Review of The Negro Revolution in America -- Part 2

Review of The Negro Revolution in America -- Part 2

Thomas Allen

[Editor's note: Some of the endnotes have been replaced with links.]

     In Chapter 5, Brink and Harris discuss the politics of race. They lament the failure of Negroes to register and vote (p. 78). This seems to be a perpetual problem with Blacks. When the complete lack of difference between the two major parties is considered, such apathy makes little difference. Like Whites, all that Blacks receive is an echo and not a choice. Just as the Republican Party now ignores the demands and desires of Whites in general and Southerners in particular, so does the Democratic Party takes the Negro for granted. Both work for the best interest of the ruling elite to the detriment of both Whites and Blacks.
    Brink and Harris comment that at the time of their writing Negroes had probably received as little from the political system as any other group. If true, President Johnson would soon change that. With the civil rights law, fair housing law, equal economic opportunity program,  etc., Negroes have been showered with rights and privileges that no other group had ever enjoyed. With the war on poverty, hundreds of billions of dollars have been poured out to the Negro. Never before had a majority so willing sacrificed itself, its property, its heritage, its posterity, and its race for the benefit of a small minority. In the end, Blacks won the civil rights war with the complete and unconditional surrender of Whites. (The small pockets of rebellious Whiles that remain amount to no more than the Indian wars of the late nineteenth century.) The biggest problem for the Negro now is maintaining his privileges as the hordes of Turanians explode; these Turanians cannot and will not be kowtowed as Whites were. Unfortunately for the Negro, his leaders refuse to acknowledge this problem. Contrariwise, they strive to make it worse by supporting the policy of unlimited non-White immigration.
    Brink and Harris note that the electoral college system favors the Negro. About one-third of Blacks lived in seven pivotal industrial States that accounted for 80 percent of the electoral vote in 1960. (A significant change has occurred in the electoral vote since then. The importance of the Northern States has declined, and the importance of the Southern States has risen.) Carrying the Negro vote in these seven States significantly improves the chances of winning the presidency (pp. 80-81).
    Brink and Harris lament the lack of participation by Blacks in the electoral process in the South (pp. 82-86). Negro participation did increase. As a result, more quislings, scalawags, and carpetbaggers were elected. A downfall of democracy is that as the privilege of voting expands among the non-net taxpayers, the quality of candidates and thus leaders and government declines.
    Brink and Harris comment on the overwhelming support that Negroes give the Democratic Party. However, only a small majority regularly support the Democratic Party. They did not want the Democrats to take the Black vote for granted (pp. 86-88). The evangelical Christians fell into this trap with the Republican Party. Their leaders continuously endorsed the Republicans, and the Republicans began taking them for granted. Except the wars in the Middle East, the only thing that the Evangelicals have gotten from the Republicans has been rhetoric.
    Brink and Harris point out the irony of Blacks supporting the Democratic Party. Up to that time, the Republicans had been more supportive of Blacks and their demands for civil rights than Democrats. Many leading Democrats were segregationists. However, many Blacks saw Democrats working to improve the economic standing of the masses while Republicans were concerned only with Big Business (pp. 88ff).
    Brink and Harris comment on the skepticism that Blacks had about Lyndon Johnson as president because he was a Southerner (pp. 92-93). What most people failed to realize was that Johnson was a rascal, scoundrel, quisling, and scalawag of the highest order. He probably surprised most Negroes as he delivered nearly everything that they demanded. The welfare state, of which the Negro has been the principal victim, exploded under his leadership. Ironically most Negro leaders supported the welfare state although it made many Negroes wards of government and by that stripped them of their independence and effectively enslaved them to the government.
    In Chapter 6, Brink and Harris discuss the role of the Negro church. They give a historical overview and discuss the present day (late 1950s and early 1960s).
    Brink and Harris remark “that Negro society tends to be a matriarchal society. . . . The matriarchal character of Negro society is largely a product of broken homes” (p. 100). They note that in 1960 a third of Black women who had been married no longer lived with their husbands as compared with one-fifth of White women (p. 100).
    According to Brink and Harris, the Negro Revolution is a holy war. The Negro is convinced “that his cause is just because it is just before God, and that he must ultimately win because that is God's word and will.” (p. 100). To arrive at such a conclusion requires a highly liberal explanation of the Bible while ignoring large parts of it. The God of the Bible is a God of segregation and not of integration.[1] He does not forbid slavery,[2] but the Bible does provide a code for the just treatment of slaves. Probably none of the characters in the Bible are Negroes. Nearly all are Aryans (Whites) with occasional mention of Melanochroi. Nevertheless, Whites have no justification for oppressing Blacks or any other race. God commanded the species (races) of humans to separate themselves from others. When they are separated, they cannot oppress one another.
    Based on Brink and Harris’ observations, Negro churches were evolving into political organizations. Their ministers were moving away from preaching the Gospel to preaching civil rights, equal rights, Black Power, and the like. They were preaching the social gospel (pp. 103-104).
    Brink and Harris give some background information on Martin Luther King and describe some of his activities and writings (pp. 104-106). However, they fail to mention his Communist connections and sympathies.
     In several places in their book, Brink and Harris remark that because of segregation Blacks are poorly educated. Yet Black leaders, such as King, were highly educated. Segregation did not appear to hold them back educationally.
