King on Antidotes for Fear

King on Antidotes for Fear

Thomas Allen

In "Antidotes for Fear," Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 119–132, Martin Luther King, Jr. discusses fear, courage, love, faith, and social justice. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

King begins with a discussion of fear crippling people, which for the most part is accurate. Overcoming fear is the theme of this essay. “Everywhere men and women are confronted by fears that often appear in strange disguises and a variety of wardrobes.” (P. 119.) Such fears include bad health, aging, insecurity, inferiority complex, and failure. Then, he comments, “A fear of what life may bring encourages some persons to wander aimlessly along the frittering road of excessive drink and sexual promiscuity.” (P. 120.) (King must have been a frightened man because he wondered the road of sexual promiscuity.) He remarks that “many people have permitted fear to transform the sunrise of love and peace into a sunset of inner depression.” (P. 120.) 

Continuing, King notes that economic fears are common. Business owners fear failure, and employees fear unemployment. 

  Other fears are the fear of death and the fear of racial annihilation. (Since King promoted miscegenation, which leads to racial annihilation, that he would mention it as a fear is strange. Today, the only race facing annihilation is the White race. Yet, most do not fear their annihilation — probably because they are living in denial. Further, many Whites are so Albusphobic that they look forward to their annihilation.)

Then, King comments on the fear of nuclear war. It has terrorized people to build fallout shelters while urging the government to increase the stockpile of nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, the quest to maintain “a balance of terror” only increases fear.

Although “fear drains a man’s energy and depletes his resources,” (p. 120) man should not seek to eliminate fear completely. King notes that fear warns of approaching danger and is, therefore, necessary for survival. Moreover, it is a powerful force. “If man were to lose his capacity to fear, he would be deprived of his capacity to grow, invent, and create.” (P. 121.) However, “abnormal fears are emotionally ruinous and psychologically destructive.” (P. 121.) Continuing, he remarks, “Normal fear protects us; abnormal fear paralyzes us.” (P. 121.)

To overcome abnormal fear, a person must seek its cause. Once the cause is discovered, then he may overcome his fear with courage. Then, King discusses courage, which “is the power of the mind to overcome fear.” (P. 123.)

Next, King contrasts courage and cowardice. “Courage breeds creative self-affirmation; cowardice produces destructive self-abnegation. Courage faces fear and thereby masters it; cowardice represses fear and is thereby mastered by it.” (P. 124.)

Continuing, King states that “fear is mastered through love.” (P. 124.) Then, he claims, “Hate is rooted in fear, and the only cure for fear-hate is love.” (P. 124.)

Next, King notes that fear is a major cause of war. This fear leads to hate, which in turn leads to war, which leads to greater hate. (The hostility between the Jews and Palestinians is an excellent example of King’s observation. Moreover, what he writes here can also be applied to personal relationships.) To King, the solution to war is love. “Only disarmament, based on good faith, will make mutual trust a living reality.” (P. 125.)

Furthermore, fear-hate leads to hostility between the races. King asserts that love is the solution to ending racial hostility. (Although King preached a great deal about love and its virtues and seemed to have a good understanding of love, he was a failure at practicing it. If he truly loved, he would not have destroyed the South and later the United States to achieve his vain ambition.)

Continuing, King discusses what he calls social justice. Love is the solution to social justice. Then, he declares, “Racial segregation is buttressed by such irrational fears as loss of preferred economic privilege, altered social status, intermarriage, and adjustment to new situations.” (P. 125.) (These fears have all come to pass. Whatever preferred economic privileges that Whites had have long vanished. Now, with quotas and affirmative action, Negroes have more preferred economic privileges than Whites ever had. Today, unqualified Negroes are hired instead of qualified Whites. Now, Negroes have a higher social status than Whites. Proof: Negroes used to try to pass as Whites. Today, Whites try to pass as Negroes. Since the Supreme Court’s unconstitutional ruling in Loving v. Virginia (1967), which nullified miscegenation laws, interracial marriages have increased significantly. [See "Interracial Marriages" by Thomas Allen.] Consequently, Negroes and Whites are genociding each other via miscegenation.) 

