism, and wokeism rose to take its place. Preaching the gospel of Jesus can defeat them. Unfortunately, most churches preach Zionism, i.e., Judeo-Christian heresy, and the gospel of King, which birthed wokeism.)

Additionally, conditions that lead to Communism need to be removed: “poverty, insecurity, injustice, and racial discrimination.” (P. 108.) (Thus, King endorses the Great Society with its War on Poverty and civil rights laws.) Eliminating them will starve Communism to death.  (What happened to slaying Communism with the gospel of Jesus?)

Once again, King preaches a great sermon and offers some good advice. Yet again, he ignores most of his advice. He has an excellent understanding of Communism and knows that Communism is incompatible with Christianity. Nevertheless, he spent his career associating with known Communists. They controlled his civil rights movement. His alliance with Communists proves by his own words that he was not a Christian.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

King on What the Negro Wants

King on What the Negro Wants

Thomas Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Was Paul an Evolutionist?

Was Paul an Evolutionist?

Thomas Allen

    If creationists who claim that Adam and Eve are the parents of all the various kinds (races, species) of humans are correct, then Paul is an evolutionist, a Darwinist. In 1 Corinthians 15:39, he writes, “All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes.” These so-called creationists interpret “one flesh of men” to mean that all humans are descendants of Adam and Eve through Noah and his family.
    First, let us see what some commentators have to say about this verse. In A Commentary on the Holy Bible (1939), J.R. Dummelow, editor, writes, “There are many different forms of animal life; so there may be of human life.” Thus, because many different species of animals exist, so may several species of men exist.
    Everett Harrison, editor, suggests in The Wycliffe Bible Commentary (1962) that this verse and those following indicate that a believer’s race will be identifiable in his resurrected body. Moreover, based on Harrison’s comment on this verse, one could support Paul being either an evolutionist or a creationist. He comments, “In the light of the theory of evolution, this is an interesting statement [,i.e., ‘All flesh is not the same flesh’].” Paul could be suggesting that each flesh (kind, species) initially came into being independently of all other flesh. This is creationism and is most likely what Paul intended. Conversely, he could be suggesting that all flesh came from one flesh, which is evolution, Darwinism.
    In One Volume New Testament Commentary, C.B.S. writes, “There are different varieties and forms of bodily life.” Thus, he implies that different forms (kinds, species) of men exist. Likewise, Beet writes, “. . . the immense variety, and variety of kinds, of living bodies.” Consequently, there are several kinds of humans.
    With the possible exception of Harrison, these commentators in their commentary on this verse neither support nor reject evolution or creationism. They merely note that a large number of kinds of animals exist. So, by implication, several kinds of humans exist.
    If all human kinds have one common pair of parents, then, according to Paul, all beasts have one common pair of parents. Therefore, all mammals, reptiles, and amphibians are descendants of one pair of parents. How does a frog turn into a mouse if an evolutionary process is not involved? Likewise, the same is true of birds and fishes; they are descendant from a common pair of parent birds or parent fishes.
    Creationists cannot have it both ways. If different kinds (fleshes) of beasts have different initial parents, then different kinds (fleshes) of humans have different initial parents. If “one flesh of men” means that all humans have a common initial pair of parents, then “another flesh of beasts” means that all beasts have a common initial pair of parents. That is, all mammals, reptiles, and amphibians are descended from the same initial parents. Likewise, so are the various kinds of birds and fishes descended from the same initial parents respectively. Evolution means different kinds descending from common initial parents. Thus, if all kinds of human descended from Adam and Eve, evolution is proven.
    Monogenism, which is what the Church has traditionally taught, supports evolution, Darwinism. According to monogenism, all human kinds (races, species) descended from a common pair of parents, Adam and Eve. Polygenism supports creationism. According to polygenism, each human kind descended from a different, unique pair of parents. Thus, if creationism is true, Adam and Eve are the parents of only one human kind. If (theistic) evolution is true, then Adam and Eve are the parents of all human kinds.
    Biblical creationism is described as “after its kind.” Polygenists claim that each flesh (kind) of beast and each flesh (kind) of man has its own initial pair of parents (flesh) and, thus, is after its flesh (kind). Therefore, creationism is polygenism.
    On the other hand, monogenists claim that all flesh (kind) of beasts comes from the same initial flesh (kind) and all flesh (kind) of men comes from the same initial flesh (kind). Therefore, monogenism is evolution, i.e., Darwinism. If the monogenistic claim that all human kinds descended from Adam and Eve is correct, evolution is proven.
