A Response to Bibleinfo’s Justification of Miscegenation

 A Response to Bibleinfo’s Justification of Miscegenation

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: Bible verses cited in the article are in the appendix except Genesis chapter 34 and Deuteronomy 23:2, which is given in the text. Also, only part of the verses in Numbers 12:1-5 is given in the appendix.]

Bibleinfo (https://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/what-does-bible-say-about-interracial-marriages, accessed August 10, 2023) asserts that the Bible does not forbid interracial marriages. However, it does demand that Christians should not marry non-Christians. To support its assertions, it cites 2 Corinthians 6:14 (Christians are not to marry non-Christians) and Numbers 12:1–15 (Moses’ Ethiopian wife).

According to Bibleinfo, a Christian should only marry a Christian; the person’s race is irrelevant. To marry outside one’s religion is to be unequally yoked. However, to marry outside one’s race is not unequally yoked. Bibleinfo errs.

2 Corinthians 6:14 is a recommendation and not a commandment. Moreover, it discusses religion but does not discuss race.

Further, Paul gives different advice in 1 Corinthians 7:12-13. Paul recommends that Christians who are married to non-Christians should remain married unless the non-Christian wants a divorce. (1 Corinthians 7:15).

Two Old Testament stories refute Bibleinfo’s claim. They are Dinah’s marriage and Joseph’s marriage.

Chapter 34 of Genesis tells the story of Simeon and Levi, two of Jacob’s sons, slaying a city of Hivites over the issue of interracial marriage. The prince of the Hivites wanted to marry their sister, Dinah. So, the Hivites of this city offered to intermarry with the Hebrews. Before they could intermarry, Simeon and Levi told the Hivites that they needed to convert to the Hebrew religion. The Hivites converted and were circumcised. Thus, the two people would not be unequally yoked religiously. Now both of them were of the same religion, the Hebrew religion, and, therefore, equally yoked religiously. However, they differ racially and, therefore, were unequally yoked racially. The Hebrews were Aryans; the Hivites were Aryan-Melanochroi hybrids (or possibly Melanochroi). Simeon and Levi slew the Hivites not because of religious differences, for they were of the same religion. They slew them because of racial differences. Slaying the Hivites prevented miscegenation and racial amalgamation. Thus, being racially yoked, i.e., of the same race, is more important than being religiously yoked, i.e., of the same religion.

In Genesis 41:45 Joseph married the Egyptian Asenath, the daughter of Potipherah, a priest of On. At this time, Egyptians were of the same race as the Israelites.  She bore Moses two children: Manasseh and Ephraim. Being the daughter of an Egyptian priest, Asenath was almost certainly a worshiper of Egyptian gods and not of Jehovah. Her name means “worshiper of Neith.” She may have converted later, but no evidence is given of such conversion. These verses show that the Scriptural prohibition against mixed marriages is racial and not religious. A footnote in The Berkeley Version of the Bible to Genesis 46:20 affirms this: “Her training of Manasseh and Ephraim would hardly be in the Hebrew faith.” Therefore, Joseph married someone of his race who most likely was not of his religion. Thus, being racially yoked is more important than being religiously yoked.

(“Egyptian” is the translation of Mizraim. For much of its ancient history, two racially distinct people inhabited Egypt. They were the Mizraim, who were Aryans, and the Pathrusim, who were Melanochroi (also called Homo brunus and brown Caucasians). The Mizraim lived mainly in Lower Egypt and were the Egyptians encountered most often by the Israelites. The Pathrusim lived mainly in Upper Egypt although they were not uncommon in Lower Egypt. These Pathrusim are the ancestors of today’s Fellahins. [See False Biblical Teachings on the Origins of the Races and Interracial Marriages by Thomas Coley Allen.])

As the stories of Dinah and Joseph’s marriages show, being equally yoked racially (of the same race) is more important than being equally yoked religiously (of the same religion).

Concerning Moses’ wife, Bibleinfo makes the same error that most people make. Because most translations claim that the wife whom Miriam and Aaron spoke against was an Ethiopian, they assume that she was a Black woman from the region south of Egypt. (The people south of Egypt to northeast Kenya were and are Melanochroi; they are not Negroes, Blacks.)

In Exodus 2:21, Moses marries Zipporah, the daughter of Reul, a Midianite.  In Numbers 12:1 Moses had married an Ethiopian or a Cushite. (“Ethiopian” is the translation of Kûwshîy, which is literally “Cushite.” Cush refers to Arabia in general, and Cushite refers to the people of Arabia in general. [For proof that Cush refers to the Arabian Peninsula, see “Cush and Ethiopia” by Thomas Allen.]) Moses’s wife was a Midianite and a Kenite and also a Cushite. Cush was a region, Arabia. Midian was an area within this region. The Kenites were a tribe or people inhabiting this area. An example of an English colonist who came to the United States helps illustrate this phenomenon. An Englishman living in Virginia could correctly be called an American (Cushite), a Virginian (Midianite), or an Englishman (Kenite). So closely related to the Israelites were the Kenites that they were later considered a part of Judah (1 Chronicles 2:55; 1 Samuel 27:10). The woman referred to in Exodus 2:21 is the same woman referred to in Numbers 12:1. The Bible gives no indication of Moses ever having more than one wife. Therefore, Moses’ wife was of the same race as he was, so miscegenation did not occur.

Like many people, Bibleinfo claims that Miriam was stricken with leprosy (Numbers 12:10) because she and Aaron condemned Moses for marrying a woman of a different race. This was not so. God would not punish them for rebuking Moses for sinning. Aaron and Miriam questioned Moses' authority. They questioned his office as God's spokesman and prophet (Numbers 12:2, 6-8). Questioning God’s appointment of Moses as His spokesman and coveting that position is what caused Miriam’s affliction.

Moreover, Bibleinfo asserts that Rahab, a Canaanite prostitute, was an ancestor of Jesus. Again Bibleinfo errs; she was not an ancestor of Jesus. (For proof, see “Rahab” by Thomas Allen.)

Like all proponents of miscegenation, Bibleinfo ignores Deuteronomy 23:2. If they do consider it, they mistranslate mamzêr. Deuteronomy 23:2 (“No half-bred [mongrel] may be admitted to the assembly of the Yahweh; not even his descendants to the tenth generation may be admitted to the Assembly of Yahweh” – NJB.) summaries God’s attitude toward miscegenation and interracial mating. (For a discussion on Deuteronomy 23:2, see “Commentary on Deuteronomy 23:2" by Thomas Allen.) To prevent interracial breeding, God ordained racial segregation and separation.

As shown above, Bibleinfo is misleading people and is justifying the sin of miscegenation, interracial marriage. For more on the Bible’s condemnation of interracial marriages, see these books and articles by Thomas Allen: Integration Is Genocide, False Biblical Teachings on the Origin of the Races and Interracial Marriages, “Does God Abhor or Approve Miscegenation?” and “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation.”

Appendix

The verses cited below are from the World English Bible.

Genesis 41:45: Pharaoh called Joseph’s name Zaphenath-Paneah. He gave him Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera priest of On as a wife. Joseph went out over the land of Egypt.

Genesis 46:20: To Joseph in the land of Egypt were born Manasseh and Ephraim, whom Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera, priest of On, bore to him.

Exodus 2:21: Moses was content to dwell with the man. He gave Moses Zipporah, his daughter.

Numbers 12:1: Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite [Ethiopian] woman whom he had married; for he had married a Cushite [Ethiopian] woman.

Numbers 12:2: They said, “Has Yahweh indeed spoken only with Moses? Hasn’t he spoken also with us?” And Yahweh heard it.

Numbers 12: 6-8: He said, “Now hear my words. If there is a prophet among you, I, Yahweh, will make myself known to him in a vision. I will speak with him in a dream. 7 My servant Moses is not so. He is faithful in all my house. 8 With him, I will speak mouth to mouth, even plainly, and not in riddles; and he shall see Yahweh’s form. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant, against Moses?”

