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

Why I am not a White Nationalist — 

Where They Are Wrong Economically

Thomas Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

 Part 2

More political articles.

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 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.

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.

Losing Control

Losing Control

Thomas Allen

White liberals, progressives, and conservatives are losing control of the Black mobs that they have created. Blacks are now destroying icons of White liberals, progressives, neoconservatives, and establishment conservatives: Lincoln, Grant, and abolitionists. They are attacking anything that memorializes Whites — and self-loathing Whites join them in destroying White heritage.

To most of these White albusphobes, Blacks are identical to Whites except for some external physical features. Thus, Blacks are Whites with more melanin, platyrrhine noses, and woolly hair. They are not. Blacks differ significantly from Whites and other races in many nonphysical attributes (see “Nonphysical Racial Differences” by Thomas Allen).

Unlike most Whites, most Blacks lack the ability to think abstractly. Consequently, Blacks have difficulty thinking about the future, thinking counterfactually (how would I feel if  . . . ?), and working with numbers and mathematics. Lacking the ability to think abstractly leads to moral problems. For most Whites, morality is internalized, i.e., most Whites resist stealing even if no one is around to stop them. Lacking the ability to think abstractly, most Blacks are deficient in internal morality. Their morality is enforced by external forces, such as the police or a strong authoritarian leader. (This lack of internal morality is seen in the explosion of crime by Blacks in places where the police have been significantly reduced.) (For more information about the nonphysical differences between Blacks and Whites, see Racism, Guilt, Self-hatred and Self-deceit by Gedaliah Braun [2008], who taught philosophy in Africa for many years and derived his conclusions from observation and frank discussions with Blacks. Not only is he not a Negrophobe, but he also approaches being a Negrophile. Unlike most Whites, who are racial nihilists, he is a racial realist.)

In “Curse of the Ghetto Golems” (July 26, 2022), David Cole gives two examples of left-wingers trying to use Blacks to implement their communist and progressive agendas. They are Herbert Aptheker, an atheistic Jew who was a prominent American communist, and George Soros, an atheistic Jew who considers the White race and Western traditions akin to Nazism and, therefore, have to be destroyed.

Herbert Aptheker. Aptheker was a prominent communist during the middle of the twentieth century. He and his comrades organized the civil rights movement. Urging Blacks to destroy America, he encouraged Black militancy and radicalism. Although Aptheker idealized Blacks, they were still just instruments to achieve his goal of communism. Not only were Blacks to destroy America, but they were also to build a Marxist utopia on the rubble. 

Unfortunately, for Aptheker, he lost control of his Blacks. They excelled in the violent part of the communist revolution. However, they replaced the ideological violence of communism with common thuggery.

George Soros. Soros is an unusual atheistic Jew in that he is neither a Zionist nor a communist. Yet, like a good communist, he seeks to destroy Western Civilization and the White race that founded it. To him, Western Civilization is Nazism, and Whites are Nazis.

To destroy his imaginary Nazis, Soros has spent billions of dollars to prevent the prosecution and incarceration of Black criminals. Consequently, crimes by Blacks have soared. To Soros, Blacks are merely tools used to achieve his dastard objectives.

Unlike Aptheker, Soros expected only common thuggery from Blacks. He does not seek to convert them to communism. He just wants to unleash their innate urge for violence and thuggery and to protect them from the consequence of their criminal actions.

Unfortunately, for Soros, his Black leaders have embarrassed him by using the money that Soros gave them for rioting for their own pleasures. Soros discovered that his Black leaders were using his money for their benefits and not for riots.

Moreover, Soros heavily financed Black Lives Matter (BLM). In return, he did get some riots, but BLM used much of the money to buy mansions.

Both Aptheker and Soros started off using Blacks to advance their agendas. However, Blacks ended up using Aptheker and Soros to advance their causes, which is usually enriching themselves.