Then, King discusses some of the techniques that Whites used to avoid his program of forced integration. “[S]ome seek to ignore the question of race relations and to close their mind to the issues involved.” (P. 125.) Others, using “such legal maneuvers as interposition and nullification, counsel massive resistance.” (P. 125.) (King counseled illegal massive resistance against segregation. Thus, the segregationists were merely following King, except they were using legal tactics. He should have been proud of them. Instead, he despised them.) Still, others resorted to violence against Negroes. (These segregationists were merely following the tactics of civil rights leaders who resorted to violence against Whites. King seldom objected to violence against segregationists.)

King blames the country’s racial problems on the fear of Whites. If Whites “are to master fear, they must depend not only on their commitment to Christian love but also on the Christlike love that the Negro generates toward them.” (Pp. 125-126.) (I do not know whether King is deceiving himself or is lying to deceive Whites. Most likely, it is the latter. One thing that the Negroes who follow King have not done is to show Christlike love toward Whites. Christlike love does not lead to riots, the destruction of property, and the deaths of innocent people — acts that Negroes have been notorious for committing against Whites since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Christlike love does not promote the genocide of Whites. That King would have actively opposed these acts of violence against Whites is highly unlikely since he supported violent acts — contrary to his assertions of being a man of peace. Most likely, he would have endorsed and promoted them. Other than King-idolizing conservatives, who lack any functioning brain cells when it comes to race, does anyone with a functioning brain cell believe that King would have opposed Black Lives Matter protestors? No, he would have supported them and their violence as did all liberals and many conservatives.)

Then, King writes, “A guilt-ridden white minority fears that if the Negro attains power, he will without restraint or pity act to revenge the accumulated injustices and brutality of the years.” (P. 126.) (When the Negro attained power, revenge is what he sought. Negroes have used their power against Whites since the beginning of the Civil Rights Era. Much of this revenge is concealed in crime. [See “The Dirty War: America’s Race War” by Thomas Allen.] Some of it is open like the Black Lives Matter riots and the destruction of statues. Moreover, many Whites have joined the Negro in his revenge against their White brothers. These acts of violence prove that Whites who fear that Negroes would use their power for revenge were correct.)

Next, King writes, “The Negro must show them that they have nothing to fear, for the Negro forgives and is willing to forget the past. The Negro must convince the white man that he seeks justice for both himself and the white man.” (P. 126.) (The Negro has failed. Most Negroes have shown no forgiveness or willingness to forget the past as the wanton destruction of statues and memorials and the renaming of buildings in the South proves. Moreover, Negroes have not sought justice for Whites as the conviction of Derek Chauvin and other innocent Whites prove.)

King declares that he knows the cure for the fear of integration: love. Moreover, he claims that God is on his side (although the Bible endorses segregation and denounces integration and amalgamation). 

Continuing, King states that “fear is mastered through faith.” (P. 127.) Deficiency of resources and inadequacy of life lead to fear. Then, he discusses the importance of positive religious faith and what it offers and does not offer. Also, he discusses the inadequacy of irreligion. He notes that a positive religious faith overcomes the fear of death.

In closing, King comments briefly on the Montgomery bus protest and Mother Pollard.

In this essay, King discusses four essential components in conquering fear: (1) discovering the cause of the fear, (2) having the courage to overcome the fear, (3) mastering the fear through love, and (4) mastering the fear through faith. However, he errs greatly when discussing the fear that segregationists had (their fears prove valid) and the loving, forgiving attitude of Negroes (most of whom lack a loving, forgiving attitude).

Although King could preach a good sermon, he drew the wrong conclusion concerning what he called social justice. Southerners and segregationists are not as evil as he presents them. His erroneous conclusion derives from his erroneous understanding of the Bible. Contrary to what he claims, the Bible does not support integration; it supports segregation.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

King on Loving Your Enemy

King on Loving Your Enemy

Thomas Allen

In “Loving Your Enemy,” Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 45–52, Martin Luther King, Jr. discusses loving one’s neighbor and its necessity, meaning, and importance. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

Beginning, King writes, “Probably no admonition of Jesus has been more difficult to follow than the command to ‘love your enemies.’”  (P. 43.) (King failed to obey this commandment. He showed little love for Southerners and none for segregationists. If he truly loved Southerners, he would not have deliberately created situations that he knew would injure them and destroy their property. Moreover, he would not have advocated their cultural genocide.)

