American Freedoms

 American Freedoms

Thomas Allen

The 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence has arrived. Now is the time to reflect upon the liberties, freedoms, and rights that the Founding Fathers fought for and sought to preserve. Unfortunately, Americans have lost many, even most, of these liberties, freedoms, and rights. Sadly, people born in recent decades never had a chance to enjoy most of them. A short list follows.

1. Bill of Rights. People enjoy all the rights guaranteed and protected by the Bill of Rights unless the federal government disagrees. The Founding Fathers believed that the rights identified in the Bill of Rights were absolute and transcended and existed before government. However, today’s ruling oligarchs consider them relative, that is, governmentally granted privileges that can be withdrawn at any time and for any reason.

2. Freedom of Travel. The Ninth Amendment and its equivalent in State constitutions prohibit the federal and State governments from preventing or otherwise hindering the popular means of travel. In the early days, travel was by means of horses, boats, and then trains. Now, it is by automobiles and airplanes. Today, Americans are free to have governments hinder and even prevent travel by the present popular means (automobiles and airplanes). People need the government’s permission to travel by automobile; they need a driver’s license, insurance, etc. 

Additionally, they are free to travel on commercial airliners if the federal government allows them. Moreover, if they travel by air, they are treated like criminals but with fewer rights than a criminal. The federal government presumes all passengers are terrorists until proven otherwise, i.e., passengers are guilty until they prove their innocence. Also, the federal government violates their right to privacy with unconstitutional searches. (What would people have done in the nineteenth century if the federal government required stagecoach passengers and their luggage to be searched before they were allowed on a stagecoach? They probably would have beaten, if not killed, the agent.)

3. Freedom to Promote One’s Heritage. People are free to defend and promote their heritage and culture if that heritage and culture are not White, especially Southern. White, especially Southern, heritage and culture do not have the right to exist.

4. Schools. People are free to send their children to public schools where they can graduate with a high school diploma, despite some graduates being so illiterate that they cannot read their diplomas. Moreover, people are free to have public schools indoctrinate their children to be obedient slaves of the ruling oligarchs. Sadly, most do not even realize that they are slaves.

5. Welfare. The unproductive are free to enslave the productive to support them.

6. Corporate Welfare. People are free to be forced to bail out banks and other companies run by incompetent or greedy managers who have political influence or are deemed by the federal government to be too big to fail.

7. Money. Instead of deciding for themselves how much money the economy needs, the people have the freedom of the federal government, in collaboration with banks through the Federal Reserve System, to decide the quality and quantity of money. Moreover, people are free to be forced to use debt, Federal Reserve notes, as money instead of commodities like gold and silver that are no one’s liability. Thus, people are free to live with and use money that continuously loses purchasing power.

For additional lost freedoms, see “Freedom” by Thomas Allen.

The Founding Fathers would rebel against the above freedoms and rights. They would be ashamed of their descendants for throwing away the liberties, freedoms, and rights for which they fought.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Allen.

More political articles.

King on Shattered Dreams

King on Shattered Dreams

Thomas Allen

In “Shattered Dreams,” Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 87–97, Martin Luther King, Jr. discusses people’s reactions to shattered dreams and peace. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

King begins by writing, “One of the most agonizing problems within our human experience is that few, if any, of us live to see our fondest hopes fulfilled.” (P. 87.) (This statement is one of the most truthful ones that King ever wrote.) Continuing, King asks, “Is there any one of us who has not faced the agony of blasted hopes and shattered dreams?” (P. 87.) Then, he comments on the shattered dreams of some famous men. “Shattered dreams are a hallmark of our mortal life.” (P. 88.) (King may have thought that his dreams were shattered just before he died, but they were not. Most came to pass after his death. He failed to live long enough to see the Negro become the White man’s superior. Nor did he live long enough to see himself and the Negro idolized, and one of his speeches become a founding document of modern-day America. Within a few years after his death, America adopted almost everything that he advocated. However, a guaranteed income is one of his dreams that has yet to come true. Though he did not live to see the fulfillment of his dreams, most of them came true. Now that America is on the verge of shattering, have his dreams made America a better place?)

Next, he comments on reactions to shattered dreams. “One possible reaction is to distill all of our frustrations into a core of bitterness and resentment.” (P. 89.) Such people frequently “develop a callous attitude, a cold heart, and a bitter hatred toward God, toward those with whom he lives, and toward himself. Because he cannot corner God or life, he releases his pent-up vindictiveness in hostility toward other people. . . .  He loves no one and requires love from no one. He trusts no one and does not expect others to trust him. He finds fault in everything and everybody, and he continually complains.” (P. 89.) This type of reaction often leads to various physical ailments and mental problems.

About another reaction to shattered dreams, King writes, “Another common reaction by persons experiencing the blighting of hope is to withdraw completely into themselves and to become absolute introverts.” (P. 89.) These people do not enter the lives of others or allow others to enter their lives. “Such persons give up the struggle of life, lose their zest for living, and attempt to escape by lifting their minds to a transcendent realm of cold indifference.” (P. 89.) They become detached from the world, and cynicism often cripples them. Such a person may become schizophrenic. 