    In The Disaster Darwinism Brought to Humanity, Harun Yahya, a Muslim,  argues that Darwinism is responsible for Social Darwinism, communism, fascism, Nazism, Marxism (from which come fascism and Nazism), two world wars, and many other evils of the late nineteenth century and the twentieth century. It is also responsible for colonialism, imperialism (Islamic imperialism existed long before Christian imperialism or Darwin’s birth), the prohibition against interracial marriages (although interracial breeding is a form of genocide), segregation (although segregation preserves the integrity of the races whereas integration genocides them), and eugenics. Moreover, although capitalism has been retreating since World War I, Darwinism is responsible for the advancement of capitalism (because of the stereotypical criticism of capitalism: individualism, competition, and profit-making and because it is void of charity and cooperation, or as Marx asserts, because capitalism is a vital, energetic, productive engine, yet it is egoistic, individualist, and rights-obsessed, which makes it morally evil.) Nevertheless, Yahya acknowledges that these evils existed before Darwin, but Darwin gave them a scientific veneer to justify them and make them more acceptable. If Darwinism is guilty of these evils, then the Church is just as guilty, if not more so, than Darwin. With its monogenistic teachings, it was preaching Darwinism centuries before Darwin was born. Likewise, Islam with its monogenistic doctrine is also guilty.
    When Paul writes, “there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts,” etc., does he mean that all human kinds have a common initial pair of parents and all beast kinds have a common initial pair of parents? If so, he is a monogenist and an evolutionist. However, if he means that each human kind has a different initial pair of parents and each beast kind has a different initial pair of parents, then he is a polygenist and is not an evolutionist.
    Of course, the argument depends on what is a “kind.” Is a kind a class, order, family, species, or subspecies? Some creationist evolutionists, to use an oxymoron, start with the family; that is, they identify a kind as a family. For example, all species of the cat family are decedents of an initial pair of felines, i.e., a feline kind. Obviously, evolution is involved if all species of cats are descended from a common ancestor. If these creationist evolutionists are correct, then evolution, Darwinism, is proven. The disagreement between creationist evolutionists and secular evolutionists is the starting point and the time required for one species or kind to evolve into another. What secular evolutionists claim that takes millions of years to achieve, creationist evolutionists claim that it takes only a few generations. If kind is not equivalent to a species, or even a subspecies (many of which used to be a species in their own right), then Darwinism becomes necessary, and evolution is proven.
    Does only one human kind exist or do several kinds or species of humans exist? If taxonomists had followed the techniques used to identify species of animals for identifying species of humans, they would have identified several species of humans (and some did identify several human species). However, because of centuries of Catholic monogenic indoctrination that all human kinds descended from Adam and Eve, all human kinds were lumped into one species. (Now, political correctness has replaced Catholic indoctrination. However, with the disdain and hatred of the White race, even by Whites, one wonders why the White race is not classified as a different human species or even a different genus to prevent it from contaminating and degrading the other human races.)
    Today, the primary technique used to identify a species is the ability to produce fertile offspring. As a result, many former species have been lumped together as one species. Because of using this criterion as the almost sole criterion for identifying a species, many former species of the genus Canis have been lumped together. However, taxonomists are not consistent is using the criterion of fertile offspring. Obviously, it is not used for extinct species. Moreover, have entomologists tried interbreeding all species of ants to see if they are really distinct species or mere subspecies of the same species? The ability to produce fertile offspring should be only one of several criteria used to determine a species — and then used more for exclusion than inclusion.
    (For a more detail discussion of polygenism verses monogenism and the classification of human kinds into several species, see Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis and Adam to Abraham: The Early History of Man, both by Thomas Allen.)
    Is Paul an evolutionist? “Flesh of beasts” parallels “flesh of men.” Therefore, Paul must have meant the same thing by both phrases. Thus, if Paul means that all kinds of men descended from a common ancestor, then he would have meant that all kinds of beasts descended from a common ancestor. Consequently, he is an evolutionist. However, if by “flesh of” he does not mean descent from a common ancestor, then he does not mean that all human kinds and all beast kinds descended from a common ancestor, i.e., each human kind, race, species, and each beast kind, species, and many subspecies have a different initial ancestor.  Thus, he is not an evolutionist but is a creationist.
    Dr. Pye Smith, who was a Christian philosopher and a proponent of all human kinds descending from a common pair of parents, wrote,