Continuing, King writes, “Upheaval after upheaval has reminded us that modern man is traveling along a road called hate, in a journey that will bring us to destruction and damnation.” (P. 44.) Then, he comments that Jesus’s commandment is not that of a utopian dreamer; it “is an absolute necessity for our survival.” (P. 44.) Moreover, it “is the key to the solution of the problems of our world.” (P. 44.) (Today, most Negroes reject King’s advice as the riots, other acts, and the protests of Black Lives Matter prove. Pure hatred motivated their removal and destruction of monuments of Southern heroes — and one with which King probably would have agreed.)

Next, King discusses the practical application of Jesus’s command. He asks, “How do we love our enemies?” (P. 44.) First, people must be able to forgive. Without forgiveness, loving one’s enemy is impossible. Forgiveness “must always be initiated by the person who has been wronged.” (P. 44.) (In King’s mind, Negroes had been wronged because of segregation and discrimination. King never forgave segregationists. Today, many Negroes cannot forgive Whites because Whites have wronged them by not giving them every privilege and benefit that they demand. Now, the great wrong is not paying them reparations for acts that today’s Whites never did.)

King writes, “Forgiveness does not mean ignoring what has been done or putting a false label on an evil act. It means, rather, that the evil act no longer remains as a barrier to the relationship.” (P. 45.) Then, he says, “But when we forgive, we forget in the sense that the evil deed is no longer a mental block impeding a relationship. . . . Forgiveness means reconciliation, a coming together again. Without this, no man can love his enemies.” (P. 44.) (Thus, King showed that he never forgave segregationists. He could never reconcile himself to segregation. As long as segregationists remained segregationists, they created a mental block for him that impeded his relationship with them. Only if segregationists converted to integrationists could King forgive them.)

Then, King notes that if a person finds some good in his enemy, he is less prone to hate his enemy. (King seems never to find any good in a segregationist.) He writes, “We recognize that his [i.e., the segregationist] hate grows out of fear, pride, ignorance, prejudice, and misunderstanding.” (P. 44.) (His comment may be true of Northern segregationists, but it is not true of most Southern segregationists. Southerners did not base their attitude toward Negroes on ignorance, prejudice, or misunderstanding. The attitude of Southerners toward Blacks was based on 400 years of observation, knowledge, thought, reason, and facts. Consequently, they were not prejudiced against Negroes; they were not prejudging Negroes. Likewise, with 400 years of observation and knowledge, ignorance did not guide them. If they feared Negroes, it was because Negroes are more prone to violent acts than are Whites.)

Next, King writes that “we must not seek to defeat or humiliate the enemy but to win his friendship and understanding.” (P. 45.) (Whenever King failed to win the friendship and understanding of a segregationist, he sought to defeat him. That is why his “nonviolent” movement was so violent. Moreover, friendship depends on more than understanding. Understanding often leads to hostility.)

Continuing, King discusses why people should love their enemy. Returning hate for hate leads to more hate. (Returning hate for hate, whether real or perceived, has been the modus operandi for much of the civil rights movement. It has been so successful that it has gotten Whites to hate Whites in the name of loving Negroes.) “Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” (P. 47.) (Thus, King shows that the civil rights movement rests on hatred and not on love. After all the benefits and privileges that Whites have given them, most Negroes still believe that Whites hate them. Further, more racial hatred and division exists today than during the Jim Crow Era. However, most of this hatred is directed toward the White race. Even many Whites hate their own race.)

Correctly, King writes, “The chain reaction of evil — hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars — must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.” (P. 47.) (Most policies and programs promoted by King plus Zionism and Communism, both are a Jewish creation, prevent the chains of evil from being broken.)

Again, King correctly notes that “hate scars the soul and distorts the personality. . . . [H]ate is an evil and dangerous force.” (P. 47.) He comments on the bloodthirsty mobs inflicting unspeakable violence on Negroes. (In the years following the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, bloodthirsty mobs of Negroes have inflicted unspeakable violence on Whites and other races. Thus, the civil rights movement has been successful in flipping victims and perpetrators.)

Once more, King correctly remarks, “Hate is just as injurious to the person who hates. . . . Hate destroys a man’s sense of values and his objectivity. . . .  It causes him . . . to confuse the true with the false and the false with the true.” (P. 48.) (The deleterious effects of hate are seen in the Antifa and Black Lives Matter riots and other race riots of recent decades. Hate has destroyed the sense of values and objectivity of many Negroes and Whites. It has caused them to replace the truth with falsehood and beauty with ugliness.)