    Brink and Harris state that a primary source of King's financing is the collection plate of churches where he speaks (p. 105). If Negroes were as economically oppressed as Brink and Harris continuously iterate, where did they get all this money to finance an operation as expensive and elaborate as King’s? Moreover, why did not the IRS revoke the tax exemption status of these churches for promoting politics? Even today the IRS ignores Black churches that preach politics. Yet if a White church preaches against abortion, sodomy, interracial marriage (when was the last time a preacher condemned interracial marriages), and a host of other issues that have been politicized, it risks harassment by the IRS and possible revocation of its tax exemption status.
    Brink and Harris present King and other civil rights leaders as promoters of nonviolence (pp. 105ff). When one undertakes an action that he expects will evoke a violent response, he is not acting nonviolently. King and other civil rights leaders were continuously undertaking actions that they expected and hoped would cause a violent response. (He who fires the first shot does not necessarily start the war; he who causes the first shot to be fired starts the war. Unfortunately, most people lose sight of this principle and place the blame on the responder.)
    Brink and Harris note that most Black ministers believe that the Black church would be among the last institutions integrated and would survive the integration movement (pp. 109-110). If these ministers really believed what they preached, they would have led by example. They would have insisted that Black churches destroy themselves through integration. They would have implemented active integration plans to cause the integrated demise of their churches as soon as possible. What the Negro really wants is to be able to integrate White society and institutions at will. Whites are to have nothing that is beyond integration. Yet at the same time, the Negro wants to protect and preserve Black society and institutions from White integration. That is, Blacks should be able to segregate themselves; Whites should not.
    In Chapter 7, Brink and Harris discuss the leadership of the civil rights movement and the Negro Revolution and the tactics used. However, they fail to identify the Communist leadership of the civil rights movement. Except Dubois, they do not identify any of the leaders as Communists. One Negro leader whom they mention who was a Communist was Ralph Bunche. However, they do not identify him as a Communist. They do note that until 1960, most Black instigators in the South were Northern Negroes.
    In Chapter 8, Brink and Harris discuss what Negroes think of Whites. Only the White man has prevented the Negro from achieving freedom, comforts, and pleasures (p.125). Everything is Whitey’s fault; nothing is Blacky’s fault.
    Brink and Harris quote a Negro as saying that the reason that Whites want to keep the Negro down is to keep Negro men from marrying White women (p. 126). If Blacks did not want to marry Whites, why did they fight to repeal and overturn laws prohibiting interracial marriages? If interracial marriages were not an important objective, why did interracial marriages soar after the prohibition was removed?  They could have gone a long way to alleviate such fears by fighting to keep laws against interracial marriages in place and to enact them in States that did not have them. (Once interracial marriages became acceptable, all other illicit and unscriptural marriages became acceptable including homosexual marriages.)
    The fear of interracial marriage was well-founded. In 1960 only 0.4 percent of White marriages were interracial of which 0.1 percent were with Blacks. By 2010 interracial White marriages had risen to 3.0 percent of which 1.1 percent were with Blacks. By 2010 14.0 percent of Black marriages were interracial; of these 11.8 percent were with Whites. If the current trend continues, the Negro will breed himself out of existence in a few generations. (The American Indian has already almost bred himself out of existence.) Integration is truly genocide.[3]
    One Negro said that Whites needed the Negro so that they could have someone to look down on (p. 126). People who need someone to look down on will find someone to look down on even if that someone is of the same race. (I had a Black secretary, different from the one mentioned above, who told me that light-skin Negroes look down on dark-skin Negroes. Looking down on people is not restricted to Whites.)
    According to Brink and Harris, many Blacks were convinced that most Whites hated them (p. 127). At least in the South, most Whites did not hate Blacks.
    Brink and Harris quote one Negro as saying, “Whites in the North like for Negroes to be independent, but those in the South like you dependent.” (p. 127). If true, the South won and the North lost. With the eruption of the welfare state, the Negro became more dependent than ever.
    One astute Northern Negro observed, “The Southerner lets you know where you stand. The Northerner stabs you in the back.” (p. 128) Another Negro notes, “I think the white man in the North makes a better hypocrite” (p. 128). A wise Negro said, “Man is basically selfish and is not concerned about what type of break someone else is getting as long as it does not affect him. The average American is not overwhelmingly concerned about the Chinese boy who goes to bed hungry or the Indian child whose fingers are cut off to make him a more effective beggar” (p. 128).
    About the baneful moderate White aiding Blacks, one Negro said, “Being a moderate is a nice way for a guy to hide” (p. 129). Another Negro said, “Moderate is just a fancy name for do nothing” (p. 129).
    Brink and Harris note that the Catholic church and Jews have supported the civil rights movement (p. 133). That is not surprising. Both have little regard for the races that God created. Both lust for power. Turmoil often results in concentrating political power. Both intend to control this concentrated power.
    In Chapter 9, Brink and Harris discuss what Whites think of Negroes. They conclude that Whites suffer from guilt about the way that they treat or do not treat the Negro (p. 138). This guilt has destroyed the country and is leading to the extinction of the White race. Brink and Harris selected several comments that Whites made about Blacks; many of the selected comments were highly derogatory — especially by today’s standards (pp. 139-141).
    Many Whites believe that Negroes smell different (pp. 140-141). Brink and Harris give the impression that Whites and Blacks smell the same. Science shows that they differ in odor. Their odor glands secrete different compounds that attract different bacteria. (Turanians are generally odorless.)[4]
    Besides odor, Brink and Harris present several other White stereotypes about Negroes (pp. 140-141).  Many of these so-called stereotypes are supported by statistics and observation. They included loose morals, living off handouts, less intelligence, and breeding crimes.  