The global elites are trying to create a civil war in the United States. When the war comes, what will White and antigun liberals, progressives, wokespersons, and social justice people do? Their albusphobia and Negrophilia prevent them from allying with Whites albusphiles, who have little use for these traitors, whose continuous unconditional surrendering to Blacks is a leading cause of the war. Moreover, except as a source of wealth, Blacks have no use for these wimps. Most likely, Blacks will go after the lightly-armed White albusphobes long before they will go after the heavily armed White albusphiles.

Unfortunately for Blacks, most Asians, Latinos, and other nonwhites may ally with the White albusphiles because most of them have a lower opinion of Blacks than do most White supremacists. If a real shooting war comes between Blacks and the rest of the country, Blacks will lose.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Defending the South

Defending the South

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: This article was written in 1989.]

    Many Southerners who might otherwise favor or be indifferent to an independent South oppose independence because they believe that the United States armed forces are the only thing stopping Soviet domination. Many Northerners, primarily conservatives, who might otherwise be indifferent to Southern independence oppose independence because they rightfully see the South as the bulwark of conservatism in the United States. They also see the South as a primary source of soldiers, officers, and materiel in the war against communism. (In spite of their platitudes about self-government, Northern liberals oppose Southern independence because they have an insatiable compulsion to rule, reform, rape, and rifle the South.) That the United States are defending the South from Soviet militarism and that the South needs the United States to defend her against the Soviet Union is one of the great myths of the latter half of the twentieth century.
    Ninety miles from Florida is one of the largest military camps in the world. Soviet bombers routinely fly along and occasionally over the coast of the eastern Southern States. What kind of defense does the United States provide the South against this threat? None! No effective anti-aircraft defense system is protecting the South. There are no anti-aircraft missile batteries. Very few fighters are available to intercept the Soviet bombers. The few available fighter squadrons are mostly part of the national guard, and only a few of them have the most recent fighters. There are not even any AWACS to observe this Soviet threat. If the Soviet Union were serious about dropping nuclear bombs on major Southern cities, they would meet little opposition. Would an independent South stand so naked before such an awesome foe? No!
    Coastal defense is perhaps even more dismal than air defense. With the largest Soviet base outside the Soviet Union just ninety miles from Florida, one would think that a significant part of the United States navy would be in the Gulf of Mexico and along the southeast Atlantic coast. But where is the bulk of the United States navy? It is in the North Atlantic, Mediterranean Sea, Pacific Ocean, South China Sea, and Arabian Sea. If the Soviets were determined, they probably could land several divisions along the Gulf Coast encountering nothing more threatening than a Coast Guard cutter or two hunting drug smugglers. Again, would an independent South stand so naked before such an awesome foe? Again, the answer is no.
    One of the most terrifying aspects of the latter half of the twentieth century has been the potential for nuclear war. What have the United States done to protect the South from nuclear war? Nothing! There is no civil defense system. There is no antimissile system. While the Soviet Union has built an elaborate civil defense system, the United States plan to rely on an untried, unworkable mass evacuation of panic-stricken city dwellers into the countryside where no shelter, food, or other provisions await them. While the Soviet Union has developed and placed in the field antimissile defense systems, the United States continues to draw elaborate schemes on paper. In short, the United States’ defense against Soviet missiles is to hold the South hostage to nuclear annihilation. Would an independent South have ever made herself so vulnerable? Of course not!
    The United States government is striving to turn Central America and Mexico into Soviet colonies. (Southerners will be fortunate if Congress prevails over the President. Perhaps then Southern blood will not have to soak the grounds of Central America before it becomes part of the Soviet Empire.) If (when?) Mexico were to become a Soviet colony, would the United States increase and improve their defense of the Mexican border? If it did, such increases and improvements would be mostly for a show with little substance. Most likely they would do nothing.
    The United States have virtually no control over their southern border now. There is little hope that they would be able to control it as millions of Americans from Central America and Mexico flee their Soviet conquerors. Along with the refugees will come Soviet agents, who will come as saboteurs, terrorist, and spies. Would an independent South have lost control of her border with Mexico as have the United States? No! Certainly, an independent South would put forth more effort to defend herself from a communist force in Mexico than the United States ever would. [Editor’s note. By substituting agents of drug dealers, Chinese Communists, and Middle Eastern terrorists for Soviet agents, one has a good description of what is happening today along the Mexican border.]
    History of the twentieth century has shown that the United States are no threat to communism in general and none to the Soviet Union in particular. The United States entered World War I to make Russia safe for communism. In World War II, the United States made Eastern Europe safe for communism. (One of the ironies of World War II is that one of the professed reasons for fighting the war was to rid the world of fascism. All of the noncommunist countries that fought Germany and Italy had already adopted a semi-fascist economic system and have since adopted a semi-fascist social system.) The Korean War and Vietnam War were fought to make China and Indo-China safe for communism. (These statements of fact are not intended to castigate the brave soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen who fought or thought that they were fighting to defend their homes and loved ones and for what they considered noble ideals. They are intended to castigate their political leaders, who knew that the real purpose of these wars was to advance communism.) Now it appears that the United States are trying to start a war to make the Middle East safe for communism. First, they tried to goad Lybia into war. Now they are trying with Iran. If they can succeed in getting Iran to sink one or two United States warships, they will have the old “Remember Fort Sumter, the Maine, and Pearl Harbor; they fired the first shot; we are innocent” battle cry that has been used so successfully so many times to dupe the gullible American into useless war.
    Even a cursory review of how the United States have treated in the past and continues to this day treat anticommunist governments shows that the United States have no animosity toward the Soviet Union or communism. The United States have tried to overthrow nearly every anticommunist government there is. They have probably overthrown more than the Soviet Union has. The more an anticommunist country has tried to be friendly with the United States, the harder the United States have endeavored to overthrow the government of that country and to turn that country into a Soviet colony or an impoverished socialist dictatorship allied with the Soviet Union.
    With such a record of defending against Soviet aggression and communism, can the South really depend upon the United States to defend her? Only a fool or someone oblivious to the history of the twentieth century could possibly believe that the United States would defend the South. The only hope that the South has of defending herself against communism and the Soviet Union lay in a free and independent confederation of free and independent Southern States.