Next, King describes a third reaction to shattered dreams. “A third way by which persons respond to disappointments in life is to adopt a fatalistic philosophy stipulating that whatever happens must happen and that all events are determined by necessity. Fatalism implies that everything is foreordained and inescapable.” (P. 90.) These people succumb without resistance to whatever they consider their fate. They believe that they have no freedom and that external forces control them. “To sink in the quicksands of fatalism is both intellectually and psychologically stifling.” (P. 91.) With his discussion of fatalism, he concludes, “But fatalism stymies the individual, leaving him helplessly inadequate for life. Fatalism, furthermore, is based on an appalling conception of God, for everything, whether good or evil, is considered to represent the will of God.” (P. 91.) (An obdurate Calvinist might dispute King on this issue. To the obdurate Calvinist, man is just a robot executing his God-given program. Otherwise, if man had any freedom, God would not be sovereign. [See “God the Great Programer: Predestination Theology” by Thomas Allen.])

Then, King describes how people should react to shattered dreams. “The answer lies in our willing acceptance of unwanted and unfortunate circumstances even as we still cling to a radiant hope, our acceptance of finite disappointment even as we adhere to infinite hope.” (P. 92.) People should accept their shattered dreams, but they should not forget their dreams. They should turn their defeat into an asset.

Next, King turns his discussion to the Negro. “We Negroes have long dreamed of freedom, but still we are confined in an oppressive prison of segregation and discrimination.” (P. 93.) (Negroes have gained their “freedom.” They have been so successful at slaying segregation that many now seek segregation. [See “More Social Issues Related to Blacks” by Thomas Allen.] Negroes have turned discrimination against Negroes into discrimination against Whites. Has this freedom of which King dreamed made the country any better?)

King asks should Negroes conclude that segregation is God’s will and resign themselves to it. (If they believed the Bible, they should have because the Bible teaches segregation and condemns integration. Nevertheless, King does not appear to believe the Bible and, like Lincoln, quotes it to deceive people.)

King condemns the failure to oppose segregation as blasphemy. (Although it is biblically ordained,) segregation is unjust and should be opposed using his “nonviolent” tactics. “By recognizing the necessity of suffering in a righteous cause, we may possibly achieve our humanity’s full stature.” (P. 93.) (The Negro leaders of the civil rights movement did not suffer much, at least not in King’s sense of the word. Most were well-paid and got to integrate with Whites. Unfortunately, the Negro achieved King’s goals not so much by raising the Negro as by pulling down the White race. The decline in educational standards is evidence.)

King writes, “Our present suffering and our nonviolent struggle to be free may well offer to Western civilization the kind of spiritual dynamic so desperately needed for survival.” (P. 94.) (Regrettably, King’s civil rights movement did not provide Western civilization the kind of spiritual dynamic that it needed to survive. What his movement did was to provide Western civilization with evil spirits that have hastened its demise.)

Continuing, King states, “We must accept finite disappointment, but we must never lose infinite hope.” (P. 94.) Following this advice was the secret to the survival of the Negroes’ slave foreparents. (How does King know?) Then, he describes how he saw slavery. (The slaves who survived the trip and were sold in what became the United States were better off than if they had remained in Africa. If they remained in Africa, most likely, their captors would have killed them because they had no value. On the other hand, if no market existed for slaves, they may not have been captured. Nevertheless, most of their descendants would live a better life in slavery than they would have lived in Africa in freedom — although except for the autocratic kings, witch doctors, and perhaps a few others, no one was really free in the Western sense of the word. For whatever reason, most Negroes seemed doomed to live undesirable lives, whether remaining in Africa or living in slavery in the Americas. However, some slaves in the Americas gained their freedom. In Haiti, all slaves became free in 1804, but their lives did not improve and, in some respects, became worse. If given a choice in the 1950s, most Haitians would have gladly left the land of the free to live in the land of segregation and discrimination.)

King remarks that people should not let adversity stop them from pursuing their dreams. Then, he comments on Paul facing adversity. Although Paul never achieved his dream of going to Spain (as far as we know), he never quit doing the Lord’s work. Paul was never complacent. He had learned “the distinction between spiritual tranquility and the outward accidents of circumstances.” (Pp. 95-96.)

King concludes with a brief discussion of peace. To the world, peace is beautiful weather, plenty of money, a body and mind free of aches and pains, and the achievement of dreams. However, these are not true peace. True peace “is a calmness of soul amid terrors of trouble, inner tranquility amid the howl and rage of outer storm, the serene quiet at the center of a hurricane amid the howling and jostling winds.” (P. 96.)

Through faith in Jesus, a person obtains true peace. (I wonder if King ever obtained true peace. If he is judged by his works, it is doubtful.)

In closing, King writes, “Our capacity to deal creatively with shattered dreams is ultimately determined by our faith in God.” (P. 97.) “The Christian faith makes it possible for us nobly to accept that which cannot be changed, to meet disappointments and sorrow with an inner poise, and to absorb the most intense pain without abandoning our sense of hope, for we know . . . in life or in death. . . . ‘that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.’” (P. 97.)