    Stereotypes are not created out of the imagination. They develop from experience and observation. Many, but not all, members of the group generally fit the stereotype.
    Brink and Harris show that most Whites in the South and nationwide believe that Negroes have the right to vote, unrestricted use of buses and trains, job opportunities, and decent housing. Although a majority nationwide favor the federal vote-enforcement law, the federal fair employment practice law, the Kennedy civil rights bill, and the public-accommodation bill, most Southerners opposed them (p. 142). If the Southern view had prevailed, both races and the country would have been better off. These laws lead to a more powerful, micromanaging federal government and the destruction of the Black man’s independence and thus his freedom.
    Although a large majority of Whites nationwide supported Eisenhower’s invasion of Arkansas and Kennedy’s invasion of Mississippi, most Southerners opposed them (p. 143).
    Brink and Harris quote a White man saying, “. . . one state can’t tell the other parts of the United States what to do” (p. 143). Apparently, this man had no qualms about other States telling the Southern States what to do. He just objected to the Southern States trying to resist the tyranny of the other States. What a hypocrite he is!
    A majority of Whites thought “that the Negroes were pressing too hard, asking for too much.” (p. 145). Nevertheless, “Whites have remarkably clear understanding of Negro demands.” (p. 145).
      Brink and Harris quote several responses to a question about how Whites thought it must feel to be discriminated against as a Negro. Those quoted express indignation and outrage (p. 147). Everyone, including Whites, is discriminated against nearly every day. Did these people express such indignation and outrage when they themselves were actually discriminated against? Does the federal government have to eliminate all forms of discrimination? The power-hungry micromanagers would certainly like to try as that would give them absolute control over everyone and everything. What most people fail to realize is that every time that they make a choice they discriminate.
    Brink and Harris note that Whites adamantly object to job quotas for Negroes and Negroes given job preference over Whites (p, 149). Whites lost this one as Blacks have received special privileges in the job market.
    Brink and Harris remark that most Whites reject “the notion that the education of white children would suffer if both races go to school together” (p. 150). Were they wrong! Education for both races has been in decline ever since schools were fully integrated.
    Brink and Harris quote a White woman who naively and ignorantly believes that children do not notice racial differences (p. 150). Contrariwise, children who are around other children of other races are aware of racial differences at a very young age. By the time that they are old enough to express the difference, they are aware of the differences.
    In Chapter 10, Brink and Harris discuss breaking the vicious circle. In this chapter, they summarize what the Negro wants and the Negro’s opinion about various things. Basically, Blacks want the White man’s wealth. To get it, they need better jobs, which requires better education, which requires better housing (this was before busing children because of race became popular outside the South).
    Brink and Harris write: “Negroes do not want to take these things [i.e., things that the Negro believes that the Whites have] away from whites or to destroy the white society that has them. On the contrary, Negroes ask only for the chance to earn the better life with dignity” (p. 157).
    No matter what the Negroes claim to want, the primary object of the civil rights movement has been to destroy White society.  With the war on poverty and the exploding welfare state that accompanied the civil rights movement, a great deal of wealth has been taken from Whites via taxation and inflation and transferred to Blacks. When Blacks became dependent on government, they lost all claims to “earning a better life with dignity.”
    According to Brink and Harris, most Negroes want to work next to Whites in an integrated workforce (p. 157). Ironically, often when Blacks are in charge, the workforce becomes predominantly Black with a few token Whites, who are needed to do most of the hard work.[5]
    Brink and Harris state that Blacks believe that their children will do better in school if they sit next to Whites (p. 158). Effectively, they are admitting that they are too inferior to learn without the presence of Whites. Somehow they can capture intelligence from adjacent Whites. The response is that when Blacks seat in a classroom without Whites, Blacks feel inferior (p. 158). Why did not Whites feel inferior when they sat in a classroom without Blacks? Such a claim degrades Blacks. Apparently, Blacks have a low opinion of their children and their ability to learn.
    Brink and Harris quote a Negro man saying, “Negro’s don’t want favoritism, they just want justice” (p. 162). In the end, they got favoritism.
    Brink and Harris show that integration per se was not the primary objective of most Negroes. They want Whites to treat them better. They want equal rights (pp. 162-164).
    Regardless of White “prejudice” and “bigotry” toward Blacks at the time that Brink and Harris wrote this book, today Black prejudices and bigotry toward Whites far exceeds that of Whites toward Blacks.
    Blacks have achieved their primary objective as stated in Brink and Harris’ book. They won the job battle as the job market has been skewed in their favor via discrimination against Whites. (This leads to the question: Did he get the job because of his ability or because of his race?) They won the education battle by destroying White education and getting education lowered to the level of Blacks. They won the housing battle. They can buy houses in White neighborhoods. Yet they get to maintain their own Black neighborhoods. Only self-hating Whites have any desire to live in Black neighborhoods (and Blacks prefer not having those debased people around). Instead of making Blacks more like Whites, integration has made Whites more like Blacks.
    Blacks won the civil rights war and gained full integration. However, they failed to gain their freedom and independence. They are much more enslaved now than then.
     The Communist-led civil rights movement has achieved many of the ruling elites’ goals. It has greatly expanded the power of the federal government and made people more dependent on government. Thus, it has led to the enslavement of all races. More important, it is destroying America and the White race — the primary objectives of the ruling elite.