Copyright © 1989 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern issues articles.

More on the Russia-Ukraine Conflict

More on the Russia-Ukraine Conflict

Thomas Allen

This article reveals more hypocrisy of Biden’s and, by that, America’s approach to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Furthermore, these hypocrites are habitual liars. When Biden, Congressmen, federal bureaucrats, and presstitutes tell half-truths, they are telling a whole lie. As J.I. Packer said, “A half-truth masquerading as the whole truth becomes a complete untruth.” Nevertheless, as one evangelist said, “People love being lied to.”

The Russia-Ukraine conflict is very simple to understand: Russia is bad; Ukraine is good. Putin and Russia are totally depraved and can do nothing good even if they wanted to, which they do not. Like America and Israel, Ukraine is sinless and can do nothing evil even if it wanted to, which it does not.

Russia attacks its neighbor, and that is bad. Israel attacks its neighbors, and that is good. Russia attacks Ukraine, which is a potential threat to Russia, and that is bad. The United States attack Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya, which are on the other side of the world and of no threat to the United States, and that is good.

Biden claims that he wants peace in Ukraine. Yet, he continues to fund Ukraine’s war efforts and to make insulting belligerent remarks toward Putin. Moreover, Biden urges Zelensky to continue to fight the Russians. His deeds do not match his claims. How much of Biden’s urging Zelensky to fight the Russians to the last Ukrainian relates to preventing evidence of the Biden crime family’s crimes from falling into Russian hands?

Both Biden and Zelensky seem to want a nuclear war. Zelensky would rather have the world destroyed by a nuclear war than loses his power over the people within the borders of Ukraine as they were in 2010. Is Biden’s desire for nuclear war on purpose or from stupidity? 