If the two first inhabitants of Eden were the progenitors, not of all human beings, but only of the race whence sprang the Hebrew family, still it would remain the fact, that all were formed by the immediate power of God, and all these circumstances, stated or implied in the Scriptures, would remain the same as to moral and practical purposes. Adam would be a “figure of Him that is to come,” the Saviour of mankind; just as Melchizedek, or Moses, or Aaron, or David: the spiritual lesson would be the same. The sinful character of all the tribes of men, and the individuals composing them, would remain determined by the most abundant and painfully demonstrated proofs, in the history of all times and nations. The way and manner in which moral corruption has thus infected all men, under their several heads of primeval ancestry, would be an inscrutable mystery, which it is now, but the need of divine mercy, and the duty to seek it, would be the same; the same necessity would exist of a Saviour, a redemption, and a renovation of the internal character by efficacious grace. That the Saviour was, in his human nature, a descendant of Adam, would not militate against his being a proper Redeemer for all races of mankind, any more than his being a descendant of Abraham, Judah, and David, at all diminishes his perfection to save us “sinners of the Gentiles.” (Geology and Scripture, p. 357, Bohn's ed. 1854.)

    Thus, just as Melchizedek, Moses, Aaron, and David were figures of the Christ, who would come as the Savior of humanity, so was Adam. Adam did not have to be the ancestor of all man kinds for them to be saved.  Thus, each kind of human having a different initial pair of parents does not diminish the salvific work of Christ — unless the Israelite-identity folks are correct. (If descent from Adam is necessary for salvation, then descent from Abraham through Jacob is also necessary as the Israelite-identity folks claim. According to Israelite-identity folks, only Israelites, descendants of Jacob, can be saved. Therefore, whether all are descendants of Adam is irrelevant. Only descend from Jacob matters. Without a reliable genealogy, how does one know that he is a descendant, much less a pure descendant with no admixture of non-Israelite Adamites, Aryans, of Jacob? [Non-Israelite Aryans and Israelites are biologically the same.] Most Aryans, like Negroes, Turanians, Melanochroi, Khoisans, and Indo-Australians, cannot be saved because they are not descendants of Jacob, or at least not pure descendants.)
      Either God created each kind, race, species, of men or they evolved from a common ancestry, which is evolution, Darwinism. If the races did not evolve and God did create them, then all good Christians (and presumably good Muslims) should oppose everything that leads to their demise or destruction, including interracial mating. Otherwise, if God did not create them independently, then Darwinism and all the evils that Yahya attaches to it, including genocide, should not matter.
    If God created each race of men independently, then genocide matters. However, if the races of men evolved, then genocide per se does not matter as genocide leads to the survival of the fittest. Unfortunately, most Americans are evolutionists and do not oppose genocide per se. However, they do oppose some forms of genocide while finding other forms acceptable — only the type of genocide may matter. At least 98 to 99 percent of Americans do agree on one thing — be they liberal or conservative, progressive or libertarian, left-wing or right-wing, communist or laissez-faire capitalist, Republican or Democrat, pro-Trump or anti-Trump, pro-Clinton/Obama or anti-Clinton/Obama, globalist or nationalist, Christian or atheist, Jew or Muslim, religious or nonreligious, White or Black, or Yellow or Brown. They all agree that one form of genocide is perfectly acceptable. This form of genocide is interracial mating: breeding the races out of existence. Thus, this proves that most Americans, even most Christians who claim to be creationists, are Darwinists. (Most Americans object vigorously to the genocide of the North American Indians by disease, starvation, and mass killing. However, few Americans show any concern about breeding the North American Indian out of existence. This form of genocide has been much more effective than other forms.)
    Since a key law of evolution is survival of the fittest, no evolutionist should have any objection to genocide whatever its form. Genocide is nothing more than the application of the law of the survival of the fittest.
    Would Paul have condoned or condemned genocide in the form of interracial mating? If he were a creationist, he would surely have condemned it.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Capitalists and Socialists

Capitalists and Socialists

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: an addendum was added in 2026.]

Traditionally, socialism meant governmental ownership of the means of production, and capitalism meant private ownership of production. Now, these two terms mean the control of production and distribution through a government-business partnership. The difference between the two is that socialists make government the senior partnership while capitalists make big business the senior partner. (What most people mean when they use the term “capitalism” is a free market, free enterprise economy with minimum governmental intervention. What true capitalists and socialists mean by “capitalism” is a highly governmentally controlled economy for the benefit of the capitalists who control the government. “Socialist” as used in this article means a proponent of centralized governmental economic and social planning that may, but usually does not, require governmental ownership of production and distribution.) Because both promote similarly and frequently the same agendas, capitalists and socialists are often indistinguishable.

S.D. Parks identifies three classes in modern America: “managers (institutional elites), producers (taxpaying small business-owners, the middle and working classes), and dependents (nontaxpaying dependents of government).” (Chronicles, Nov. 2021, p. 3.) In the first class, managers, are found the capitalist and socialist oligarchs. However, only a small number of this class comprises the oligarchs.

Both capitalists and socialists are adherents of a powerful government with centralized planning. Most capitalists and socialists favor some kind of fascism, such as democratic socialism, national socialism, corporatism, and government-business partnership. Most socialists prefer democratic socialism (if they control the elections), which is now morphing into national socialism with Whites and the COVID unvaccinated replacing the Jews. Capitalists prefer government-business partnership followed by corporatism, which the plutocrats favor.

Under capitalism and socialism, an elite controls the economy. (At least, they attempt to control the economy. Unfortunately for them, the market is more powerful than any cabal, which is why centralized economic planning always fails unless the objective is to impoverish the masses.)

Another of the many things that capitalists and socialists have in common is that both want the people to be interchangeable cogs. Consequently, racial, ethnic, and sexual differences are undesirable. Recognition of them interferes with the notion that people are just producers and consumers. The purpose of the masses is to buy what they produce after the elite, the oligarchs, have taken their share of their production. Beyond being slaves of the oligarchic elite, the people, the masses, have no utility.

Accordingly, both capitalists and socialists promote an inclusive economy where the people are homogeneous cogs. Thus, they promote feminism, transgenderism, homosexualism, and racial integration. Moreover, both support unlimited immigration, especially the immigration of nonwhites, and affirmative action. Loyalty to the state and corporation supersede loyalty to the family and community.

Although inclusiveness and diversity contradict each other and are incompatible, both capitalists and socialists support and promote them. (While inclusiveness requires integration and amalgamation, diversity requires segregation and separation.) They may have different reasons for supporting them; nevertheless, the results are the same.

Likewise, both promote equality of the masses. However, the oligarchs, the plutocrats who are the ruling elite, under no circumstance want equality with the masses. Instead, they are always to remain the masters of the masses. 

Furthermore, both support the Communist orchestrated civil rights movement and the concomitant race riots. Consequently, capitalists and socialists are united in their support of Black Lives Matter and Antifa and their riots and the social justice agenda. Further, they are united in their disdain of Whites — except they seem not to disdain White oligarchs, and, therefore, both promote Critical Race Theory.

Both have used the COVID plandemic to advance the police state. To make the people easier to control, they seek to impose vaccine passports.

