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 Antebellum Northerner’s Opinion of Blacks

The Antebellum Northerner’s Opinion of Blacks

Thomas Allen

In Northern Rebellion and Southern Secession (1904), E. W. R. Ewing describes the typical Northerner’s, including the typical abolitionist’s, opinion of and attitude toward Blacks.

Even before Ohio became a State, Ohioans saw Negroes as shiftless thieves and adopted laws to expel them. They found that Negroes lacked the fitness and capacity to provide for themselves (pp. 112-113).

Gerrit Smith, an abolitionist, concurred with the Ohioans. He “attested the incapacity, unfitness, and unwillingness of the Southern negro [sic] to provide for himself” (p. 113). He offered free and runaway Negroes farmland if they would farm it. His scheme failed from the want of takers.

When Cobb, a reporter of the Supreme Court of Georgia, asked the governors and leading politicians of the Northern States about the condition of the free Negroes in their States, he received the following replies (p. 288):
– from Connecticut: “not thrifty,” “immoral”;
– from New Jersey: “debased . . . generally indolent”;
– from Pennsylvania: “much deteriorated by freedom”;
– from Indiana: “sent forty this year to Liberia . . . hope finally to get rid of all . . . do not intend to have another negro [sic] or mulatto come into the State”;
– from Illinois: “thriftless, idle, vicious”;
– from New Jersey: “one-fourth criminals in State colored, while colored population is but one-twelfth.”

Nearly all Northerners held that the Negro was inferior to them. Regardless of any lip service that they may give to the proposition that “all men are created equal,” they regarded the Negro as a natural and social inferior.

Further, few Northerners, including abolitionists, would have allowed Negroes to marry their sisters or daughters, and the woman would have strongly objected to such a marriage. Moreover, in New England, Negroes had been burned alive for assaulting White women (p. 280).

Most Northern States denied Negroes, including mulattoes, the privilege of voting and other privileges and duties of citizenship. They considered the Negro “unfit for the exercise of citizenship” (p. 267).

Yet, among the last States to deny free Negroes the vote was in the South. South Carolina did not deny free Negroes the vote until 1835 (p. 281).

Moreover, although more free Negroes lived in the South than in the North (p. 286), they were treated with greater dignity in the South. In the North, many employers refused to hire Negroes, and Whites generally refused to work beside a Negro (p. 289). About the treatment of the Negro in business following Lincoln’s War, Booker T. Washington wrote:

There is almost no prejudice against the negroes [sic] in the South in matters of business, so far as the native whites are concerned; . . . But too often when the white mechanic or factory operative from the North gets a hold, the trades union soon follows, and the negro [sic] is crowded to the wall (p. 289).

Moreover, Illinois made it illegal for Negroes and mulattoes to enter that State with the intention or appearance of residing there. If found guilty, the Negro would be fined, and if he were unable to pay the fine, then he was to be sold at a public auction (p. 268). Michigan and Indiana also prohibited Negroes from coming into them to live there (p. 269). Likewise, Oregon prohibited Negroes from entering it (p. 271). Also, California prohibited Negroes from entering it to reside there (p. 274).

To Massachusetts goes the honor of being the first State to expel all free Negroes in her boundaries (pp 269-270).

In 1829, Ohio restricted public schools to Whites only (p 266). In 1833, Connecticut made “it a penal offence to set up or establish any school or literary institution for colored persons not inhabitants of the State; and any negro [sic] coming to the State for instruction could be forcibly removed therefrom” (p. 266).

For the most part, the Northern States considered free Negroes, including mulattoes, a danger to their society. Thus, they placed many social and legal restraints on them. Even as late as 1870, many Northern States forbade Negroes from owning property, making contracts, and testifying against Whites (p. 269). Hypocrites that they are, these Northerners railed against Southerners for denying Negroes rights that Northerners refused to grant them.