Numbers 12:10 The cloud departed from over the Tent; and behold, Miriam was leprous, as white as snow. Aaron looked at Miriam, and behold, she was leprous.

1 Samuel 27:10: Achish said, “Against whom have you made a raid today?” David said, “Against the South of Judah, against the South of the Jerahmeelites, and against the South of the Kenites.”

1 Chronicles 2:55: The families of scribes who lived at Jabez: the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, and the Sucathites. These are the Kenites who came from Hammath, the father of the house of Rechab.

1 Corinthians 7:12-13: 12 But to the rest I—not the Lord—say, if any brother has an unbelieving wife, and she is content to live with him, let him not leave her. 13 The woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he is content to live with her, let her not leave her husband.

1 Corinthians 7:15: Yet if the unbeliever departs, let there be separation. The brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us in peace.

2 Corinthians 6:14:  Don’t be unequally yoked with unbelievers, for what fellowship do righteousness and iniquity have? Or what fellowship does light have with darkness?

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

The Real King

 The Real King

Thomas Allen

Most conservatives claim that Martin Luther King, Jr., is an archconservative. Many believe that he is the greatest conservative ever. Some have even deified him.

These conservatives present King as a nonviolent man of peace who abhorred violence. Let us see what King’s speeches and writings reveal in I Have a Dream: Writings and Speeches that Changed the World (James Washington, ed., Harper Collins Publishers, 1986, 1982) — specifically “I Have a Dream (1963), “ “Letter from a Birmingham Jail (1963),” and “The Time for Freedom Has Come” (1961).

In his “I Have a Dream” speech, King says, “There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day justice emerges.” (p. 103.) Thus, King, the man of nonviolence, promises turmoil and riots until the Negro gets what he wants, which is everything that the White man has.

Continuing, King asks, “‘When will you be satisfied?’ We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality.” (p. 104.) As long as the police use physical force against Negroes regardless of their guilt or resistance, the Negro will not be satisfied. The Negro must be allowed to riot without any penalty, and for the most part, they have been granted this privilege. Moreover, they are often rewarded for their rioting and looting.

Undertaking an action, such as trespassing, that could lead to a violent reaction is not a nonviolent act, even if it is called peaceful protest or civil disobedience. This is especially true if the purpose of the “nonviolent” act is to create tension leading to a violent response as King’s protests often did.

King has a reputation for being a nonviolent, peace-loving person. However, as revealed in his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” he did not shy away from situations that he knew would result in violence. He threatened and even created turmoil to force community leaders to negotiate with him (p. 87), i.e., to surrender unconditionally to his demands.

In this letter, King writes that just laws are to be obeyed and unjust laws are to be ignored because it is not a law (p. 89). He writes, “A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. . . . [A]n unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law.” (p. 89.) In King’s mind, laws forcing integration are just and should be obeyed, but laws forcing segregation are unjust and should be disobeyed. King errs. Since God separated the races (Acts 17:26: “. . . having determined their appointed seasons, and the bounds of their habitation”) and ordained that they should not intermingle and intermarry, then racial segregation laws are just and racial integration laws are unjust. (God is the Great Segregationist. He brought about the greatest segregations ever recorded: the Towel of Babel and the Noachian Flood.)

Continuing, King writes, “. . . segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality.” (p. 89) Contrary to what King asserts, segregation laws are just and moral because they preserve the soul and personality of the races, but integration laws are unjust and immoral because they destroy the soul and personality of the races. Integration even leads to the genocide of the races.

Further, in this letter, King claims that segregation laws apply to Negroes but not to Whites (p. 89). Under a segregated school system, Negroes were assigned to Negro schools and Whites were assigned to White schools. Thus, the school segregation laws applied equally to both races. This was also true of most other segregated venues. (Negroes now demand the right to segregate themselves from Whites while wanting to prevent Whites from segregating from Negroes.)

Moreover, King considered White moderates a greater threat to racial integration than rabid segregationists. These moderates, like today’s liberals, were paternalistic toward Negroes (p. 91).

Also, King condemned passive Negroes for their complacency and the middle-class Negroes who prospered from segregation. They should eagerly and aggressively seek equality with Whites. Moreover, he condemned embittered Negroes who advocated violence and black nationalists. They should seek integration instead of separation (p. 91.)

Furthermore, in this letter, King writes, “If his [the Negro’s] repressed emotions do not come out in these nonviolent ways, they will come out in ominous expressions of violence.” Thus, King warns that if Whites do not surrender unconditionally to the Negro’s demands, violence will follow. Not only have Whites surrendered unconditionally, but many Whites also beg to be genocided. Yet, the Negro is still not satisfied.

Continuing, King writes, “Will we be extremists for hate or will we be extremists for love?” Based on the actions of King and his followers, they were extremists for hate. They expressed a great deal of hate toward Southerners and segregationists. Their actions caused people who otherwise love Negroes to hate them — or at least hated what they were doing. Worse, they caused Whites to hate Whites to the point that today many Whites want to genocide Whites.

King condemned the Birmingham police for their nonviolent handling of the demonstrators. Since the police were protecting segregation with nonviolent means, they were acting morally to preserve an immoral end — segregation — according to King. Near the end of his letter, King writes that “it is wrong . . . to use moral means to preserve immoral ends.”(p. 99.) (As noted above, King is wrong. Biblically, segregation is a moral end and integration is an immoral end.) King seems to have desired a violent reaction to the demonstration — so much for him being a man of peace.

In his article “The Time for Freedom Has Come,” King writes, “Paradoxically, although they [Negro students] have embraced Thoreau’s and Gandhi’s civil disobedience on a scale dwarfing any past experience in American history, they do respect law. They feel a moral responsibility to obey just laws. But they recognize that there are also unjust laws.” (pp. 79-80.) If Biblical laws and principles are just, as King affirms, then segregation is just while integration is unjust. From Genesis to Revelations, the Bible preaches racial segregation and at times ethnic segregation while condemning integration. (See “Does God Abhor or Approve Miscegenation?,” “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation,” and “Is Integration a Moral Law?” by Thomas Allen.)

Correctly, King writes that “an unjust law is one that is out of harmony with the moral law of the universe.” (p. 80.) However, he is wrong to consider segregational laws unjust. On the contrary, segregational laws are just while integrational laws are unjust. Segregational laws comport with the Scriptures; integrational laws do not.

Continuing, King writes that “an unjust law is one in which the minority is compelled to observe a code that is not binding on the majority.” (p. 80). Based on this remark, segregational laws were not unjust. Most were binding on Whites as well as Negroes. As noted above, segregated schools are a prime example of laws binding on both races. Laws prohibiting interracial marriage are another example.

Next, King writes, “An unjust law is one in which people are required to obey a code that they had no part in making because they were denied the right to vote.” (p. 80.) If true, the ten commandments and the other laws that Moses wrote in the Old Testament are unjust because no one had any part in making them. Throughout most of history, all laws have been unjust because people who were required to obey them had no part in making them. Even today, the same is true for minors because they have no part in making laws that apply to them.

In this article, King writes, “They [students] are seeking to save the soul of America.” (p. 81.) Unless the soul of America is large-scale enslavement of Negroes to the government via the welfare state, protection for all sorts of perversions (homosexualism, transgenderism, etc.), wokeism, and flooding the country with legal and illegal nonwhite immigrants, they failed. Nevertheless, if these evils, which seem to be what King wanted, are the soul of America, they succeeded. Moreover, if saving the soul of America required turning the United States into a communist country, which King wanted to do, they succeeded. (Communists backed King because he was instrumental in turning the United States into a communist country, and he was highly successful. The United States have implemented about 80 percent of the planks in the Communist Manifesto — see “Are the United States a Communist Country?” by Thomas Allen.) 