Endnote

 1.  Thomas Allen, “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation” (Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Co., 2015). Thomas Allen, “Is Integration a Moral Law?” (Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Co., 2015). Thomas Allen, Integration Is Genocide (Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Co., 1997).

2. Allen, “The Bible, Segregation and Miscegenation.”

3. Allen, Integration Is Genocide.

4. Thomas Allen, Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis (Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Co., 1999), p.27. John R. Baker, Race (New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 1974), pp. 170-177. Carlton S. Coon, Racial Adaptation (Chicago, Illinois: Nelson-Hall, 1982), pp. 108-109.

5. For example, see Tracy Abel “The Wages of Idealism” in Face to Face with Race, ed. Jared Taylor (Oakton, Virginia: New Century Foundation, 2014), pp. 3-21.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen. 

Part 1

More articles on social issues. 

The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement -- Part 2

The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement

Thomas Allen

The leading Negro organizations were founded, organized, and controlled by Communists and communist sympathizers. These organizations included the Civil Rights Congress (CRC), Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), Highlander Folk School (HFS), National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), National Negro Congress (NNC), National Urban League (NUL), Revolution Action Movement (RAM), Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), Southern Conference Educational Fund (SCEF), and Student Nonviolence Coordinating Committee (SNCC)

In 1946, the NNC, International Labor Defense (the legal arm of the Communist party), and the National Federation for Constitutional Liberties (all three were communist fronts) merged to form the CRC. Representing NNC was its president Max Yergan, a Communist. Vito Marcantonto, president of ILD and a member of many communist fronts, represented ILD. Milton Kemnitz, executive secretary of NFCL, represented NFCL. “In 1957, the Subversive Activities Control Board said that the merger ‘was created and established by the Communist Party as an organization which would utilize defense of civil rights for Party purposes and raise and maintain mass defense and bail funds for Party use. . . . [The Civil Rights Congress’] major activity became the defense of Party leaders, and the Party continued to assign functionaries and members as officers of or to work in the Civil Rights Congress to insure that the CRC would operate in accordance with the Party program. . . .’” In short, the CRC is a communist front.

In 1942 James Farmer and George Houser formed CORE. Rustin was the field secretary of CORE during the 1940s. King was a member of CORE’s national advisory committee. King’s SCLC and CORE collaborated on the southern campaigns. CORE promoted violence while SCLC offered a nonviolent solution. The message was “give King what he demanded or Farmer’s CORE will attack you.” That is, “save yourself from CORE’s violence by acceding to King’s demands.” With this tactic, the civil rights movement advanced.

As national director of CORE, McKissick stated, “CORE has many friends. Some might be Black Muslims or the Communists.” In 1965 CORE allied with the Black Muslims.

CORE’s basic tactic was to take over a person’s property and then force that person to either divide the property with CORE members or forcibly remove CORE members from the property. If the property owner chose the latter, he was castigated for doing a great moral wrong. Farmer, CORE’s national director, declared “CORE is the hard-cutting edge of the civil right movement. We’re much more militant than Malcolm X — we’re activists.” Known Communists were highly active in CORE and its demonstrations.

About CORE, Gannon writes, “Despite CORE’s leaders’ constant prattling about nonviolence, CORE demonstrations were fraught with violence. This was not an unusual development because the same situation held true for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and Martin L. King’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the two organizations which were the main collaborators in CORE's demonstrations.”

HFS was a communist front that Myles Horton established with the assistance of Don West. West was the district director of the Communist Party of North Carolina. The purpose of HFS was to train religious leaders and others to subvert churches and labor unions to get them to support communist causes like the civil rights movement.

The NAACP was founded in 1909 to facilitate race wars in the United States and to bring down the white people. Behind organizing the NAACP was Jacob Schiff, head of Kuhn, Loeb and Co., head of the Russian Section of the Jewish International World Government, and a financier of the Bolshevik Revolution through Trotsky. W.E.B. DuBois and seven whites constituted its initial governing body. Most of the early members were white radicals, socialists, and Communists. Throughout its history, the NAACP has maintained close ties with Communists. In 1958 more than 61 percent of the top leaders of the NAACP were involved with communistenterprises. Since the founding of the NAACP, radicals have used it to advance their social and other statist agendas.

In 1923 Communists began financing the NAACP through the Garland Fund, which Communists ran, and continued to do so until at least 1934. A few years later Communists began taking control of the NAACP. By the late 1930s, the NAACP had become associated with communist organizations and fronts, such as the National Negro Congress, World Youth Congress, and American Youth for a Free World. In 1941 it cooperated with the Communist party in establishing Progress Citizens of America. The Communist Party endorsed the NAACP in 1953 and encouraged its members to support the NAACP’s campaigns. Another endorsement was given in 1957. The permanent attorneys associated with the NAACP were affiliated with communist fronts and projects.

Before 1960 the NAACP had focused on legal and educational programs. Then it followed SCLC and CORE and adopted an activist program. It became involved in “peace” marches, boycotts, picket lines at stores, and sit-ins.

