Critique of Achtenberg’s Speech on Fair Housing

Critique of Achtenberg’s Speech on Fair Housing

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: This article was submitted in 1994 for the “Southern National Newsletter” of the Southern National Party. It has been slightly edited.]

A speech delivered by Roberta Achtenberg, Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), illustrates how much the United States have deteriorated and how much deterioration will accelerate in the future. This speech illustrates the desperate need for the Southern States to secede and form a free and independent confederation of free and independent Southern States.

Achtenberg delivered this speech at the first (and hopefully the last) National Fair Housing Summit. It was a gathering sponsored by the federal government to discuss the state of fair housing and to decry the lack thereof. “Fair housing” is a euphemism that means that a landlord or homeowner has no right to rent or sell or not to rent or sell his property to whomever he pleases for whatever reason he pleases. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss ways to take away even the few rights and freedoms remaining and to discuss how to finish destroying what remains of Western Civilization in the United States.

She points out, correctly so, that where a person lives is a most important factor in determining the quality of one’s life. Thus, she concludes that all neighborhoods should be thoroughly integrated with the lowest stratum of society. There should be equality in the quality of life. “[T]he right to choose where we live is as important as the right to equal educational and employment opportunity and the right to vote.” Just as the power of the federal government has been used to destroy public education, to weaken the economy, and to corrupt the political process, it will now be used to ruin neighborhoods — or more correctly, ruin neighborhoods at an accelerated rate.

Then, she complains about the government not being more tyrannical in destroying the rights of the people in their use of their property. She praises the “advocates for the disabled, advocates for woman and for families with children, and industry leaders” for leading the fight to destroy these rights. Ah! But, thanks to the Clinton administration, a new day has dawned. The federal government will now become an active partner in the destruction of these rights (as though it has not been an active partner in destroying these rights since before the “civil rights” movement).

Moreover, she and her cohorts will lead the charge to destroy what remains of these rights, for she claims what the government does best is to lead. (Unreconstructed Southerners know differently. They know that what the government does best is to destroy.) She promises severe penalties for homeowners and landlords who do not kowtow before the fair housing overlords. Woe unto him who stands up for his rights.

Furthermore, she promises accelerated growth in the power of the federal government in housing (which really means accelerated growth of the federal government in controlling people). Programs to destroy the rights of homeowners and landlords will be instituted by every means available. The death and utter destruction of these rights are the legacy that she promises that the Clinton administration will leave America.

Also, she advocates affirmative action in housing. Yet she denies that affirmative action will lead to quotas and reverse discrimination. As anyone who has even cursorily looked at other affirmative action programs knows that affirmative action has always led to quotas and reverse discrimination. No matter how much the advocates of such affirmative action programs have denied that quotas and reverse discrimination would not occur, they always have. She fails to explain why affirmative action in housing will not result in the same.

Then, she says that “it’s time for government to act affirmatively to guarantee every American’s right to choose freely where they live.” To guarantee this so-called right means more than denying landlords the right to rent their property to whomever they please and denying homeowners the right to sell their houses to whomever they please. It also means providing people money to buy or rent in neighborhoods that they cannot afford. As a result, the politically powerful will compel the many serfs to support the privileged few. She hints that such a subsidy program is envisioned. Moreover, she equates separation by income with separation by race or ethnicity.

Next, she proceeds to inform her audience that the fair housing laws will be used to end segregated neighborhoods. Neighborhoods are to be integrated in spite of what the people in those neighborhoods think or want. Integration for integration’s sake! (As always, this integration flows only in one direction. White neighborhoods will be forcibly integrated. Black neighborhoods will not.)

Continuing, she informs her audience that integrated housing and neighborhoods are the last great unconquered frontiers for the civil rights movement. She is determined to conquer this frontier and bring it to ruin just as the civil rights movement has ruined all else that it has conquered. Yet, she fails to inform her audience of the results of the fair housing laws if they are as fully and forcibly implemented as she desires. The results are deteriorating neighborhoods, poorer housing, greater racial tension and hatred, ever-higher taxes, the loss of freedom, and a bigger government.

Her agency, HUD, is already attacking the banking industry. Banks are not to place the interest of their stockholders, owners, and depositors first. They are to place the social programs of the federal government first. They are to lend to whomever the federal government tells them to lend to — no matter how risky the loan.

Furthermore, the weight of the federal government is to be used against States and locales to coerce, extort, and bribe them into adopting analogous fair housing laws and enforcement programs. The federal government will make State and local governments coconspirators in the destruction of housing in the United States.

Finally, she comments on affordable housing and bemoans the lack of affordable housing. She claims that “there is [not] enough affordable housing, in enough neighborhoods and communities to enable people to actually make free choices about where they will live.” She does not identify the principal cause of the lack of affordable housing, which is governmental intervention, manipulation, and control of the housing market. On the contrary, she advocates more governmental intervention, manipulation, and control of the housing market. What she fails (or perhaps refuses) to realize is that her agency, HUD, and other agencies of the federal government are the cause of much of the housing problem about which she is carping.

Throughout her speech, she brags about the enforcement activities of her agency. She brags that the enforcement activities of her agency need to be increased and expanded. She brags about how the extent, domain, and coverage of her agency are to be increased and expanded. She brags about how much more intrusive into business and private affairs of all Americans her agency is to become. Never does she mention the constitutionality of what she advocates — probably because everything she advocates is unconstitutional.

The time has come for all good Southerners to free themselves from the despotism and tyranny of the megalomaniacs of HUD. They are only one example, and a small one at that, of the despotic and tyrannical rule of the United States over the Southern States. The time has come for a free and independent confederation of free and independent Southern States.

Copyright © 1995, 2025 by Thomas C. Allen.

More social issues articles.

King on Pilgrimage to Nonviolence

King on Pilgrimage to Nonviolence

Thomas Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

King on Where We Are Going– Part 2

King on Where We Are Going– Part 2

Thomas Allen

About alliances with churches and church bodies, King writes, “Some churches recognize that to be relevant in moral life they must make equality an imperative.” (P. 159.) An alliance can be made with these churches, and other churches should be shunned. (However, God is no egalitarian. Saved and unsaved people serve as an example. If God were an egalitarian, then all people would either go to heaven and receive the same reward or go to hell and receive the same torment. Since saved people go to heaven and receive different rewards, and unsaved people go to hell and receive different torments, God cannot be an egalitarian; he rejects equality.)

King states, “A primary Negro political goal in the South is the elimination of racism as an electoral issue.” (P. 160.) (This goal has failed. For at least 55 years, Negroes have made racism an electoral issue. Whites ceased making racism an electoral issue decades ago with Whites surrendering unconditionally to the Negro and joining Negroes in the genocide of the White race.) 

Then, King comments on White politicians surrendering to the Negro. He notes, that as more White politicians compete for the Negro bloc vote, the “monolithic white unity based on racism will no longer be possible.” (P. 161.) (Whatever unity that Whites had based on race did collapse as King predicted. However, Negro unity based on racism quickly replaced it and has remained intact ever since.)

Continuing, King comments “that the Negro vote has not transformed the North” (Pp. 161-162) as it was transforming the South. He blames this lack of progress in the North on Northern Negroes having “never used direct action on a mass scale for reforms.” (P. 162.)

Further, King blames the lack of Negro political strength in the North on “the grip of an old tradition on many individual Negroes. They tend to hold themselves aloof from politics as a serious concern. They sense that they are manipulated, and their defense is a cynical disinterest.” (P. 162.) (Thus, Northerners had less concern for Negroes than did Southerners.)