For decades following Reconstruction, the Northerner’s low opinion of Blacks did not change much. Even the last violent resistance to school integration occurred in Massachusetts. Furthermore, since 1960, more race riots have occurred outside the South than in the South. (See “Race Riots” by Thomas Allen.)

Since the Northerner, including the abolitionist, knew from first-hand experience the behavior of the Negro, free or slave, they must have hated the Southerner so much that they turned the freed Negro loose in the South in hopes that they would demoralize and eventually genocide the Southerner. The only other option is that these Northerners and abolitionists were stupid; however, as most of their leaders were intelligent men, stupidity can be ruled out. Some leading abolitionists openly admitted their hatred of Southerners and their desire to genocide them.

About the burden that was thrown on the South following Lincoln’s war, Booker T. Washington wrote:

The time is not far distant when the world will begin to appreciate the real character of the burden that was imposed upon the South in giving the franchise to four millions of ignorant and impoverished ex-slaves. No people was ever before given such a problem to solve. History has blazed no path through the wilderness that could be followed (p. 289).

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern articles.

A Review of The South and Christian Ethics -- Part 2

A Review of The South and Christian Ethics -- Part 2

Thomas Allen

    Throughout Chapter 3, Sellers preaches, “We are to love our neighbor.” One of the highest forms of love, if not the highest, is integration. As integration leads to the death of the races, how can this be love? As integration destroys the uniqueness of the races and racial identity, how can this be love?
    In Chapter 4, Sellers claims that the Bible supports integration and condemns segregation. As noted above and in Integration Is Genocide, False Biblical Teachings on the Races and Interracial Marriages, and People of the Flood, the opposite is true: The Bible supports segregation and condemns integration. To support his claim, Sellers makes a few broad statements, but offers no Biblical proof.
    Based on Sellers comments about White preachers in the South at the time that he wrote (p. 118), most preachers then are like most preachers now. They were not going to oppose the Marxist Communist agenda.
    Sellers describes segregation as a system of belief (p. 118ff). If true, then integration, its opposite, also has to be a system of belief. The major difference between the two beliefs is that segregation has much more Biblical support than integration. (V. “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation.”)
    If segregation is the theology of “the unrepentant Southern kingdom of God” as Sellers asserts (p. 119), then integration is the theology of the unrepentant Yankee kingdom of Lucifer. If segregation is a comforting temptation as Sellers purports, then integration must also be a comforting temptation.
    He states that segregationists use the same Bible verses to justify segregation as slaveholders used to justify slavery (p. 120). That may be true to a limited degree. However, one could point to a host of Biblical passages in both the Old Testament and New Testament on slavery. None condemn slavery with the possible exception of the Israelite slaves in Moses’ day. These slavery verses had little relevance for segregationists. Because the Bible is void of antislavery and antisegregation verses, integrationists, like abolitionists, have to abandon the Bible to justify their position. If they do refer to the Bible at all, it is with vague broad abstractions. Sellers is guilty of this broad vagueness when talks about “neighborliness,” “brotherhood of man,” etc.
    Sellers contends that the Bible does not support slavery and that slavery and segregation are rebellion against God (p. 120). He must not have read the Bible. If his claim is true, why does the Bible not clearly condemn slavery as a sin and forbid it? On the contrary, both the Old Testament and New Testament present slavery as an acceptable institution. Both set forth a code on how masters are to treat their slaves and how slaves are to act. The South probably came closer than any other slaveholding society in following the Scriptural rules on slavery.
    If Southerners sinned by being slave owners, then Northerners must have sinned by dealing in slaves. They bought the slaves from African chiefs and sold them to Southern slave owners. Surely, buying and selling slaves is as sinful as owning them. Sellers does not mention the sins of the Northern slavers. Nor does he mention the sins of the African chiefs, who grew rich by African standards, in capturing and selling their fellow Africans. If God punished the South because a small percentage owned slaves, why did He not also punish the North for its Northern slavers?