Robert Thompson, a Communist, wrote the following about the NAACP in Political Affairs: “The emergence of a powerful left, anti-imperialist, anti-fascist current among the Negro people is unmistakable and is clearly discernible in the NAACP.”

About the NAACP, Manning Johnson declared, “National Association for the Advancement of Colored People set up the situation that erupted into racial violence at Little Rock . . . the main danger and handicap to the Negro is not the southern school, but the persecution and hate complex the NAACP and the Reds are trying to create.”

Gannon writes about the NAACP:

From its inception to the present, no matter the protestations of Langston Hughes or any other NAACP apologist, the organization’s officials and its known members, collectively and individually, have represented the influential left, the leadership of Communist fronts and leftwing political and pacifist groups, and the most effective of the anti-anti-Communist establishment. The NAACP has two seemingly contradictory objectives. One is to foment racial tensions, which intensifies barriers between Negroes and other races, especially whites. The other is to bring down barriers that separate Negroes from other races, especially whites. These two objectives are not really contradictory. Both use the Negro as a weapon to destroy the white people and the United States, which are the ultimate goals of the NAACP and kindred organization.

In 1947 The NNC merged with the CRC. James W. Ford, a Communist and a vice president of the League of Strength for Negro Rights (a communist organization), and the Negro Commission of the Communist Party established the NNC in 1935. Another organizer was Ralph Bunche. Communists who were active in the NCC were James W. Ford, Benjamin Davis Jr. (secretary of the NCC), Louise Thompson (member of the Communist Party’s central committee), and Louise E. Strong.

“In 1942, Attorney General Francis Biddle reported: ‘The National Negro Congress, throughout its existence, has closely followed the Communist Party line, espousing causes and adopting issues sponsored by the Party, and with regard thereto, has sought to affiliate itself and form “united fronts” with other organizations. It has characterized all legislation deemed a threat to the civil liberties of Communists or any alien or minority group as “repressive and fascist.” . . .’” Under Whitney Young’s leadership, NUL threatened the United States government into funding a social revolution to prevent an armed revolt. Actually, the ruling elite wanted to increase spending on social programs. Social programs make people dependent on the government, which the ruling elite control. Thus, social programs facilitated their control of the masses.

RAM’s “avowed goal was the violent overthrow of the United States Government.” Its leaders openly aligned themselves with the Vietcong. It sought to infiltrate and subvert other Negro organizations. About RAM, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover stated, “[RAM is] a highly militant, secretive organization following the Chinese oriented Marxist-Leninist line and believes in replacing the capitalistic system with socialism.”

King, Shuttlesworth, and Rustin founded SCLC in 1957. Among the guests at the SCLC organizational meeting were Ella J. Baker (spiritual mother of SNCC) and Charles Hayes (a Communist and district director of United Packinghouse Works of America).

Levison provided financial, organizational, and public relations services for King and SCLC and was responsible for much of SCLC’s finances. In 1956, Rustin introduced King to Levison, a Communist. Afterwards, Levison and King became close friends. Besides his other services to King, Levison wrote speeches for King.

SCLC collaborated with HFS to train Negro leaders in the civil rights movement.

The Louisiana Joint Legislative Committee on Un-American Activities found that SCLC was “substantially under the control of the Communist Party through the influence of the Southern Conference Education Fund and the Communists who manage it.” King and SCLC were closely associated with Dombrowski and other Communists.

SCEF was a communist front used to promote Communism and communist goals to Southern Negroes. SCEF appeared soon after the Southern Conference for Human Welfare (SCHW) disbanded in 1947. The Communist Party established SCHW in 1938. Carl Braden, a member of the Communist party was the field director of the SCHW and later executive director and information director. His wife, Anne Braden, who was also a member of the Communist party, was the editor of the Southern Patriot, which SCHW published and which the SCEF continued to publish. Law partners Benjamin E. Smith and Bruce Waltzer were part of the overall management of SCEF. Both were indicted under the Louisiana Subversive Activities and Communist Control Act. Benjamin Smith was its treasurer. William H. Melish, a Communist, was the Eastern Representative of SCEF.

Aubrey Williams, a member of the Communist party, was the president of SCEF until 1963, and then he became president emeritus. Under President Roosevelt, Williams was director of the National Youth Administration, which made him Lyndon Johnson’s boss. Dombrowski, former executive director of SCHW and a member of the Communist Party, was the executive director of SCEF.

SCEF was the financial backbone of the civil rights movement and the Negro Revolution and many communist fronts. Without the financial aid of SCEF, SNCC would have collapsed.

In 1960 King founded SNCC (pronounced “snick”) to manage sit-ins. After the founding of SNCC, sit-ins and related demonstrations became commonplace throughout the South. SNCC soon gained the support of the U.S. National Student Association (which the CIA funded), the U.S. Department of Justice, NAACP, CORE, and SCLC.

Besides sit-ins, SNCC conducted “freedom rides” and “freedom schools.” Although it claimed to be nonviolent, SNCC used violence and the threat of violence to achieve its goals.

Like nearly all civil rights organizations, SNCC was closely associated with Communists. “Liberal columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak commented: ‘ . . . There is no doubt that SNCC is substantially infiltrated by beatnicks, left wing revolutionaries and worst of all — by Communists.’” It used mailing labels of the communist National Guardian.