Antichrist

Some rapture-is-imminent futurists identify Putin as the latest Antichrist after Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and other recent candidates have failed to be the Antichrist. John defines the Antichrist as one who denies Jesus is the Christ (1 John 2:18, 2:24, and 4:3). When John wrote this definition, he had Jews in mind. Being a Jew, Zelensky meets this definition of the Antichrist while Putin, who seems to be a believer, does not. (Being Antichrist may explain why Zelensky is trying to persuade Biden, who is also Antichrist, into militarily attacking Russia and, by that, precipitating a nuclear war. What a sacrifice they can offer to their master Satan.)

Petrodollar

Moreover, Biden and his administration and their controllers, the oligarchs, are on the verge of destroying the petrodollar, the US dollar. Biden and NATO’s embargo against Russia and their thief of Russian financial reserves have led Russia to sell its natural gas in Russian roubles instead of US dollars. Because they are losing trust in the United States, both China and India are moving toward buying oil and other imports with the yuan and rupee. Even Saudi Arabia is considering selling its oil in currencies besides the US dollar. If countries start buying and selling oil in currencies other than the US dollar, the value of the dollar will collapse and inflation in the United States will soar. Is this destruction of the US dollar being done deliberately, or is it being done out of stupidity?

Fascism

Russia accuses Ukraine of being a neo-Nazi country. Americans accuse Russians of being neo-Nazis. Both are correct. Nearly all countries today have a fascist political economy. (Corporatism, business-government partnershipism, classical fascism, socialism, national socialism [Nazism], and communism are merely different forms of fascism.)

Under fascism, the government heavily regulates businesses primarily for the benefit of its favorites — the business-government partnership. (Communism is the ultimate form of business-government partnership since business and government become the same entity.) Often the government subsidizes favored businesses, such as bailing out banks. Moreover, the government may own some types of industries and businesses, but such ownership is not necessary because regulation and taxation can achieve the same purpose as governmental ownership. Accompanying the economic system is the welfare state.

Moreover, fascist countries are authoritarian in various degrees; some approach totalitarianism, such as Canada and Australia, or even become totalitarian, such as Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and Communist China. True liberty exists in none of them. Nevertheless, the governments of most fascist countries are democratic in that the people elect the principal governmental leaders in elections that are at least as honest as the 2020 US presidential election.

Although not a necessary component of fascism, a common component is a racial or ethnic extermination policy. Under Germany’s national socialism, it was the extermination of Jews, Gypsies, and other “undesirables.” Under the fascism of Western Europe, the United States, White Anglophone countries, and South Africa, it is the extermination of the White race. For Ukraine, it is the extermination of Russians, especially in Donbas. For China, it is the Tibetans and Uyghurs who are being exterminated. The Israeli fascist government seeks the extermination of the Palestinians. Nevertheless, not all fascist countries have racial or ethnic extermination policies.

Another component of fascism is militarism. Many fascist countries today have not adopted this component. However, the United States have incorporated militarism. They have been the most militaristic country in the world since World War II.

Crimea

Some claim that Russia has no right to incorporate Crimea into Russia because it entered a treaty that recognized Crimea as part of Ukraine. Apparently, Crimeans are not allowed to have a say in their political status. Only foreigners have the right to decide Crimea’s political status. That a plebiscite of more than 95 percent voted to secede from Ukraine and join Russia does not matter. This plebiscite was at least as honest, probably more honest, than the 2020 US presidential election. So much for democracy!

Conclusion

What America needs is more humility and less arrogance. It needs to purge itself of Yankee Puritanism. America needs to stop patrolling the world and imposing its views, i.e., the views of the oligarchs who control the US government, of proper behavior and forcing countries who deviate from America’s standards and ideals to conform with American standards and ideals.

Hopefully, Americans will wake up before it is too late and see the matrix of lies erected around their lives since at least World War II and throw off their chains. If they do not, they will live the worst of the horrors of Moa’s China — even worst than those depicted in Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.