    According to Sellers, Southerners see segregation as the road to salvation (pp. 120-121). If true, then Yankees and quisling Southerners must see integration as the road to salvation. If Sellers believes what he writes about segregationist theology and salvation, then he should believe in integrationist theology and salvation. (As discussed below, he does equate integration to salvation.)
    Sellers maintains that the reason that White segregationists object to their daughters marrying Blacks is pride (p. 121). It never occurs to him that the basic reason could be obedience to God’s word. Numerous passages condemn interracial marriages, even to the point of not allowing mixed breeds in God’s assembly (Deuteronomy 23:2). (V. “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation.”)
    Sellers appears to believe that God cannot be the Father of all unless the races are integrated (p. 122) and eventually produce motley mongrel man. He ignores the last part of Acts 17:26. This verse states that God created the races (“and hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth”) and assigned them their habitat (“hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation”). Thus, God did not intend for the races to commingle. To the extent that he recognizes this verse, Sellers like most integrationists only recognizes the first part and ignores the second part.
    Sellers suggests that Christ has nothing to say in support of segregation (pp. 122-123). On the contrary, Christ reiterates five of the Ten Commandments that condemn the fruit of integration, miscegenation. (V. “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation.”)
    To him, Christ teaches a love that precludes segregation and requires, if not forces, one to be an integrationist (pp. 122-124). Why he believes Christ would support, even advocate, situations that encourage men to destroy the races that God created by breeding them out of existence, he does not explain.
    In Chapter 4, Sellers questions the Christianity of segregationists. He has difficulty believing that segregationists can be Christians. To him segregation and Christianity are incompatible.
    Sellers seems to have little use for the Old Testament (p. 124, passim). Perhaps he degrades the Old Testament because it supports segregation far more than it supports integration.
    Sellers accuses segregationists of selecting passages from the Bible that support their argument (p. 124). He does the same thing. Well, not exactly. Sellers does not cite specific passages to support integration, perhaps because none exists. He just makes vague references to Jesus’ teachings on love and neighborliness.
    Sellers finds segregationists guilty of racial pride — pride in the White race (p. 116). Throughout his book, he condemns segregationists for the sin of pride. Yet Sellers is proud of being an integrationist, but he does not perceive himself guilty of the sin of pride. A proud segregationist is a sinner; a proud integrationist is never a sinner.
    An objective of integration has been to instill Blacks with pride in the Black race. Yet Sellers finds no fault with Black racial pride.
    Sellers has nothing but praise for the Communist front-man Martin Luther King (v. “Appendix: Martin Luther King” in “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement.”) and the Communist-run Southern Christian Leadership Council (v.  “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement”). He also praises the highly violent Student Non-Violent Coordination Committee and the Congress of Racial Equality, (v. “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement”) both closely allied with Communists (pp. 128-129).
    He implies that all violence that has occurred during the civil rights movement is the fault of Southerners. They are guilty of not surrendering to Blacks fast enough (p. 129).
    Sellers castigates the orthodox Southern liberal and all others who did not want to surrender to the Negro unconditionally and immediately. He even chastises what he calls the unrealistic Negroes, such as middle-class businessmen (they were the ones whom the Communists wanted to destroy), for not giving complete, unhesitating, unquestionable support to Black radicals (pp. 130-132). (V. “Black Nationalism.”)
    Sellers seems to believe that once full integration is achieved, the United States would be a color-blind democracy (p. 142). The United States have had full integration for more than forty years. Yet race consciousness is greater than ever, especially among non-Whites. The predominant race consciousness that Whites have is hatred of the White race, a feeling in common with the other races. We have come a long way in race relations under integration, have not we! Sellers should be proud.
    He has no problem with sacrificing principle for appearance in the name of moderation if the principle sacrificed is one with which he disagrees.