SNCC received funds from SCEF and Dombrowski. Jack Rogers, counsel of the Louisiana Joint Legislative Committee on Un-American Activities, noted:

Without the help and backing of the Communist-led Southern Conference Educational Fund, the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee would collapse overnight. However it originally started, the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee is certainly now under the complete control of the Southern Conference Educational Fund through both money and leadership. . . .

The Committee finds that the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee are substantially under the control of the Communist Party through the influence of Southern Conference Educational Fund and the Communists who manage it.

In 1966 Carmichael became the chairman of SNCC, and SNCC abandoned the pretense of working for integration through nonviolence. Under Carmichael, SNCC pushed Black Power. SNCC formerly merged with the Black Panthers in 1968 for a few months after which SNCC expelled Carmichael and ended its merger with the Black Panthers. However, Carmichael left SNCC its rallying cry: “To hell with America . . . [which is] racist from top to bottom, from left to right.” What is left unsaid is that the racists are black and not the cowered whites.

Many more communist organizations have been involved in the civil rights movement. The ones discussed above are a few of the most important ones.

The Communists approached the civil rights movement with a two-pronged attack. They gave white America a choice to be destroyed by black violence or to be destroyed by black integration. Consequently, Malcolm X preached violence while King was presented as the symbol of nonviolence. If America did not give King what he demanded, it would have to answer to Malcolm X. Only King could save America from the violence of Malcolm X. Yet King seemed to leave a wake of Negro riots wherever he went. (King wrote that the purpose of his demonstrations was to provoke violence.)

Carmichael exposed the myth of “nonviolence” in the civil rights movement. During an interview in 1966, he declared:

This nonviolence bit is just a philanthropic handout. I don’t see why people keep thinking about that. The violence is inevitable. I don’t try to stop the fight. I try to prepare the people I am organizing so that when the right time comes they will be able to win it. Our country does not run on reason; it is run on violence. That’s the reality of how things are done here. It is to my benefit to get the Negro out on the streets to stop the machine which is keeping me from my rights. Whether they do it by marching, singing, dancing or fighting is irrelevant. Communists have been at the center of Negro riots. Former Communist Philip Abbot Luce stated, “All of us, as good Communists, were responsible for some work in the riots and each of us longed for the possibility that Harlem would herald the beginning of a nationwide guerilla war.”

Although many leaders of the civil rights movement are Communists, most members are not. The purpose of civil rights organizations is to get noncommunists to support the communist agenda of bringing the United States and the white race down via the Negro Revolution. (The Negro Revolution is one of several approaches being used to destroy the United States and the white race. Others include feminism and the homosexual movement. The same arguments are used in all three movements.) These noncommunist members, many of whom are naive or idealists, conceal the true masters controlling the civil rights movement: Communists and their lords, the ruling elite.

The communist influence is seen when the leaders talk about poor and working-class whites uniting with oppressed blacks to overthrow capitalism, which according to them is the cause of racism. Also, during their riots, Negroes often destroy many black businesses. Like Communists, civil rights organizations promote the welfare state and socialism. Consequently, they want to reduce blacks, whites, and everyone else besides the ruling elite to wards and slaves of the state. So much for freeing the Negro.

In essence, black leaders claim that, unlike people of other races, Negroes are too inferior to stand on their own. They need special privileges and handouts. If they do not believe that Negroes are inferior, then they reveal that they are more interested in promoting socialism than the welfare of Negroes.

One reason that Communists oppose segregation is that it causes the development of a Negro bourgeoisie. Pepper (Pogany) rightly blamed segregation for “. . . a rapid development of a Negro petit-bourgeoisie, a Negro intelligentsia and even a Negro bourgeoisie. The very fact of segregation of the Negro masses creates the basis for the development of a stratum of small merchants, lawyers, physicians, preachers, brokers, who try to attract the Negro workers and farmers as consumers. . . .” The Communists wanted to replace this independence and prosperity of the Negro people with hatred toward whites and dependence on the government — and they have succeeded remarkably well.

Furthermore, because the ruling elite feeds on crisis and turmoil, segregation was turned into a great social crisis. This crisis has been one of the most artificial crises ever created in the United States. Elitists, primarily through Communists, instigated it to add racial hatred to class hatred. Integration also serves the purpose of hastening the death of the white people as it destroys them with artificial guilt and helps breed them out of existence.

The Carnegie Foundation and the Ford Foundation have been important financial sources for the Negro Revolution and its civil rights movement. Carnegie foundations financed Whitney Young, a racial extortionist, and the National Urban League. Young and NUL also received funding from the Ford Foundation.

Besides NUL, CORE, SCLC, and NAACP received funds from the Ford Foundation. The Ford Foundation also funded Milton A. Galamision, LeRoi Jones, and Floyd B. McKissick.