Both support and promote the welfare state and the accompanying warfare state. The oligarchs use the welfare state and the warfare state to control the people and to keep them loyal to the government that the oligarchs control. However, the capitalist oligarchs lean toward the warfare state because it transfers wealth and power from the masses to the plutocratic oligarchs, while the socialist oligarchs lean toward the welfare state.

Being advocates of progressivism, both capitalists and socialists have little use for true conservatives and traditionalists. Capitalists and socialists are universalists, cosmopolites, and globalists. Consequently, they oppose particularists, localists, and nationalists. 

Moreover, they abhor independent thinking. For this reason, public schools indoctrinate instead of teaching critical thinking.

Being the oligarchs in a capitalist state, capitalists control the politicians and bureaucrats and, therefore, the government and state. Likewise, the socialist oligarchs in a socialist state control the politicians and bureaucrats and, therefore, the government and state. Both seek to use the power of the state and government for their own benefit.

If one questions capitalists supporting these socialist ideas, one needs only to look at where capitalist foundations, such as the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, George Soros-Open Society Foundation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and other capitalists’ foundations, spend their money. Likewise, the boards of many corporations support socialist causes, such as feminism, transgenderism, homosexualism, inclusiveness, diversity, Critical Race Theory, and the restructuring of American society. Big Pharma, Big Ag, Big Tech, Big Banks, Big Med, Big Ed, and Big Business in general push the progressive (socialist) agenda, such as global warming, abortion, and population reduction.

The communist version of socialism is the ultimate monopoly. Since all capitalists want a monopoly for their business, most capitalists do not find communism incompatible with capitalism if the capitalists control the government.

The capitalist and socialist oligarchs have reprobate minds. They are narcissists, sadists, and sociopaths. They are the enemy of the people.

Addendum

After I published this article, I came across an excellent definition of “capitalism.” In The South and the American Empire: Essays (Columbia, South Carolina:  Shotwell Publishing LLC, 2026), Joseph R. Stromberg defines “capitalism” as “any economy with private ownership of capital, production for profit, rational accounting, marlet prices, and free (propertyless) wage laborers.” (p. 244) Furthermore, under capitalism, private enterprise prevails over private property. Additionally, centralized financial capital is promoted.

American-style capitalism grew through “active, open-handed federal or state assistance for favored businesses through loans, subsidies, grants, favorable statutes and judicial decisions, and other institutional favors, with little real obligation of these businesses toward society or state.” (p. 274) Moreover, corporations became legal “persons” with potentially perpetual life. Property morphed from the tangible, e.g., land and commodities, to the intangible, e.g., stock certificates and bonds — paper. Furthermore, commodity money, e.g., gold coins, transmuted into credit money, e.g., today’s federal reserve notes. Corporate management replaced ownership. Agriculture was sacrificed for industrialization and banking.

Copyright © 2023, 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

The Democratic Party

 The Democratic Party

Thomas Allen

Today, the Democratic Party is America’s version of Europe’s social democratic parties. It is a party of progressive egalitarianism. Like these parties, the Democratic Party promotes a cradle-to-grave welfare state, diversity, unlimited third-world immigration, multiculturalism, multiracialism, and globalism. Also, the Democratic Party advocates indoctrination through government schools and a social system where perversions, libertinism, hedonism, narcissism, and wokeism are encouraged and traditional values are suppressed. In economic matters, like the European social democrats, it espouses a form of democratic fascism with government-business partnerships, i.e., managerial capitalism and the managerial state (a social justice-welfare state with a regulated market economy — welfare capitalism). Like all left-wing parties, the Democratic Party forcibly takes the property of others, often enslaves them, and at times kills them to satisfy its lusts, desires, biases, and prejudices. However, unlike the European social democratic parties, the Democratic Party pursues foreign intervention (imperialism) to impose its ideals on the rest of the world. Yet, the Democratic Party has not always been a fascist or semi-socialist party.

The neoconservatives and most of the alt-right claim that the Democratic Party is the party of racism, slavery, segregation, and “Jim Crow.” This is a highly misleading exaggeration. Racists (whatever that now means — see “Are You a Racist?” by Thomas Allen for more than 700 definitions of “racist”) and segregationists dominated both the Republican and Democratic parties until after World War II. All parties in the United States presided over slavery until 1865. (Even President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation protected slavery in areas under the control of the Union army when Lincoln issued it.) However, today, the Democratic Party is free of these charges except it fosters discrimination against and racial hostility toward Whites.

(According to the argument of the neoconservatives and the alt-right, today’s Democrats are racists, segregationists, and advocates of Jim Crow because some Democrats were racists, segregationists, and advocates of Jim Crow in the past. If their argument is correct, then today’s Republican Party is the party of repatriationists and eugenists because Republican President Lincoln wanted to repatriate the Negroes and Republican President Roosevelt was a eugenist.)

Unfortunately for the neoconservatives and most of the alt-right, their assertion that the Republican Party is the party that advocates freedom and civil rights for the Negro is flawed. Following Lincoln’s War, Republicans supported civil rights, voting rights, and privileges for Blacks not because they cared about the Negro. Even the abolitionists only cared about Negroes in the abstract; they did not care about them as concrete individuals. Republicans wanted to use the Negro to retain power and to finish genociding the Southerner — to finish what the Union army failed to do.