King asserts that Negroes must use their political strength (i.e., governmental coercion) to achieve their goals. (So much for nonviolence.) They cannot do it with economic power or through culture.

Then, he offers the Jews as an example for Negroes to follow. Jews placed a great deal of emphasis on education; so should Negroes. (A big difference exists between Jews and Negroes. On average, the IQ of Jews is about 25 to 30 points higher than the IQ of Negroes, which is about 85, a standard deviation below the IQ of Whites.) He comments on Jewish social and political actions as examples for Negroes to follow.

Correctly, King states, “Education without social action is a one-sided value because it has no true power potential. Social action without education is a weak expression of pure energy.” (P. 64.) (Since the 1960s, Negroes overall have shown little improvement in intelligence, intellect, characters, temperament, and other nonphysical traits influenced by genes. In attitude, Negroes have even regressed and show no appreciation for what Whites have given them, which is everything that they have demanded, except reparations [and that will make no difference], even genociding themselves. The more Whites surrender to the Negroes, the more Negroes loathe Whites and the less they appreciate what Whites have given them.)

King urges Negroes in the civil rights movement to pressure Negroes who are not active in the civil rights movement to join and become active. The inactive Negro needs to be scorned to “pick up his citizenship rights and add his strength enthusiastically and voluntarily to the accumulation of power for himself and his people.” (P. 165.) King wanted to make every Negro a protestor.

Then, King writes, “The slave heritage can be cast into the dim past by our consciousness of our strengths.” (P. 165.) (Instead of casting away their slave heritage, many Negroes copied the Jews. As Jews boast of their Holocaust™ heritage even if they have none, Negroes boast about their slave heritage even if they have none. As Jews have used the Holocaust™ to swindle ever more wealth and power from people who were not alive at the time of the Holocaust™, so have Negroes used slavery to swindle ever more wealth and power from people who were not alive at the time of slavery.)

Continuing, King argues that adequate organization is necessary to channel the Negro’s fighting spirit to achieve radical reform. Negroes needed to overcome “their disunity and petty competition.” (P. 166.) (Much of the Negro’s victory over Whites results from disunity and petty competition among Whites. Worse, some Whites, especially Yankees, have sought to annihilate another White ethnicity, Southerners — and have wanted to genocide them even before Lincoln’s War. Moreover, scalawags, New-South Southerners, Southern wokesters, and other quislings care little about their brethren, the Southern people, and nothing about Southern culture. Instead, they imitate the Yankee and join him in the genocide of the Southerner. Yankees and these Southern traitors join Negroes in their war against the South.)

Next, King writes, “Negroes are almost instinctively cohesive. We band together readily, and against white hostility we have an intense and wholesome loyalty to each other.” (P. 168.) (Cohesiveness is one great advantage that Negroes have over Whites. Negroes easily unite against Whites. Unfortunately for the White race, some White ethnicities, especially the Yankee, loathe other White ethnicities, e.g., Southerners, so much that they are willing to unite with Negroes against their fellow Whites and genocide them.)

Continuing, King proposes some civil rights programs. He focuses on one in particular, which deals with poverty. He states that “there are twice as many white poor as Negro poor in the United States.” (P. 170.) Then, he identifies several causes of poverty. (One item that he omits from his list is genetics. Genetics is not the cause of all poverty, but it is the cause of some poverty.) He criticizes the fragmented approach to treating poverty; a coordinated approach is needed. King concludes that the solution to poverty is a guaranteed income. (King-idolizing conservatives take note: You need to promote a guaranteed income.) Further, he attacks the market economy because its “dislocations in the market operation . . . and the prevalence of discrimination thrust people into idleness and bind them in constant or frequent unemployment against their will.” (Pp. 171-172.) (King ignores that when given a choice to work or to be paid for loafing, many people will choose to loaf for a living.)

Then, King identifies two groups that have enjoyed guaranteed incomes for nearly 40 years: “The wealthy who own securities have always had an assured income; and their polar opposite, the relief client, has been guaranteed an income, however minuscule, through welfare benefits.” (P. 174.) (King must have never owned securities. Stocks may or may not pay dividends. Moreover, a company may go bankrupt, which usually results in the holders of its stocks and bonds losing everything.)

Citing John Kenneth Galbraith (an abysmal but popular economist), King notes that the cost of a guaranteed income is about what is spent on the Vietnam War. King concludes, “If democracy is to have breadth of meaning, it is necessary to adjust this inequity [of distribution].” (P. 174.) (King ignores the lack of constitutional authority for the federal government to provide a guaranteed income. But, then, King had absolutely no use for the US Constitution; nearly everything that he advanced was unconstitutional. Nevertheless, a State may provide a guaranteed income unless its constitution prohibits it.)

King taught Negroes how to envy and never to be satisfied. He taught Whites to disdain themselves and to seek their own genocide. Moreover, he destroyed the South, which the White oligarchs wanted to be destroyed because the South was the last bulwark on the planet for liberty, localism, constitutional government, Christian values, and the White race. 

Although King objected to discrimination based on merit, he did not object to discrimination based on race per se. Although he opposed racial discrimination that favored Whites, he supports racial discrimination that favored Negroes. Nearly all Negroes agree with King concerning discrimination.

Since other races are genetically more endowed than the Negro, Negroes, like King, object to discrimination based on merit. They prefer discrimination based on race if the discrimination favors their race as it has for at least the last 50 years.

The hiring of musicians for classical orchestras illustrates this hypocrisy of Negroes. Historically, few Negroes were hired to play in classical orchestras. Negroes claimed that they were not hired because of their race. In response to this accusation, a barrier was placed between the auditioning musician and the people hiring so that those hiring could not see the race of the musician; they could only hear the music that the musician was playing. Still, the number of Negroes playing in classical orchestras did not significantly increase. So, Negroes demanded that those hiring see the person auditioning. Thus, Negroes demanded discrimination against better-qualified White musicians in favor of less-qualified Negro musicians. In other words, Negroes were demanding affirmative action and quotas for Negro musicians. Naturally, King would have approved of this racial discrimination against Whites since he promoted such discrimination throughout his career.

The fate of the North American Indians provides a warning to Whites. Indians failed to unite against White immigrants when they greatly outnumbered Whites. Many Indians allied with Whites to fight other Indians. As a result, the North American Indian is almost extinct — most that exist today are more mongrel than Indian. Whites are following the path of the North American Indians.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 1.

More social issues articles.

Founding Documents of Today’s United States

Founding Documents of Today’s United States

Thomas Allen

Most Blacks, progressives, liberals, neoconservatives, establishment conservatives, libertarians, Negrophiles, Albusphobes, Dixiephobes, and Confederaphobes (hereafter referred to as “these people”) consider the Declaration of Independence (especially the phrase “all men are created equal”), the Emancipation Proclamation, the Gettysburg Address, the US Supreme Court’s Brown v. Education (1954) decision, and Martin Luther King’s speech “I Have a Dream” (especially the sentence “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”) to be the founding documents of today’s United States. For them, the Constitution should be interpreted considering these five documents. Consequently, they interpret the Constitution to increase the power of the federal government and decrease the power of the States and to force integration and diversity. 

1. Declaration of Independence. For “these people,” the Declaration of Independence contains only one important phrase: “all men are created equal.” They ignore the two most important provisions.

