Separation Versus Integration

Separation Versus Integration

Thomas Allen

After reading some of Martin Luther King’s works, I discovered that I, a racist bigot, have a much higher opinion of and more confidence in the American Negro than King did. King believed that Negroes were incapable of raising themselves without altruistic White aid. That is, King believed that Whites were solely responsible for raising Negroes from their unpleasant conditions; Negroes had no responsibility. Whites were to give Negroes everything, and Negroes were to take everything.

Like  Malcolm X and Roy Innis, I believe that Negroes are capable of raising themselves independently of Whites. Unlike King, who was an integrationist, they were separationists. Also, unlike King, who promoted the destruction of Negro culture and even the Negro race, they advocated the preservation and enhancement of Negro culture and the Negro race.

According to King, Negroes were blameless for their condition and, thus, had no responsibility for improving their condition. Whites were solely responsible for improving the conditions of the Negroes. However, under separation, Negroes have the primary responsibility for improving their conditions. Consequently, separation would have taught Negroes responsibility, independence, and self-reliance. It would have freed them from the slave mentality. Ironically, Jim Crow was teaching these lessons to Negroes and freeing them from the slave mentality until the civil rights movement killed Jim Crow. Unfortunately, under integration, most Negroes have failed to learn responsibility, independence, and self-reliance, and thus, the slave mentality continues to possess them.

If the country had followed the separationist road instead of the integrationist road, race relations would be much better than they are today. Now, race relations are so great that they are tearing the country apart.

Under separation, Negroes would know that what they have, they earned by their own efforts. Under integration, Whites have given Negroes much of what they have today. Consequently, Negroes do not know whether they earned what they have or whether they have been given what they have. Knowing that they earned what they have would give them more self-respect and the respect of others.

Moreover, under separation, the country would not have wasted trillions of dollars on the War on Poverty. (According to one study, the United States have spent more money on the War on Poverty than all other wars combined.)

Further, under separation, diversity, inclusion, and equity (equality of outcome and discrimination against Whites) would not have torn the country apart as they are doing today. (Ironically, inclusion destroys diversity. To be preserved, diversity requires segregation and separation. Inclusion requires integration and amalgamation.)

Another result of separation is that the White race would not be filled with self-hatred and the uncontrollable urge to genocide itself. Whites would not have opened the borders to third-world colonists, who are mostly Turanians from Asia and Latin America (Indians and mestizos) and Melanochroi from India, Pakistan, the Arabian Peninsula, and the Horn of Africa. Not only are these colonists destroying Whites, but they are also destroying Negroes.

Under integration, most Whites have become racial nihilists and practice the new morality of sacrificing the White race on the altar of humanity. Under separation, most Whites would have continued to practice the old morality of preserving, protecting, and promoting their race and would have become racial preservationists. 

Under integration, Negroes have become Black supremacists and practice the old morality. However, under separation, Negroes would have become racial preservationists while practicing the old morality.

Life in America under separation would not be a utopia. However, it would not be the dystopia that it has become under integration. Most likely, Negroes would have advanced further under separation than they have under integration. Under separation, their advancement would not have required bringing down the White race as has happened under integration. Moreover, wokeism would never have been born, and queerdom would have remained in the shadows.

Separation would have led to a society similar to that envisioned by Booker T. Washington. The races would be separated socially; little social interaction would occur between them. However, economically, the races would be interconnected; they would interact with each other economically.

Separation accords with God’s law, while integration rebels against God’s law.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

The Heritage Foundation on Critical Race Theory

The Heritage Foundation 

on Critical Race Theory

Thomas Allen

The Heritage Foundation (HF) has published a pamphlet titled Critical Race Theory: Knowing It When You See It and Fighting It When You Can. It discusses some errors and flaws of Critical Race Theory (CRT) and why it is wrong. In so doing, HF  reveals the defecation of neoconservatism: Its opposition is presented from a neoconservative perspective. HF’s arguments are based on racial nihilism and equality (as opposed to equity).

HF asserts that “in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the government rejected racial discrimination.” Regardless of its wording, this Act did not reject racial discrimination. Instead, it led to discrimination against Whites in favor of Blacks with quotas, affirmative action, and other privileges for Blacks.

Next, HF declares that “the civil rights movement affirmed that prejudice has no place in American life.” That is a lie. The civil rights movement has been built on prejudice against Whites.

Moreover, initially, the civil rights movement was aimed at the South although Southerners possessed no prejudice against Blacks. 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. They were not prejudging against Blacks. However, prejudice against Blacks may have existed in the North and West in areas where Blacks were rare.