Later the Democratic Party usurped this endeavor to finish genociding the Southerner from the Republicans. In the 1950s with the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education and the civil rights and related laws in the 1960s, the Democratic Party earnestly sought to complete the work of the Republicans to genocide the Southerner. In this drive to exterminate Southerners, the Democratic Party has sought to genocide all Whites despite Whites controlling the Democratic Party. Like the Republican Party, the Democratic Party has never cared about the Negro per se; both parties have always used the Negro to genocide the Southerner and to gain and retain political power. To them, the Negro is just a useful tool.

In the nineteenth century, the Democratic Party was the party of “the old republican American tradition: resistance to unconstitutional powers and a proper relationship between state and general governments; strict economy in federal expenditures; opposition to corporate welfare in all its manifestations; sound money and a stable currency; peaceful neutrality and the cultivation of international trade; and more broadly the spirit of personal and political independence.”[1]

Under the leadership of William Bryan, the populists captured the Democratic Party. Then, with the election of Woodrow Wilson, the progressives gained control of the Democratic Party. Under Franklin Roosevelt, the progressives morphed into fascists. President Lyndon Johnson transformed the Democratic Party into the social democratic party that it is today. Thus, the Democratic Party now stands for the opposite of what it stood for 130 years ago.

Endnote

1.  Brion McClanahan, “Rejecting the ‘Proposition Nation,’ Chronicles, April/May 2021, p. 21.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Conservatives

 Conservatives

Thomas Allen

Conservatives divide into two groups: Rationalists, who are faux conservatives, and Traditionalists, who are real conservatives. Rationalists include neoconservatives and establishment conservatives, which include Hamiltonian-Lincolnians, big-government conservatives, and the typical Republican politicians. Traditionalists include principled conservatives (Jeffersonian-Calhounians, paleoconservatives, traditional Southern conservatives, fusionists, and the Old Right) and Enlightened conservatives (the New Conservatives of the 1950s as represented by Russell Kirk and who subordinate the individual to society, subordinate freedom to virtue [for them, virtue is freedom] and rights to duty, subordinate reason to undifferentiated tradition to the point of rejecting reasoning, scorn reason and principle, reduce virtue to prudence, and depend heavily on Providence).

While Rationalists claim that America is a proportional or creedal country dedicated to the ideas of equality, democracy, and universal natural rights, i.e., American Exceptionalism, Traditionalists reject this notion. Instead of advocating loyalty to abstract ideas as do the Rationalists, Traditionalists adhere to loyalties to one’s own race (or at least they used to, but now most are racial nihilists), ethnicity, culture, and traditions, that is loyalty to one’s nation. (A nation or nationality is a people who have a common genetic ancestry, culture, language, and history; who have common traditions and customs; and who are capable of forming or constituting an independent country.) Being universalists, cosmopolitans, globalists, imperialists, multiculturalists, and multiracialists, Rationalists believe in loyalty to humanity and abstract concepts.

Another important difference between Rationalists and Traditionalists is their view of capitalism. Rationalists promote managerial capitalism (as Sam Francis terms it). Managerial capitalism is a market system where managers of capital are not the owners of capital. Under managerial capitalism, the managers prefer a protected market instead of a free market for themselves. However, managers prefer a free market for their suppliers, workers, and independent contractors. This is the economic system of the United States, Western Europe, and much of the rest of the world — but usually without a free market for suppliers, workers, and contractors. Instead of relying on a free-market economy, this system relies on government-business partnerships, i.e., a coalition of managerial capitalism and the managerial state (a social justice-welfare state with a market economy) — thus, a form of democratic fascism. (This is what Rationalists commonly call democratic capitalism.) Perhaps, the most appropriate name for this system is “welfare capitalism.”

Traditionalists promote a decentralized free-market, free-enterprise system where the owners of capital manage their capital. Under this system, most people own their own businesses, farms, etc. and are self-employed. Factory workers are often the owners of the factories where they work. Large corporations are rare. The welfare state is nonexistent since aid provided by the welfare state is provided by private charities and local governments. Unlike Rationalists, Traditionalists do not believe in corporate welfare.

Another major disagreement between Rationalists and Traditionalists is their view of the founding of the United States. While Rationalists claim that the United States were founded as a propositional or creedal country, Traditionalists claim that they were founded as an ethnic (genetic) country.

The Rationalist view of the founding of the United States tends to fall into two groups. One group argues that America was founded on the principle of individualism and rational self-interest. It was founded with the modern commercial economy, managerial or democratic capitalism, in mind. Consequently, a homogenous citizenry is unnecessary because America is a creedal country. A person only needs to accept the creed. Thus, citizens are abstract, universal individuals instead of concrete people defined by race, class, religion, culture, language, etc.

Another group argues that America was founded on the concept of natural law and Judeo-Christian values (despite Judeo-Christian being an oxymoron). America was created on the proposition “that all men are created equal.” Thus, America was established for religious and virtuous people who sought justice, liberty, equality, and moderation. Consequently, adherence to this creed makes one an American and not race, ethnicity, class, religion, etc. Accordingly, both groups assert that the United States are a creedal country.

Traditionalists argue that the United States were founded on the principles of race and ethnicity, that is, America is a genetic nation. It was not founded as a creedal country. America was founded as a racially and culturally homogeneous country. The historical record supports this conclusion. Consequently, a multicultural and multiracial citizenry is anti-American.