First, “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government. . . .” This clause acknowledges the right of the people to abolish their government and replace it with another. However, Lincoln and the Republicans denied Southerners this right.

Second, “That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States. . . .” This clause shows that each colony declared itself to be a free and independent sovereign State. Each colony became a free and independent nation. (Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary defines “state” as “a politically unified people occupying a definite territory; nation.” Thus, each colony was a free and independent sovereign nation.) These sovereign nations formed the United States and established two governments: one under the Articles of Confederation and another under the Constitution for the United States. However, “these people” have to ignore this clause because it conflicts with the Gettysburg Address.

When the States created a union under these two constitutions, they did so without surrendering any of their sovereignty. Unlike today, where the United States is a consolidated empire with an all-powerful central government and the States are merely subjugated provinces, the United States were originally established as a federation of sovereign republican States and remained so until Lincoln’s War.

Although “these people” preach equality, they do not practice it. They believe that some people are more equal than others. Blacks are more equal than Whites. That is, Blacks are the superior race, and Whites are the inferior race while other nonwhites are in between. Above all of them are the oligarchs.

2. Emancipation Proclamation. Most of “these people” believe that Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves. It did not. The Emancipation Proclamation was a war propaganda document that freed no slaves. The Thirteenth Amendment freed the slaves. Lincoln even admitted that his proclamation had no legal justification or force, which is why he pushed a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery. 

With the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation, the genocide of Southerners began. Soon after its issuance, Lincoln’s army began warring against and deliberately killing children, women, and other civilians. This genocide continues to this day.

3. Gettysburg Address. Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address did not change the structure of the United States from a federation of sovereign republican States to a consolidated empire. The illegally and unlawfully ratified Fourteenth Amendment did that. (Another important component in changing the United States to a consolidated empire was Lincoln and the Republicans putting in place during Lincoln’s War the unconstitutional American System: protective tariffs, subsidies to businesses, central banking, and the concentration of political power in the federal government.) However, the Gettysburg Address declared the objective and underlying principle of Lincoln and the Republicans. To justify this new governmental structure, Lincoln had to distort (lie about) the historical and political foundations of the United States.

Before Lincoln’s War, the United States were a federation of sovereign republican States. After Lincoln’s War, the United States became a consolidated empire with the Southern States becoming exploited colonies. 

H. L. Mencken, who may be accused of being an iconoclast but who can hardly be accused of being a fire-eating unreconstructed rebel, succinctly summed up Lincoln’s War when commenting on the Battle of Gettysburg and the Gettysburg Address:

Think of the argument in it [the Gettysburg Address]. Put it into the cold words of every day. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination — ‘that government of the people, by the people, for the people,’ should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. What was the practical effect of the battle of Gettysburg? What else than the destruction of the old sovereignty of the States, i.e., of the people of the States: The Confederates went into battle free; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision and veto of the rest of the country — and for nearly twenty years that veto was so effective that they enjoyed scarcely more liberty, in the political sense, than so many convicts in the penitentiary.

4. US Supreme Court’s Brown V. Education. In Brown v. Education, the Supreme Court established two new basic principles. First, “feelings of racial inferiority have a constitutional status.”[1] Second, “racial integration is the remedy for these ‘feelings of inferiority.’”[2] Therefore, “private discrimination is a constitutional evil and racial diversity is a constitutional good.”[3] Thus, racial integration is the remedy for the feeling of inferiority. However, an exception exists and that is Whites feeling inferior, and today many Whites feel inferior. (If these Whites did not feel inferior, they would not hate themselves and their race and promote the genocide of the White race.) Racial integration is the primary cause of White feeling inferior.

This Supreme Court ruling gives the federal government almost absolute control over everything anyone does. Consequently, it destroys all freedoms and liberties.

The Supreme Court’s ruling is based on a false premise. While the ruling justifies integration, it also justifies diversity. Yet, racial integration leads to amalgamation and homogenization, which destroys diversity.

5. Martin Luther King’s Speech “I Have a Dream.” Although King advocated judging people by the content of their character instead of their race, he wanted Blacks to be judged by their race and given special benefits and privileges. At least subconsciously, he knew that judging Blacks by their character placed them at a disadvantage. Judging Blacks by their character is a losing situation for Blacks. When compared with Whites and most other races, Blacks overall are more lethargic, lazy, impulsive, violent, criminally inclined, vociferous, rowdy, sexually immoral, irresponsible, superficial, childlike, and demanding.

Moreover, if Blacks were judged by merit, most would lag behind most Whites because they innately have lower intelligence and intellectual capabilities. Only in most sports and menial labor do they have an advantage over Whites. Because Blacks lag behind Whites in the most prestigious professions, quotas become necessary to fill these professions with Blacks who are less qualified than Whites. 

Constitution. Through these five documents, “these people” interpret the Constitution. Consequently, to implement these five founding documents, the federal government may undertake any action necessary to prevent discrimination against Blacks and other nonwhites except East Asians and to force discrimination against Whites. Moreover, they interpret the Constitution such that political power is concentrated in the federal government and the States are reduced to subjugated provinces. 

Furthermore, using these five documents, they interpret the Constitution to give advantages, benefits, and privileges to Blacks and other nonwhites at the expense of Whites. Thus, the Constitution requires discrimination against Whites although “these people” assert that the Constitution forbids racial discrimination.

Consequently, the implementation of these founding documents abolishes the Constitution that the founding fathers gave the country — in principle if not in words, i.e., the words of the Constitution remained the same but their meaning changed. Thus, the implementation of these five documents suppresses liberties and freedoms, especially the freedom of speech, religion, and association.

Summary. The following summarizes the five founding documents of today’s United States:

1. The Declaration of Independence declares that all men are equal — except Southerners, Afrikaners, Palestinians, and a few other despicable ethnicities who are only worthy of genocide.

2. The Emancipation Proclamation freed the Black slaves (so “these people” claim), but it has resulted in Whites being enslaved to support Blacks and other nonwhites with welfare and job preferences.

3. The Gettysburg Address outlines the change in the political structure of the United States from a federation of sovereign States (we the peoples) to a consolidated empire under an all-powerful central government that the oligarchs control for their benefit.

4. The US Supreme Court Ruling on Brown v. Education has led to forcing integration and diversity (although the two conflict) and giving Blacks benefits and privileges at the expense of Whites. 

5. The “I Have a Dream” speech provides the camouflage for discriminating against Whites and making Blacks the superior race.

Endnotes

1.  Jesse Merriam, How We Got Our Antiracist Constitution (Claremont Institute), p. 5.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

King on Racism and the White Backlash – Part 3

King on Racism and the White Backlash – Part 3

Thomas Allen

Then, King remarks that “racism can grow and destroy nations.” (P. 99.) (True. Negro racism is destroying America, which is what the White oligarchs want Negroes to do. However, since Negro lethargy prevents Negroes from destroying America fast enough, the oligarchs are importing colossal numbers of nonwhites.)

About Negroes, King claims that “they have never been guilty of crimes against a whole people.” (P. 99.) (If this claim were true when King wrote it, it is no longer true today. Today, Negroes are willing active participants in the genocide of Whites — especially Southerners.)

About the church, King writes, “Among the forces of white liberalism the church has a special obligation. It is the voice of moral and spiritual authority on earth.” (P. 101.) (To support the Communist civil rights movement and Negrophilia-Albusphobia, many clergymen have abandoned the teachings of the Scriptures. They emphasize social justice. They teach that salvation is through social justice as the progressive Negroes define it and not through faith in Jesus.)