Further, King writes that “if our national government would exercise its full powers to enforce federal laws and court decisions and do so on a scale commensurate with the problems and with an unmistakable decisiveness,” the country could rid itself of the Jim Crow system. (p. 81). Thus, he shows his disdain for the Constitution and federalism when he writes that we could quickly and easily get rid of the Jim Crow system by using the brute force of the federal government, which was done.

Although King filled his speeches and writings with the word “nonviolence,” he left a trail of blood, destruction, and violence everywhere he went. So much for this man of peace.

King’s rhetoric cultivated Black hatred of Whites and turned Negrophilic Whites against realistic Whites. King is responsible for much of what is happening in America today that conservatives find abhorrent. Political correctness and wokeism are natural-outgrowth of King’s movement. However, King’s movement did lead to many special privileges for Negroes — privileges that Whites have never enjoyed.

Moreover, King implies that Negroes have no responsibility for their problems. The cause of all their problems is the White man — especially, Whites who believe that the White race is worth preserving and that next to physical separation, segregation is the best way to preserve the White race. Moreover, segregation also preserves the Negro while integration leads to his genocide.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

The Jim Crow Era Versus the Civil Rights Era

The Jim Crow Era Versus the Civil Rights Era

Thomas Allen

I have read several books and articles whose authors hated the Jim Crow Era and loved the Civil Rights Era. Only slavery was worse for Blacks than the Jim Crow Era. The Civil Rights Era is the greatest thing that ever happened to Blacks. Reading their works, one is perplexed about how they arrived at this conclusion. They present information that shows that in many respects, life for Blacks was superior during the Jim Crow Era than during the Civil Rights Era.

During the Jim Crow Era, Blacks had a growing middle class based on merit and, thus, self-respect. Because of this growing Black middle class, Stalin sent agents to destroy it by creating a Black revolution. Contrariwise, during the Civil Rights Era, the growing Black middle class is based on affirmative action and, therefore, doubt. In the Civil Rights Era, the Black middle class has been based on special privileges, those who grant the privileges can quickly bring the Black middle class down by removing the privileges. Consequently, Blacks had more independence during the Jim Crow Era than they have had in the Civil Rights Era.

Further, during the Jim Crow Era, most Black families had fathers. Now, in the Civil Rights Era, most Black families have no fathers. Thus, the family unit was much stronger during the Jim Crow Era. Moreover, Blacks married at a higher rate than Whites. During the Civil Rights Era, Black marriages have plummeted. A much lower percentage of Black children were born out of wedlock in the Jim Crow Era. Now, the Civil Rights Era has resulted in a large percentage of Black children being born out of wedlock. Moreover, Black sacrificed far fewer of their children to Lucifer at the abortion clinics then than now.

Also, during the Jim Crow Era, criminal activity by Blacks was lower than during the Civil Rights Era. During the Jim Crow Era, Blacks had a higher moral standard than they have had in the Civil Rights Era.

Moreover, fewer Blacks were welfare recipients and, therefore, much more self-reliant. During the Civil Rights Era, many Blacks have become enslaved to the welfare state and are dependent on their masters in Washington. Thus, they have traded segregation for slavery.

In the time of Jim Crow, only a few Blacks expressed a desire to genocide their race, the American Negro, via miscegenation. As a result of the Civil Rights Era, an ever-growing number of Blacks seem compelled to genocide the American Negro via miscegenation.

Apparently, the benefits of the Civil Rights Era have more than offset the deterioration of the Black family, the rising Black crime rate, the enslavement of Blacks in the welfare state, and the genocide of the Black race. (Not only is the American Negro being genocided via miscegenation, but also the culture and society of the American Negro are being destroyed through integration, which too is genocide. This genocide of the American Negro may account for the deterioration of Black behavior.) At least the Civil Rights Era has reduced the number of restrooms and water fountains by amalgamating the races. With integrated schools, it has reduced the quality of education for all through indoctrination-propaganda curricula, but at least both Blacks and Whites now receive the same low-quality education. Anyway, Blacks can now eat in the same restaurants as Whites, can sit beside Whites on public transportation and at public entertainment events, and stay at the same motels — although integration ended many Black businesses. Moreover, during the Civil Rights Era, Blacks have received preferential treatment in employment via affirmative action and quotas. Nevertheless, most people believe that the benefits of the Civil Rights Era for Blacks far outweigh its costs for Blacks and especially for Whites.

As shown above, Blacks were much more independent and self-reliant during the Jim Crow Era. Now, in the Civil Rights Era, they are dependent on their masters in Washington and the statehouses. Thus, many have reverted back to slavery without the self-respect that a slave had knowing that he more than earned his keep. Today’s slaves are nothing more than parasites living off others and giving nothing in return but their votes and services as protestors and rioters. Contrary to the popular myth, Blacks had many advantages and benefits under Jim Crow that they have lost during the Civil Rights Era.

Jim Crow laws never sought to destroy the Black society, culture, and race; they even protected them. However, an objective of the Civil Rights laws has been to destroy White society, culture, and race along with Black society, culture, and race.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles. 

Nonphysical Racial Differences

 Nonphysical Racial Differences

Thomas Allen

In Making Sense of Race (2020), Edward Dutton presents some interesting information. Dutton shows that the differences in the races of humans go far beyond skin color and external features. Some of this information follows. This information is not grouped by type but is presented in the order that it appears in the book.

Diabetes. Turanians (East Asians) are more likely to have diabetes than other races (p. 10).

Prostate Cancer. Negroes are more prone to prostate cancer than other races (p. 10).

Donated Organs. A recipient of a donated organ is less likely to reject the organ if it comes from a person of the same race (p. 10).

Reaction Time. Negroes have the slowest reaction time, and Turanians (East Asians) have the fastest (p. 12).

Schizophrenia and Post-traumatic Stress. Negroes are more likely to suffer from schizophrenia and post-traumatic stress than are Turanians (East Asians) (p. 12).

Classroom Behavior. In the classroom, Negroes are the worst behaved, and Turanians (Asians) are the best behaved (p. 12).

Anxiety and Suicide. Turanians (East Asians) suffer from anxiety more than do Negroes and are more likely to suicide themselves than are Negroes (p. 13).

Influenza. Indo-Australians and Turanians are more likely to contract influenza than are Aryans and Negroes (p. 93).

Some More Racial Comparisons. The following is a comparison of averages of three races: Aryans, Turanians, and Negroes. This information is from a table on pages 105–107. Not included here are the numerical measurements in the table.

– Aryans have the largest brain, and Negroes, the smallest.

– Turanians have the largest endocrinal volume, and Negroes, the smallest.

– Turanians have the largest external head measurements, and Negroes have the smallest.

– Turanians have the most cortical neurons, and Negroes, the least.

– Turanians have the highest cranial capacity, and Negroes, the least.

– Turanians have the highest IQ, and Negroes, the lowest.

– Based on the number of times that all 21 accepted measures of civilization have been independently achieved, Aryans have four achievements, Turanians have one, and Negroes have zero.

– All the top 40 most important scientists between 800 BC and 1950 AD are Aryans.

– Of the scientists in the Dictionary of Scientific Biography, 98 percent are Aryans and 2 percent are Turanians; zero are Negroes.

– Adolescent female Negroes have the fastest skeleton development, and Turanians, the slowest.

– Negro babies began walking earlier than Aryan and Turanian babies.

– Negroes develop permanent teeth the earliest while Turanians are the last to develop permanent teeth.

– Negro women have their first pregnancy at a younger age than do Aryans and Turanians with Turanians last.

– A larger percentage of Turanians develop senility than do Negroes and Aryans with Aryans having the lowest percentage.

– Turanians have the longest life span and Negroes, the shortest.

– Negroes have the largest percentage of psychopathic personalities, and Turanians, the lowest.

– Turanians have the highest percentage of stable marriages, and Negroes, the lowest.

– Turanians are the most law-abiding, and Negroes, the least.

– Negroes have the highest rate of twins, and Turanians, the lowest.