Further, HF claims that “the vast majority of Americans we work and worship with, live and learn alongside, embrace the equal rights and dignity of all.” Thus, HF reveals its racial nihilism and support of policies that lead to the genocide of Blacks. Such a utopia exists only in the nightmares of self-loathing Whites and racial nihilists, nearly all of whom are White. If it were not for governmental coercion, much of this apparent harmonious integration and amalgamation would vaporize. Except for racial nihilists and those who hate their race, most people prefer associating with people of their own race. Moreover, the actions of most nonwhites show that they want to be superior to Whites and not just their equal.

HF notes that CRT “champions curricula and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs that separate individuals by race.” Separating individuals by race perseveres the races and is biblically supported. Apparently, HF prefers genocide. It wants to integrate and amalgamate the races, which is genocide.

Moreover, diversity and inclusion are incompatible. If diversity is to be preserved, segregation and separation are necessary. Inclusion requires integration and amalgamation.

HF idolizes the conglomeration of the races in America. Again, HF promotes breaking up the country, a civil war with one race dominating the other races, or genocide of the races via amalgamation into motley mongrel man. Amalgamation seems to be HF’s choice.

HF worships the civil rights movement though most of the problems that the country faces today have grown from the mentality that brought about the civil rights movement. (At the foundation of the civil rights movement were communists, and most of the problems of the country have grown from the communist mentality — see, “Are the United States a Communist Country?” by Thomas Allen.)

Although CRT errs in blaming the failure of Blacks on White, its solution is not as destructive as HE’s are. (Blacks are the blame for their failures; they need to accept responsibility for their own actions and the outcome of those actions.) HF’s solution is genocide via the amalgamation of the races into motley mongrel man.

Also, CRT errs in asserting the existence of White privileges. Whatever privileges that Whites may have had are long dead. Today, only nonwhites, especially Blacks, have special privileges.

One condemnation of CRT that HF has is its communist origin. Yet, HF has no qualms about the communist origins of the civil rights movement.

HF states that “children from intact families are less likely to spend time in prison or face poverty than children from non-intact families.” During the Jim Crow Era, most Black families were intact families, but during the Civil Rights Era, many Black families have become non-intact families. Yet, HF condemns the Jim Crow Era while praising the Civil Rights Era.

While CRT opposes meritocracy, HF supports it. In spite of meritocracy leaving Blacks in general at the bottom of the economic ladder, HF supports it. In the market system of the United States, which rewards merit when government coercion is absent, Whites, Turanians (primarily, East Asians), and Melanochroi (primarily Asian Indians and Pakistanis) in general will do much better than Blacks.

If admission to colleges and universities depended solely on merit, more Whites would go to colleges, and fewer Blacks would go — especially at the more prestigious universities.

HF favors school choice. Parents should be allowed to choose which school to send their children to. If White parents wanted to send their children to a school that allowed only White students, would HF find this acceptable? Likewise, with Black parents wanting to send their children to schools that only allowed Black students, would HF find this acceptable? It would probably condemn these choices and support outlawing such schools. Why? Because it wants to genocide Blacks — at least the policies that it promotes lead to the genocide of Blacks.

If the policies promoted by HF are implemented to their fullest, Blacks will fail behind White and other races educationally and economically because of the connate disabilities of Blacks, i.e., because of genetics. CRT recognizes this outcome; that is why it promotes special privileges for Blacks and the suppression of Whites.

HF offers two definitions of “equality”; both are chimeras. One is equal treatment under the law, and the other is equal opportunity.

Because people differ, true equality under the law is an illusion. The closest approach to it is everyone is arrested by the same officer and tried by the same judge and jury with the same defense attorney and prosecutor. Even then, equality would not be achieved because people differ on different days. 

Even in a more general sense, equality before the law cannot exist because of discretion. Thus, to start approaching equality before the law, law enforcers, prosecutors, and judges have to be stripped of any discretion. Even jury nullification, the bulwark against tyranny, has to be forbidden.

In “Gottfried and Equality,” I describe the delusion of equality of opportunity. A five-foot, fat, klutz does not have the same opportunity of becoming a professional basketball center as does a seven-foot, agile, athlete.  A dimwit does not have the same opportunity of becoming a doctor or engineer with a Ph.D. as does a genius. Genetics denies people equal opportunity.

The underlying principle of equality before the law and equality of opportunity is that everyone is identical. If that were true, everyone would have an equal outcome.

Because genetics discriminates against Blacks in most endeavors, CRT preaches equity, equality of outcome. A society can come closer to achieving equality of outcome than achieving equality of opportunity. Governmental coercion can cause equality of outcome, equity, to be approached. Genetics prevents equality of opportunity from ever being approached.

CRT leads to discrimination, demonization, and hatred of Whites and to granting special privileges to Blacks. HF’s policies lead to the genocide of Blacks and Whites. Under CRT, Blacks win and Whites lose. Under HF’s policies, both Blacks and Whites lose.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.