In this essay, King discusses various ways people respond to shattered dreams. He offers sage advice on how people should react. This essay is one of his more inspiring ones.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

King on the Death of Evil upon the Seashore

King on the Death of Evil upon the Seashore

Thomas Allen

In “The Death of Evil upon the Seashore,” Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 75–86, Martin Luther King, Jr. discusses evil, Israelites gaining their freedom from the Egyptians, colonialism, slavery, and segregation. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

King begins by discussing the reality of evil and comments on the Biblical description of evil. Evil exists; it is real. He remarks, “We see it [evil] expressed in tragic lust and inordinate selfishness. We see it in high places where men are willing to sacrifice truth on the altars of their self-interest.” (P. 76.) Evil is seen “in imperialistic nations crushing other people with the battering rams of social injustice.” (P. 76.) It is also seen in war.

Next, King discusses the Israelites held as slaves in Egypt. “Egypt symbolized evil in the form of humiliating oppression, ungodly exploitation, and crushing domination, and the Israelites symbolized goodness in the form of devotion and dedication to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” (P. 77.) (King uses the Israelite enslavement in Egypt as an analogy. Egypt represents the South, which is evil, and the Israelites represent the Negroes, who are holy.) “Pharaoh [Southerners] stubbornly refused to respond to the cry of Moses [King]. . . .” (P. 77.) When the Israelites were freed from their slavery, they left Egypt. (Here, King departs from his analogy of the Egyptians enslaving the Israelites. When the Israelites gained their freedom from Egyptian oppression, they left Egypt. They did not integrate with the Egyptians. If King were true to his analogy, when he freed the Negroes from the oppression of segregation and discrimination, he would have led them out of the South. Instead, he led them to integrate with their oppressors [Southerners].)

Then, King notes “that evil is recalcitrant and determined, and never voluntarily relinquishes its hold short of a persistent, almost fanatical resistance.” (P. 77.)

Continuing, King notes that the story of the enslavement of the Israelites and their subsequent freedom “is revealed in the contemporary struggle between good in the form of freedom and justice and evil in the form of oppression and colonialism.” (P. 79.) Then, he comments on colonialism. According to King, “most of the Asian and African peoples were colonial subjects, dominated politically, exploited economically, and segregated and humiliated by foreign powers.” (P. 77.) (Most Asian and African countries subjected to European imperialism have a higher standard of living today than they would have without European imperialism.) With a focus on India, he comments on the colonies freeing themselves from European powers.

Next, King discusses the Negro’s struggle for freedom and justice. “In America the Negro slave was merely a depersonalized cog in a vast plantation machine.” (P. 80.) (Southern compassion brought down the South. When the Jewish Dutch slavers brought their leftover slaves that they failed to sell in the Caribbean to Virginia to sell, the Virginians should have refused to buy and let the Dutch dump their unsold slaves in the ocean. Instead, being compassionate, they bought the Negroes and treated them as indentured servants. When they had worked off their purchase price, they were set free. However, one Negro, Anthony Johnson, refused to let his Negro servant go free and got the court to declare him a lifetime servant, i.e., a slave. [See, “Two Great Black Leaders” by Thomas Allen.] Thus, a Negro brought Negro slavery to what would later become the United States.)

King writes, “For more than two hundred years Africa was raped and plundered, her native kingdoms disorganized, and her people and rulers demoralized.” (P. 80.) (He gives the impression that Europeans did the plundering.  On the contrary, Negroes did the plundering. Negroes would raid neighboring tribes and sell their captives to Europeans and Arabs.)

King comments on Jefferson’s opposition to slavery and the agony that it caused him. (However, King does not comment on Jefferson’s recommended solution, which was the physical separation of the races — the Biblical solution.)

Then, King comments on Lincoln and his Emancipation Proclamation. According to King, the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves. (Like most people, King fails to understand that the Emancipation Proclamation freed no slaves. It only applied to slaves in areas beyond the control of the Union army. Slaves in the Union States and slaves in the parts of the South controlled by the Union army remained slaves. Moreover, slaves in the South gained their freedom before slaves in the Union States gained theirs.)

Continuing, King declares that although “Negroes enjoyed certain political and social opportunities during the Reconstruction,” Southerners were determined to keep them in slavery. (During Reconstruction, many Southerners were stripped of their political rights. [About the Battle of Gettysburg and Reconstruction, H.L.  Mencken wrote, “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.”] To cope with the sudden flood of ignorant, gullible, freed Negroes on the labor market, the Southern States enacted labor codes modeled after those in the North. However, the federal government quickly voided these codes in the South. Before Lincoln’s War, both free and enslaved Negroes were more integrated in the South than they were in the North. Negro collaboration with carpetbaggers and scalawags during Reconstruction to plunder the South is a root cause of the racial problems in the South. Also, because of the large number of Negroes in the South, the South resorted to statutory regulation of race relations. Because of the small numbers of Negroes in the North, the North could rely on customs, deed restrictions, labor unions, etc. to regulate race relations.) King considers segregation a new form of slavery.