Carnegie’s money also paid for Gunnar Myrdal’s study that purported proved that segregation caused all the problems of the Negro. If it were not for segregation, the Negro would be the white’s intellectual, economic, and social equal. Myrdal held that liberty must be sacrificed for the sake of social equality. He was a Communist who considered the U.S. Constitution to be a plot against the common people. Aiding him in his study were 16 people associated with communist fronts. At least four of them (Ralph J. Bunche, Doxy A. Wilkerson, Bernard J. Stern, and James E. Jackson) were Communists. The United States Supreme Court relied on Myrdal’s study to reject the U.S. Constitution and to impose integration. Stang described this study and its use by the Supreme Court as “the Communist weapon forged by these totalitarians for the purpose — as one of the main justifications for ordering the forced amalgamation of the races in the schools. And that decision leads straight to the forced bussing of today. In other words, forced bussing is nothing but a tactic in a long-range Communist strategy.” The purpose of this strategy is to subvert covertly the government of the United States into a dictatorship. To achieve this goal, the family must be destroyed. This destruction is the purpose of forced integration. Not only did the ruling elite use the financial might of their foundations to foment the Negro Revolution, they also used the money and power of the U. S. government. President Johnson’s civil rights law and War on Poverty were merely weapons that the ruling elite used through the Negro Revolution to destroy the constitutional government of the United States and the white people.

One ostensible object of the War on Poverty was to eliminate slums that agitators exploited to get Negroes to riot. Yet Communists and other agitators were hired to administer the War on Poverty. Actually, the real purpose of the War on Poverty was to create turmoil. (Before the riots of 1967 broke out, Sargent Shriver, director of the United States Office of Economic Opportunity, knew that the United Community Corp., an agency of the Office of Economic Opportunity, was organizing the riots.) President Johnson used the 1967 riots as an excuse for the expansion of his War on Poverty. Negro riots served the purpose of expanding the size, power, and intrusiveness of the U.S. government.

Black revolutionists gave the ruling elite an excuse to carry out compulsory racial integration in the United States. The organization of racial integration was assigned to Ronald Lippert of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and the American Jewish Congress. His program called for the destruction of the individual’s personal identity and his racial heritage — especially the destruction of white racial identity. The National Education Association was employed to execute this program. Controlling the National Education Association was the Stanford Research Institute. Controlling the Stanford Research Institute was the Tavistock Institute. The Tavistock Institute specialized in developing, teaching, and employing mind control and brainwashing techniques.

Some Negro leaders, such as former Communists Helen Wood Birnie and Manning Johnson, had the intelligence and courage to oppose the evils of the civil rights movement. They realized that the ruling elite was using Negroes to advance their communistic, illuministic New World Order. Manning summed up school integration:

. . . the whole issue boils down to taking Negro children out of one school and transferring them to another so that they can be seated with white children on the assumption that only in this way will the Negro child get an education. What really is being implied is that the 113,000 Negro teachers in Southern schools are inferior, incompetent and unable to properly teach the children of their own race . . . it is a question of the liquidation of the Negro school and the Negro teacher under the guise of integration.

These Negro leaders were ignored or smeared with vile epitaphs. (Probably many Negro leaders, such as King and DuBois, who had sold their souls to the ruling elite, were aware of these evils and that their people were merely tools used to advance the illuministic New World Order.)

To show Americans, especially Southerners, that the resistance to the U.S. government and its despotic edicts was futile, President Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard and used it to invade Little Rock in 1957. Later, President Kennedy federalized the Mississippi National Guard in 1962 and used it to invade Mississippi. Thus, the ruling elite used these national guards against their own States.

Moreover, black organizations allied with communist fronts and liberal organizations have been highly successful in destroying Southern culture. Singing “Dixie” and displaying the Confederate battle flag have been banned. Statues honoring Confederate soldiers and heroes have been torn down. Streets and public buildings bearing the name of Confederate soldiers and nineteenth century. Southern political leaders have been renamed. In the name of tolerance, the South is drowning in a sea of intolerance.

Communists supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They correctly saw the law as greatly increasing the power of the U.S. government and the President over the people. Communist Benjamin Davis declared, “Communists believe the achievement of this program [legislation, etc.] will lay an indispensable basis not only for the further social progress of the country, but for its socialist and communist future.”

Lloyd Wright and John C. Satterfield, both past presidents of the American Bar Association, stated about the Civil Rights Act:

It is 10% civil rights and 90% extension of Federal executive power. If this legislation becomes law and is upheld by the Courts—

–It will, in fact, extend Federal control over business, industry and over individuals (with a corresponding destruction of State power) in a degree that exceeds the total of such extensions of power by all judicial decisions and all Congressional actions since the Constitution of the United States was adopted.

–It will, in fact, destroy the Constitutional checks and balances between the Federal Government and the States; and

–It will, in fact, destroy the Constitutional checks and balances between the Executive branch of the Government and the Legislative and Judicial branches.

—The “civil rights” aspect of this Legislation is but a cloak; uncontrolled Federal Executive power is the body.

Wright and Satterfield continue:

This legislation assumes a totally powerful National Government with unending authority to intervene in all private affairs among men, and to control and adjust property relationships, in accordance with the judgment of Government personnel.

It is impossible to prevent Federal intervention from becoming an institutionalization of special privilege for political pressure groups.

They conclude, “This must lead eventually, not to greater human freedom, but to an ever-diminishing freedom.”

Although the Civil Rights Act of 1964 expressly prohibited forced busing, federal judges soon replaced the clear language of the law with the communist agenda of forced busing for racial purposes. Thus, they replaced the “rule of law” with the “rule of man.” Congress did nothing and has done nothing to stop these illegal acts of federal judges. Forced busing has nothing to do with quality education for Negroes. It has everything to do with forcing integration.

To show the result of the civil rights law, Alan Stang comments on a barber prosecuted under the civil rights law of Illinois for refusing to cut the hair of two Negroes:

So in the United States of America — the land of the free — man can be sent to jail for six months, for refusing to cut somebody’s hair.