Philosophically, Rationalists are in the same camp as liberals, progressives, socialists, and other left-wingers and libertarians. All are globalists and promote multiculturalism and multiracialism. All adhere to the notion that the United States are a creedal country although they disagree about what this creed is. None appreciate traditions. Therefore, Rationalists are not true conservatives.

Appendix. Traditional Southern Conservatives

A traditional Southern conservative adheres to kinship and ancestry and has an attachment to his ancestral land and community. He advocates States’ rights and stresses the importance of the Christian religion. Like John Calhoun, he believes that the US Constitution is a negative document; it greatly restricts the powers of the federal government. Further, he is a proponent of a community-oriented individualism that offers its members liberty and independent self-sufficiency within a hierarchical society regulated by tradition. Of great importance to a traditional Southern conservative are localism and coexisting with other communities and with other States in a federation.

Moreover, a traditional Southern conservative reveres the Confederacy and its symbols because it fought for the underlying principles of the US Constitution, which died with the defeat of the Confederacy. With the defeat of the Confederacy, the United States became an exceptional nation and a creedal country, whose creed is equality, democracy, and universal natural rights. The United States became a managerial state with managerial capitalism.

(On the other hand, neoconservatives and most establishment conservatives hold that America’s founding principles began with Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. But it will not be completed until the genocide of the last Southerner, whom they blame for nearly all of America’s problems.)

Reference

Gottfried, Paul, editor. The Vanishing Tradition: Perspectives on American Conservatism. Ithaca, New York: Northern Illinois University Press, 2020.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen

More political articles.

COVID-19 Vaccine and Capitalism

 COVID-19 Vaccine and Capitalism

Thomas Allen

Most neoconservatives, establishment conservatives, and other conservatives point to President Trump’s Operation Warp Speed initiative on getting a COVID-19 vaccine from conception to into people’s bodies in less than a year as proving the superiority of capitalism over socialism. (Russia, which many conservatives consider a communist country, accomplished the same feat, and it did so with a true vaccine instead of a gene-therapy drug that is called a vaccine to avoid liability like the ones used in the United States.) This goal was achieved because the federal government bought large quantities of doses before big pharma manufactured them and because it suspended much of the required testing and allowed the vaccines to be used experimentally, i.e., the vaccines are experiential drugs, on the American people.

Among the steps skipped has been animal testing before human testing. Probably, the reason for skipping the animal-testing step is that when other vaccines using the mRNA technology were tested on animals, the animals died.

Moreover, the FDA authorized (not to be confused with approved) the use of the COVID-19 vaccines before Phase 3 Trails have been completed. Phase 3 Trials are not expected to be completed until 2023. Thus, the federal government is allowing vaccine manufacturers to test their experiential vaccines on tens of millions of people without their informed consent, which is a violation of the Nurnberg Code. Furthermore, the vaccine manufacturers have no liability for injuries resulting from their vaccines. 

However, these boasting conservatives conceal that this capitalism is not free-market capitalist. It is Hamiltonian-Lincolnian crony capitalism, which is a mild form of fascism.

Under free-market capitalism, big pharma would have developed and distributed the vaccines without any governmental financial aid or purchases (except, perhaps, for the military). Consequently, the federal government would not have subsidized the development of the vaccines, paid for their advertisement, or promoted them as it has done with the COVID-19 vaccines. The only governmental intervention would be to punish the executives of pharmaceutical companies that sell as medicines poisonous substances that will injure or kill people. Since vaccines are concoctions of poisonous substances that injure some people, the government should be filling prisons with high-ranking executives of pharmaceutical corporations. Instead, the government shields vaccine manufacturers from liability. In the United States and most other countries, vaccine manufacturers are not liable for any injuries or deaths that their vaccines cause. Thus, the manufacturing and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines in the United States are more akin to a socialist economy than to a market economy.

Moreover, on behalf of big pharma, the federal government has colluded with the presstitutes to create mass hysteria and terror. Such hysteria and terror have created a high demand for big pharma’s vaccines. This type of government-business partnership is illustrative of crony capitalism.

Furthermore, the federal government is colluding with big businesses to institute  “vaccine passports” to travel, work, buy, and otherwise participate in society. To bypass constitutional problems, the federal government is having big businesses require their customers and workers to have vaccine passports before selling or employing. To ensure uniformity, the federal government will issue and track vaccine passports. Thus, another government-business partnership is created, which is nothing more than crony capitalism. Also, vaccine passports are more illustrative of socialism than of capitalism, especially free-market capitalism. (Our fathers, grandfathers, and great grandfathers fought the Nazis to keep us from having to show papers to travel, work, and buy and from having to wear badges [such as bracelets showing that the wearer has been vaccinated] to identify our status. Now the presstitutes and governmental officials are terrorizing people to demand vaccine passports. And big businesses are using this terror, hysteria, and fear to demand that people present their vaccine passport before they can work or buy.)

Who benefits from vaccine passports? People who are forced to carry them to travel, work, buy, and otherwise participate in society do not benefit. They are the biggest losers. The primary beneficiaries are big businesses, especially big pharma,  — money — and governments — power. Vaccine passports will create enormous markets for big pharma to force its vaccines for which it has no liability on people and then to sell the drugs to treat the side effects of the vaccines. Furthermore, big pharma gains access to everyone’s medical records. For governments, vaccine passports greatly increase their opportunities and abilities to control people.