King writes, “Despite the patient cry of many a Moses, they refused to let the Negro people go.” (P. 81.) (When Pharaoh let the Israelites go, they left Egypt. Never did King have any intention of leading the Negroes out of the country. If they were going to leave the country, they would have received a great deal of support and almost no opposition. However, even if King had tried to lead them to another land, most Negroes would not have followed him. Despite segregation, discrimination, and oppression, they knew that life in the United States, even in the South, was better for them than anywhere else that they could go. Nevertheless, the Pharaoh-Moses approach would have solved America’s race problems.)

King approves the Supreme Court’s desegregation ruling. However, the ruling is just the beginning; more is needed. (The more needed was forced integration. The desegregation ruling quickly turned into forced integration. Desegregation allows a student to go to the school of his choice, i.e., a Negro child could go to a White school if he so chooses and vice versa. Integration, like segregation, assigns students to a school based on race. Desegregation quickly degenerated into integration because the only way that a school could prove that it was fully desegregated was to be fully integrated.)

Continuing, King notes, “that evil carries the seed of its own destruction.” (P. 82.) (Being contrary to God’s law, integration is evil and carries the seed of its own destruction. The deterioration of the United States is evidence of this seed of destruction.)

Next, King states, “Because sin exists on every level of man’s existence, the death of one tyranny is followed by the emergence of another tyranny.” (P. 83.) (We are currently living in the tyranny of the civil rights movement, Zionism, and fascism in its various forms.) People in the civil rights movement must “avoid a superficial optimism [and] . . . a crippling pessimism.” (P. 83.) 

Then, King comments on God working in the world. He is convinced that God is on his side. (Except for atheists and perhaps agnostics, most evil-doers are convinced that God is on their side. That God was on King’s side is questionable because what he promoted is contrary to what the Bible teaches. If God were on his side, it is in the sense that He was on the side of the Assyrians and Babylonians when He sent them to punish Israel and the Jews by removing them from their homelands.)

In closing, King discusses some of the evils that Negroes have endured. (First, despite all the evils that have been inflicted on Negroes in America, Negroes in Africa have endured worse evils. Second, all races have suffered from evil.)

Throughout this essay, King uses the analogy of Moses (King) freeing the Israelites (Negroes) and leading them across the Red Sea (out of the country). However, King had no intention of completing the analogy.  He was not going to lead the Negroes out of America or even the South. On the contrary, he wanted to do what God would have prevented Moses from doing. Unlike Moses, who wanted to lead his people from the evils of Egypt, King wanted to integrate his people into the evils of the South. (For King, everything was evil in the South except the Negro and Communists.)

King often implies, if not right out states, that the Bible commands integration and condemns segregation. However, the opposite is true. The Bible contains stories promoting segregation and separation — the Exodus story, which King uses in this essay, is the best known. I know of no stories in the Bible supporting integration and amalgamation. On the contrary, there are stories condemning such acts.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

King on the World House – Part 2

King on the World House – Part 2

Thomas Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on social issues.

King on the World House – Part 1

King on the World House – Part 1

Thomas Allen

In “The World House,” Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? (Boston: Beacon Press, 1968), pages 177–202, Martin Luther King, Jr., discusses the American Negro uniting with nonwhites around the world in their struggle for freedom, racism, colonialism and economic exploitation, poverty, war and peace, and foreign aid. 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 supports a world welfare system. He writes that “we cannot ignore the larger world house in which we are also dwellers. Equality with whites will not solve the problems of either whites or Negroes if it means equality in a world society stricken by poverty and in a universe doomed to extinction by war.” (P. 177.) (King-idolizing conservatives need to stop objecting to nonmilitary foreign aid and start opposing military foreign aid.)

Then, he mentions the inventions and discoveries made during the previous 100 years. (He fails to mention that Whites are responsible for these inventions and discoveries.)

Next, King states that “what is happening in the United States today is a significant part of a world development.” (P. 179.) That is, the civil rights movement needed to spread across the planet. (Neoconservatives have accommodated King by forcing his civil rights movement on the world. When necessary, they use war to impose King’s civil rights movement. White countries outside the Muslim world have surrendered to King’s civil rights movement with little resistance. However, war has been required in the White and nonwhite Muslim world. So far, most of East Asia and India have avoided having King’s civil rights movement imposed on them.)

Erroneously, King declares that what “we are seeing now is a freedom explosion” (P. 179.) (On the contrary, except for the defunct Soviet block, most countries are much less free today than they were before King’s civil rights movement. Ironically, freedom has been dying faster in the United States, the White Anglophone countries, and Western Europe than anywhere else on the planet, and these are the countries where the civil rights movement has advanced the furthest.)

Continuing, King remarks that “the era of colonialism, is at an end. East is moving West. The earth is being redistributed.” (P. 180.) (What are the American Negroes going to do when China conquers the United States? The only use that the Chinese will have for most Negroes is manual labor. They certainly will have no use for them as whining welfare recipients and habitual complainers who are never satisfied.)