According to the Rev. Dr. King, what we have to worry about is slavery. It was slavery that made the problem. And is the “vestiges” of slavery that keep the problem alive. It’s slavery that we have to get away from.

What is slavery?

A slave is officially defined as: “One whose person and services are under the control of another as owner or master.” The point on the Old Plantation, according to Dr. King, was that some men’s services were under the control of other men as masters.

And according to Dr. King this was wrong. It was slavery.

But according to Dr. King it’s perfectly all right for the services of a man in Illinois to be under the control of another man as master. It’s perfectly fine that a man can be sent to jail for six months for refusing to cut another man’s hair. That’s wonderful, that’s okay.

That isn’t slavery.

It’s civil rights.

Yet the whole point to slavery, isn’t it, is that a slave can’t quit. Negro slaves couldn’t quit the Old Plantation — and Mr. Rehm apparently can’t quit in Illinois.

The civil rights movement along with forced integration has made race relations worse. It has heightened racial identity and consciousness among nonwhites and has done nothing to reduce racial stereotypes. It has increased intolerance. In the name of tolerance, the leaders of the civil rights movement have been highly intolerant. Conflicts have been elevated between Negroes and Latinos, Negroes and Somalis, Latinos and East Asians, and other racial and ethnic groups. (When left free to choose, most people prefer segregation to integration. They prefer being among others who are like them.) Integration has even created conflict between groups that historically never had conflict with each other until they came to the multiracial, multicultural United States. Communists and other statists feed on conflict as it fertilizes their power. That is why the ruling elite brought the civil rights movement to the United States and has pushed the multiracial, multicultural, open borders, “diversity is strength,” agenda. It destroys liberty and the white race while making the ruling elite all-powerful.

The whole civil rights movement is a hoax. Its purpose is not to grant Negroes “equal rights” per se. Its purpose is to enslave whites. The common excuse for Negro crime and Negro riots is that Negroes are rebelling against white oppression. Whites have denied Negroes their “rights.” Well, Negroes have not only been granted “equal rights,” they have been given superior rights. They have become the new aristocracy, a privileged class. Yet Negro crime grows, and the riots still occurred. However, whites have surrendered enormous freedoms in the name of “equal rights.” The more “equal rights” Negroes have acquired, the more socialistic (fascistic) the United States have become. The more “equal rights” Negroes acquire, the more political power is concentrated in the U.S. government and in the President — and fewer real rights anyone, black or white, has. As Pat Buchanan remarks, “Civil rights has become a racket.”

If whites are as vile and evil as proponents of the civil rights movement contend, why would blacks want to integrate with such hideous people? This is one of the great mysteries of the civil rights movement. That blacks want to integrate with such despicable cowards speaks volumes about blacks — and it is not complimentary. The answer to this mystery must be that blacks do not want to associate with whites. They want the wealth, property, and power that they perceive whites as having. At least they have achieved their goal of power over whites.

In the end, the civil rights movement and Negro Revolution do not benefit the Negro. They were never intended to benefit the Negro. They were intended to enslave everyone under the ruling elite. To see the future of the Negro in what is becoming a Latino-controlled America, one needs only to look at California, especially Los Angeles.

The Civil Rights Act reduced the States, especially the Southern States, to little more than administrative districts of the U.S. government. It has given the President almost absolute control over every business in the country, public education, housing, and the media. In the name of eradicating the vestiges of slavery, the Civil Rights Act has reduced all to slavery. According to King, slavery placed men’s services under the control of other men as masters, which is exactly what the Civil Rights Act that he supported has done. Furthermore, whites have been cowered into allowing their race and culture to be destroyed.

J. Edgar Hoover outlined the communist-led civil rights movement:

Communists seek to advance the cause of communism by injecting themselves into racial situations and in exploiting them (1) to intensify the frictions between Negroes and whites to "prove" that discrimination against minorities is an inherent defect of the capitalist system, (2) to foster domestic disunity by dividing Negroes and whites into antagonistic, warring factions, (3) to undermine and destroy established authority, (4) to incite Negro hostility toward law and order, (5) to encourage and foment racial strife and riotous activity, and (6) to portray the Communist movement as the “champion” of social protest and the only force capable of ameliorating the conditions of the Negro and the oppressed.

In his book Color, Communism and Common Sense, Manning Johnson describes the tactics that Communists used to control the civil rights movement. A chief tactic is to condemn racial strife while creating it. Smearing opponents is another.

The civil rights movement has followed the basic communist tactic of thesis (action), antithesis (reaction), and synthesis (solution). Blacks agitate, threaten violence, take over property, and riot — thesis (problem). Whites react to protect themselves — antithesis. (To ensure a violent reaction, often the reaction is led by agents of the ruling elite.) Agents of the ruling elite come forth with the solution, which is concentrating ever more power in the U.S. government and the President, whom the ruling elite controls if not own — synthesis (solution). It is all very simple.

The objective of the civil rights movement is to divide and destroy America and to bring down the white race. It has been remarkably successful because of the complete and unconditional surrender by whites.

As has been shown, the civil rights movement has been a communist movement from the beginning and continues to be one today. Its leaders have been Communists and communist sympathizers.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.
 
Part 1 Part 3

More articles on social issues.