    Sellers blames Whites, especially Southerners, for most of the problems encountered with the civil-rights-integration movement. They are the blame because they had not elevated Blacks to “full-fledged human beings” (p. 153). Most likely, Sellers would be blaming Southerners today for the race problems, although Blacks had reached godlike status by the 1980s. Today the self-esteem of Whites is far lower than the self-esteem of Blacks ever was during segregation or slavery. If Sellers is correct, Whites need to be raised to “full-fledged human beings,” and Blacks lowered to “full-fledged human beings.”
    Sellers quotes Roger Mehl: “The primary condition for communicating is respect for the otherness of the other” (p. 153). How can a self-respecting Negro respect cowardly, debasing, self-hating, self-destructive Whites?
    Sellers writes, “White men have tended to regard benevolence as their sole obligation to the Negro. But between adults, there is another obligation: neither love nor mercy nor benevolence, however well-meant, can stand in lieu of recognizing the recipient as possessing independent, mature selfhood” (p. 153). Knowingly or not, he has chastised the White liberal, who has been the primary promoter of this benevolence. The welfare state that has accompanied the civil rights movement has stripped many Blacks of their independent, mature selfhood by making them wards of the State. As he is a good liberal, I would be surprised if Sellers would or did oppose the growing welfare state.
    Sellers asserts that the Negro “is not going to accept the white man’s benevolence in preference to asserting his manhood” (p. 154). If true, why are so many Blacks on welfare of one sort or another?  If they valued manhood over benevolence, they would reject all welfare even if they qualified for it.
    Sellers writes a good deal about justice (p. 156ff). Where is the justice of taking the property of another and holding it hostage?
    He seems to place much more importance on justice than love. Justice should always trump love. According to him, justice builds manhood; love destroys it. Justice should always have priority over love. Furthermore, integration is justice. If he is correct, justice has prevailed. However, it has done nothing to improve race relations, which would surprise Sellers. If anything, race relations are just as bad today, probably worse, than in 1962. The hostility is just better concealed. (V. “The Dirty War: America’s Race War.”).
    Sellers also presents the civil rights movement, especially the part led by King, as nonviolent (p. 157). If King were nonviolent, why did he leave a trail of blood everywhere he went? Why would a nonviolent man coordinate his activities with violent men as King did? The civil rights movement has been extremely violent. What else would one expect from a movement led by Communists? (V. “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement.”) Blacks have been warring against Whites since the movement began. However, this war has been concealed and is revealed in crime statistics. Whites are far more often the victims of Blacks than Blacks are of Whites. (V. “The Dirty War: America’s Race War.”)
    Sellers firmly believes that morality and ethics can be legislated (pp. 161-163).
    He presents the integration of the armed forces as good and as a good example of improving racial relations (p. 162). The primary reason for integrating the armed forces had nothing to do with justice, elevating Blacks to full manhood, or improving race relations. On the contrary, it degraded the Negro. The armed forces integrated because Black in segregated units often broke and ran instead of holding their ground when the enemy attacked them during the Korean War. (Perhaps, Blacks displayed more intelligence than Whites in this insistence. Why should they die for some foreign territory that meant nothing to them?) Dispersing them among the White troops gave them the fortitude to stand firm in the face of the enemy. (A friend of mine once told me about an experience that he had in basic training years after the armed forces were integrated. In his integrated unit was a Northerner from a place that had few Blacks. After being around Blacks for a while, the Northerner, who had had his fill of Blacks, asked my friend, who was a Southerner, “Why have you let them [Blacks] live?” Obviously, integration has not created all the neighborliness that Sellers prophesied.)
    Sellers sees himself as a witness for God pushing integration. However, he does caution against identifying legal decisions and governmental directives with the word of God (p. 165).