Then, King condemns the church for accepting slavery before Lincoln’s War and segregation afterward. For King, such acceptance was the unpardonable sin. (As stated above, the Bible does not condemn slavery. Further, God is a segregationist. Therefore, unless God is a sinner, segregation is not a sin [see “Does God Abhor or Approve Miscegenation?” by Thomas Allen].) 

Next, King condemns segregated churches and praises churches that have abandoned the Scriptures for social justice, especially integration. (In the South, most Churches were integrated although the races were usually separated. However, Negroes wanted Negro churches independent of Whites; they wanted to be free from Whites. Thus, the churches became segregated.) King demands that “the church must acknowledge its guilt, its weak and vacillating witness.” (P. 102.)

Interestingly, King states, “Today the judgment of God is upon the church for its failure to be true to its mission. If the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal, it will become an irrelevant social club without moral or spiritual authority.” (P. 104.) (Most churches followed King’s urging and replaced teaching the Scriptures and salvation by faith in Jesus with social justice, integration, surrendering unconditionally to Negro demands, the genocide of the races via miscegenation, idolizing the Negro, and sanctifying King. Consequently, these churches have become irrelevant social clubs without moral or spiritual authority.)

Next, King asserts, “A religion true to its mission knows that segregation is morally wrong and sinful.” (P. 102.) (Since the God of the Bible is a segregationist and ordains segregation, this religion referred to by King is not true Christianity. At best, it is a pseudo-Christianity [see “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation” by Thomas Allen].) Continuing, King claims that segregation is based “on pride, hatred and falsehood.” (P. 102.) (On the contrary, segregation is based on God’s Scriptural commands and examples.)

Then, King discusses each man universally sharing in the image of God, God stamping each human his personality, human worth lying in a relationship to God, etc. “Every man must be respected because God loves him.” (P. 102.) “An individual has value because he has value to God.” (Pp. 102-103.) (Throughout this discussion, King says nothing about preserving the races that God created. Most likely, King thought that they evolved and were not worth preserving; he advocated their genocide via miscegenation. God hates interracial mating so much that He forbids the mongrel [mulattos and mestizos] from entering His assembly [see “Commentary on Deuteronomy 23:2" by Thomas Allen].)

For King, freedom “is, first, the capacity to deliberate or to weigh alternatives. . . . Second, freedom expresses itself in decision. . . . A third expression of freedom is responsibility.” (P. 104.) From his description of freedom, he concludes that segregation “cuts off one’s capacity to deliberate, decide and respond.” (P. 104.) (Yet, the segregationist considers and weighs alternatives: segregation and integration. Then, he decides in favor of segregation and responds and accepts responsibility for his choice. If segregation denies the integrationist the capacity to deliberate, decide, and respond, then integration denies the segregationist the capacity to deliberate, decide, and respond.)

Next, King protests that if he cannot choose to do what he wants to do or live where he wants to live, he is reduced to an animal. (If true, then everyone is reduced to an animal. No one can do what he wants to do all, or even most of, the time. Many cannot live where they want to live.)

King commands, “The church must take the lead in social reform. It must move out into the arena of life and do battle for the sanctity of religious commitments. And it must lead men along the path of true integration.” (P. 105.) (Most churches obeyed King’s command and preached what he ordered them to preach. As a result, churches have become irrelevant. They have converted far more people to atheism and agnosticism and have made more people areligious, nonreligious, irreligious, and unreligious than they have converted to true Christianity. Such are the results of preaching what is contrary to the Scriptures.)

King maintains, “True integration will be achieved by men who are willingly obedient to unenforceable obligations.” (P. 107.) People must become “possessed by the invisible inner law which etches on their hearts the conviction that all men are brothers and that love is mankind’s most potent weapon for personal and social transformation.” (Pp. 106-107.) (Today, this inner law possesses far more Whites, both in percentage and absolute numbers, than it does Negroes. Is this possession causing Whites to decline in numbers and power while Negroes rise in numbers and power?)

Next, King declares, “The Negro’s agony diminishes the white man, and the Negro’s salvation enlarges the white man.” (P. 107.) (Contrariwise, the White man’s agony empowers the Negro, and the White man’s salvation decreases the White man while increasing the Negro.)

King concludes, “What is needed today on the part of white America is a committed altruism which recognizes this truth.” (P. 107.) (White America gave King and the Negro everything that they demanded and more — although White America has not yet agreed to reparations, but that is coming. Is America, which is on the verge of collapse and possibly civil war, any better for surrendering unconditionally to the Negro and making him the White man’s superior?)

Frequently, King insists that the Negro wanted equality. Then, hypocritically, he demands that the Negro be given special benefits and privileges that Whites never enjoyed. If Negroes wanted equality, they would denounce all these special benefits and privileges — and a few have. Since they do not, they reveal that they want supremacy.

According to King’s description of a superior and an inferior race, today, the Negro is the superior race, and the White race is the inferior race. Negroes are now the racial supremacists as Whites kowtow and grovel before them. 

America has become a fully integrated society where only nonwhites are allowed to segregate. While integration has elevated the Negro to supremacy, it has almost destroyed the White race. If he were alive today, King would be overjoyed about the Negro’s progress under integration and the demise of the White race. Further, he would approve of the genocide of the American Negro via interracial mating.

Additionally, King emphatically declared that the Negro seeks power and justice. They want power so that they can have justice. Now, the Negro has power, but they do not use it to obtain justice. They use it for vengeance and for “get out of jail free cards.” If a White kills a Negro in self-defense, Negroes demand that he be tried for murder or at least manslaughter. Often, the innocent White is tried and found guilty. Thus, vengeance is more important than justice. Also, their power has brought them freedom from being arrested and tried for many of their crimes. Seldom is any Negro rioter convicted for the destruction of property or for injuring and even killing an innocent person. Thus, the freedom to commit large-scale crimes without penalty is more important than justice. Did King know that Negroes would use their power for these miscreant purposes instead of for justice? Most certainly, he did.

A Negro whom I knew told me that light-skinned Negroes felt superior to dark-skinned Negro and so acted. (She and I could frankly discuss racial issues, which is unusual in this country.) Consequently, despite all his prattle and demands, the problems that King sought to solve did not go away; they just reappeared in a different form.

While oligarchs started the civil rights moment and the Negro revolution and have used them to destroy White America, they do not care an iota about the Negro. Once he has served his purpose, they will discard him.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Allen.

Part 2

More social issues articles. 

King on Racism and the White Backlash – Part 2

King on Racism and the White Backlash – Part 2

Thomas Allen

Next, King discusses the American Indian. He preferred genociding the American Indians by breeding them out of existence to White driving them from their land and replacing them. 

Continuing, King writes, “Thus through two centuries a continuous indoctrination of Americans has separated people according to mythically superior and inferior qualities while a democratic spirit of equality was evoked as the national ideal.” (P. 85.) He complains about the country not going full-throttle to give the Negro whatever he wanted and demanded. (Today, the Negro has much more than King thought possible. Now, the Negro has enslaved Whites to serve and support him.)

Then, King discusses the War on Poverty and complains about not enough money being spent on Negroes.

Correctly, King writes, “There is a double standard in the enforcement of law and a double standard in the respect for particular laws.” (P. 87.) (King is right. Negroes are allowed to violate laws, especially criminal laws, more so than are Whites. Police and most governmental agencies are less likely to enforce a law against a Negro than against a White.)