– Negro males have the largest penises, and Turanian males, the smallest.

– A larger percentage of Negroes have AIDS than Aryans and Turanians, who have the lowest percentage.

Mental Instability. Turanians are higher in mental instability than are Aryans (p. 110).

Stereotypes. “75 percent of racial stereotypes have been found to be at least partially accurate and 50 percent completely accurate” (p. 161).

IQ. The average IQ of Aryans is 100. For, Turanians, the average IQ ranges from 85 (Pacific Islanders) to 105 (Northeast Asians). Negroes have an average IQ of 70, and Melanochroi have an average IQ of 84. Indo-Australians have an average IQ of 64 while Khoisans have an average IQ of 54. (p. 167.)

Personality. Hereditability (genes) accounts for 50 to 66 percent of a person’s personality (pp. 184-185).

Hybrids. Mixed-race people have a greater chance of suffering from mental illness, especially depression, which is significantly genetic in origin (p. 242).

Religion. Religiousness (the strength and rootedness of belief and collective practice) is about 40 percent genetic (p. 260). About religion, Dutton writes:

In Western societies, those who collectively worship a moral god are more likely to be married, less likely to be divorced, are more likely to have children, and more likely to have larger numbers of children. They have lower rates of physical and mental illness, live longer, are more likely to get over serious illnesses, and have lower morbidity. . . . [A]theism, and other deviations from traditional religious belief in modern populations, can be reasonably understood, therefore, as a mutation — and a harmful mutation at that. In line with this, atheism is associated with other markers of mutation such as autism, poor physical health, poor mental health, and being physically asymmetrical. Atheism may be associated with certain examples of deviant sexuality, something that would tend to reduce individual fitness (p. 262). 

Schizophrenia. Negroes are more prone to schizophrenia than are Aryans (p. 283).

Temporal Lobe Epilepsy. Negroes are twice as likely as Aryans to suffer from temporal lobe epilepsy (p. 284).

Skeleton. A person’s race can be identified solely from his skeleton with 80-percent accuracy (pp. 329-330).

Taste Sensitivity. Negroes have higher taste sensitivity than do Aryans and Melanochroi (p. 332). 

Ear Wax. Races differ in the smell and consistency of their ear wax. Turanians (East Asians) have white, dry, flaky ear wax that has only a slight odor. Aryans and Negroes have yellow, wet ear wax with a pungent odor although the ear wax of Negroes is darker, closer to orange, and has a stronger odor (p 333).

Sleep. Races differ in how they sleep. When they sleep, Aryans move more than Negroes. Aryans are three times more likely to have restless leg syndrome (legs shake during sleep) than Negroes (p. 335). The sleep quality of Negroes is far more variable than that of Aryans. Thus, Negroes develop fewer memories, especially fewer long-term memories than Aryans (p. 336).

Dreams. Negroes are more likely to have lucid dreams, i.e., are aware that they are dreaming, than are Aryans. Turanians (East Asians) are less likely than Negroes or Aryans to experience lucid dreams (p.337).

Dutton’s Making Sense of Race is an excellent book that is worth reading. It offers far more interesting information than is mentioned above.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More anthropology articles.