    To dampen his earlier discussion on justice, he brings love into his argument. He notes that justice is not enough. After justice is achieved, the races must be made to love each other (pp. 166ff). However, he maintains that no one can demand the right of fellowship (p.169). Yet the ostensible purpose of civil rights laws, which Sellers surely supports, is to force fellowship. (The real purpose of civil rights laws is to give those who really control the government more power over the people.) Then he contradicts himself with “the Church has a duty to preach the commandment of love itself as a fulfillment of all external, compulsory commandments which deal in forced togetherness” (p. 168). Thus, once the government corals with force various groups, the job of the Church is to brainwash the people forced together to love one another and their overlords who forced them together. After all, these despotic overlords are only executing God’s justice.
    Sellers condemns the concept of “voluntary association” when it results in segregation (pp. 169-170). Presumably, he has no problem with voluntary association if it results in integration. According to him, governmental coercion should trump freedom of association.
    Sellers does offers some excellent advice to Northerners: Clean up your own house before telling Southerners what to do beyond desegregation (p. 171). He has no fault with Northerners forcing integration on the South. An irony to come out of the civil rights movement has been that the worst race riots have been outside the South. I doubt that Sellers expected this. I am sure that few Northerners foresaw this outcome. (V. “The Cold War.”) Most likely, they expected integration would keep the Negro where he belonged: down South. It would even encourage Blacks in the North to migrate to the South. The civil rights law was written to desegregate areas where segregation was enforced by statute, that is in the South. It did not apply where segregation was by custom, that is in the North. However, some renegade judges soon changed that and brought integration to the North. Most likely, Sellers approved of that.
    Sellers seems to have found a new road to salvation: integration (pp. 171-172). Apparently faith in Jesus is not enough. Whites must also integrate with Blacks. Not only must they integrate, they must also love the Negro to achieve salvation.
    Sellers seems to follow the blueprint of the radicals of the French Revolution for rebuilding society. (V. “The French Revolution – Part II: The Revolution.”) First, tear it down completely, then rebuilt it anew in the radical image. He despises the love that Southerners had for Blacks during segregation because Blacks were subordinate. So, he tears the South asunder with forced integration imposed from outside. Next, he rebuilds the South on integration and elevates the Negro with special privileges above Whites. By now he has destroyed the love. Then he wants to bring back the love that has been destroyed. All he has achieved is arrogant demanding Blacks and self-hating, fearful, and cowardly Whites. The love that was may never return.
    Sellers has no use for segregated churches — at least White segregated churches. He has no use for White churches that oppose integration. The only honorable churches are those that preach the virtue and holiness of integration (p. 172ff). As God is a segregationist and an anti-integrationist, (v. “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation” and “Is Integration a Moral Law?”) Sellers has no use for churches that preach these biblically revealed aspects of God. People are to love and accept indiscriminately. Apparently, they are to love even those whom God hates. Seemingly, only churches that preach breeding out of existence the races that God created are preaching the love of man and the love of God. How willingly destroying what God created is love is not explained.
    Unlike many integrationists, at least Sellers realizes that fellowship cannot be imposed by force. To attempt to do so makes matters worse (p. 176).
    Throughout his book, Sellers preaches the virtues of neighborliness by the White race. However, the only neighborliness that he will tolerate is the one that he wants to be created. He despises the neighborliness that existed under segregation. He and his fellow integrationists succeeded in destroying that neighborliness in the name of what he calls “justice.” Then he complains about the lack of neighborliness!
    Sellers condemns racial pride as a great sin. It is rebellion against God — especially racial pride by Whites (p. 180). At least Whites are no longer guilty of this sin. Whatever racial pride that they may have had has been replaced by hatred of their race. If Whites have any racial pride, it is pride in the colored races.
    Sun Moon seems to have achieved the church-driven neighborliness that Sellers espouses. (V. “New Age Religions.”) Moon’s congregations are highly integrated. Many marriages in his church are interracial. What would one expect from a church led by the Messiah, as Moon claims to be?
    At least the motley mongrel man ends racial pride as he is of no race. How soon would it take the motley mongrel man to discover that some mongrels have darker skin than others and take pride in that? Thus, skin pride replaces racial pride.