King writes, “To live with the pretense that racism is a doctrine of a very few is to disarm us in fighting it frontally as scientifically unsound, morally repugnant and socially destructive.” (P. 88.) (Except for White Communists and White oligarchs, all Whites are racists.) However, he continues, “A people who began a national life inspired by a vision of a society of brotherhood can redeem itself. But redemption can come only through a humble acknowledgment of guilt and an honest knowledge of self.” (P. 88.) (Thus, only self-debasement and kowtowing to the Negro in unconditional submission, do Whites have a slight chance of redemption. [Many Whites have so humiliated and degraded themselves, but they still are not redeemed.] In other words, Negroes have to treat Whites worst than the meanest and vilest White ever treated a Negro for White even begin thinking about achieving redemption. Of course, all of this is done in the name of love.)

Next, King writes, that “all men are created equal; every man is heir to a legacy of dignity and worth; every man has rights that are neither conferred by nor derived from the state, they are God-given.” (P. 89.) (Here, King mixes truth with falsehood. Not all races are made in the image of God; only the White race is made in the image of God [see "What Race Was Adam?" by Thomas Allen.] Men are not created equal. A five-foot, fat, klutz does not have the same opportunity of becoming a professional basketball center as does a seven-foot, agile, athlete. [See “Gottfried and Equality” by Thomas Allen.]  Short, fat klutzes may have an equal opportunity to apply for a job, but genetics denies them an equal chance of getting the job. Peoples are not even equal before the law [see “The Heritage Foundation on Critical Race Theory” by Thomas Allen]. Moreover, God is not an egalitarian [see “Respecter of Persons” by Thomas Allen]. If God were an egalitarian, then all would be saved with the same rewards, or all would be condemned with the same torment.)

The first step to redemption is “the journey home, the journey to full equality, . . . [which requires] a radical reordering of national priorities.” (P. 90.) Consequently, Whites need to spend their money primarily for the benefit of Negroes. Likewise, governments need to spend the taxpayers’ money for the benefit of Negroes. A just society requires spending vast sums of money for the benefit of Negroes. If Whites pay insufficient protection money to Negroes, riots and other acts of violence will occur. (In addition to giving Negroes  all sorts of benefits and privileges that Whites never enjoyed, Whites have spent vast sums of money for the benefit of Negroes. Yet, the Negro’s lust for lucre is still not satisfied. Now, they demand trillions of dollars in reparations.)

Further, King argues that money spent on space exploration and war should be spent on the Negro. (King-idolizing conservatives need to push that money wasted on war be given to Negroes.)

Next, King comments on the struggle of Negroes to attain dignity. (Negroes may or may not have obtained dignity, but they sure have stripped many Whites and nearly all White governmental, corporate, religious, media, and academic leaders of their dignity.)

Continuing, King declares, “The Negro is no longer ashamed that he is black —  he should never have permitted himself to accept the absurd concept that white is more virtuous than black.” (P. 92.) (However, many Whites are now ashamed of being White.) Negroes should not have allowed Whites to crush them with the propaganda that Whites are superior. “That day is fast coming to an end.” (P. 92.) (That day arrived decades ago. Now, Whites and Negroes have crushed Whites with the propaganda that Whites are inferior.)

According to King, poverty prevented Negroes from attaining dignity. (With the enormous quantities of money transferred from Whites to Negroes, poverty should be eliminated as an excuse for the lack of dignity.)  “If the society changes its concepts by placing the responsibility on its system, not on the individual, and guarantees secure employment or a minimum income, dignity will come within reach of all.” (P. 92.) (All King-idolizing conservatives need to promote democratic socialism, for this is what King is describing and wants.)

King writes, “Over the last few years many Negroes have felt that their most troublesome adversary was not the obvious bigot of the Ku Klux Klan or the John Birch Society, but the white liberal who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice, who prefers tranquillity to equality.” (P. 93.) (Robert Welsh, the founder of the John Birch Society, was a staunch integrationist [see “John Birch Society and Segregation” by Thomas Allen]. Also, William Jasper, editor of The New American, a magazine associated with the John Birch Society, was an integrationist [see “A Letter: Miscegenation” by Thomas Allen].) Continuing, King adds, “Even in areas where liberals have great influence — labor unions, schools, churches and politics — the situation of the Negro is not much better than in areas where they are not dominant.” (P. 92.) (In recent decades, most liberals seem to have overcome this deficiency as they outdo each other by lavishing privileges, wealth, and power on Negroes.)

Correctly, King notes, “Often white liberals are unaware of their latent prejudices.” (P. 93.) (Unlike Southerners, Northern liberals have not spent much time around Negroes, so they have to rely on mysticism or prejudicial stereotyping to guide them. While Southerners who have not been indoctrinated with wokeism view Negroes realistically, Northerners generally view Negroes in one of two ways. Some idolize the Negro and believe that he is like a White person of high moral character but only with dark skin. Others resort to stereotypes: The Negro is a criminal brute or a lethargic, listless, lazy loafer.) King condemns liberals for their lack of alacrity and speed in surrendering White America unconditionally to King’s demands. (Since King wrote this essay, not only have liberals surrendered unconditionally to the Negro, but so have most conservatives. Is America any better now than then?)

According to King, any liberal who fails to accept interracial marriages negates his claim to genuine liberalism. (Thus, King reveals that he has no reservations about genociding the American Negro via miscegenation. Likewise, most liberals and conservatives lack reservations about genociding the Negro via miscegenation.) When interracial marriage is so acceptable and common that no one ever questions it, the disease of racism is cured. (Thus, the cure of racism is to genocide the races via miscegenation. One wonders if King believed that mulattos and mestizos are superior or if he hates Whites so much that he is willing to genocide the American Negro to genocide the White race. And this is evidence of love?)

Then, King states, “The white liberal must see that the Negro needs not only love but also justice.” (P. 95.) Further, King states, “The white liberal must affirm that absolute justice for the Negro simply means, in the Aristotelian sense, that the Negro must have ‘his due.’” (If the Negro received ‘his due’ and the same justice as Whites, far more Negroes would be in prison, and fewer Whites would be in prison.)

Next, King asserts that the Negro’s demand for justice is “a troublesome concept for many liberals, since it conflicts with their traditional ideal of equal opportunity and equal treatment of people according to their individual merits. But this is a day which demands new thinking and the reevaluation of old concepts. A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, in order to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis.” (P. 95.) (Since King did not want Negroes to be judged on their merit, he must have believed that they lacked merit and were really inferior. Thus, King demanded equity, equality of outcome, for Negroes instead of equality of opportunity and treatment. [Consequently, King-idolizing conservatives should cease preaching equality of opportunity and start preaching equality of outcome.] To placate the Negro, merit and equality of opportunity and treatment have been replaced with special privileges and benefits for Negroes so that they can achieve equity. Now, less-qualified Negroes are hired instead of more-qualified Whites. Universities admit less-qualified Negroes over more-qualified Whites. Yet, the Negro’s greed and lust remain unsatisfied.)

Mistakenly, King claims, “The Negro has not gained a single right in America without persistent pressure and agitation.” (P. 96.)  (The fifteenth amendment gave suffrage to Negro men. Negro pressure and agitation did not cause this amendment to be ratified. White Republicans gave them suffrage because of the growing popularity of the Democrats in the North. To retain control of Congress, the Republicans needed more Republican voters in the North. They expect most Negroes to vote for Republicans, so they gave them the vote.)