Then, King writes, “There will be no permanent solution to the race problem until oppressed men [i.e., Negroes] develop the capacity to love their enemies.” (P. 50.) (For once, King places some responsibility for improving racial relations on Negroes. Usually, he places all the responsibility on Whites. Nevertheless, love did not overcome the race problem. Force did this by shifting the oppressed from Negroes to Whites. That is, Whites are now the oppressed and Negroes are the oppressors. [In reality, the oligarchs are the oppressors. They have merely switched the oppressed race and the oppressing race.]) Although the Negro has suffered racial injustice, either real or perceived, he should not abandon the obligation to love. Negroes should overcome their opponents’ capacity to inflict suffering by enduring suffering. “We shall meet your physical force with soul force.” (P. 50.) (Most Negroes, including King, rejected this advice. They overcame suffering with force and violence and not with endurance. They meet physical force with physical force. Often, they meet passivism with physical force.)

Continuing, King states, “Do to us what you will, and we shall continue to love you. We cannot in all good conscience obey your unjust laws [i.e., segregational laws], because noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good.” (P. 51.) (Many Negroes failed to continue to love their enemies because they did not love them to begin with. Although King does not define an unjust law here, he does elsewhere. An unjust law is a law that affects people who are denied the right to vote; these people are not obliged to obey that law. See “The Real King” by Thomas Allen.)

King concludes, “Love is the most durable power in the world.” (P. 51.) He condemns the use of force. (If King condemned using force, why was his civil rights movement based and built on force? Force, not love, overthrew the South and segregation in both the South and North. As King remarks, empires built on force crumble. Since the civil rights movement was built on force, it is now crumbling. It is tearing the country apart.)

Like nearly all humans, King failed to live up to Jesus’s commandment to “love your enemy.” Most of the programs and policies that King promoted prevented people from loving their enemy, even in the sense that Jesus meant. 

King always considered segregationists as his enemy. He may or may not have loved them; he probably convinced himself that he did. However, if he is judged by his fruit, that he loved them is highly questionable because he always displayed ill will toward them.

King fails to discuss indifference. Most people neither hate nor love people about whom they know nothing. They are indifferent; they give them no thought. Before people love or hate someone, they have to think about him. No one thinks about everyone all the time. No one thinks about people whom he does not know exist.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social articles.

Some Random Thoughts on Religion

Some Random Thoughts on Religion

Thomas Allen

Below the Bible is summarized in two sentences. Also discussed are two views of the Bible, the lack of clarity of the New Testament, the rapture, the sin of omission, the greatest sin, God’s love, hate, the love of money, Noah, and the wisdom of John (not the Biblical John). These are mostly observations.

The Bible in Two Sentences
The Bible is the story of God revealing Himself first through one biological race (or species of humans), the Aryan or White race, then through one family, Abraham through his grandson Jacob, which became the nation of Israel, and finally through one man, Jesus. All other nations and people mentioned in the Bible are merely a supporting cast in God’s process of revealing Himself through Jesus, His Messiah and Son.

Two Views of the Bible
Christians fall into two camps. One believes that anything that the Bible does not expressly forbid is allowed. In secular terms, they favor the Anglo-Saxon legal system: Anything that the government does not specifically prohibit is allowed, and a person is innocent until proven guilty.
The other camp believes that anything that the Bible does not command or expressly allow is forbidden. In secular terms, they favor the Napoleonic-civil-code legal system: Anything that the government does not specifically allow is prohibited, and a person is guilty until proven innocent. Of course, both camps hold that whatever the Bible commands is obligatory.