The Beliefs of the Early Anabaptists -- Part 1

The Beliefs of the Early Anabaptists

Thomas Allen

    The following is a brief presentation of the beliefs of the early Anabaptists as presented in The Dutch Anabaptists: The Stone Lectures Delivered at the Princeton Theological Seminary, 1918-1919 by Henry Elias Dosker (published by The Judson Press, Philadelphia, 1921). Page numbers enclosed in parentheses are to Dosker’s book referenced above.
    According to Doctor Harnack, the Anabaptists “‘were three hundred years ahead of their time’” (p. 1). “Doctor Vedder calls them ‘the radical Reformation’” (p. 2).
    Initially, two primary factions of Anabaptist existed: the radical and the conservatives. The radical faction lasted only about two decades before it burned itself out. However, their violent behavior left such a disdainful taste in Europe that Protestants and Catholics would persecute the Anabaptist for most of the sixteenth century and even beyond. Some of the beliefs of a few leaders of the radical Anabaptists are presented in the appendix.
    Furthermore, many beliefs of the conservative Anabaptists, such as their rejection of infant baptism and taking oaths, terrified both Catholics and Protestants alike. Thus, both persecuted even the conservative Anabaptist. Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, Zwingli, and other Protestant leaders condemned them as disciples of Satan (pp. 44-45). Seldom did the persecutors distinguish or even attempt to distinguish the various factions of the Anabaptist. They were all the same: heretical enemies of Church and State.
    Unlike the radical Anabaptists, the conservative Anabaptists had no political aspirations or millennial dreams and shunned carnal lusts (p. 94). For the most part, the conservative “withdrew from the world with almost ascetic austerity” (p. 94). However, many of them manage to acquire a good deal of wealth. Unlike the radical Anabaptists, who paid little or no attention to the Scriptures, the conservatives “depended absolutely on the Scriptures for their faith” (p. 94).
    In their practices, the Anabaptist had “[n]o regular priesthood, great simplicity of worship, no bearing of arms, no oath, but simple affirmation, separation between Church and State, and rebaptism of those who joined them from the old Church” (p. 16). They did not recognize infant baptism; they only accepted “adult baptism, based on the confessed faith of the candidate” (p. 17). Anabaptists “were well versed in the Scriptures, exceedingly strict in their lives, and rigorous in their church discipline” (p. 33).
    They believed themselves to be the chosen people; all others were gentiles. Only they were true Christians (p. 189).
    Anabaptists had no fixed ecclesiastical organization. Each congregation was autonomous (p. 201).
    Anabaptists believed in the absolute authority of the Holy Scriptures. They relied “on the Scriptures and on them alone” (p. 151). Each individual decided for himself what the Scriptures meant. However, they gave little weight to the doctrine of inspiration. Furthermore, “they spiritualize the Scriptures . . . [and] believe them explicitly” (pp. 152-153).  Nevertheless, they tended to read the Scriptures extremely literally. Still, the Scriptures “have an inner meaning, which may or may not be the same to different individuals” (p. 153). Following the Church of Rome, nearly all Anabaptists seem to accept the Apocrypha of the Old Testament as canonical (p. 153).
    Baptism was a distinguishing characteristic of the Anabaptist. The distinction was not in the form or method of baptism. The Anabaptists followed the common practices of the day of using affusion, i.e., pouring water over the head, or sprinkling (pp. 32, 180). (Baptism by immersion was not used until the mid-seventeenth century when their Baptist descendants adopted immersion, which was the form used by the early Christians, as the only appropriate method of baptism [pp. 176-177, 182]) Initially, rebaptism was optional (p. 32).
    Their distinction was their refusal to baptize infants and to accept the baptism of infants. To the Protestants and Catholics of the sixteenth century, such treatment of infants made them child-murders because “the age-long doctrine of the Church of Rome anent the absolute necessity of baptism to secure the salvation of the child” (p. 44). (Most Anabaptists did not even accept the baptism of children or teenagers.) Thus, the distinguishing characteristic “is the status of the child in the church of God. . . . It is the question of the immutability of the God of the covenant [Old Testament] and of the permanency of the covenant of grace [New Testament] and therefore of the true Scriptural significance of the sacrament of baptism” (pp. 183-184).
    Anabaptists believed in “adult baptism on confession of a personal faith in Christ” (p. 176). According to Anabaptist teaching, faith must precede baptism. As infants and young children lack the capacity to understand the gospel, the baptism of infants and young children was rejected. Moreover, “[i]nfant baptism is anti-Christian and of Satanic origin” (p. 185).
    The Anabaptists were not Trinitarians in the orthodox sense of the Trinity. They objected to the Trinitarian teachings of “consubstantiality” and “person” because of their lack of Scriptural support. However, they freely used the term “Trinity” by which they seem to mean God’s impenetrability or an expression of God’s being (pp 153-154).
    They may not have been Trinitarians in the sense of the Athanasian Creed. However, many Anabaptists believed that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were so intertwined that they were inseparable — the “one is not without the other,” that is, the “one must be conjoined with the other, or the entire Deity is denied”  (p. 156). Others held that only one God existed, and in the New Testament, this God is called the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (p. 156).
    For most, “the Holy Spirit has no independent personal existence. He is merely the ‘inspiration,’ ‘the inward moving of the heart to things that are good’” (p. 155). Moreover, “God’s Spirit cannot thus separate itself from God” (p. 155). Besides, “God’s Spirit can [not] be conceived apart from himself . . . [or else the Spirit] would form a separate, self-existent, personal being” (p. 155). Also, the Father is a self-existing being, but the “Holy Spirit is no independent or personal being” (p. 155).
    In summary, the Anabaptists lacked a clear idea of the Trinity. Some approached the Catholic Trinity Doctrine whereas others resembled  Modalism (God, who is one person, exists in three modes or manifestation: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Yet, others approached Unitarianism or Socinianism (p. 157).
    Some Anabaptists believed that Jesus Christ had two natures: divine and human (p. 157). Others denied Christ divine honors (p. 159). Still, for others, Christ had only a divine nature.
    On the incarnation, most Anabaptist believed “that Christ had not taken his human body from Mary” (p. 82). They rejected the notion that Christ was incarnated of the Virgin Mary because of her sinful flesh (p. 160). Christ, the Word, did not take “his flesh and blood from the Virgin Mary; but has become flesh and blood in Mary’s womb, that is, he has been changed into it” (p. 160).
    God “‘has sent his own eternal word of power into this world, in the flesh, which has become flesh and a body, in form like any other man, without sin, and that he has been a bodily, visible word of God. . . . He has not taken flesh unto himself, but has become flesh and a body’” (pp. 160-161). Thus, Christ did not take his flesh and blood from Mary. He, as the Word, was made flesh and blood in Mary. Therefore, Christ did not possess two natures (p. 162).
    Whereas the Mennonite Anabaptists and most other Anabaptists accepted the notion of a preexisting Christ and, by that, an incarnation similar to that taught by the Church of Rome, some rejected it. For those who rejected the incarnation, Jesus was a natural but a sinless man. However, “‘God’s word, God’s will, God’s spirit, [and] God’s nature’” (p. 163) indwelt Christ along with an imminent conversation with God, which made him more than Adam’s flesh. Christ was the Son of God, “in so far as he was like God, in all the operations of heart and soul and mind, and thus felt himself to be the Son of God” (p. 164).
    However, most Anabaptists accepted the divinity of Christ. As for his humanity, most believed that the “‘Word within the body of Mary was changed into flesh, without taking over anything from the nature of Mary’” (p. 165). Christ had abandoned “his first, eternal, divine substance or essence . . . [and] was changed into another, i.e., a human substance and thus became man, able to suffer and to die, and has lost his first essence’” (p. 166). Thus, Christ had no human father or mother or relations. Nevertheless, many embraced the Catholic concept of the incarnation (p. 170).
    Anabaptists believed “that sin entered this world through Adam’s disobedience” (p. 171). However, Christ removed everything that Adam’s sin introduced, including death, into the world. As for children, the obedience of Christ, not baptism, liberates children from the liability of eternal damnation. Thus, “‘they deny absolutely that original sin, in young children, tends to eternal death’” (p. 172). For most Anabaptists, the atonement of Christ wiped out original sin.
    Anabaptists believed that all have sinned, but most believed that all “are called to salvation, because Christ died for all. This universal call presupposes the power to answer it. The cause of one’s damnation never lies with God” (p. 174).  Although God forces no man, he desires all to turn from self to him. They contend that all “salvation is from grace, but that grace is common to all” (p. 175). Like the Church of Rome, “they saw in justification a medicinal rather than a forensic act of God” (p. 175).
    Anabaptists “believed in salvation through Christ, but they glorified the Christian life” (p. 152). This stress was the result of “the legalistic character of their theology” (p. 152). Many so overemphasized the Christian life in the present that little regards were given to heaven or hell (p. 175).
    Anabaptists opposed “the mass, with its altars, images, garments, and, all its
heathenish ceremonies” (p. 151). Most followed the teachings of other Protestants on the Lord’s Supper. However, a few modified it (p. 185). Their churches lacked musical instruments (p. 214).
    A major cause of strife among the Anabaptists was the “ban”, i.e., excommunication. One congregation would ban one of its members or even another congregation over matters ranging from important doctrinal issues to such trivial matters as how one walked. Although the Anabaptists were “governed by the principle of individualism” (p. 190), the ban became popular and was a major cause of controversy among the  Anabaptists and the primary cause of schisms.
    Anabaptists were “a body of believers who had deliberately turned their backs on the world and now were a people separate unto the Lord” (p. 189). Any member who failed to live up to the ascetic standards of the congregation was banned, excommunicated. Whereas some congregations were fairly tolerant, others were extremely strict and would ban a member for any deviation.
    An example of the rigorousness of the ban was a marriage between a church member and a nonchurch member. For some, only marriages between members of the Anabaptist church were recognized (in this regard, they were similar to the Church of Rome). Anyone who married someone outside the church was banned and could never be reconciled or readmitted to the church (p. 190).
    Besides an inappropriate marriage, a person could be banned because his house, furniture, clothing, or ornamentation was above the standards of the congregation. (Although the Anabaptists did not condemn wealth, they did condemn ostentatiousness [p. 199].) Likewise, one could be banned for social contact with nonchurch members or a banned person or for attending the funeral of a nonchurch member (p. 194).
    Members of the church were not to have anything to do with a banned person, even if the person banned was a parent, child, spouse, or sibling. The ban prohibited all intercourse with the banned person, including buying, selling, eating, drinking, or conversing (p. 193).
    Although eschatology was important to many Anabaptists in the early years, the fanaticism that it caused resulted in the Mennonite descendants of the Anabaptists virtually to ignore eschatology, the future, heaven, and hell (p. 196).
    Women were not allowed to speak in their meetings and were not allowed to vote in the election of elders and deacons (p. 17). However, women occupied an honored place in their church life (p. 214).
    Some beliefs peculiar to a small minority of Anabaptist were polygamy (because “the Bible saints had practised it” [p. 82]) and the refusal to wear clothes (because “they were the naked truth, the image of God, and therefore were ashamed of nothing” [pp. 88-89].
    As shown above, the Anabaptists lack uniformity in their beliefs. They were highly variable on many important doctrines of Christianity, which should be expected from its decentralized structure and individualism with each congregation and even each individual free to decipher the truth from the Holy Scriptures.
    Because of the fanatics, the name “Anabaptist” had become synonymous with “violence, outrage, rebellion, sensuality, and every kind of outrage” (p. 92). Because of the stigma attached to “Anabaptist,” most Anabaptists rebranded themselves under different names. They became the Baptists and Mennonites. Many faded into the nonconformist movement in the Church of England (p. 46). Also, included among their descendants are the Quakers, English Independents, and Congregationalists (pp. 292-293).

Copyright © 2018 by Thomas Coley Allen

Part 2: Appendix

More religious articles

For Whom Is the Constitution Written?

For Whom Is the Constitution Written?