Although many conservatives oppose vaccine passports, many conservatives support crony capitalism out of which vaccine passports are a natural outgrowth. Ironically, while railing against Nazism and fascism, most liberals embrace vaccine passports, which are a natural outgrowth of Nazism and fascism.

The way that the COVID-19 vaccine has been developed and distributed in the United States and most of the rest of the world is more kin to fascism, which is a form of socialism, than to market capitalism. As mentioned above, under market capitalism, the only involvement of government with vaccine manufacturing and distribution is to prosecute executives whose companies manufacture and sell vaccines that injured the vaccinated. Instead, most governments exempt vaccine manufacturers from all liability for injuries or deaths caused by their vaccines.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Mencken on Corruption Under Democracy

Mencken on Corruption Under Democracy

Thomas Allen

    In 1926, H. L. Mencken (1880-1956) wrote Notes on Democracy in which he expressed his views on democracy and related issues. He was a journalist, satirist, and critic and a libertarian and one of the leaders of the Old Right. In his book, he describes corruption under democracy, pages 187-203. Below is an overview of his discussion on corruption under democracy; my comments are in brackets.
    Nine-tenth of the Puritan and democrat is “cruelty, envy and cowardice.” About the early Puritans of New England, Mencken writes, “He was not only a very carnal fellow, and given to lamentable transactions with loose women and fiery jugs; he was also a virtuoso of sharp practices, and to this day his feats in that department survive in fable.” Then he notes that no perceptible improvements have been found in his successors.
    Mencken remarks, “A sixth of the Americano’s income is rooked out of him by rogues who have at him officially, and in the name of the government; half the remainder goes to sharpers who prefer the greater risks and greater profits of private enterprise.” [Today, the government gets half and the sharpers still get half, if not more, of the remainder. Thus, they typical American has much less to live on than he did in the 1920s.] “All schemes to save him from such victimizations have failed in the past, and all of them . . . are bound to fail in the future.”
    Dreaming eternally of utopia makes the democratic man easy “prey to shibboleths, and those that fetch him in his political capacity are more than matched by those that fetch him in his role of private citizen.” The poor old democrat is always facing schemes “full of virtuous pretences,” only to discover that “they are unmitigated swindles.” [Pick your favorite federal program as an example.]
    “All observers of democracy . . . have marvelled at its corruptions on the political side.” Democracy brings bribery, “and thus destroy[s] the integrity and authority of the State.” [In a democracy, incumbent politicians are notorious for bribing voters with money from the public treasury and businesses with subsidizes and special privileges. Also, lobbyists are notorious for bribing politicians with contribution to their election campaigns and by other means. Foreign governmental officials bribed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with donations to the Clinton Foundation.] Historians marvel that such blatant bribery occurs in a democracy “and marvel even more that democracy takes them calmly, and even lightly.” Democracy seems to accept bribery as inevitable and natural. Commenting on corruption during the Harding administration, Mencken states that a “small body of specialists in rectitude . . . ventured to protest, and in the end they found themselves far more unpopular than the thieves.” [Whenever a whistle blower presents evidence of corruption and even crimes by high-ranking personnel of the U.S. government, most often the whistle blower is persecuted and often prosecuted while the culprit remains unmolested and goes free.]
    Although “[s]uch phenomena . . . puzzle the more academic pathologists of democracy, . . . they seem to be in strict accord with God’s invariable laws.” Then Mencken asks, “Why should democracy rise against bribery? It is itself a form of wholesale bribery.” He adds, “In place of a government with a fixed purpose and a visible goal, it sets up a government that is a mere function of the mob’s vagaries, and that maintains itself by constantly bargaining with those vagaries. Its security depends wholly upon providing satisfactory bribes for the prehensible minorities that constitute the mob, or that have managed to deceive and inflame the mob.” [Thus, bribery is an essential, vital part of democracy.] “The whole process of government under democracy . . . is a process of” granting privileges and benefits to various groups in exchange for granting privileges and benefits to other groups. Moreover, “[t]he very head of the State, having no title to his office save that which lies in the popular will, is forced to haggle and bargain like the lowliest office-seeker.” [Many third-world countries have solved this problem by having  their president elected for life — life being until assassinated or overthrown by some rival gang.] Mencken continues, “There has been no President of the United States since Washington who did not go into office with a long list of promises in his pocket, and nine-tenths of them have always been promises of private reward from the public store. It is surely not regarded as immoral by the democratic ethic to make and execute such promises, though statesmen of lofty pretensions, e.g., Lincoln, sometimes deny having made them.” He adds, “What is reproached as immoral is making them, and then not keeping them.”
    Commenting on the foreign policies of the United States, Mencken writes, “That the United States, in its foreign relations, has descended to gross deceits and tergiversations since the earliest days of the Republic was long ago pointed out by Lecky; it is regarded universally to-day as a pious fraud — which is to say, as a Puritan.” [What would one expect from foreign policies developed and controlled by Yankees? Historically, the United States have been notorious for betraying its friends and aiding its enemies — especially during the Cold War, when they betrayed nearly every ally whose government actively opposed Communism. One of the most detestable of these acts was the U.S. government betraying one its World War II allies, Chiang Kai-shek, in favor of Mao and his communist regime.]
    Next Mencken comments on democracy’s domestic relations. “The government deals with the citizens from whom it has its mandate in a base and disingenuous manner, and fails completely to maintain equal justice among them. It not only follows the majority in persecuting those who happen to be unpopular; it also institutes persecutions of its own, and frequently against men of the greatest rectitude and largest public usefulness.”