Next, King claims, “Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever.” (P. 180.) (Anyone who cares about the White race, especially Southerners, who are now the oppressed, needs to hope that King is right. Negroes, who are the oppressors, need to hope that King is wrong.)

Then, King compares the biblical story of Moses demanding that Pharaoh let the Israelites go with the American Negro. (However, King does not complete the analogy. When Pharaoh let the Israelites go, the Israelites left Egypt. To complete the analogy, the American Negroes would have to leave the United States. Moreover, if King envisioned himself as Moses delivering his people from bondage, then King should have led his people to the promised land in Africa.)

King remarks that the American Negro “has been caught up by the spirit of the times, and with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow brothers in Asia, South America and the Caribbean, the United States Negro is moving with a sense of great urgency toward the promised land of racial justice.” (P. 180.) (Now, many Negroes are probably having second thoughts about uniting with their black, brown, and yellow brothers flooding America and claiming rights and privileges that Whites had given the Negro. Also, their promised land of racial justice seems void of any racial justice for Whites.)

Then, King writes, “Together we must learn to live as brothers or together we will be forced to perish as fools.” (P. 181.) (King seems to have omitted Whites from his brotherhood — except White Communists, White liberal Negrophiles, and White oligarchs. He certainly omits Southerners and White segregationists.)

Correctly, King states, “The richer we have become materially, the poorer we have become morally and spiritually. . . .  Enlarged material powers spell enlarged peril if there is not proportionate growth of the soul.” (Pp. 181-182.)

King writes, “Among the moral imperatives of our time, we are challenged to work all over the world with unshakable determination to wipe out the last vestiges of racism.” (P. 183.) (White racism has mostly vanished from the world. However, the racism of the other races is as strong as ever, and even the racism of the American Negro has been growing stronger ever since King inflamed it.)

According to King, economic exploitation is the perennial ally of racism. (If true, then the Negro’s economic exploitation of Whites proves that Negroes are racists — in spite of the accepted definition of “racist” that declares that Negroes cannot be racists.)

Then, King comments on the racism of South Africa and claims that “the economic policies of the United States and Great Britain” (p. 183) make possible “the racist government of South Africa.” (P. 183.) (Yet, the economic policies of the United States and Great Britain brought down the White racist government of South Africa and replaced it with a Negro racist government. Ever since South Africa has been deteriorating while the Afrikaners are being genocided.)

Next, King comments on Rhodesia and the aid given to Rhodesia by “British-based industry and private capital, despite the stated opposition of British government policy.” (P. 184.) (In 1979, the White government of Rhodesia fell. The country changed its name to Zimbabwe, and Negroes gained control of the government. After the Negroes drove most of the Whites from the country, the Negroes of Zimbabwe became poorer and more oppressed than they were under White rule. However, if he had lived to see this happy moment, King would rejoice knowing that Whites no longer oppress Negroes in Zimbabwe while complaining that Whites are not given Zimbabwe ever more money.)

King writes, “Nothing provides the Communists with a better climate for expansion and infiltration than the continued alliance of our nation with racism and exploitation throughout the world.” (P. 184.) (Being a Communist sympathizer, King should not have objected to anything that aided Communist expansion.)

Then, King declares, “And if we are not diligent in our determination to root out the last vestiges of racism in our dealings with the rest of the world, we may soon see the sins of our fathers visited upon ours and succeeding generations.” (Pp. 184-185.) (The only racism that has been rooted out is that of Whites while racism in the rest of the world is healthy, strong, and growing. As a result, the Whites of the United  States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Europe, and the rest of the world are fading away as they lose the countries that they founded and built to nonwhites.)

After discussing the exploitation of Latin America, King states, “The Bible and the annals of history are replete with tragic stories of one brother robbing another of his birthright and thereby insuring generations of strife and enmity.” (P. 185.) (King’s statement is correct. However, he confounds who is exploiting whom. King asserts that Whites are exploiting nonwhites, especially Negroes. On the contrary, Negroes and other nonwhites have been exploiting Whites for decades. By that, they create strife and enmity as they war among themselves for the spoils of Whites.)

King notes that most of the revolutionaries of Africa, Asia, and Latin America were educated in the West. Before then, many had been trained in Christian missionary schools. (Thus, Communists and Communist sympathizers had infiltrated and gained controlled universities and religious organizations even before King’s civil rights movement.)

King shows that envy is a significant motive for nonwhites to claim what Whites have. “In recent years their countries have been invaded by automobiles, Coca-Cola and Hollywood, so that even remote villages have become aware of the wonders and blessings available to God’s white children. . . . Either they share in the blessings of the world or they organize to break down and overthrow those structures or governments which stand in the way of their goals.” (P. 186.) (In other words, either Whites give Negroes and other nonwhites what they demand or they will steal it.)

Then, King declares, “And when they [colored people] look around and see that the only people who do not share in the abundance of Western technology are colored people, it is an almost inescapable conclusion that their condition and their exploitation are somehow related to their color and the racism of the white Western world.” (P. 186.) (King fails to realize that Whites obtained what they have through their intelligence and other innate attributes and traits, hard work, delaying gratification, sacrificing, etc. Erroneously, King and most other nonwhites, especially Negroes, believe that most of what Whites have, they got through exploiting nonwhites. However, Whites did not have to exploit anyone to create the wealth that they have. As for colonialism, most natives of the colonies, especially in Africa, became wealthier, healthier, and safer after the Europeans arrived than they were before the European arrival.)

Next, King asserts, “If Western civilization does not now respond constructively to the challenge to banish racism, some future historian will have to say that a great civilization died because it lacked the soul and commitment to make justice a reality for all men.” (Pp. 186-187.) (No civilization has ever come as close as Western Civilization in banishing the racism of its race, i.e., the White race. As a result, the White race has lost its soul and is dying. When the White race perishes along with its  great innate innovative intelligence, the nonwhites of the world will plunge into a dark age of poverty, tyranny, and oppression.)

Then, King declares, “Another grave problem that must be solved . . . is that of poverty on an international scale.” (P. 187.) He believed that Whites had the resources to rid the world of poverty. He states “that famine is wholly unnecessary in the modern world.” (P. 187.) (This is mostly true. When a natural disaster causes a famine, international aid usually arrives quickly to alleviate the problem. However, most famines are political. That is, the government of the country where the famine is occurring is the cause, and foreign aid offers little relief since the offending government receives the aid. War is another political problem that causes famine. The elimination of war and oppressive governments, like nearly every country has today, would eliminate most famines.) He offers several solutions for eliminating famine. (However, he fails to recognize that governments often prevent some of the solutions that he offers. King believes that governments are altruistic and benevolent, except in the South, whose governments are malevolent. Moreover, before Whites were driven from Africa, they were improving and increasing agricultural production.)

Furthermore, King favors controlling the population growth of the planet. He notes, “Most of the large undeveloped nations in the world today are confronted with the problem of excess population in relation to resources. But even this problem will be greatly diminished by wiping out poverty.” (P. 188.) Economic security and education lead to smaller families. Stabilization of the population depends on stabilizing economic resources. (One technique that the White oligarchs have used for population control besides easily available abortion is to inject people, especially Negro women, with sterilants disguised as medicine.)

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on social issues.

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. 

American Police State

American Police State

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: This article was written in 2002, shortly after the enactment of the so-call PATRIOT Act]

    In defending his newly imposed restrictions on legal rights, President Bush said that “the Constitution is sacred” and that it will not be undermined in his war against terrorism. His actions contradict his words.
    He has had American citizens arrested and imprisoned without charges, hearings, or convictions and without access to an attorney or anyone else. Apparently, he can have anyone arrested and imprisoned indefinitely merely by labeling that person as “an enemy combatant.” The victim is not allowed to appeal this charge. This action violates the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, to be informed of the charges, to confront witnesses, and to have a lawyer.
    The Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) is building several large detention (prison) camps across the country. These centers may be used to imprison people who refuse an untested toxic vaccination, dissenters, segments of the population declared “enemy combatants,” terrorists like constitutionalists and Christians who believe that these are the last days, and others whom Bush deems undesirable.
    Bush endorsed and rapidly pushed through a scared, cowardly Congress his Anti-Patriot bill. This bill was not even available for Congressmen to read until after they had passed it.
    Under this law, federal agents can monitor conversations between a prisoner and his attorney. Such monitoring violates the Sixth Amendment.
    Court hearings can be, and are being, held in secret The Sixth Amendment requires trials to be public.
    The Anti-Patriot Act also makes a mockery of the Fourth Amendment. Now almost no restrictions are placed on searches and seizures. Probable cause is no longer needed for search warrants. (When Congress asked the Justice Department how many subpoenas had been issued under the Anti-Patriot Act, the Justice Department told Congress that the information was classified and could not be released. Nearly every time that the Bush Administration does is classified and cannot be released. Why all the secrecy? What is Bush trying to hide? The police state that he has given America.)
    Legal barriers to the police searching library records have been greatly reduced. These searches include removing hard drives of computers from libraries. Not only can the police view the Internet usage of a suspect, but they can also view the usage of everyone else who has recently used that computer. Until now, what one read was protected under the First Amendment. The Anti-Patriot Act has voided this First Amendment Protection.
    The only things that remain sacred are that racial profiling will not be used and the borders will not be closed to immigrants. Racial profiling and closing the borders to immigrants are not unconstitutional.
    Bush is knowingly, or possibly unknowingly, falling into an old standard Communist trap. A common Communist tactic is to commit terrorist acts to cause the government to react with oppression. The typical government reaction to terrorism is to clamp down on the freedom of the people. More terrorist acts are followed by more freedom-restricting reactions by the government. Soon the people are living in a police state that is nearly as oppressive as what the Communist would have imposed. Discontent and rebellion are often the results.
    If Bush were really serious about defeating terrorism, he would bring all the U.S. troops scattered across the globe home and use them to seal the borders to all immigrants. (He would also respect the posse comitatus law and refuse to allow troops to participate in law enforcement or to patrol American streets.) He would reduce immigration to zero. (The Mexican invasion is far more detrimental to American welfare than anything that Iraq, Hussein, bin Laden, al-Qaeda, or any other Arabic terrorist group could inflict.) He would institute a vigorous program to round up and deport all illegal immigrants. When an immigrant’s visa expired, he would have to return home.
    Instead of violating the Constitution to fight terrorism, Bush should use it. Anyone who is suspected of terrorism or collaborating with terrorists should be tried quickly in open court. If convicted, he should be sentenced to the fullest extent of the law. Any high-ranking governmental official who knew about the 9-11 attack, aided the terrorists in the attack, concealed information that could have prevented it, or otherwise aided the terrorists should be publicly executed.
    Instead of seeking to curb private ownership of firearms, Bush should be openly and vigorously encouraging it. He would push to repeal federal laws that impede private ownership of firearms. A highly armed citizenry is not only the best defense against terrorism, but it is also the best defense against a despotic police state.
    Bush would replace our Zionist Middle East foreign policy with a more even-handed one that did not favor either side. He would withdraw the United States from the United Nation and all those entangling alliances created under the authority of the United Nations including NAFTA and GATT. He would embargo trade with China, North Korea, Syria, Saudi-Arabia, and other countries whose governments support terrorists or whose governments allow private citizens to support terrorists.
    Instead of administering the government in secrecy, Bush would open the government up to public inspection. With the possible exceptions of weapons technology, manufacturing trade secrets, the identity of undercover agents, activities related to criminal investigations, and the like, he should declassify and unseal all governmental records and make them available to the public. If we have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, then the people need to know what the government is doing. Bush would make public all records concerning the 9-11 attack. He would release everything that could reveal who knew what when.
    If Bush’s goal is to turn the United States into a despotic police state with troops on the street where citizens fear both the government and terrorists, he is traveling the right road. If his goal is to defeat terrorism, protect the Constitution, and restore American freedom, he needs drastically change course.