Thomas Allen

    For whom is the Constitution for the United States of America written? The answer is easy. The preamble clearly states for whom the Constitution is written. The preamble reads:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    “We the People of the United States . . . to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Who are “ourselves” and “our posterity?” They are the people who wrote and adopted the Constitution and their descendants. That is, they are Aryans, Whites. As Aryans wrote and adopted the Constitution, it is solely for Aryans. As almost all Aryans then abided by the Biblical prohibition against interracial mating, they expected their posterity to be Aryan. (If any Aryan sinned and had a child by a person of another race, that child was not considered an Aryan.)
    Therefore, the Constitution is not written for Negroes. It is not written for Melanochroi from India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Somalia, etc. Moreover, it is not written for Turanians from China, Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Southeast Asia, etc. Nor is it written for the Turanian Indians and mestizos from Latin America. Likewise, it is not written for Indo-Australians and Khoisans.
     Supporting the notion that the Constitution is written for Aryans is the first naturalization law, which was enacted in 1790. It restricted naturalization to free Whites. It excluded Blacks, American Indians, Muslims, and later Asians. Furthermore, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, and other founding fathers declared that the United States was and should be a White man’s country. By the way, nearly every President, if not every President, held this sentiment until John Kennedy.
    In conclusion, Aryans wrote and adopted the Constitution for the United  States of America for Aryans. They did not write it for Negroes, Melanochroi, Turanians, Indo-Australians, or Khoisans. Until Whites in the United States realize and admit that the Constitution is written solely for them and for no other race, species of humans, the social, political, and economic problems affecting the United States will not be solved. Until ministers start teaching the Biblical prohibition against interracial mating, these problems will not be solved. Moreover, constitutionalists need to acknowledge that the Constitution is solely for Aryans and need to proclaim such. A necessary part of solving the social, political, and economic problems of the United States is returning to the Constitution in its original intent. Admitting that the Constitution is only for Aryans, Whites, is a necessary and essential part of this return. A return to Constitutional government cannot be made without this acknowledgment.
    The biggest hindrances to returning to Constitutional government are Christian ministers and constitutionalists. Because of political correctness, ignorance of the Bible, or fear of being called a “racist,” ministers fail to teach that the Scriptures prohibit miscegenation and interracial mating, that Adam was an Aryan, White, and only Aryans are created in the image of God, and that God is a segregationist and a racial separationist. (God confusing the languages of man as a result of constructing the Tower of Babel is perhaps the greatest act of segregation and racial separation ever experienced by mankind in recorded history.) Likewise, because of political correctness, ignorance of the Constitution, or fear of being called a “racist,” constitutionalists fail to identify the people for whom the Constitution is written and to teach that it is written solely for Whites.
    Before ministers and constitutionalists can return to the proper understanding of the Bible and the Constitution, they need to abandon the Deity of King. They need to cease the idolatry of bowing before his idol. To do this, they need to realize, acknowledge, and teach that Martin Luther King was a rabble-rouser, a scoundrel, a frontman for the Communist Party, and a leader of one of the most destructive movements that the United States have ever endured, the civil rights movement. (As a result of the civil rights movement, the immigration laws were changed to discriminate against Whites and to flood the country with non-Whites such that in a few years, Whites will be a minority in their own country. It also brought the war on poverty, racial and sexual quotas, affirmative action, effeminized and emasculated men, degraded women, homosexual marriages, legalized abortion, growth in out-of-wedlock children, genocide via interracial mating, etc.)

Appendix 1.
    Most people incorrectly refer to the Constitution for the United States of America as the Constitution of the United States of America. According to the preamble, the correct title is the “Constitution for the United States of America.”

Appendix 2.
    Most people refer to the United States in the singular: the United States is. However, the Constitution refers to the United States in the plural: the United States are. For example, Article III, Section 3, Paragraph 1 reads, “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” The plural pronouns, “their” and “them” are used to refer to the United States.
    Some historians argue that Lincoln’s War to Suppress Southern Independence was fought over a verb. Lincoln and his supporters fought for “is” while the Southern States fought for “are.” Before the War, most people referred to the United States in the plural: they, them, their, are, etc. After the War, most people referred to the United States in the singular: it, its, is, etc.

Copyright © 2017 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on politics.

Miscegenation Is Not a Personal Matter

Miscegenation Is Not a Personal Matter

Thomas Allen

    Every person has an obligation to ensure the welfare of his country, which, by the way, is not its government, which is often his country’s greatest enemy. He has a legitimate interest and right to protect his country from those within and without who would destroy his country. Whatever a person might do to endanger the welfare of his country is the concern of every one of that country. Therefore, the endangerment of a country is not a personal matter.
    So it is with the races, or more correctly species,[1] of humans. Every person has an obligation to ensure the welfare of his race. Thus, he has a legitimate interest and right to protect his race from those who would destroy his race. Whatever a person might do to endanger the welfare of his race is the concern of everybody of that race as a whole. Therefore, the endangerment of a race is not a personal matter.
    As miscegenation destroys both races involved, members of both races involved have a legitimate interest, even an obligation, to prevent interracial mating. Interracial marriages are not a personal matter. They lead to breeding the races out of existence. Therefore, they are detrimental to the races involved.
    Anyone who believes that miscegenation should take precedence over his race is a traitor to his race. As such, he should be treated as a traitor to his country is treated — even more so.
    Ira Calvin observes that betrayal of one’s race is worse than treason to one’s country:

If it be treason to advocate the overthrow of the government of a people, it follows, as truly as the fact that the whole is greater than any of its parts, that to advocate the destruction of the people themselves is the highest kind of treason.[2]

Thus, anyone who contrives in any way to integrate a person of one race into another race is guilty of the highest form of treason. Not only does he advocate the destruction of this race in a particular country, but he also advocates the destruction of that entire race globally.
    Each race has a duty to undertake actions to preserve itself. Geographical separation is the most effective way. When that is not practical, segregation becomes the most effective. Segregation is nothing more than each race building a fence around itself to protect itself from the other races.
    Few people would deny a farmer the right to erect a fence between his dairy cattle and beef cattle to prevent their interbreeding. Are not the races of men more valuable than breeds of cattle? If they are, should not people undertake erecting barriers between the races of men to prevent their interbreeding? Only a traitor would answer the last questions in the negative.
    People who want to allow interracial mating need to explain their hatred. Why do they hate the races involved so much that they willingly allow them to breed each other out of existence? Only hate could be behind such desire.
    Prohibition of miscegenation and the erection of barriers, segregation, that preserve each race do not deprive anyone of his rights. If they do, then erecting barriers to prevent treason also denies everyone his rights.
    On the contrary, segregation and the prohibition of miscegenation are based on one of the soundest principles known. That principle is that no one has the right to do things that destroy the property of another. Each race has its own unique set of physical, physiological, and psychological traits. Each has its own unique set of biological, anatomical, and morphological traits. Interracial marriage results in people of one race trying to steal or destroy the unique traits of another race. Therefore, each race has a duty to prevent this thief and destruction.
    Equal rights only exist where all have an equal legitimate interest. No person has equal rights in a house owned entirely by another. A person of one country does not have equal rights with the people of another country. He cannot vote, hold elective office, etc. Likewise, people of one race do not have equal rights with people of another race because each race has its own unique racial characteristics. They have no legitimate interest in any race other than their own. To claim that people of one race have a right to mix and mingle with another race is tantamount to giving people the right to enter and use the house of another without the owner’s permission.
    The sum of racial traits of a race belongs to that race and to no other race. They are the property of that race by birth and of that race only. Being born with these racial traits gives that person a legitimate interest and right in his race and in all matters that might affect his race. Where no legitimate interest exists, no rights exist.
    No person has equal rights in things where he does not have an equal legitimate interest. No person can be given rights in things where he has no legitimate interest. He can be given the privilege, but not the right, in things where he has no legitimate interest. Therefore, miscegenation is a privilege and not a right.
    Moreover, privileges usually violate liberty. Liberty exists where all men have equal rights in things where they have a legitimate interest and where no man has a right (privilege) in things where he has no legitimate interest.  (For example, liberty exists where every homeowner has the right to use his house, but does not have the right to use someone else’s house.) Thus, miscegenation violates liberty.
    The open-borders policy is the result of the U.S. government forcing, instead of preventing, the mixing and mingling of the races. Thus, the open-borders policy is a violation of equal rights. It gives people a right (privileges) in what is not legitimately theirs, i.e., it gives them rights in the country of another.
    People who oppose prohibiting miscegenation should also support an open-border-unlimited immigration policy. At least liberals most libertarians, and even some “conservatives” are consistent in supporting both miscegenation and open borders. However, when their own house is being violated, nearly all of them act inconsistently. They oppose people who have no legitimate interest in their houses acting as though they do. This is proof that they care nothing about their country or their race, or any other race for that matter. A consistent, rational person would favor policies that protect his race, country, and home and oppose policies that destroy them.
    Integration is a violation of equal rights. It gives people of one race a right in what is not legitimately theirs, i.e., it gives them the rights to the property of another race.
    About rights, O.R. Williams writes:

The right to racial segregation is based upon the RIGHTS OF MAN.  And the RIGHTS OF MAN must be  grounded  in  this principle: That no man should have any rights where he does not have a legitimate interest; and based upon this principle, no man, or any group of men, will have any rights to things that belong, only, to an individual — an individual person, or an individual group of persons.[3]

    One of the greatest lies since the serpent deceived Eve is that if two people of different races marry, that marriage is no one else’s business. Such a marriage is not an individual matter between the two individual members. It is a matter of everyone in each race involved.
    When someone does something that affects only himself, it is an individual matter. When someone does something that affects himself and others, it becomes a matter of the others affected. Interracial mating affects more than the two people involved. It affects their races. Each race is like an individual; thus, when two people of the same race marry, that marriage is an individual matter — both personally and racially. Such marriage does not lead to the destruction of that or any other race. However, when people of different races marry, it is more than an individual matter. It is even more than individual racial matter. A racially mixed marriage is a concern of every one of the two races involved because it leads to the destruction of both races. Interracial mating is a concern of every one of the races involved because it results in the amalgamation and mongrelization of the races involved. It destroys the common property of each race; that is, it destroys the unique racial traits of each race.
    To argue otherwise is to claim that traitors have the right to aid in the destruction of their country. Moreover, treason is a personal matter and should not be prohibited or punished. The only difference between race and country is that one is biological and the other is geographical.
    Writing at a time when some States cared enough about the races to prevent their self-destruction, Archibald Coody writes:

The law forbids the marriage of negroes and white persons, and provides that such marriages are void, which is certainly not discrimination. If either race feels humiliated or offended at this separation, it thereby confesses its sense of inferiority.[4]

Unfortunately, these laws have been stricken and removed.
    Not only does interracial mating lead to the destruction of the races, but it is also detrimental to the offspring. Coody summaries this detrimental effect of striving for social equality and the resulting miscegenation:

In a marriage of black and white, upon whose past, do we build? Sleswick or the Congo?  Of what history would the child be proud? To whom would homage be paid? To what ideals would its allegiance be given? A marriage between white persons, one an American and one, say a German, poses a problem of loyalty. The child has two great traditions of culture and achievement, but it must and will believe in one more than in the other. But it is a problem only of present and surface emotions and psychology. The problem of the mulatto is infinitely greater because he combines two diverse and irreconcilable traditions. Loyalty to one means repudiation of the other. He is at home with neither the white nor the black. Unable to be true to either parent, he cannot be true to self. These and other conditions needless to mention, are sufficient to show the utter futility of any plan of social equality. For social equality is worse than a farce if we draw the line at marriage — it ceases to have meaning.[5]

Most of these mulattoes end up being what the great civil rights leader Roy Innis calls “house niggers”:

In America today there are two kinds of black people — the field-hand blacks and the ‘house niggers.’ We of CORE — the nationalists — are the field-hand blacks. The integrationists of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People are ‘house niggers.’[6]

    Each race needs to respect the rights and property of all other races. Each race needs to support and undertake actions to protect and preserve the rights and the unique properties of all races. The most effective policies known to achieve this goal are separation and prohibition of miscegenation.
    All need to remember the words of wisdom given by Innis:

Under segregation, black people live together but their institutions are controlled by whites. Under integration, black people are dispersed and the institutions, goods and services are still controlled by whites. In effect, the two are the same. But under separatism, black people will control their own turf.[7]

Miscegenation is the highest form of integration.

Endnotes

1. Thomas Coley Allen, Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis (Franklinton, N.C.: TC Allen Co.), 1999.

2. Ira Calvin, The Lost White Race (Brookline, Mass.: Countway-White Publications), [1945], p. 111.

3. O.R. Williams, Sr., Segregation and Common Sense (Boston, Mass.: Forum Publishing Co.), 1961, pp. 206-207.

4. Archibald Coody IV, Capter Number Six: The Race Question from the White Chief: A Story of the Life and Times of James K. Vardaman (Jackson, Miss.: Archibald Coody IV). 1944, p. 70.

5. Coody, p. 85.

6. Francis X. Gannon, Biographical Dictionary of the Left, III (1972), p. 464.

7. Gannon, p. 462.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on social issues.

Reflections

Reflections
Thomas Allen

What follows are random thoughts about life with Deborah.

‒ I am glad that Deb and I did not court much. I was not very good at courting. Most of our interaction was through letters and telephone conversations. Before we married, I visited her in Connecticut for about five days, and she visited me in North Carolina for about five days. I did turn out to be an excellent husband for her. Likewise, she turned out to be an excellent, even ideal, wife for me. Courting and marriage are like campaigning and performing the duties of an elective office. They require two different sets of skills, attributes, and abilities. Because a person is good at one does not mean that he is good at the other.

‒ As paradoxical as it sounds, until Deb was gone, I never realized how much she guided me and told me what to do without ever saying a word. She seldom right out told me what to do or not do. Yet without speaking, even with body language, she was the guiding influence telling me what to do and not to do. Perhaps it was because she gave everything purpose and meaning. Perhaps it was because she came to surrender herself totally to me that I could not help but to follow her unspoken instructions.

‒ Deb was, so to speak, my security blanket. I did things, such as speaking against issues at public hearings, that I would not have done without her. Her presence gave me courage even if she were not with me. When the children were young, she did not accompany me because she remained home to watch them. After they became old enough to look after themselves, she went with me. Whether she accompanied me or remained home, she gave me courage, direction, and purpose. I knew that she was there behind me and for me.

‒ When Deb was ill, I commented that wished I could have borne her burden to spare her the suffering. Now I am having to bear a burden that she will never have to bear. I am having to bear her loss and the void that it has created. Deb, it hurts! I am not having to feel the physical pain that she endured. Nevertheless, I am having to endure an enormous amount of pain. By her dying first, at least I am sparing her this pain. However, I am convinced that she could have borne it better than I am. She was my superior at such things.

‒ One reason that I love Deb so much and so deeply is that she never rejected me. She always accepted me. She accepted me as I was, and I accepted her as she was.

‒ Deb was always easy going and rarely demanding. She did have to run off to visit her sister occasionally. Also, every year or two, she had to go to the beach with the children after they were older.

‒ This year, 2011, was the first year in the last 29 years that I was not with Deb on my birthday (she died a few hours before) or her birthday. It was the first year in 30 years that I did not eat Thanksgiving dinner with her or celebrate Christmas with her.

‒ Before Deb got sick, I usually had little patience or compassion for sick people — especially myself. After Deb became ill, I soon acquired a great deal of patience and compassion for her. I was honored with the privilege of serving her during her illness. Although I did not always succeed, I tried to serve her the best that I could. My biggest regret is failing to defend her against and protect her from hospice. That failure resulted in her premature death. Hospice took weeks and maybe months off her life. Now I have to live with that failure for the rest of my life.

‒ When she was in the hospital, Deb bragged to the nurses and aides about having such a good husband. (I enjoyed hearing her say that.) I was there because I had a better wife. While she was in the hospital, I spent nine to twelve hours a day with her. While she was in the hospice house, I was with her 60 out of every 72 hours. I was with her because of her.

‒ When I first met Deb, little did I realize that I had found paradise on earth — or at least as close as a man can come in this sinful world. Wives can either make a marriage heaven on earth or hell on earth. Deb made it heaven. Not that everything always ran smoothly with no disagreement, they certainly did not. However, over time discord faded and harmony grew. Being married to Deb was a blessing and much more than I deserved.