    About the Department of Justice, he remarks, “It has been engaged in sharp practices since the earliest days, and remains a fecund source of oppression and corruption to-day.” [Nothing has changed. Many lovers of liberty refer to it as the “Department of Injustice.”] Moreover, “it has actually resorted to perjury in its efforts to undo men guilty of flouting it, and at all times it has laboured valiantly to nullify the guarantees of the Bill of Rights.” [It still does today.]
    “As Mill long ago pointed out, the tyranny of the majority under democracy is not only shown in oppressive laws, but also in a usurped power to suspend the operation of laws that are just.” [John Stuart Mill {1806–1873} was an English philosopher, political economist and civil servant.] To this observation, Mencken adds, “In this enterprise a democratic government always marches ahead of the majority. Even more than the most absolute oriental despotism, it becomes a government of men, not of laws. Its favourites are, to all intents and purposes, immune to criminal processes, whatever their offences, and its enemies are exposed to espionage and persecution of the most aggravated sort.” [We see this today in America’s multitiered “justice” system. The well-connected people, such as Hillary Clinton, are not even charged when they commit crimes that would send a commoner to prison for life. On the other hand, people whose “crime” is merely supporting the Bill of Rights are prosecuted with full vigor and resources of the Department of “Justice” and are charged with a multitude of crimes. These people are usually convicted by a corrupt court system and are sentenced to the maximum possible term in prison. Likewise, specially protected groups like Black Lives Matter, Antifa, and the anti-Confederate protestors can violate all sorts of laws with impunity. Although politicians frequently prattle that we have a government of laws and not of men, the opposite is true.] Above all, the government “always shows that characteristically Puritan habit: . . . to wit, of inflicting as much mental suffering as possible upon its victims.”
    Next Mencken writes, “The constant and central aim of every democratic government is to silence criticism of itself. It begins to weaken, i.e., the jobs of its component rogues begin to be insecure, the instant such criticism rises. It is thus fidei defensor [defender of the faith] before it is anything else, and its whole power, legal and extra-legal, is thrown against the sceptic who challenges its infallibility. Constitutional checks have little effect upon its operations, for the only machinery for putting them into effect is under its control.” [Thus, the necessity of a well-armed citizenry — one that outguns the government.] Mencken continues, “No ruler, indeed, ever wants to be a constitutional ruler, and least of all the ruler whose reign has a term, and who must make hay, in consequence, while the sun shines. . . . No man would want to be President of the United States in strict accordance with the Constitution. There is no sense of power in merely executing laws; it comes from evading or augmenting them.”
    Mencken writes, “ I incline to think that this view of government as a group of men struggling for power and profit, in the face and at the expense of the generality of men, has its place somewhere in the dark recesses of the popular mind, and that it accounts, at least in large part, for the toleration with which public corruption is regarded in democratic states. Democratic man, to begin with, is corrupt himself: he will take whatever he can safely get, law or no law. He assumes, naturally and accurately, that the knaves and mountebanks who govern him are of the same kidney.” Democratic man is not shocked “to find them running true to the ordinances of their nature. If, indeed, any individual among them shows an unusual rectitude, and refuses spectacularly to take what might be his for the grabbing, Homo boobiens sets him down as either a liar or an idiot, and refuses to admire him.” [Does this explain in part the popularity of Presidents Clinton and Obama, who grabbed all they could?] “Democratic man is stupid, but he is not so stupid that he does not see the government as a group of men devoted to his exploitation that is, as a group external to his own group, and with antagonistic interests.” Moreover, democratic man believes that the government’s “central aim is to squeeze as much out of him as he can be forced to yield, and so he sees no immorality in attempting a contrary squeeze when the opportunity offers. Beating the government thus becomes a transaction devoid of moral turpitude.”
    Capitalism is secure in democratic societies. “Democratic man can understand the aims and aspirations of Capitalism; they are, greatly magnified, simply his own aims and aspirations.” [The type of capitalism described by Mencken should be called crony capitalism. It certainly is not free market capitalism. Under crony capitalism, capitalists use their control of the government, usually from behind the scene, to give themselves subsidies, contracts, and special privileges and to penalize competitors. Moreover, Mencken seems to contradict himself. Earlier in his book he describes the Dictatorship of the Proletariat as being democratic; however, the economy under it was not capitalistic in any form. Nevertheless, being by nature democratic, socialism is much more compatible with democracy than any form of capitalism.]
    Mencken notes, “An aristocratic society may hold that a soldier or a man of learning is superior to a rich manufacturer or banker; but in a democratic society the latter are inevitably put higher, if only because their achievement is more readily comprehended by the inferior man, and he can more easily imagine himself, by some favour of God, duplicating it.”
    Mencken observes that “the average American banker or business man, whatever his demerits otherwise, is at least more competent professionally than the average American statesman, musician, painter, author, Labour leader, scholar, theologian or politician.” [Perhaps this is why big bankers and big businessmen are the real power controlling the government.] Then Mencken notes, “The capitalists, in fact, run the country, as they run all democracies. . . . They organize and control the minorities that struggle eternally for power, and so get a gradually firmer grip upon the government. . . [T]hey [the capitalists] dispose of . . . [the] demagogues . . . and put the helm of state into the hands of trusted and reliable men.”
                                               
Copyright © 2017 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.