King writes, “that the oppressed person who agitates for his rights is not the creator of tension.” (P. 96.) (That is, the Negro has no responsibility for any of his violent acts and should not be held accountable for his violent acts. Whites are the blame for all violent acts of Negroes. Even after surrendering unconditionally to the demands of Negroes and giving them nearly everything that they demand, except reparations, Whites are still the blame.)

Moreover, King insists that the Negro protests, demonstrations, and riots did not cause a White backlash. “[T]he hatred and the hostilities were already latently or subconsciously present.” (P. 96.) By bringing these hostilities to the surface, the Negro was like a physician informing his patient that he has cancer. Therefore, the Negro was doing Whites a service by destroying their country, society, and culture to save them from the rot of racism.

Next, King, condemns Negroes who “have uttered anti-Semitic sentiments.” (P. 97.) However, “the amount of anti-Semitism found among Negroes is no greater than is found among white groups of the same economic strata.” (P. 97.) “The limited degree of Negro anti-Semitism is substantially a Northern ghetto phenomenon; it virtually does not exist in the South.” (P. 97.) (The lack of antisemitism among Southern Negroes may result from a lack of contact that they had with Jews. Familiarity breeds contempt as often as it breeds harmony.) Nevertheless, Jewish maltreatment of Negroes caused the antisemitism of Negroes. (Again, Negroes are not responsible.) Moreover, “Negroes cannot be expected to curb and eliminate the few who are anti-Semitic.” (P. 98.) (Yet, King expected White liberals to curb and eliminate White segregationists.)

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Allen.

Part 1, Part 3

More social issues articles.

King on Racism and the White Backlash – Part 1

King on Racism and the White Backlash – Part 1

Thomas Allen

In “Racism and the White Backlash,” Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? (Boston: Beacon Press, 1968), pages 71–108, Martin Luther King, Jr., discusses White backlash, White supremacy, racism, slavery, the American Indian, liberals, and the church. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

(First, I must remind the reader that most conservatives and nearly all conservative commentators consider King a conservative. Furthermore, many conservative commentators assert that King is an archconservative and the greatest conservative ever. Some have even deified him. Hereafter, all these conservatives are referred to as King-idolizing conservatives. Since King is an archconservative, these King-idolizing conservatives should advocate everything that King advocated.)

King writes, “It would be neither true nor honest to say that the Negro’s status is what it is because he is innately inferior or because he is basically lazy and listless or because he has not sought to lift himself by his own bootstraps.” (P. 71.) (Many, but not all, Negroes proved King correct during the Jim Crow Era. Although many were lazy and listless, many were not, and they lifted themselves up. A vibrant Negro middle class was rising, which is why Stalin sent agents to destroy the Negro middle class. During the Civil Rights Era with all the benefits and privileges given to the Negro, people of all races suspect that the Negro race is inferior to all the other races. If it were not, it would not need these special benefits and privileges. Moreover, the welfare state reveals that many Negroes are lazy and listless.)

King blames all the Negro’s problems on Whites. (The Negro is not responsible for any of his problems.) White America bears the guilt of the Negro’s inferior status (as though genetics affecting nonphysical traits has nothing to do with the Negro’s status). (Because of genetics, races vary significantly in nonphysical traits such as intelligence, reaction time, behavior, rate of maturity, and proneness to certain diseases [see “Nonphysical Racial Differences” by Thomas Allen])

Erroneously, King declares that “since the birth of our nation, white America has . . . proudly professed the great principles of democracy. . . .” (P. 72.) (All the founding fathers who commented on democracy condemned it.)

King describes White backlash as the “old prejudices, hostilities and ambivalence.” (P. 72.) (Southerners, whom King loathed, were not prejudiced toward Negroes. 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 were based on 400 years of observation, knowledge, thought, reason, and facts. Consequently, they were not prejudiced against Blacks.) Continuing, King writes, “The white backlash is an expression of the same vacillations, the same search for rationalizations, the same lack of commitment that have always characterized white America on the question of race.” (P. 72.) (Again King errs. The founding fathers and nearly all Americans before World War I had no ambivalence, vacillations, or lack of commitment concerning race. They were fully committed to the White race. For the founding fathers, the first nationalization law proves that commitment as it only allowed Whites to be nationalized. Moreover, they wrote the Constitution for Whites. [See “For Whom Is the Constitution Written?” and “Addendum to ‘For Whom Is the Constitution Written?’” by Thomas Allen.] Further, the commitment of latter generations is shown by the treatment and severe restrictions placed on immigrants from Asia. The Negro was a problem for which they had no viable solution although, before Lincoln’s War, many believed that repatriation was the best solution. Even Lincoln favored this solution.)

King writes much about White racism. He uses Dr. George Kelsey’s description: “‘Racism is a faith. It is a form of idolatry.’” (P. 73.) To this, he adds Ruth Benedict's explanation: “‘the dogma that one ethnic group is condemned by nature to hereditary inferiority and another group is destined to hereditary superiority.’” (P. 73.) “Since racism is based on the dogma ‘that the hope of civilization depends upon eliminating some races and keeping others pure,’ its ultimate logic is genocide.” (P. 74.) (Today, racism is Negro racism and not White racism. Negroes adore their race and seek to advance it as the superior race. In this endeavor, they have been highly successful. On the other hand, most Whites are racial nihilists, and many Whites are albusphobes and desire the genocide of the White race. Only the White race is being deliberately genocided. The ever-growing numbers of Negro supremacists far outnumber the almost extinct White supremacists.)

Although White America has not sought deliberately to genocide the Negro, according to King “it has, through the system of segregation, substituted a subtle reduction of life by means of deprivation.” (P. 74.) (If true, why was the Negro middle class growing under segregation?) Again erroneously, King maintains, “If a man asserts that another man, because of his race, is not good enough to have a job equal to his, or to eat at a lunch counter next to him, or to have access to certain hotels, or to attend school with him, or to live next door to him, he is by implication affirming that that man does not deserve to exist.” (P. 74.) (This statement is void of logic, common practices, and common sense. Nevertheless, since segregation laws applied to Whites as well as Negroes, and if King were consistent, he was claiming that Whites did not deserve to exist. [He did seem to believe that Southerners did not deserve to exist.] On the contrary, segregation preserved the Negro while integration genocides him.)

Next, King writes, “Racism is a philosophy based on a contempt for life. It is the arrogant assertion that one race is the center of value and object of devotion, before which other races must kneel in submission.” (P. 74). (Based on King’s assertion, today’s the Negro is the superior race because Whites literally kneel in submission before Negroes. During the height of Jim Crow and White supremacy, Negroes were not expected to kneel literally in submission to Whites.)

Again, King errs when he writes, “For more than two hundred years before the Declaration of Independence, Africa had been raped and plundered by Britain and Europe, her native kingdoms disorganized, and her people and rulers demoralized.” (P. 75.) (Negro Africans captured Negroes and sold them to the Europeans. Since they grew rich from the slave trade, these Negro African rulers were hardly demoralized. Moreover, the European slave trade probably would have quickly died if Europeans had to venture inland to capture slaves.)

King credits the Negro as “the creators of the wealth of the New World.” (P. 76.) (If it were not for White management, these Negroes would have created little above subsidence. Haiti illustrates this. Under White rule and management, Haiti was one of, and perhaps, the wealthiest colony in the New World. Under Negro rule and management, it degenerated to become one of the poorest countries in the world.)