    Sellers believes that churches should teach the truth (p. 180). If they did, they would oppose much of what he advocates.
    Like most integrationists, Sellers condemns prejudice. Throughout his book he condemns it. Yet he displays prejudice against Southerners, segregationists, white supremacists, Christian fundamentalists, and others throughout his book.
    Although Sellers did not believe that integration would bring about utopia, he did expect it to cause a significantly higher level of morals and ethics. Furthermore, he expected a higher level of justice. However, the opposite has happened. Since integration replaced segregation, morals and ethics have been declining. Abortion is commonplace. Homosexuals are now considered normal and acceptable, even to the point of being able to marry each other. Miscegenation (adultery) is accelerating. Divorce is rampant. With Waco, Oklahoma City, and 9-11, the United States government has declared war on the American people. Furthermore, America is no longer a Christian country. Church membership has been declining (perhaps justifiably so as many churches have abandoned the Bible). Children are no longer educated but are taught to be slaves. America is the greatest debtor country in history. Decadence, moral decay, crime, gambling, pornography, and drug abuse are growing. Self-reliance, freedom, security, and prosperity are fading. The law has ceased to protect the races and individuals, but it grants special privileges to the politically powerful at the expense of everyone else, White or Black. Scoundrels with sufficient political power are now more than ever above the law — so much for justice.
    Out of the integration-civil-rights movement has grown political correctness and the death of freedom of speech. White people, especially those in the public, have to watch every word that they say for fear of being called a racist, which is now the most feared smear word in the language, having surpassed “fascist” and “anti-Semitic.”
    Because of integration, the great bastions of free discussion, free thought, and free expressions — universities — have gone as far as to suppress discussion, thought, and expression with speech codes. Anyone found guilty of violating the speech code is expelled. University administrators, most of whom are White, condemn Whites upon the mere accusation of a Black without any proof. Even after the White person proves his innocence (the burden of proof is always on the White victim), he is still guilty as far as the university is concerned. Would Sellers be politically correct and mold himself into political correctness?
    Thus, censorship has become the norm. Only the extremely politically incorrect utters any condemnation of integration, Martin Luther King, and miscegenation. Anyone who says or writes anything that the powers-that-be considers “racist” (a seldom defined ambiguous term) becomes persona non grata until he sufficiently grovels before the proper parties — and even then he is never fully forgiven.
    One wonders what Sellers would think of America’s maturing police state. Most likely, he would approve as it grows from the same mentality that spewed forth integration and the civil rights movement.
    I don’t know if Sellers is still alive. If he is and if he retains his consistency, he would be arguing for “homosexual rights” and being neighborly with homosexuals. He would support the coming pedophile agenda, which will be the next group to be granted special privileges in the name of “equal rights.” Most likely, he would be using the same arguments of justice tempered with a little bit of love. He would contend that Jesus would have accepted both. In the eyes of Jesus and the Bible, neither homosexual sex nor pedophilia is a sin, but White racism is (racism by Blacks and other races is not a sin).
    The battle against the homosexual agenda and the pedophile agenda was lost by 1965. All the opponents of these agendas are doing now is fighting a rear-guard action. They are like the German army in 1945. They have already lost the war. The war against the homosexual and pedophile agendas cannot be won unless the communist civil rights movement is abandoned. That cannot happen unless Whites abandon their false guilt and self-hatred and once again love their race and what their forefathers gave them.
    The solution to the race problem is not what Sellers promotes and argues. It is not a return to segregation of yesteryear either. The solution is along the proposals that Marcus Garvey, Mittie Maud Gordon, Roy Innis, and a few other brave, forward-thinking Blacks have put forth: separation. That is the solution in keeping with God’s original plan: “determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.” For that reason, it will be the last solution considered.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 1

More articles on social issues.