Lack of Clarity in the New Testament
The writers of the New Testament failed in writing with clarity. If their writing were clear, disagreement over various doctrines would be much less or nonexistent. Two examples illustrating the confusion that the unclear writing of the New Testament has caused are soteriology (the doctrine of salvation) and eschatology (the doctrine of the end of time, the Second Advent, and the final judgment).
First is salvation. Is salvation by predestination, faith only, faith plus works, or other means? All have their proponents who defined their doctrine with vigor. Further, some claim that once a person is saved, he cannot lose his salvation no matter what he later does. Yet, other claim that a saved person can lose his salvation. Moreover, disagreement occurs over the salvific effects of baptism, the proper form of baptism, and infant baptism.
Second is eschatology. There are several interpretations of Revelation: preterist, historical, apocalyptic, and futurist. Preterists interpret Revelation as describing the events taking place during the lifetime of John and in his environment (full preterists) or that most of these events occurred during the lifetime of John (partial preterists). Historicists interpret Revelation as revealing history from the time of Jesus until the Second Advent and beyond. Apocalypticist or idealists interpret Revelation as a religious philosophy of life.
Futurists interpret Revelation as describing the future, primarily the time immediately preceding the Second Advent and the millennium. Futurists fall into several camps: pretribulation (the rapture occurs before the seven years of tribulation), mid-tribulation (the rapture occurs in the middle of the tribulation), and post-tribulation (the rapture occurs at the end of the tribulation). Others teach that no rapture will occur. Also, there are premillennialists (Jesus’ Second Advent occurs before the  Millennium), post-millennialists (Jesus’ Second Advent occurs after the Millennium), and amillennialists (rejects the notion that Jesus physically rules on earth for a thousand years).
Does God enjoy watching men arguing about the correct interpretation of the Bible and even killing those who disagree with their interpretation? He must because He had His writers write with enough vagueness to cause bloody disputes. If that were not His purpose, He could have had His writers write with enough clarity to avoid such disputes.
Some old-time reform preachers declared that nothing brought God as much joy as tormenting sinners in Hell forever. They were wrong. God’s greatest joy seems to be watching His people arguing and fighting over what the Bible says.

Rapture
One thing is amusing about people who predict the date of the rapture, often down to the hour or minute. After the big day passes, the predictor finds that he is still on planet Earth. Immediately, he assumes that his calculation was wrong, and some redo the calculation. Never does it occur to the predictor that his calculation was correct — he was just among those left behind.
Another amusing thing about the rapture is the believers who sell all their property before the big day. Why? Do they plan to take the money with them? Do they plan to use the money for one big going away party?

Sin of Omission
Many clergymen teach the “sin of omission.” That is, if a person knows someone in need and he has the ability to help the needy person and does not, then he is guilty of the sin of omission. If true, then these clergymen have accused God of being the greatest sinner in the universe. Being omniscience God knows everyone’s needs. Being omnipotent, God has the ability to eliminate those needs. Since He does not (all the suffering in the world would immediately vanish if He did), God is guilty of the sin of omission. If these clergymen claim that God is not guilty of the sin of omission, then they hold their fellow man to a much higher standard than they hold God.
If the sin of omission exists, more evidence that God is the greatest sinner of all is natural disasters. Being omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, He can prevent them and all the heartache and destruction that such disasters bring people. If a human can prevent someone from suffering from a natural disaster and does not, would he be guilty of the sin of omission? If so, the clergyman who makes such a claim holds God to a much lower standard than he holds his fellow man.

The Greatest Sin
What is the greatest sin of all? It is a sin so great that God does not allow it to exist anywhere in the universe. This sin is unquestionable, unhesitating, and unadulterated cooperation from all deities, angelic and spiritual beings, people, animals, plants, weather, mother nature, machines, things, etc., etc., etc.

God’s Love
If earthly parents expressed their love for their children the way that the Heavenly Father expresses His love for His children, they would have their children taken from them because of their cruelty and abuse. Furthermore, the parents would spend the remainder of their lives in prison. To love their children the way that God loves His, parents would beat their children until they looked like roadkill. Then, they would expect their children to thank them for not making their lives more miserable. At least, this is the impression that many Christians give of God’s love.  (Notice how God’s love connects with the sin of omission and the sin of cooperation.)

Hate
Most clergymen teach that Christians should not hate. However, God hates. Should a Christian hate whatever and whomever God hates?

Love of Money
1 Timothy 6:10 reads, “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. . . .”  Except for misers, who really loves money per se? Nearly all who lust after money do not love money itself. They lust after money for what they can exchange it, i.e., for what they really desire: power, security, fame, lovers, big houses, fancy cars, status, etc. Money is just a means to an end.

Noah
I have concluded that Noah is the most selfish man in the Bible. He possessed not one altruistic bone in his body and only thought about saving his own scrawny hide. If he cared one bit about his decedents and fellow man, he would have refused to take black flies, fleas, ticks, mosquitoes, and all those other useless bloodsuckers on the ark.

Wisdom of John
I used to listen to a religious radio program hosted by John, whose last name I do recall and who died in 2012. He made two memorable comments. (1) He said that the quickest way to be thrown out of a church is to ask questions about its doctrine. (2) He was convinced that Christianity was the true religion because it has survived two thousand years of Christians.

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.