Copyright © 2002 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Review of Facts and Falsehoods – Part 1

Review of Facts and Falsehoods – Part 1

Thomas Allen

Facts and Falsehoods Concerning the War on the South 1861-1865 (Memphis, Tennessee: A. R. Taylor & Co., 1904) by George Edmonds is an excellent book and worth reading. Edmonds reveals the real Abraham Lincoln before he was deified.

Before Lincoln’s deification, most Republicans, including his cabinet, did not respect him, and many despised him. Further, they perceived him as incompetent, opportunistic, and indecisive and as a political hack and a politician in the worst sense of the word. Fame was what Lincoln wanted. Assassination was the best thing to ever happen to him, for it brought him the fame for which he lusted and his deification.

Edmonds shows that the founding principles of the Republican Party were hatred of the Constitution and Southerners, disunion, and the concentration of political power in the federal government. Being a White man’s party, the Republican Party had little use for Blacks — free or slave. 

He discusses the hatred of the South that many Republican leaders possessed from Lincoln’s War to 1904 when he published his book. This hatred of the South still exists today albeit in a milder form when conservatives, e.g., Beck and Coulter, express it. This hatred reveals itself in the left’s destruction of Southern culture, history, and memorials with the support of scalawags including most Southern Republican and Democratic governors, and the complacency of most conservatives.

The following are some excerpts from his book.

Comparison of Buchanan with Lincoln

Edmonds quotes the Lemars (Iowa) Sentinel, 1879, which fearlessly propounded Republican doctrines, “No reasonable man will say that President Buchanan was wrong when he said that the North had no constitutional right to coerce seceding States, but what of that? Up jumped Abraham Lincoln, the rail-splitter, and kicked the Constitution into the Capitol cellar, and called for 75,000 armed men to march down and conquer the South, and when the 75,000 proved not enough, the rail splitter called for more, and more, until he had over 2,000,000 armed men, and he sent ’em down to burn and pillage, to kill, conquer or annihilate traitors to our glorious Union, the Constitution all the while in the Capitol cellar." (pp. 23-24)

About Rebellion

Edmonds writes, “The history of man’s struggle for freedom shows that rebellions have won for mankind all the freedom they possess. Did ever any ruler on earth, of his own will, loosen his grip on the liberties of those he ruled? Every inch of liberty the English-speaking people now have was gained by rebellions. The colonies of ’76 won freedom by rebellion. Rebellion means resistance to lawful rule. George III was the lawful King of the Colonies. At no period in the existence of this Union has one State or group of States held lawful rule over any other State or group of States. The most stupendous falsehood ever told on this continent is the falsehood that the Southern people rebelled. There can be no rebellion except against lawful rulers. The Republican party of the 6o’s was guilty of the monstrous crime of usurping the power to rule the Southern States. Not only did Republicans pour out the virulence of hate on the South’s men, her women came in for a share, and a large share they received.” (p. 245)

Lincoln’s Response to Medill’s Protest to Lincoln’s Order for More Troops

About Lincoln rebuking Joseph Medill, editor of the Chicago Tribune and Republican politician, when he protested Lincoln ordering more troops from Chicago, Edmonds cites Ida Tarbell, who wrote a biography of Lincoln. Miss Tarbell relates what Medill told her about this incident, “In 1864 when the call for extra troops came, Chicago revolted. Chicago had sent 22,000 and was drained. There were no young men to go, no aliens except what was already bought. The citizens held a mass meeting and appointed three men, of whom I (Medill) was one, to go to Washington and ask Stanton (the War Secretary) to give Cook County a new enrollment. On reaching Washington we went to Stanton with our statement. He refused. Then we went to President Lincoln. ‘I cannot do it,’ said Lincoln, ‘but I will go with you to Stanton and hear the arguments of both sides.’ So we all went over to the War Department together. Stanton and General Frye were there, and they both contended that the quota should not be changed. The argument went on for some time, and was finally referred to Lincoln, who had been silently listening. When appealed to, Lincoln turned to us with a black and frowning face: ‘Gentlemen.’ he said, with a voice full of bitterness, ‘after Boston, Chicago has been the chief instrument in bringing this war on the country. The Northwest opposed the South, as New England opposed the South. It is you, Medill, who is largely responsible for making blood flow as it has. You called for war until you had it. I have given it to you. What you have asked for you have had. Now you come here begging to be let off from the call for more men, which I have made to carry on the war you demanded. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Go home and raise your 6,000 men. And you, Medill, you and your Tribune have had more influence than any other paper in the Northwest in making this war. Go home and send me those men I want.’

“Medill says that he and his companions, feeling guilty, left without further argument. They returned to Chicago, and 6,000 more men from the working classes were dragged from their homes, their families, forced into the ranks to risk limbs and lives in a war they had no part in making, while the men that forced that war on an unwilling people remained at home in comfort and safety, and made enormous fortunes by the war.” (p. 162)

To this, Edmonds adds, “Is it any wonder educated workingmen often become anarchists and hate all governments?” (p. 163)

Lincoln on Courts

About Lincoln’s preference for using military courts instead of civil courts, Edmonds writes, “Daniel Webster objected to military courts because, as he said, ‘military courts are organized to convict.’ The so-called humane Lincoln objected to civil courts because one member of the jury might be more ready to hang the panel than to hang the man! Lincoln seems to assume that men arrested by military officials must be guilty, therefore should have no chance of escaping conviction by trial in a Civil court. Lincoln also objects to civil courts because they only convict on charges of crime well defined by law. Military courts convict on the most frivolous pretexts, or no pretext at all. The chief thing necessary to military conviction is that some man in high place should desire the man to be convicted and put out of his way. In the Albany address reference was made to the suspension of the habeas corpus. To this Mr. Lincoln replied as follows: ‘The suspension of the habeas corpus was for the purpose that men may be arrested and held in prison who cannot be proved guilty of any defined crime.’” (p. 212)

Continuing, Edmonds writes that the above declaration is not Lincoln's worst. Then, he quotes Lincoln’s comment to the Albany committee of Democrats, “Arrests are not made so much for what has been done as for what possibly might be done. The man who stands by and says nothing when the peril of his Government is discussed cannot be misunderstood. If not hindered (by arrest, imprisonment, or death) he is sure to help the enemy.” (p. 212).

Then, Edmonds writes, “Is it any wonder under rulings like this that 38,000 arbitrary arrests threw 38,000 innocent men and women into American bastiles [sic] to languish for months or years, and many therein to die?” (p. 212.)

Moreover, Edmonds writes, “Under Lincoln’s definition silence became an act of treason. A man with a sore throat, unable to talk aloud, if he happened to be present when the Lincoln Government was discussed, was liable to arrest and imprisonment in the most distant fortress in the land.” (p. 212).

Next, Edmonds quotes Lincoln writing, “Much more if a man talks ambiguously, talks with ‘buts’ and ‘ifs’ and ‘ands’ he cannot be misunderstood. If not hindered (by imprisonment or death) this man will actively commit treason. Arbitrary arrests are not made for the treason defined in the Constitution, but to prevent treason.” About this quotation, Edmonds comments, “That is to prevent the sort of treason never before known on earth — the treason of ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’ and ‘ands’ — the treason made and invented by Abraham Lincoln, the first President of the Republican party.” (pp. 212-213.)

Seward’s Character

To describe the character of William H. Seward, Lincoln’s Secretary of State, Edmonds quotes General Piatt, a personal friend and great admirer of Seward, “Seward began life as a school teacher in the South. He had been treated with condescending indifference by the unenlightened masters, which treatment he never forgot. Seward looked down on the white men of the South in the same cynical way that he did upon the slaves. He had no pity for the slaves, and no dislike for the master. He was a great favorite with the last named. He had contempt for them, which he concealed as carefully as he did his contempt for the United States Constitution. Seward had trained himself to believe that worldly wickedness indicated ability. He thought to be bad was to be clever. He thought that devotion to wine, women and infidelity gave proof of superior intelligence. He affected a wickedness he did not feel, because such wickedness, in his estimation, was good form.” To this description, Edmonds asks, “Was it spite that made Seward so vindictive toward the Southern people?” (p. 158)

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 2.

More Southern articles.