Next, King chastises religious leaders for not only not condemning slavery but for using the Bible to justify slavery. (Does King also condemn the Bible? Nowhere does the Bible condemn slavery. Instead, it sets forth a code for the treatment of slaves. Jesus never told slave owners to free their slaves. Neither did Paul nor Peter; rather they told slaves to be obedient to their masters. Because the Bible does not condemn slavery, the abolitionists abandoned it.)

Another error that King makes is that in the Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court “affirmed that the Negro had no rights that the white man was bound to respect.” (P. 79.) (The Supreme Court ruled that like Indians and unnaturalized immigrants, Negroes were not citizens under the Constitution [see “Addendum to ‘For Whom Is the Constitution Written?’” by Thomas Allen]. Its rulings did not authorize Whites to do as they pleased to Negroes. If a White man murdered a Negro, he was guilty of murder — Whites had to respect the lives of Negroes.)

Correctly, King affirms that the founding fathers preferred the White race to the Negro race. None believe that the Negro race was equal to the White race. (Except for albusphobic Whites and racial nihilists, most people prefer their own race and believe that it is superior, whatever that means, to other races. Negroes do not want equality with Whites, they want to be and are now superior to Whites — except the White oligarchs.)

Next, he discusses the struggle that Washington and Jefferson had with slavery. At least, King comes closer to what Jefferson meant by “all Men are created equal” than most of today’s conservatives. “Jefferson’s majestic words, ‘all men are created equal,’ meant for him, as for many others, that all white men are created equal.” (P. 81.) (Some understand the phrase even more narrowly to mean that all Englishmen were equal in their rights. When Jefferson and others wrote about their struggles with slavery before the abolitionist movement, their dislike for the institution of slavery was the issue and not the Negro. They had no desire to make Negroes the political and social equals of Whites. Certainly, they would have detested making the Negro their superior as has been done today. Moreover, King failed to mention that many, maybe most, Americans before Lincoln’s War thought the solution to slavery was repatriation. Societies were established to repatriate freed slaves. They even established a country, Liberia, in Africa for the freed slaves. Suddenly freeing the slaves as the Republicans did at the end of Lincoln’s War and filling the country with freed Negroes was the last thing that they wanted. Correctly, they thought that the two races could not live harmoniously in the same country — and today’s race problem proves them right.)

Then, King discusses the torment that slavery caused Lincoln. Lincoln believed that the solution to the Negro problem was to colonize the Negro in Africa or the West Indies. Lincoln held this position well into his war. Later, he changed his position and “issued the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing the Negro from the bondage of chattel slavery.” (P. 83.) (Like most people, King errs when he claims that the Emancipation Proclamation freed the Negro from slavery. It did not free any slaves in areas under the control of the Union army. It only freed slaves beyond the control of the Union army. Moreover, Lincoln lacked the constitutional authority to free slaves. But then, like Lincoln, King never cared about the Constitution. Consequently, no King-idolizing conservative should care about the Constitution. The Emancipation Proclamation was primarily issued as war propaganda. Likewise, Congress had no constitutional authority to free slaves — thus, the need for the thirteenth amendment. [This amendment freed no slaves in the defunct Confederate States because they were free before this amendment was ratified. It only freed slaves in the Union States.])

Then, King complains, “Four million newly liberated slaves found themselves with no bread to eat, no land to cultivate, no shelter to cover their heads.” (Pp. 83-84.) (Unfortunately for these Negroes, they were liberated into a society without a welfare state, although Congress established the Freedmen’s Bureau to provide some assistance, where playing the race card was meaningless and where merit determined one’s survival.) According to King, to free these Negroes without the government supporting them was a great injustice. (Apparently, King wanted these Negroes to exchange their plantation masters for federal bureaucrat masters. Moreover, if the White man had to support these Negroes, how could they be the White man’s equal?)

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Allen.

Part 2

More social issues articles.

King on Where Are We

King on Where Are We

Thomas Allen

In “Where Are We?,” Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? (Boston: Beacon Press, 1968), pages 1–22, Martin Luther King, Jr., discusses what the Negro wanted and expected following the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

(First, I must remind the reader that most conservatives and nearly all conservative commentators consider King a conservative. Furthermore, many conservative commentators assert that King is an archconservative and the greatest conservative ever. Some have even deified him. Hereafter, all these conservatives are referred to as King-idolizing conservatives. Since King is an archconservative, these King-idolizing conservatives should advocate everything that King advocated.)

In signing the Voting Rights Act into law, President Johnson said, “Today is a triumph for freedom as huge as any victory that’s ever been won on any battlefield . . . today we strike away the last major shackle of . . . fierce and ancient bonds.” (P. 2.) Whatever these ancient bonds were, the slavery of the welfare state soon replaced them.

Johnson understood the common Negroes better than King did. King thought that the common Negroes wanted to be like the White man: having self-respect, accepting the responsibility of taking care of his family, planning for the future, being punctual, delaying gratification, and being polite. The only things holding Negroes back from achieving this goal were education and segregation. Johnson knew that the common Negroes did not want responsibilities; they did not want to plan for the future or delay gratification. In short, they did not want to abandon the slave mentality. They wanted cradle-to-grave care with someone else making their decisions and quickly satisfying their gratification. And that is what Johnson gave them. The last 55 years have proven Johnson right. (One great irony is that Negroes behaved more like Whites during the Jim Crow Era than they have during the Civil Rights Era.)

King discusses the protests that the Voting Rights Act received. Negroes rioted in several Northern and Western cities. Most Northerners and Westerners had supported the civil rights movement because they thought that it only affected the South and Southerners. Most never thought that civil rights and related laws would apply to the North, but now it was too late to halt the movement.

Negroes wanted power not only in the South but also in the rest of the country — and the White oligarchs gave it to them. Moreover, Negroes wanted to be equal to Whites. Although most Whites treated Negroes decently, they did not treat them as equals — King complained. Not only did the Negro become the White man’s equal, he eventually became his superior with privileges that White never dreamed of having.

Continuing, King writes, “White America was ready to demand that the Negro should be spared the lash of brutality and coarse degradation, but it had never been truly committed to helping him out of poverty, exploitation or all forms of discrimination.” (P. 3.) So, Johnson declared his War on Poverty with all sorts of welfare for Negroes. Moreover, laws and court orders led to affirmative action, quotas, set-asides, and similar acts that discriminated against Whites in favor of Negroes. (Since the greatest conservative ever supported Johnson’s War on Poverty, King-idolizing conservatives should support the War on Poverty, the welfare state, and discrimination against Whites.)

King laments that “the white segregationist and the ordinary white citizen had more in common with one another than either had with the Negro.” (P. 4.) (What has occurred since he wrote these words would bring him joy. Although ordinary Whites still have more in common with each other than they have with Negroes, the White oligarchs, who have backed the civil rights movement from the beginning, have turned Whites against Whites and have caused the genocide of the White race, especially Southerners. Further, the oligarchs have maneuvered most Whites into kowtowing to the Negro with many, especially conservatives, deifying King.)

Moreover, King regrets that Southerners were not beaten into submission. (Not long after his death, an unrelenting genocide of Southerners began and this genocide has been vigorously pursued ever since. King would rejoice in the genocide of Southerners. After all, he loathed Southerners more than the Democrats loathe Trump.)