‒ Deb and I came about as close as sinners can come to following the directions of Ephesians 5:24-33. She yielded herself to me and made me her head. In return, I tried to love her as Christ loves the Church (although no human can so fully love) and gave her all that I could. We also strove to follow the instructions of 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 and tried not to withhold our bodies from each other.

‒ I do not recall if it were the first turkey that Deb cooked for Thanksgiving, but it was one of the first ones. We had forgotten to get a pan in which to cook the turkey when we bought the turkey. Back then most stores closed on Thanksgiving. So I could not go buy one. I ended up sawing off the upper part of a big enamel pot for her to use. Later we use the resulting pan as a dish to feed the dog.

‒ Although we had some arguments, I only remember one. Like most of our arguments, it dealt with money for the school. The school that our children went to usually waited until the day before money was needed for a field trip or whatever before asking for it. Waiting to the last minute to ask for money really irritated me, especially since they knew at the beginning of the school year that they would need the money. I like to budget for expenses and do not like surprises, especially when the people wanting the money knew far enough in advance that I could have budgeted for it if they had told me. Anyway, Deb took money that I had allocated for another purpose and gave it to the school. That set me off. I ranted for sometime. After I finished my rant, I felt bad. Although I did not admit it, she did the right thing under the circumstance. I resolved the problem by setting up a borrowing and repayment system. (Now that I look back, probably much of the argument was my frustration with the school.) I do not recall us ever arguing about money after that.

‒ One of the many things that I admired about Deb was that she trusted me in the position of being the head of our relationship and marriage. She forced me to take on that responsibility whether I wanted it or not. I must admit I was somewhat reluctant at first, but she knew what was best. For any relationship and marriage to be highly successful, the man must take the responsibility of being the head. That is a major reason that our marriage was so happy and successful.

‒ Deb saw something in me of great worth. She saw a goodness and greatness in me that no one else ever did or has since. Whatever it was, I did not know and still do not. Most likely, she would have difficulty explaining it. It was more something she sensed and felt than something she could articulate. Nevertheless, she saw it and brought it out. She made life worth living and got things out of me that I did not know were possible or even existed.

Copyright © 2011 by Thomas Coley Allen.

 More articles on Deb.

Trust and Submission

Trust and Submission
Thomas Allen

Deborah did not trust a person until that person gave her reason to trust him. I do not know what I did or did not do to earn her trust. Whatever it was, she came to trust me so much and so completely that eventually she unhesitatingly and unquestionably submitted herself to me totally. Whatever it was, I am glad that I did it or did not do it. Her unhesitating, total submission to me caused my total devotion to her and my complete loyalty and faithfulness to her. Her submission drew us ever closer together. No longer will I enjoy the pleasure of her submission and all the goodness that it drew out of me toward her.

One of the things that made Deb and me so close was her total dependence on me for her financial needs. She trusted me so much that she submitted herself to me completely to take care of her financial needs. Such trust and submission devoted me completely to her. Only her unhesitating, unquestionable, unconditional, and unlimited love for me could have caused such total trust and submission. Such love for me resulted in my unhesitating, unquestionable, unconditional, and unlimited love for her. It caused me to be completely devoted to her. Although I will love her forever, I no longer have the privilege and honor to support her.

Deb also came to trust me enough to submit completely to me to take care of her emotional needs. I believe that I was ahead of her on this one. I had completely submitted to her to satisfy and protect my emotional needs before she reciprocated. Our total trust and complete submission to each other to satisfy and protect each other’s emotional needs drew us ever closer together. No longer can I submit myself to her to take care of my emotional needs. No longer will she submit to me to take care of her emotional needs.

Deb’s complete submission was a powerful glue that made our marriage so strong and beautiful. It drew me ever closer to her as it drew her ever closer to me. Our marriage was built upon the foundation of her trust in me that led to her total, unhesitating, and unquestionable submission to me. So strong and enjoyable was our bond for each other that neither of us ever did anything that we thought would jeopardize the trust that we had for each other.

Closely related to trust and submission was her complete and unconditional commitment to me. In return, I committed myself completely and unconditionally to her. Out of this commitment to each other came our unconditional love for each other. Our commitment and unconditional love for each other created a marriage that only death could dissolve — but it could not end the love.

Copyright © 2011 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on Deb. 

A Remarkable Woman

A Remarkable Woman
Thomas Allen

Deborah was the most remarkable woman that I have ever known. She was the only woman whom I have loved who returned that love. Not only did she return my love, she returned it with interest. No matter how much I loved her, and I loved her intensely, she always loved me more.

I always tried to return her love for me with interest. She always tried to return my love for her with interest. We both strove to give more love to the other than we were receiving. Thus, our love for each other escalated. (Such love made the flaws that we used to see in each other fade into insignificant nothingness.)

Deb did more for me than anyone can imagine. I doubt that she ever realized how much she did do for me. Figuratively speaking, she found me in the gutter and carried me to the highest peak. She made me what I became. She did it without nagging or pushing. She did it with love: her love for me and my love for her. With love she molded me into someone far greater than I imaged that I could be.

I was nothing when Deb found me. Fortunately for me, she saw something in me that no one else ever did. With her loving care, she picked me up and carried me to heights that I did not know existed. All that is good that I became, I owe to her. Now that she is gone, I just hope that I do not regress to where she found me.

When we first married, I resented her not doing certain things. As I learned what was really important — her happiness and well-being — that resentment faded away. I adjusted to her, and she adjusted to me. We were always becoming closer to each other.

The longer I lived with Deb, the more important she became. During the last twenty years of our marriage, I seldom did anything important without considering how it would affect her. Her welfare was of upmost importance to me. If what I was considering did not benefit her, and especially if it might harm her, I did not do it.

Many things I should have done for her, but I fail to do them. I regret not doing all that I could have done for her.

The longer we were married, the more we became one in thought and action. Over time, Deb became more and more of me. Eventually, she became more of me than I was of myself. She became the most important and significant part of me.

She was an easy-going person who seldom complained. When she did complain, I knew that she had a severe problem that needed immediate attention. I regret not being able to solve all her problems. Some were beyond my control, such as those connected with the church school. However, others were not; these I failed too frequently to solve.

Deb needed a good deal of stroking and encouragement. Regrettably, I was never good at that.

However, I always tried to encourage her with her art. I knew how important art was to her. Every art show that she had after we married, I was there with her. She liked that. Moreover, I never complained about her buying art supplies.

At times, I had to persuade her to buy things for herself. She was a very frugal woman. I would have bought more for her if she had asked. She seemed always to place the welfare of her family above herself.

Most of the time she seemed to place me above herself. As a result, I tried to place her before myself. Perhaps that is a major reason that we were so happy together and enjoyed each other’s company so much. Both of us strove to place the other first. We did not always achieve that goal, but we worked at achieving it.

Before we married, Deb and I decided that she would stay at home and rear the children. Although we did without some things, that was one of the best decisions that we ever made. It made our family stronger and made us closer to the children. Because it forced us to be dependent on each other, we bonded much more. I became more responsible because I had to take care of her and the children. She graciously reciprocated by fulfilling my needs as only she could. We grew closer and closer to each other.

Since that Deb has left me, all that I can now do is write about the most remarkable woman that I have ever known. She is at least as remarkable as her Biblical namesake, Deborah. I love you Deb and always will. My love for you can never die.

(As I go through Deb’s papers, I realize that I did not appreciate her enough, that I did not support her enough, that I did not do enough for her, and that I did not give her enough. So far I have not found anything that she has written about me. However, I am finding the dreams and fantasies about which she wrote. Some of her dreams, she achieved, and some she did not. I wish that I had helped her achieve more of her dreams. She certainly helped me achieve many of mine — most of which would never have been achieved without her.)

Copyright © 2011 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on Deb.