King demanded that Whites pour ever more money into the education of Negroes (— as though more money would overcome the genetic intelligence and intellectual disadvantages of Negroes). Also, he demanded more high-paying jobs for Negroes (— affirmative action and quotas solved this problem). Further, he demanded the eradication of slum housing (— urban renewal accomplished much of this although many Negroes were driven from their homes in the process).

(Although Johnson planned to use his War on Poverty to enslave Negroes to the Democratic Party, which he accomplished,) King favored the War on Poverty. Whites should be taxed for the benefit of Negroes.

King erred when he claimed that when the Constitution was adopted, the Negro was considered only 60 percent of a person. (Free Negroes were considered as a whole person. Only slaves were considered as 60 percent of a person. King’s despised South wanted to consider all Negroes as a whole person while the North wanted to consider them not a person all.)

King described how bad life was for the Negro. He writes, “Economic discrimination is especially deeply rooted in the South. In industry after industry there is a significant differential in wage scales between North and South.“ (P. 7.) (A major cause of the difference in the wage scale and the large degree of poverty in the South was Lincoln’s War and Reconstruction.  Yankees so plundered the South that more than a century was required for its recovery — and it still has not fully recovered.) However, King blamed the lower Southern pay scale on cheap Negro labor. (At that time, many Negroes worked as farm laborers, which was among the lowest-paid jobs.) According to King, Southerners prevented Negroes from moving into higher-paying industrial jobs. (He overlooked that Whites in the South received lower pay than Whites in other parts of the country. Even Southerners in industrial jobs received lower pay.)

Citing polls, King remarked that 88 percent of Whites “would object if their teenage child dated a Negro. Almost 80 percent would mind it if a close friend or relative married a Negro.” (P. 8.) (He seemed to have wanted to break down all barriers to interracial mating. Now, he can revel in knowing that the barriers to interracial mating have been dismantled as both Whites and Negroes genocide each other through interracial mating. Equality, which King, liberals, progressives, and King-idolizing conservatives advocate, can be accomplished with the races  amalgamating and homogenizing — so they believe.)

For King and the Negro, equality means that Negroes have the same economic standing as Whites, i.e., equality of outcome, now called equity. Yet, for most Whites, equality means the opportunity for improvement, i.e., equality of opportunity. (King-idolizing conservatives who preach equality of opportunity need to follow the archconservative King and start preaching equality of outcome.)

Continuing, King writes, “The Negro on a mass scale is working vigorously to overcome his deficiencies and his maladjustments.” (P. 9.) (Statistics for crime, abortion, single-parent households, dependency on welfare, deteriorating cities governed by Negroes, etc. show that the Negro has failed to overcome his deficiencies and his maladjustments. Despite receiving massive sums of money and more benefits and privileges than Whites ever received during the height of White supremacy and Jim Crow, the Negro has failed. King must not have understood his people as well as he thought he did.)

King disagreed with many Whites who supported the Supreme Court’s desegregation decision. For these Whites, desegregation meant an end to legalized segregation and giving Negroes the opportunity to attend White schools. (For example, T.B. Maston, see “Review of Segregation and Desegregation” by Thomas Allen.) For King, desegregation meant forced integration. (Consequently, all King-idolizing conservatives should ardently support forced integration — and many do.)

Because many Whites who had earlier supported the civil rights movement showed less alacrity in their support as time passed, Negroes lost confidence in themselves. (Why should their confidence in themselves depend on Whites, King failed to explain?)

King remarks, “The increases in segregated schools and the expanded slums are developments confined largely to the North. Substantial progress has been achieved in the South.” (P. 13.) (Thus, while Negroes progressed in their despised South, they regressed in their beloved North. In the minds of many Northerners, the civil rights act and related laws were only supposed to apply in the South where the Negro was hated and never in the North where the Negro was loved. Consequently, in the early years of the civil rights movement, the North cheered the Negro destruction of the South. However, after Negroes had defeated the South, they turned their attention to the North, and the North protested. Nevertheless, Negroes eventually defeated the North.)

Unsurprisingly, King blames racism in the North and West on Southerners who had migrated to the North and West. These Southerners brought their prejudice and discrimination with them. Southerners caused segregation in the North. (First, although Northerners may have been prejudiced against Negroes, Southerners were not. 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 were based on 400 years of observation, knowledge, thought, reason, and facts. Consequently, they were not prejudiced against Blacks. Second, antebellum history shows that Northerners discriminated against Negroes more than did Southerners — and this was before many Southerners migrated to the North.)

King believes that if it were not for Southerners, the United States would have been fully integrated a century ago (and Negroes would have been amalgamated out of existence), and the United States would be at least as socialistic as Western Europe. (Thus, only Southerners defended liberty from despotic government, which King wanted, and the preservation of the races including the Negro race.) Consequently, King writes, “Until the disproportionate political power of the reactionary South in Congress is ended, progress in the United States will always be fitful and uncertain.” (P. 14.) (As the political power of Southerners waned, progressivism waxed. Since progressivism and socialism now dominate the country, King should be happy.)

Continuing, King discussed the hardships that Negroes had endured and their rebellion. He commented on the changes that Negroes had brought and their victories. Nevertheless, much more is needed.

Following the death of segregation in the South, the Negroes needed to gain control of the social and economic systems of the United States and to change them for the benefit of the Negroes. (They have accomplished this goal, and King-idolizing conservatives ought to be rejoicing.)

King boasted about his nonviolent approach, which resulted in a great deal of violence, to civil rights. He condemned the Black Power movement because it promoted riots. (In the end, the open violence of the Black Power movement worked better than the concealed violence of the nonviolent movement. At least the Black Power movement was less hypocritical. What has excited Negroes most about the civil rights movement has been the violence of their protests and riots and the lucre that these acts have brought them.)

King laments, “Yet the civil rights revolution appeared to drain energy from the North, energy that flowed South to transform life there while stagnation blanketed Northern Negro communities.” (P. 19.) Negroes needed to turn their attention to the North and liberate the Northern Negro.  (And they did and destroyed much of the North in the process.)

To get Northern cities to capitulate to the Negro’s demands, King described what he considered nonviolent tactics. If enough Negroes marched in the city, they can force its operations to cease. Then, the city will surrender to the Negroes demands. According to King, such a protest does not harm persons or property. (He is wrong. When city services that people depend on cease, they suffer harm. Moreover, the city must tax their property to pay for the Negro’s demands. This is hardly nonviolence although the violence is more subtle than a riot.)

King declares, “Northern white leadership has relied too much on tokens and substitutes, and on Negro patience. The end of this road is clearly in sight.” (P. 22.) (He was right. Several years after his death Negroes defeated the North just as they had defeated the South. Since then, the oligarchs have used Negroes to control the country although mestizos and Indians from Latin America and queers are now replacing Negroes.)

King closes his essay by urging Whites to pressure their local and State governments and the federal government to implement the reforms that the Negro demands to prevent riots. (So much for nonviolence.) “Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention.” (P. 22.)

Throughout his essay, King expresses disdain for segregationists, Southerners, the South, and all that is related to them.

One wonders what King would think about the way that Negroes have turned out 55 years after he wrote this book. Despite all the privileges and benefits that Negroes have received over the years, in many respects, most are no better off than they were under Jim Crow — however, they are materially better off because of the welfare state. Most of the Negroes who have advanced probably would have done just as well under Jim Crow. In many respects, the Civil Rights Era has been a failure unless the objective was destroying liberty with a despotic government and the genocide of the White race while the wealth of Whites was being stolen for the benefit of nonwhites with the oligarchs taking a large cut.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues.