Some Observations Pertaining to Race

Some Observations Pertaining to Race

Thomas Allen

 

Discussed below are the option of racial separation, the social construct of the races, school integration, and the future of the American Negro.

Many Whites are racial nihilists and pretend to be Negrophiles. (One cannot be a racial nihilist and at the same time be a Negrophile. A racial nihilist claims that race is irrelevant, while a Negrophile claims to love Negroes, which requires the relevancy of Negroes.) In reality, White racial nihilists hate Whites and have no qualms about annihilating the American Negro if their annihilation results in the genocide of Whites.

Racial Separation Is Not an Option

In “Mamdani’s Commie Housing Official Is a Lunatic,” January 7, 2026, (https://amac.us/newsline/politics/mamdanis-commie-housing-official-is-a-lunatic/?utm_objective=website_traffic&dderh=4b6c02be5961e5a13b9d052b0611dda2), the author wrote, “There are many policy options available to the voters of this country, but communism and racial separation are not among them.” If racial separation is a policy option not available to the voters of this country, then racial amalgamation is the policy forced on the country. Racial amalgamation is genocide of the races, as the races cease to exist when amalgamated. Why does this author hate the American Negro so much that he wants to genocide them? (See “Miscegenation Is Genocide” by Thomas Allen.)

Furthermore, the author writes, “This is not a communist country, and our system is not compatible with communism’s demands.” For a country that is not communist, the United States have gone a long way toward implementing the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto. The United States have adopted about 80 percent of these planks (five fully and five partially). The country may not be a fully communist country, but it is almost there. (See “Are the United States a Communist Country?” by Thomas Allen.)

Are the Races Social Constructs?

Many left-wingers and brainwashed right-wingers who want to be politically correct claim that the human races are social constructs and do not exist biologically. If the human races are social constructs, how can dogs distinguish a Black person from a White person without ever seeing the person? Furthermore, bacteria, which know even less about human racial constructs than do dogs, can distinguish a Black person from a White person. Different odor-causing bacteria grow on Blacks than grow on Whites. For this reason, dogs can differentiate between the races.

Furthermore, and even more shockingly, computers can identify a person’s race from medical images. Computers must be identifying some kind of biological features that distinguish one social construct race from another, which means that races are biological rather than social constructs. (Rachel Gordon, "Artificial intelligence predicts patients' race from their medical images/' MIT News, May 20, 2022:[https://news.mit.edu/2022/artificial-intelligence-predicts-patients-race-from-medical-images-0520] and “AI recognition of patient race in medical imaging: a modelling study” [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35568690/].)

Amazingly, the blood (see “Of One Blood” by Thomas Allen) and skeletons (see “Skeleton Differences of Human Races”) of these socially constructed races differ. Even more amazingly, they differ in nonphysical characteristics. (See “Nonphysical Racial Differences” by Thomas Allen.) 

Miraculously, socially constructed races correspond almost perfectly with biological races — both physically and physiologically. It must be one of those great, inexplicable coincidences.

School Integration

Northerners and especially Yankees supported school integration in the South primarily for two reasons. First, they, especially Yankees, supported it because they hated Southerners and wanted to use Blacks to destroy them and their way of life. Second, they wanted to keep Blacks where they belonged — in the South. If they integrated schools in the South but not in the North, fewer Blacks would migrate to the North. (Initially, federal integration laws were written to apply only where segregation was statutory [in the South] and not where segregation was customary [in the North]. Unfortunately for the North, judges started doing what they always do and ignored the parts of the law with which they disliked and started applying integration laws in the North.) Almost no Northerners, especially Yankees, were concerned about the welfare of Blacks. Blacks were merely weapons to destroy the South. Now, the monster that they created is destroying all of White America, as Whites have become second-class citizens in the country that they created.

Future of the American Negro

When Hispanics allied with East Asians and South Asians reach critical mass, Whites will, most likely, remain second-class citizens. However, Blacks will be demoted to fifth-class citizens. Unfortunately for Blacks, they will not be able to control this alliance with false guilt, as they have controlled Whites. The typical Hispanic, East Asian, and South Asian has less use for Blacks than the stereotypical Klansman.

Under White supremacy, Blacks were at least allowed on the bus, although they were usually restricted to the rear of the bus. Under the nonwhite-nonblack supremacy, they may not even be allowed on the bus.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Separation Versus Integration

Separation Versus Integration

Thomas Allen

After reading some of Martin Luther King’s works, I discovered that I, a racist bigot, have a much higher opinion of and more confidence in the American Negro than King did. King believed that Negroes were incapable of raising themselves without altruistic White aid. That is, King believed that Whites were solely responsible for raising Negroes from their unpleasant conditions; Negroes had no responsibility. Whites were to give Negroes everything, and Negroes were to take everything.

Like  Malcolm X and Roy Innis, I believe that Negroes are capable of raising themselves independently of Whites. Unlike King, who was an integrationist, they were separationists. Also, unlike King, who promoted the destruction of Negro culture and even the Negro race, they advocated the preservation and enhancement of Negro culture and the Negro race.

According to King, Negroes were blameless for their condition and, thus, had no responsibility for improving their condition. Whites were solely responsible for improving the conditions of the Negroes. However, under separation, Negroes have the primary responsibility for improving their conditions. Consequently, separation would have taught Negroes responsibility, independence, and self-reliance. It would have freed them from the slave mentality. Ironically, Jim Crow was teaching these lessons to Negroes and freeing them from the slave mentality until the civil rights movement killed Jim Crow. Unfortunately, under integration, most Negroes have failed to learn responsibility, independence, and self-reliance, and thus, the slave mentality continues to possess them.

If the country had followed the separationist road instead of the integrationist road, race relations would be much better than they are today. Now, race relations are so great that they are tearing the country apart.

Under separation, Negroes would know that what they have, they earned by their own efforts. Under integration, Whites have given Negroes much of what they have today. Consequently, Negroes do not know whether they earned what they have or whether they have been given what they have. Knowing that they earned what they have would give them more self-respect and the respect of others.

Moreover, under separation, the country would not have wasted trillions of dollars on the War on Poverty. (According to one study, the United States have spent more money on the War on Poverty than all other wars combined.)

Further, under separation, diversity, inclusion, and equity (equality of outcome and discrimination against Whites) would not have torn the country apart as they are doing today. (Ironically, inclusion destroys diversity. To be preserved, diversity requires segregation and separation. Inclusion requires integration and amalgamation.)

Another result of separation is that the White race would not be filled with self-hatred and the uncontrollable urge to genocide itself. Whites would not have opened the borders to third-world colonists, who are mostly Turanians from Asia and Latin America (Indians and mestizos) and Melanochroi from India, Pakistan, the Arabian Peninsula, and the Horn of Africa. Not only are these colonists destroying Whites, but they are also destroying Negroes.

Under integration, most Whites have become racial nihilists and practice the new morality of sacrificing the White race on the altar of humanity. Under separation, most Whites would have continued to practice the old morality of preserving, protecting, and promoting their race and would have become racial preservationists. 

Under integration, Negroes have become Black supremacists and practice the old morality. However, under separation, Negroes would have become racial preservationists while practicing the old morality.

Life in America under separation would not be a utopia. However, it would not be the dystopia that it has become under integration. Most likely, Negroes would have advanced further under separation than they have under integration. Under separation, their advancement would not have required bringing down the White race as has happened under integration. Moreover, wokeism would never have been born, and queerdom would have remained in the shadows.

Separation would have led to a society similar to that envisioned by Booker T. Washington. The races would be separated socially; little social interaction would occur between them. However, economically, the races would be interconnected; they would interact with each other economically.

Separation accords with God’s law, while integration rebels against God’s law.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Only One Race: The Human Race

Only One Race: The Human Race

Thomas Allen

The notion that only one race, i.e., the human race, exists is globalist propaganda — be it from the Catholic Church of years gone by, which many gullible or ignorant Protestants still believe, or today’s globalist elite. It meshes seamlessly into their nightmare of a one-world state with its one-world government and one-world religion. To achieve this globalist goal, humanity must be homogenized into a monochromatic, mongrel man with as little individual distinction as possible. 

Proponents of “only one race, the human race, exists,” which is also known as the “unity of man doctrine,” are, in essence, calling Martin Luther King a liar. King’s agenda was based on the existence of multiple human races. Fervently, he advocated giving Negroes special privileges. If the Negro race does not exist, it cannot receive special privileges. The existence of the Negro race with special privileges necessitated the existence of other races. (For more on King, go to https://tcallenco.weebly.com/social-issues.html.)

Adherents of “only one race, the human race, exists” assert that all the races (or people groups, as many prefer) came into being following the Tower of Babel dispersal.  Only two actions could have caused the formation of the human races: the miraculous or the natural. The miraculous requires God to create the races. Although Acts 17:26b supports the miraculous approach, they reject it. The natural requires Darwinian principles, i.e., evolution, although they reject evolution.  (See “Jeremiah on the Fixity of Race” and “Analysis of ‘How did all the different “races” arise (from Noah’s family?’” by Thomas Allen.) Curiously, these adherents deny the existence of the various human races while describing how they came to be and acknowledging that various races or people groups have recognizable features.

Most likely, adherents of “only one race, the human race, exists” reject the miraculous approach because it interferes with their unity of man doctrine. If God created the human races, then obviously, He would want them preserved. Consequently, they would have to support policies that protected them: segregation and separation. However, their unity of man doctrine requires, even demands, integration, miscegenation, and amalgamation: policies that destroy them. Thus, they promote the demise of the races that God created.

Often, proponents of “only one race, the human race, exists,” like to ask people who reject their doctrine of the unity of man, “Is there a superior race?” or similar questions. (If races do not exist, a superior race cannot exist.) They seem to expect as a response, “Yes, the White or Aryan race,” or words to that effect. They do not expect or accept any person, especially a White, to identify the superiority of another race.

For example, in general, Negroes are superior to Whites as boxers. They have the innate advantage of thicker skulls and, therefore, can better withstand blows to the head. Also, they have longer arms and can, thus, hit a White target before a White gets close enough to hit them.

Another example is that Blacks in general are superior to other races at playing basketball. The dominance of Black players in the National Basketball Association proves this superiority. Approximately 72 percent of NBA players are Black. Likewise, since this example conflicts with their doctrine of the unity of man, they also reject it.

One more example that the proponents of “only one race, the human race, exists,” reject is the superiority of Blacks over Whites in surviving and reproducing in the lower latitudes. Because their pigmented skin prevents ultraviolet light from destroying vitamin B-12, which is necessary for reproduction, Blacks are superior to Whites in surviving and reproducing in low latitudes. Nevertheless, these proponents must likewise find this example unacceptable because it also conflicts with their doctrine of the unity of man.

Adherents of “only one race, the human race, exists” are also proponents of the races-are-social-construct school. To any extent that distinguishable features of various people groups (races) exist, they are social constructs. They certainly are not biological.

As shown above, adherents of “only one race, the human race, exists” reject everything, including all facts, that contradict or interfere with their doctrine of the unity of man. 

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Wisdom of James K. Vardaman

Wisdom of James K. Vardaman

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: This article was submitted in 1998 to the “Southern National Newsletter” of the Southern National Party.]

James K. Vardaman was a political leader in Mississippi during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. He was a governor and a senator during this time. He believed that the races should be separated. Blacks should be trained in useful trades so that when they were repatriated, they could support themselves in their homeland. However, in the interim, he opposed allowing them to govern, yet he did not oppose allowing them to vote provided they met the same high standards required of White voters of that time. He also opposed social integration of the races, which would lead to interracial marriages, which he also adamantly opposed. The following are some interesting exerts from part of his biography, Chapter Number Six, The Race Question from The White Chief; A Story of the Life and Times of James K. Vardaman by Archibald Goody IV (Jackson, Mississippi, 1944). Little has changed in the fifty years [now 75 years] since these words were written or in the hundred years since Vardaman’s time.

“The cause of the intolerably bad government of the negro was his incompetence, not his dishonesty. It demonstrates that political power in the hands of the ignorant or the indifferent brings as bad results as if in the hands of the corrupt. There are always at hand those who prey upon and profit by ignorance or indifference. The negro was taught that he could earn a living by voting and holding office, rather than by honest toil. Hence, he expected to barter his vote for the things which are ours only by work. He was given the worst possible conception of the privilege of the ballot, and this bad conception persists even unto this day. It was easy for the negro to reason that, since the white man was better off than the negro and could vote, the vote was the cause of the favorable circumstance. And he still relies upon this simple syllogism.” (p. 58)

“For seventy-five years there has been no variation in the plea for the negro. He has been taught, systematically and with malice aforethought, that he was oppressed, denied his ‘rights,’ refused opportunity, robbed of the product of his labor, and generally mistreated. He has not been taught that man must work for his place in the sun and obtain the treasures of life by industry, frugality, self-denial and a rigorous self-discipline. The price of success is ‘sweat, toil, blood and tears.’ It may well be doubted that ‘heaven is had for the asking.’ He needs to be told to correct his own moral delinquencies, apply himself assiduously to the task he has to do, and find in himself the courage and the fortitude to meet the duties and responsibilities of life. His formula for success is the same as that of other men. ‘Responsibility is the price of greatness.’” (p. 61)

“The negro may qualify as an elector under the same terms as the white man. It is merely a question of possessing the qualifications, paying all taxes, and registering. Mississippi has no ‘grandfather clause.’ All white voters have complied with every law and obligation imposed on the negro. No more, no less. But the negro’s spokesmen demand the standard be lowered to the level of the negro, instead of the negro rising to the standard.” (p. 67) (Today, we have lowered the standard to the Negro’s level instead of the Negro rising to the standard of the White man.)

“Against the Bill of Compliant, suppose we examine the advantages enjoyed by the American negro. He is in one of the great nations of the earth, and enjoys without cost or effort on his part, all essential privileges of a free people; privileges developed by the white man and requiring thousands of years of labor and sacrifice. The only price exacted of the negro was a short period of slavery, a period of time but a tick of the clock in human history.” (p. 73)

“In marriage of black and white, upon whose past do we build? Sleswick or the Congo? Of what history would the child be proud? To whom would homage be paid? To what ideals would its allegiance be given? A marriage between white persons, one an American and one, say a German, poses a problem of loyalty. The child has two great traditions of culture and achievement, but it must and will believe in one more, than in the other. But it is a problem only of present and surface emotions and psychology. The problem of the mulatto is infinitely greater because he combines two diverse and irreconcilable traditions. Loyalty to one means repudiation of the others. He is at home with neither the white nor the black. Unable to be true to either parent, he cannot be true to self. These and other conditions needless to mention, are sufficient to show the utter futility of any plan of social equality. For social equality is worse than a farce if we draw the line at marriage — it ceases to have meaning.” (p. 85) (Today we have answered these questions. The answer is the Congo — not only for mulattos, but also for Whites.)

“The one and only solution of the race question which confronts the South is complete separation, and that is the physical removal of the negro to a country of his own. Less than this is not a solution, but an armed truce. All have overlooked, or ignored, this elemental proposition.” (p. 89)

“The only sensible end our race problem can have is to transport the negro to another continent. If he remains, and he will, hybridism is certain. Social and political separation, and other devices may delay, but not prevent it. Popular government makes the removal of ten million people an impossibility, for the simple reason a majority are indifferent to the result, and could not be persuaded to embark upon so large an enterprise. Only a very few will put forth great effort for the ideal, or to meet a future danger.”

“The removal of the negro, is the only escape from ultimate amalgamation, and that, as stated, will not be undertaken. Too many desire to use the negro for their profit. Employers need his labor; ‘ring’ politicians need his vote; fanatic friends need him as a subject to ‘uplift’; and his own self-appointed leaders look to their own welfare and security. It is passing strange that no one seems interested in the genuine welfare of the black man, although he is the leading figure in the drama. His zealous advocates have failed to consult those negro leaders who are qualified to speak for their people and to express their wishes.” (pp. 100-101)

[Unfortunately, Vardaman’s advice and recommendations have not only been ignored but have been vigorously attacked. Consequently, both Blacks and Whites have needlessly suffered, and the country is rapidly deteriorating to a third world country where Whites have shrunken from about 90 percent to about 60 percent of the population. Worst of all is that Whites have been taught to hate themselves and their culture and civilization. Moreover, most of these self-hating Whites look forward with joy to the complete genocide of the White race and Western civilization.]

Copyright © 1998, 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Economic Advantage

Economic Advantage

Thomas Allen

One argument that libertarians and other proponents of free trade use is economic advantage. That is, if country A excels in producing agricultural products and country B excels in producing agricultural implements, A benefits from trading its agricultural products for country B’s agricultural implements instead of manufacturing them itself — and vice versa.

For example, the South excelled in producing cotton and tobacco. Great Britain excelled in manufacturing fabric, tools, and other manufactured products. So, the South traded its agricultural products for British manufactured goods and vice versa. For that reason, the North imposed protective tariffs on manufactured products to give itself an economic advantage over Great Britain.

However, few libertarians and other proponents of economic advantage see any advantage of one race or culture over another. To them, all cultures and, especially, races are equal. If they acknowledge that races and cultures cause economic advantage, then they would have to advocate policies to protect and preserve racial and cultural differences and, consequently, racial and cultural advantages. To keep the advantages of different races and cultures from disappearing, they would have to promote segregation and separation, which is highly politically incorrect.

Libertarians and other proponents of free trade either ignore or fail to realize the importance of race and culture. Race determines culture, and culture determines economic advantage.

Although the natural resources of a country are important, race and culture are more important. They decide if anything is done with them and what is done with them. Africa is a prime example of race and culture determining economic advantage. Great mineral treasures and agricultural potential lie in Sub-Sahara Africa. From their creation, Negroes and Khoisans have inhabited this region. Yet, they did little to develop it. Until the Aryan settlers arrived, the Negro’s most important export was slaves — first to the Melanochroi and then to the Aryans of Europe and later New England. Aryans developed Africa’s mineral resources and agricultural potential.

An example of cultural impact on economic advantage occurred in Europe during the Middle Ages. The Church prohibited the charging of interest on loans. So, if a clergyman, king, nobleman, or merchant needed to borrow money, they had to borrow from the Jews, who were not covered under the Church’s anti-usury edict. Thus, culture gave Jews an economic advantage in lending and later banking.

To retain and maintain economic advantage, racial and cultural advantages, i.e., differences, have to be protected and preserved because economic advantage grows out of racial and cultural advantages. To retain and maintain cultural advantage, races have to be protected and preserved because culture grows out of race. (Race precedes culture and, therefore, makes a culture.) Segregation and separation are the only sure way to preserve and protect the races, and, thus, they are the only ways to maintain economic advantage. Goods and services can cross borders without people (immigrants) crossing borders freely — especially, immigrants of different races and alien cultures.

Contrary to what libertarians and other proponents of free trade may believe, racial and cultural diversity and, therefore, advantages and differences are at least as important as, if not more important than, economic advantage. All are necessary for the well-being of mankind. Economic advantage depends heavily on culture, and culture is the product of race. Therefore, if economic advantage is to be retained and maintained, the races have to be protected and preserved. Only segregation and separation can protect and preserve them, and, by that, retain and maintain economic advantage.

Copyright © 2019, by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on economics.

Does God Abhor or Approve Miscegenation?

Does God Abhor or Approve Miscegenation?

Thomas Allen

    Does God abhor and condemn or approve and condone interracial marriages? Is God an integrationist or a segregationist? Both sides of these questions claim that the Scriptures support their position. Which side is correct: the segregationists and anti-miscegenationists or the integrationists and miscegenationists?
    The Bible describes God as the great segregationist and separationist. According to Acts 17:26 (“. . . having determined their appointed seasons, and the bounds of their habitation”), God created humans and assigned them their habitat. Thus, God segregated and separated the various races (species) of humans. (Acts 17:26 is a favorite verse of the integrationists and miscegenationists. However, they ignore the second part of the verse, which opposes their position, or they claim that it refers to tribes or culture. If the latter are correct, then it shows that God is even a greater segregationist and separationist than people who claim that this verse merely refers to racial separation. Moreover, tribes are either monoracial or hybrids; the latter is questionable as the members of a tribe are not descendants of a common ancestor. In any event, a tribe is not multiracial.)
    God is the author of the greatest segregation and separation in recorded history. According to Genesis 11:1-9, God caused the people of Babel to segregate and then separate themselves.
    Another example of God being a segregation and a separationist is His ordering Moses to lead the Israelites out of Egypt — thus, separating the Israelites from the Egyptians. Then He ordered the Israelites not to integrate with the inhabitants of the Promised Land, but to segregate and separate from them when they failed to genocide them.
    “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation” refutes several arguments based on Scripture that integrationists and miscegenationists use to support their position. Below are three Biblical stories that support God’s abhorrence and condemnation of miscegenation and interracial mating.
    One story illustrating God’s condemnation of miscegenation is the Noahic Flood. The sin of miscegenation, interracial marriage, is the primary reason that God sent the Flood. He sent it to destroy the people committing this sin and their hybrid offspring and the people who condoned such marriages.
    How do we know that this was the specific sin that brought the Flood? This is the only sin specifically described in Chapter 6 of Genesis. It describes the sons of God cohabitating with the daughters of man. Literally, the daughters of man were the daughters of Adam, i.e., they were Adamites or Aryans (see “What Race Was Adam”). Highly debated is who were the sons of God. Most likely, the sons of God were people of other races; they were non-Aryan humans. (A discussion of the sons of God is given in People of the Flood by Thomas Allen [2008] and why they were non-Aryan humans.)
    Next is the story of Dinah. Chapter 34 of Genesis tells the story of Simeon and Levi, two of Jacob’s sons, slaying a city of Hivites over the issue of interracial marriage. The prince of the Hivites wanted to marry their sister, Dinah. So, the Hivites of this city offered to intermarry with the Hebrews. Before they could intermarry, Simeon and Levi told the Hivites that they needed to convert to the Hebrew religion. The Hivites converted and were circumcised. Thus, the two people would not be unequally yoked religiously. Now both of them were of the same religion, the Hebrew religion. However, they differ racially. The Hebrews were Aryans; the Hivites were Aryan-Melanochroi hybrid (or possibly Melanochroi). Simeon and Levi slew the Hivites not because of religious differences, for they were of the same religion. They slew them because of racial differences. Slaying the Hivites prevented miscegenation and racial amalgamation.
    Lastly is the story of Ezra’s return to Jerusalem. Chapters 9 and 10 of Ezra are among the clearest condemnation of miscegenation if one refrains reading into these chapters what is not there. After Ezra had arrived in Jerusalem, he learned that the Israelites were guilty of a great abomination. They had not segregated themselves. Instead, they had integrated with the inhabitants of that area (who at this time were mostly Melanochroi and Melanochroi-Aryan hybrids) and had intermarried with them. The religious leaders were among the worst offenders (Ezra 9:1-2). This news devastated Ezra, and he cried unto God his shame (Ezra 9:3-15). He identified miscegenation as rebellion against God’s law (Ezra 9:14) and as a sin (Ezra 9:15, 10:2, 10). Ezra’s solution was for the men of Israel to separate themselves from their alien wives and to send them and the children born from these immoral mixed marriages away (Ezra 10:3-5, 11-19). Ezra read the law to the people of Israel (Nehemiah 8:1-8). The Israelites responded by segregating themselves from the rest of the people in the land and vowing not to intermarry with them (Nehemiah 10:28-31).
    Careful, or even cursory, reading of these chapters clearly reveals that the divide was not made on religious grounds. The separation was not believers from unbelievers. No exception was made for believing wives or their children. Whether they were believers or unbelievers, all wives were divorced and sent away. Furthermore, no Israelite was sent away because he was an unbeliever. Many of them appeared to have been unbelievers because they were blatantly violating God’s law against miscegenation. Whether they were believers or unbelievers, all Israelite men remained. The issue was clearly race, not religion.
    Likewise, the New Testament also condemns miscegenation. In 1 Corinthians 6:18, Paul urges people to flee from interracial sex, for it destroys the body — hence, the race — and is, therefore, a sin. He warns against this sin in 1 Corinthians 10:1-11, especially verse eight. The writer of Hebrews warns against miscegenation in Hebrews 12:12-17; the fornicating profanity of Esau was miscegenation (he married a Hittite, a Melanochroi-Aryan hybrid). Warnings are given in 2 Peter 2:9-16 and Jude. The church in Pergamum is condemned for holding “the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel” (Revolution 2:12-14). Miscegenation was the doctrine of Balaam.
    Deuteronomy 23:2 (“No half-bred [mongrel] may be admitted to the assembly of the Yahweh; not even his descendants to the tenth generation may be admitted to the Assembly of Yahweh” – NJB.) summaries God’s attitude toward miscegenation and interracial mating. (For a discussion on Deuteronomy 23:2, see “Commentary on Deuteronomy 23:2.") To prevent interracial breeding, God ordained racial segregation and separation.
    (For additional discussions on Scriptural evidence against miscegenation and integration, see False Biblical Teachings on the Origins of the Races and Interracial Marriages by Thomas Allen [2001]. Passages that condemn miscegenation and interracial mating include Genesis 6:1-7, Genesis 24:1-4, Genesis 26:34-35, Genesis 28:1-2, 6-7, Genesis chap. 34, Exodus 11:7, Exodus 33:16, Exodus 34:10-16, Leviticus 19:19, Leviticus 20:26, Leviticus 21:14, Numbers chap. 23, 24, and 25, Deuteronomy 7:1-4, Deuteronomy 23:2, Joshua 23:12-13, Judges 3:5-8, 1 King 8:53, 1 King 11:1-8, 1 King 16: 30, 31, 1 King 21:25, Ezra chap. 9 and 10, Nehemiah 8:1-18, 9:1-3, Nehemiah 10:28-31, Nehemiah 13:1-3, 23-31, Psalm 106:28-35, Isaiah 2:1-9 (esp. v. 6), Jeremiah 2:19-25, 29, Ezekiel 16:15-39, Ezekiel 44:6-23, Hosea 5:3-7, Hosea 6:7-10, Hosea 10:1-10, 1 Corinthians 3:16-17, 1 Corinthians 6:18, 1 Corinthians 10:1-11 (esp. v. 8), Hebrews 12:12-17, Hebrews 13:4, 2 Peter 2:9-16, Jude 3-11, Revelations 2:12-14, Revelations 2:18-23, Revelations 5:9, 7:9, 11:9, 13:7, 14:6, 17:15, 21:24, 22:2.)
    As shown above, God abhors and condemns miscegenation, interracial marriages and, by inference, interracial mating. To prevent the sin of miscegenation, he ordained racial segregation and racial separation.

Copyright © 2017 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Review of Segregation and Desegregation -- Part 2

Review of Segregation and Desegregation -- Part 2

Thomas Allen

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

     In Chapter 3, Matson discusses the difference between “separation” and “segregation.” He also discusses segregation and desegregation and the cost of segregation.
    The distinction that he makes between separation and segregation is that separation is voluntary while segregation is compulsory by custom or law or both. However, Whites are not allowed to separate voluntarily from other races. They must always be forced to integrate. Only Jews and nonwhites are allowed to separate.
    A better way to use these two terms is to use “segregation” to mean two or more groups living in a community or society keeping apart from each other in many or most of their activities. This keeping apart can be voluntary or coercive; it can be by choice, custom, or law. “Separation” means living in separate independent, autonomous communities or societies and not under the rule of or sharing rule with another race. When Black leaders speak of separation, this is the definition that they usually use.
    Matson notes, “There seems to be a natural desire by those who speak the same language, who have the same cultural background, or who are of the same color to group together for social fellowship” (p. 42). Chinese have the freedom to separate themselves from other races with their Chinatowns. Likewise, other nonwhite races have this freedom. However, Whites, especially Southerners, lack this freedom. Everything that they have is to be opened to all other races. (Whites can join White-only private clubs; however, opinion molders berate and ostracize them.)
    As shown above, Maston argues that separation is voluntary. It may at times be voluntary. However, it can be compulsory. In Uganda, Black Africans adopted the ultimate separation of Asian Indians. They forcibly removed Asian Indians from Uganda. Thus, separation need not be voluntary.
    Matson opines that one chief reason that Negroes voluntarily separate themselves from Whites is that they believe “that they are not wanted among the majority group” (p. 43). He fails to explain how forcing a person’s company on those who do not want to associate with him will engender respect and friendship instead of resentment and hostility.
    Matson does admit that if the Negro so desires, he should be allowed to separate from Whites. However, Whites should never be allowed to separate from Blacks (pp. 43-44). When Blacks prefer the company of Blacks to Whites, that is separation. When Whites prefer the company of Whites to Blacks, that is segregation. At least that is Maston’s reasoning.
    Matson asks if as some opponents of desegregation argue, “Negroes naturally prefer to be by themselves, why should anyone fear or oppose desegregation” (p. 46). The answer is that integration is necessary to prove that desegregation has been achieved. Matson asserts, “Voluntary separation would be a more logical argument for desegregation than for segregation” (p. 46). Nevertheless, Whites are forbidden to separate themselves voluntarily from Blacks in their housing, schools, businesses, etc. — and Matson agrees with this prohibition. The Supreme Court rulings and later Congressional laws outlawed such separation. Thus, desegregation prevents Whites from voluntarily separating themselves from other races.
    Matson claims that racial prejudice is the significant cause of segregation. He defines “prejudice” as “a prejudgment, or judgment not based on knowledge or experience. It implies an opinion based on insufficient or irrelevant data” (pp. 47-48). This is a good definition. Having lived, worked, and associated with Negroes for more than 400 years, no group knows the Negro better than the Southerner. He has more than 400 years of experience with and knowledge of the Negro. Whatever caused Southerners to adopt segregation, it was not racial prejudice as Maston and many others surmise. Racial prejudice may in part explain why sanctimonious Northerners, who are much less familiar with the Negro, segregated racially by custom.
    Moreover, Matson and others like him seldom, if ever, comment on the racial prejudice of Blacks. They seem to believe that only Whites are racists and possess racial prejudices. An honest review of recent decades reveals that Blacks are more racist and prejudiced than Whites — and they do not even apologize for it.
    Matson seems to hold to the classic definition of “racism” as the “idea of the natural inferiority or superiority of race” (p. 49). Thus, if a person maintains that Blacks are superior to Whites at surviving in the lower latitudes because their highly pigmented skin prevents ultraviolet rays from destroying vitamin B-12, which is necessary for reproduction, he is a racist. Contrariwise, if he believes that Whites are superior to Blacks at surviving in the higher latitudes because their lightly pigmented skin allows ultraviolet rays to produce more vitamin D, which is necessary for overall good health, he is a racist. (The current definition of a racist is [1] a White person, [2] anyone who disagrees with President Obama or any of his policies.)
    A good example of racism was White boxing associations denying membership to Black boxers. They did so because Black boxers have a genetic advantage over White boxers. In general, Black boxers are innately superior to White boxers. Nevertheless, White boxers can no longer protect themselves from this disadvantage by separating themselves from Black boxers.
    Matson maintains that segregated schools deny the Negro’s right to equal treatment before the law (pp. 50-51). It did not. Blacks were treated the same as Whites. Both were required to go to segregated schools. Moreover, Maston does not object to Blacks separating themselves from Whites and having Black-only churches, schools, neighborhoods, etc. However, he objects to Whites separating themselves from Blacks in any manner. Yet he preaches equal treatment before the law. Legally Blacks are to have special privileges and rights while Whites have none.
    Matson claims, “Segregation seems inevitably to involve some discrimination” (p. 52). Several times he condemns the principle of “separate but equal.” He contends that separate institutions, facilities, etc. cannot be equal (p. 53). He insists that segregation “is based on the idea that the segregated group is inferior” (p. 52). His proposition is flawed. Under segregation, Whites are segregated from Blacks as much as Blacks are from Whites. So, which is the superior and which is the inferior?
    According to Matson, when Whites were in power in South Africa, they discriminated against Blacks because Whites were superior to Blacks. When Blacks came to power, they discriminated against Whites because Blacks were now superior to Whites. Apparently, the superiority-inferiority issue has more to do with who wields political power than with racial superiority or inferiority. In South Africa, segregation is used to take care of and give an advantage to one’s racial kindred.
    Contrary to what Maston thinks and claims, Blacks do not want equality. They want superiority and will not stop until they are superior to Whites in all aspects. Unfortunately for both Blacks and Whites, emasculated, effeminate, self-hating, self-loathing Whites will continue to surrender to Black demands until Whites are vastly inferior in the land that their ancestors founded, built, and carried to the greatest heights that the world has ever known. (South Africa and especially Rhodesia, Zimbabwe, illustrate the deleterious effects of Blacks becoming superior to Whites.)
    Also, Malaysia disproves Matson’s principle of the superior segregating the inferior. In Malaysia, the Malays segregated the Chinese because the Chinese are superior at generating wealth.
    Thus, Maston’s hypothesis that segregation occurs because the segregating race believes itself superior to the segregated race is highly flawed. Discrimination and segregation serve to protect the segregating race from the adverse effects of the segregated race.
    Moreover, if Maston is consistent, he must argue that restrooms must be desegregated. Each sex gets to choose which restroom to use. Restrooms are no longer segregated by sex. Thus, having different restrooms for men and women must be outlawed — just as they were for different races. Such segregation of restrooms must result from sexual prejudice, sexism, and the superiority-inferiority complex. As women prefer segregated restrooms more so than do men, women must be prejudiced toward men and consider themselves superior to men. At least desegregated restrooms solve the problem of which restroom transgender people and transvestites should use.
    Matson claims, “Segregation is always discriminatory; it has meant and does mean inferior service to the segregated” (p. 54). Thus, he admits that sexually segregated restrooms are discriminatory. As more women than men prefer segregated restrooms, that must mean that men’s restrooms are inferior to women’s restrooms.
    Matson cites examples that show more, often much more, money spent on White students than on Black students (pp. 53-54). As schools were integrated, spending on public schools soared and the quality of education plummeted. Expenditures on public schools and the quality of education seem to have a negative correlation.
    Matson doubts that if men were thoroughly redeemed, they would maintain a segregated society (p. 55). That may be true of humans, who remain sinners on Earth after redemption. However, it is not true of God. In Revolution 5:9, 7:9, 11:9, 13:7, 14:6, 17:15, and 21:24, John describes mankind in the plural: peoples, nations, kindreds (tribes), and tongues (languages). Such a description implies and requires segregation. If heaven were fully integrated, only one people, nation, kindred, and tongue would exist.
    Matson quotes Benjamin Mays, a Negro educator, as saying “segregation is the greatest curse that can be imposed on anyone” (p. 55). Perhaps no group, not even the Negro, has been discriminated against as much as the Jew. Over the last 2000 years, Jews have been expelled many times in toto from many countries, while  Negroes have not been expelled from any. Jews have endured discrimination greater than Blacks. Yet in spite of “the greatest curse that can be imposed on anyone,” the power and wealth of Jews far exceed their numbers. They are the most powerful group on the planet.[3] So what is the Negro’s excuse? If Jews, who have endured discrimination far worse and far longer than Negroes, can rise to the pinnacle of wealth and power in spite of discrimination, why cannot Negroes?
    Furthermore, the Chinese and Japanese have suffered discrimination and exploitation rivaling if not exceeding that of Blacks. They have been persecuted more than Negroes. Yet, they have prospered without resorting to racial agitation and lobbying (although that is increasing) as has the Negro. Moreover, the Chinese and Japanese give the community and country more than they take. Unlike Blacks, they do not ask for special privileges or play politics except in Hawaii.[8] Again, what is the Negro’s excuse?
    Matson fails to mention that Mays was affiliated with several Communist front organizations. They include the American Committee for the Protection of Foreign Born, the Civil Rights Congress, the National Council of American-Soviet Friendship, the National Federation for Constitutional Liberties, the Southern Negro Youth Congress, the Mid-Century Conference for Peace, the Southern Conference Educational Fund, the Southern Conference for Human Welfare, and the National Committee to Repeal the McCarran Act.[5]
    Matson states, “The white South cannot hold the Negro down without staying down with him” (p. 56). White Yankee progressives with the aid of White Southern quislings seem to have found a way to hold the Negro down: the welfare state. With the welfare state, they have managed to keep an abnormally large number of Negroes in poverty while destroying Black families and causing an increasing number of Black males to turn to crime and thus a life in and out of prison. Instead of desegregation lifting the Negro up, it has doomed far too many of them to be wards of government, i.e., the ruling elite.
    Matson quotes Martin Luther King as saying that segregation “scars the soul of both of the segregator and segregated” (p. 57).  If true, then God has a scarred soul. With the Towel of Babel, He is the original author of segregation. In Ezra Chapters 9 and 10, He orders the Jews to segregate themselves from their foreign wives and children. Many more examples can be provided showing God causing or ordering segregation.[6]
    Matson notes that segregation leads to hostility and aggression by the segregated group (p. 57). Sixty years after desegregation, hostility and aggression by the segregated group, Blacks, has not abated. It has accelerated. However, after surrendering unconditionally to the Communist-led civil rights movement, Whites cower before Blacks and tremble in fear of that great smear word: “racist,” which keeps them in their place.
    As the Negro made more economic progress, he became more militant. Much of the Black violence results from White pacifism. The less Whites resisted the demands of Blacks, the more emboldened Blacks became in their demands. They become more violent in insisting that their demands be met.
    Matson states that 90 percent of a group of social scientists in the 1950s blamed segregation as the cause of “the lower achievement level of Negro pupils as compared with white children of the same age and grade” (p. 58). After 60 years of school desegregation and ever lower standards, Negro students still have lower achievement levels than Whites.  What is the excuse now? Slavery from 150 years ago? Segregation from 60 years ago? Nonexistent White racism? Nonexistent White privilege? The ubiquitous Black privilege?
    Matson claims that under segregation, the majority group develops a paternalistic attitude toward the segregated. He defines “paternalism” as involving a “condescending service of a superior to an inferior. It seldom allows the ‘child’ it nurtures to grow into full manhood” (pp. 58-59). His description of paternalism fits the welfare state that has accompanied the civil rights movement and integration far better than it does segregation. (Most likely, Matson was a proponent and supporter of the welfare state.)
    Matson’s paternalism principle is flawed. In Malaysia, the Malays, who are the majority, have no paternalistic attitude toward the Chinese minority. They discriminate against and segregate the Chinese to protect themselves from the Chinese and to keep the Chinese minority from taking over the country.
    He goes on to describe the “vicious circle theory” (p. 59).  Again this theory fits the welfare state much better than it does segregation. (Although I am not aware of Matson ever opposing the welfare state, he should have been a leading opponent of it as it has been more harmful to the Negro than segregation ever was. Most likely, he supported the welfare state.)
    Matson remarks, “The challenge of communism makes the situation [continuing segregation] ever more acute for America and for the West. Two great forces, democracy and communism, are competing for mastery in the world, mastery over the minds and souls of men” (p. 60). Although democracy won in form, Communism won in mastery over the minds and souls of men. The United States are far more Marxist today than they were ever under segregation. Almost every plank of the Communist Manifesto has been fully implemented. The primary objective of the Communist led and Communist organized civil rights movement has been to bring down the United States and destroy the White race. Communists have been remarkably successful in achieving these goals. Most likely, Matson would approve of this outcome of the death of segregation.

 Endnotes -- continued

3. Robertson, p. 152ff.

4. Robertson, pp. 204-207.

5. Gannon, p. 442.

6. Thomas Coley Allen, Integration Is Genocide (Franklinton, N.C.: TC Allen Co., 1997), pp. 10-17. Thomas Coley Allen, False Biblical Teachings on the Origins and the Races and Interracial Marriages (Franklinton, N.C.: TC Allen Co., 2001), passim.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 1, Part 3 

More articles on social issues.

A Review of The South and Christian Ethics -- Part 1

A Review of The South and Christian Ethics -- Part 1

Thomas Allen

    This article is a review of The South and Christian Ethics (New York: Association Press, 1962) by James Sellers. His words and my paraphrases or summaries of his words, I have italicized. My commentary is in roman letters. I have provided references to pages in his book and have enclosed them in parentheses. Referenced articles in parentheses are related articles written by the author of this article.
     Sellers was the dean of the Vanderbilt Divinity School. He is a theologian on the liberal side. He is an integrationist, scalawag, and quisling, who has a low opinion of the typical Southerner (at times it approaches the stereotypical Klansman’s opinion of the Negro). Most of the country’s, if not most of the world’s, racial problems, he blames on Southerners. His book promotes integration and condemns segregation.
    Sellers quotes William Faulkner: “We will have to choose not between color nor race nor religion, but simply between being slaves and being free” (p. 21). Whites chose suicide — or at least their leaders did and the majority consented with inaction. Now Whites are losing their race and freedom. They had much more freedom then than they have today. Not only can they no longer tell the truth about Blacks and other races, they cannot tell the truth about homosexuals. If they do, they become persona non grata. The Communist-led civil rights movement is in the process of giving the United States, the Western world, and the White race the coup de grace.  (V. “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement.”) Both Faulkner and Sellers have been proven to be wrong.
    Sellers writes that the problem before America and the South was, among other things, “what to do about communism” (pp. 21-22). What America and the South decided to do about communism was to join the Communists in bringing down America and the White race.
    Sellers believes that the civil rights movement is about giving Blacks freedom. It is not. Its purpose has been to enslave all. If the objective were freedom, it would have insisted on the Negro standing on his own and taking care of himself. It would not have enslaved Whites and made Blacks wards of the government. Nor would it have granted Blacks privileges way beyond what Whites were presumed to have had under segregation.
    Like most theologians, Sellers presents segregation as evil (p. 24). By inference, he presents integration as godly. On the contrary, the Bible presents segregation positively and condemns integration. (V. “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation” and “Is Integration a Moral Law?”.)
    Sellers notes that total desegregation, i.e., integration, will not cause the races suddenly to fall in love with each other and make them good neighbors. Naively, he believes that social, political, and economic equality is a “prerequisite to neighborliness” (p. 26). What he fails to realize is that the primary purpose of integration is to increase the power of those who really control the U.S. government, i.e., the ruling elite, i.e., the globalists, one-worlders, heads of major foundations, international financiers, chief executives of multinational corporations, Zionist leaders, leaders of the occult, and other elitists. Forced integration has created much more conflict between the races than forced segregation ever did. The ruling elite feeds on conflict as it increases their power over the people.
    Perhaps the reason that integration causes more conflict is that it is unnatural. Segregation is natural. People prefer being with people like themselves. Thus, conflict under segregation is less than under integration. (All the racial conflict witnessed in the United States since about 1970 has been under an integrationist regime.)
    Sellers appears to side with the Communists; at least he opposes the anti-communists. To him, Communists are just good old neighbors who seek to harm no one. Americans should find them as such (pp. 26-27). At least he ended up on the winning side. The communist agenda has been almost completely implemented. Based on the Communist Manifesto, the United States today are a thoroughly Marxist country.
    Sellers is right about one thing. Southerners failed to maintain control of their States and the South (p. 36). When the push came, they caved. Some token resistance was offered, but little more. Southerners were mostly talk and no action. Thus, they lost. That is why the country is in its death throngs and no longer resembles the federation established by the founding fathers except in form. The dressing has been retained, but the spirit is gone. (V. “The Cold War” and “The Second Reconstruction.”)
    Sellers identifies one group that is completely innocent of the Negro’s plight: the Negro himself. First, the Northern Republicans abandoned him to win the Presidency and to exploit America’s industrial resources. (Most Radical Republicans never cared much about the Negro. They saw him as a weapon to be used in their genocidal war against Southerners.) (V. “The First Reconstruction.”) Next Southerners beat him down with segregation. Ever since slavery, he has been the center of domestic conflict, oppressed, denied his rights, etc. (p. 41). Southerners, especially in the decades following the War, were oppressed as much if not more than the Negro.  (V. “The First Reconstruction.”) They have been denied their rights: Even the Fourteenth Amendment stripped them of their political rights. Much of their property was stolen or destroyed. Carpetbaggers and scalawags with the backing of the U.S. army stripped them of their economic rights. Many lived in poverty until the 1940s. Yet they overcame these disadvantages without any special grants of privileges. (They did not have the advantage of being White; they were hated then, and still are, because they are White.) (V. “The First Reconstruction,” “The Gentlemen’s,” “The Cold War,” and “The Second Reconstruction.”) Still, the Negro seems not to be able to overcome these disadvantages even with the grant of special privileges.
    Sellers focuses a good deal on the “sin of slavery” and the adverse effect that it had on Southerners (43-44, passim). As shocking as it may be, slavery is not a sin. The Bible does not condemn slavery. It sets forth a code on the treatment of slaves. Even the New Testament finds slavery acceptable and does not condemn it. (This lack of condemnation of slavery is a major reason that New Englanders deluded with abolitionist propaganda abandoned the Bible.)
    Slavery may be undesirable for political, economic, or social reasons; but it is not immoral or a sin. Although Sellers asserts that slavery is a sin, he offers no Scriptural proof that it is. The only way for Sellers’ argument to work is for the South to be God’s Israel and Judah and the North to be His Assyria and Babylon.
    Sellers does an excellent job of contrasting the Southerner with the Northerner:

        • A sense of place, which may be contrasted with the Northerner’s sense of time.
        • A high valuation on the rootedness and personalness of man, which may be contrasted with the Northerner’s high valuation on the equality of man.
        • A passion for concreteness, which may be contrasted with the Northerner’s thirst for universality in the abstract.
        •  A longing for stability, which may be contrasted with the Northerner’s hankering for progress (p. 47).

    Sellers believes that the best society is a blend of Southern and Northern attributes with more weight given to the Northern attributes (pp. 47ff). Unfortunately for Sellers, his dream society has not come to pass. Northern attributes have prevailed — perhaps because most of the ruling elite are Yankees. Southern attributes are fading into forgotten history.
    If one were to prevail over the other, Sellers would have preferred the Northern. He probably would have little objections to the way things have turned out — especially, to an incompetent Black President of questionable Constitutional qualifications controlled by power-hungry White men. He certainly would have considered today’s America with its collapse in morality and ethics vastly superior to the America of 1962. For it is much more integrated now than then. Moreover, Blacks have not only gained political, social, and economic equality, but they have also been given political, social, and economic privileges at the expense of Whites.
    Sellers does not seem to care much for the White race, especially the Anglo-Saxon part. He argues that integration is not part of the Social Gospel because many leading Social Gospelers of the nineteenth century were what today would be called “white supremacists” (pp. 71ff). Because many nineteenth-century Social Gospelers had not incorporated integration into the Social Gospel does not mean that it was not part of the Social Gospel by the middle of the twentieth century. Sellers incorporates integration into the Social Gospel. Both integration and the Social Gospel come from the same deadening Luciferin rootstock. They were destined to grow together. Ironically, both were controlled by “the money power” (the ruling elite) against whom the Social Gospelers railed.
    Sellers recognizes integration as becoming part of the Social Gospel in the late 1950s when the Negro began pressing in earnest for full manhood (p. 76). When the Negro began pressing for integration, he abandoned his push for full manhood. He admitted that he was not competent enough to stand on his own against all odds, real or perceived. Lacking competence, he had to attach himself to White Society and submerge himself into it. Roy Innis and a few other Black civil rights leaders realized this. That is why they abandoned integration and pushed for separation. Only by separation can the Negro achieve full manhood.
    Moreover, the Negro cannot achieve manhood as long as he is dependent on the government for handouts. Closely following the integration movement was an explosion in the welfare state that has kept the Negro in bondage. As long as the Negro is a ward of the government, he cannot achieve manhood.
    Sellers claims, “By 1910, the Negro was able to launch his own struggle a new through such agencies as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People” (p. 74.). Of the founders of the NAACP, (v. “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement”) only one was Black, W.E.B. DuBois, who later became a Communist. Most of the rest were Jewish radicals and socialists. Behind them was “the money power” in the person of Jacob Schiff, who also financed the Bolshevik Revolution through Trotsky. (V. “Soviet Union.”)
    Sellers supports the idea that God breaks down racial barriers (pp. 74-75). Yet according to the Bible, God is the original erector of racial barriers: “hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation” (Acts 17:26). Moreover, the Bible supports racial separation much more than it supports racial integration. (V. “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation.”)
    Sellers is correct about segregation not being the ultimate ideal (p. 75). Neither is integration. Both of them are detrimental to the races involved. For that reason, God prescribed separation. Separation preserves the races that God created. Each can develop to its highest level without being handicapped by the others. None would rule over the others. It ends racial conflict and the granting of special privileges to a particular race.
    Sellers prefers Northern industrialism to Southern agrarianism. The industrialists’ lust for money led to desegregation and integration (pp. 79-80). He places the love of money above the love of the land. Because of the love of money, the country was integrated. Thus the Black man, like the White man, has been reduced to the bottom line of corporate America’s ledger book. So much for the Black man standing on his own.
    Sellers comments on the Federal Council of Churches’ involvement in the Social Gospel movement (pp. 80ff). He fails to mention that the Federal Council of Churches was a front for the ruling elite, also called the money power, to corrupt Christian churches into adopting the ruling elites' Luciferin doctrine. (V. “Ecumenism.”)  This corruption has been highly successful.
    Sellers advocates what he calls “progressive social Christianity.” Progressives seek mandatory reform instead of relying on personal moral change. They recognize that the reform does not automatically result in utopia. Progressives reject the extremes of hard-nosed new Reconstruction and the establishment of a Black state in America. Instead they rely on Southerners being forced to give Blacks everything that they demand short of a Black state. Although he has a low opinion of Southern moderates (partial integrationists), he does not object to using them when convenient (pp. 84-85.).
    Instead of hard-nosed Reconstruction, soft-nose Reconstruction was imposed on the South. With a few invasions of federalized national guard units, the South quickly realized that if it did not unconditionally surrender to the Communist integrationist agenda, the U.S. government would impose hard-nose Reconstruction. (V. “The Gentlemen’s Agreement” and “The Second Reconstruction”)
    Blacks may not have gotten their own State. However, Latinos and other non-Whites are forcing Blacks to live in Black or White neighborhoods.
    Sellers is a proponent of the unity of man and the brotherhood of man (p. 87ff). He also promotes treating other people and by implication other races, as others, i.e., unique individuals (p. 91). Over time these two conflicted: Individuality cannot be maintained if unity succeeds. Integration achieves unity by destroying individuality. (V. “Diversity.”) Integration terminates in reducing all to motley mongrel man.
    Sellers believes in the “diversity is strength” doctrine, although he does not use that term. He does recognize each race as uniquely distinct (p. 93), which most integrationists fail to do — some even to the point of denying the existence of races. He promotes and preaches these racial distinctions (pp. 93-94).
    Contrary to popular propaganda, diversity is not strength. As recent history shows, it is highly destructive of liberty, especially freedom of speech. “Diversity is strength” results in political correctness (v.i.).
    Sellers quotes William Faulkner as saying, “He’s [the Negro] calmer, wiser, more stable than the white man” (p. 93). What drugs was Faulkner on when he said this? That may have had some truth to it in the days of segregation although that is doubtful. Most likely, segregation checked his lesser calmness, wisdom, and stability. Under the integration regime, his statement is obviously false. On average the Black man is not calmer, wiser, or more stable than the White man. (V. “The Dirty War: America’s Race War.”)
    Sellers does diverge from the typical Social Gospelers who so focused on reforming society that they forgot about saving the soul. “Man is responsible to God, not to society” (p. 94).
    Although he occasionally hints at it, reform is not necessarily good. If one were to beat another person’s face with a baseball bat, he has reformed the other’s face. However, is this reform good? More often than not, reform does more harm than good.
    Sellers has no aversion to allying with the devil to advance his (Sellers’) agenda (p. 95).
    He also seems to suffer from the delusion of believing people must live together to love each other (pp. 95-96).  He overlooks that familiarity often fosters contempt. Living around members of other groups often reinforces the stereotypical view of that group.
    Sellers objects to the false dichotomy of “separation of Church and State.” It is a ruse to keep the Church out of political affairs. The Church should support the State when it promotes the Gospel and condemn it when it does not (pp. 96-98). What happens when the Church, which is not unanimous, fails to understand the Bible? What happens when various factions of the Church disagree on important social issues? Sellers sides with the faction that agrees with him and condemns the other factions — so much for “diversity is strength.”
    On the issue of integration versus segregation, Sellers sides with the integration. Therefore, the Church should support the State when it pushes integration (pp. 97-98). Unfortunately for Sellers, as stated above, the Bible supports segregation more than it does integration, which it generally condemns. (V. “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation.”) Sellers must twist his theology to agree with his social and political philosophy. He must overlook many passages in the Bible that disagree with his philosophy.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 2 

More articles on social issues.

The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation

The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation
Thomas Allen

[Editor's note: Footnotes in the original are omitted.]
    In his book Segregation and the Bible[1] (1958), Everett Tilson, a Methodist minister, attacks several Biblical arguments that opponents of integration and interracial mating used. He picks out a few of the weakest and often absurd Biblical arguments used by segregationists to examine. Moreover, he often obfuscates his contention by confusing and confounding biology (race) with religion and race with nationality and ethnicity. Some segregationists are also guilty of this confusing and confounding.
    One is that all the races of humans descended from Noah’s sons. Aryans (also called Homo albus, the White race, and white Caucasian) descended from Japheth. Turanians (also called, Homo luridus, the Yellow race, and Mongolian) descended from Shem. Apparently, this descent made the Hebrews Turanians although proponents of this descent usually claim that the Hebrews were Aryans. Negroes (also called, Homo niger and the Black race) descended from Ham because of the curse Noah placed on Canaan, Ham’s son.
    Alternatively, some claim that the descendants of Shem were the Aryans who settled in the Middle East. The descendants of Japheth were the Aryans who settled in Europe and the Turanians of Asia. How Japheth sired two different races, or more correctly two different species[2] (in this article race is used as a synonym for species), they seldom attempt to explain. Ham is the father of the Negro.
    Ironically, young-earth Christians, Christians who believe that Earth is no more than 10,000 years old, make the same claim. They claim that all the races of humans descended from the sons of Noah. However, most omit the Negro descended from Ham because of Noah’s curse. To explain this descent, they resort to Darwinism in spite of rejecting evolution.
    Tilson correctly notes that “no reputable scientist has yet attempted to account for the origin of the three major racial groups within a single generation from a set of common parents.”[3] To get around this problem, a few segregationist creationists maintain that God created the races from Noah’s descendants. Unfortunately for them, the Bible offers no hint for this conclusion.
    At times, Tilson appears to adhere to the doctrine that races of humans do not exist. However, he appears to hedge his position enough not to deny the existence of races completely. If human races do not exist, then racial discrimination and racial segregation cannot exist. One cannot discriminate against and segregate from that which does not exist. Furthermore, one cannot integrate with something that does not exist. Without the existence of the human races, his book is meaningless. Tilson seems to want both: Races do not exist; however, racial segregation and racial separation are egregious sins.
    If God finds racial segregation, racial separation, and miscegenation abhorrent sins, why did He not include them in the Ten Commandments? He includes the sin of miscegenation with the Sixth Commandment: the prohibition against adultery (mongrelization). (To commit adultery means to mongrelize.)[4] It also violates the Fifth Commandment, which forbids killing or murder. Interracial mating results in the death of the races involved. Moreover, miscegenation is included in the Fourth Commandment: honoring one’s parents. When a Negro mates with a Turanian, both dishonor their parents. They reject the greatest gift that their parents can bestow on them: their special God-given racial traits. Miscegenation also violates the Seventh Commandment: the prohibition of stealing. For example, when a Negro mates with an Aryan, the Negro is attempting to steal for his children traits that rightfully belong to Aryans, such as, lighter skin, straighter and lighter colored hair, a narrower nose, larger ears, etc. The Aryan is attempting to steal for his children traits that rightfully belong to Negroes, such as, darker complexion, thicker lips, smaller ears, thicker skulls, longer arms and legs, etc. Interracial mating violates the Tenth Commandment, which forbids covetousness. People covet another race’s particular traits so much that they mate with the race that possesses the coveted traits to destroy its God-given traits. If they cannot possess these traits, no one else will.[5]
    What Tilson and especially the segregationists whom he criticizes fail to realize is that the descendants of Noah’s sons are Aryans. The other races have different origins and different parentage and ancestry.[6]
    Either God created the races of humans or they evolved. Although Tilson offers no explanation of their origins, he seems to be in the evolutionist camp. (Ironically, most Christians who believe that the Noachian Flood covered the whole planet and who are creationists typically resort to Darwinism to explain the origins of human races.) If God created the races of humans, should Christians support and promote conditions, laws, and policies that lead to their demise? Tilson does; he supports and promotes conditions, laws, and policies that result in their destruction. Perhaps he does so because he does not credit God with their creation.
    To justify miscegenation, Tilson cites several verses that he claims support interracial marriages. They are Genesis 16:3, 38:2, 41:50, Exodus 2:21, 12:38 Leviticus 24:10, Numbers 11:4, 12:1, and Deuteronomy 21:10-13. He also cites Rachab in Jesus’ ancestry (Matt 1:5) and Ruth, another ancestor of Jesus.
    Genesis 16:3: “And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.” When Abram married an Egyptian, he did not marry outside his race. He did not violate the Scriptural prohibition against interracial marriages and mating. He married an Aryan of a different nationality.
    “Egyptian” in this verse is the translation of Mizraim. For much of its ancient history, two racially distinct people inhabited Egypt. They were the Mizraim, who were Aryans, and the Pathrusim, who were Melanochroi (also called Homo brunus and brown Caucasians). The Mizraim lived mainly in Lower Egypt and were the Egyptians encountered most often by the Israelites. The Pathrusim lived mainly in Upper Egypt although they were not uncommon in Lower Egypt. These Pathrusim are the ancestors of today’s Fellahins.[7]
    Moreover, according to Deuteronomy 23:7-8, a marriage to an Egyptian was an acceptable marriage. The only restriction placed on these marriages was that the descendants of these marriages could not enter God’s assembly until the third generation.
    Genesis 38:2: “And Judah saw there a daughter of a certain Canaanite, whose name was Shuah; and he took her, and went in unto her.” Judah did marry a Canaanite. According to Deuteronomy 7:1-4, marriage with Canaanites was prohibited. Unfortunately for Tilson, nowhere does the text hint that this marriage was acceptable. On the contrary, it was a sin, and it led Judah to another sin: incest. This verse does not prove that mixed-racial marriages are acceptable. It just proves that humans, even Aryans, are sinners. If this verse proves that interracial marriages are acceptable, then Chapter 38 of Genesis also proves that incest and prostitution are acceptable.
    Genesis 41:50: “And unto Joseph were born two sons before the years of famine came, which Asenath the daughter of Potipherah priest of On bare unto him.” In Genesis 41:45 Joseph married Asenath, an Egyptian. As noted above, Egyptians at this time were of the same race as the Israelites, or at least the upper echelon of Egyptian society was although the peasants may have been of a different race.  Being the daughter of an Egyptian priest, Asenath was almost certainly the worshiper of Egyptian gods and not of Jehovah. Her name means “worshiper of Neith.” She may have converted later, but no evidence is given of such conversion. These verses are evidence that the Scriptural prohibition against mixed marriages is racial and not religious. A footnote in The Berkeley Version of the Bible to Genesis 46:20 affirms this: “Her training of Manasseh and Ephraim would hardly be in the Hebrew faith.” Therefore, Joseph married someone of his race who most likely was not of his religion.[8]
    Exodus 2:21: “And Moses was content to dwell with the man: and he gave Moses Zipporah his daughter.” Numbers 12:1: “And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.”
    In Numbers 12:1 Moses had married an Ethiopian or a Cushite. (“Ethiopian” is the translation of Kûwshîy, which is literally “Cushite.”) Cush refers to Arabia in general, and Cushite refers to the people of Arabia in general.[9] Moses’s wife was a Midianite and a Kenite as well as a Cushite. Cush was a region, Arabia. Midian was an area within this region. The Kenites were a tribe or people inhabiting this area. An example of an English colonist who came to the United States helps illustrate this phenomenon. An Englishman living in Virginia could correctly be called an American (Cushite), a Virginian (Midianite), or an Englishman (Kenite). So closely related to the Israelites were the Kenites that they were later considered a part of Judah (1 Chronicles 2:55; 1 Samuel 27:10). The woman referred to in Exodus 2:21 is the same woman referred to in Numbers 12:1. The Bible gives no indication of Moses ever having more than one wife. Therefore, Moses’ wife was of the same race as he, so miscegenation did not occur.
    Exodus 12:38: “Many other people went up with them, and also large droves of livestock, both flocks and herds.” Since the Israelites were fleeing Egypt, assuming that these other people were Egyptians, Mizraim, is logical. As discussed above marriages with Egyptians were acceptable as they were racially identical to the Israelites.
    Numbers 11:4: “And the mixt multitude that was among them fell a lusting: and the children of Israel also wept again, and said, Who shall give us flesh to eat?” The explanation for this verse is the same as Exodus 12:38. The mixed multitude were Egyptians. (Perhaps, some of these Egyptians created most of the turmoil, complaints, and rebellion that the Israelites experienced in their journey to the Promised Land.)
    Leviticus 24:10: “And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel: and this son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp.” As shown above, marriages with Egyptians (Mizraim) were not prohibited because Mizraim were Aryans.
    Deuteronomy 21:10-13: “(10) When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, (11) And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; (12) Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; (13) And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.”
    These verses need to be read in the context of Deuteronomy 7:1-3. Deuteronomy 7:1, 3 reads, “(1) When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; (3) Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.”
    The only logical conclusion is that God did not reverse Himself in Deuteronomy 21:10-13. The prohibition in Deuteronomy 7:1-3 remained in effect. (The people identified in Deuteronomy 7:1 were most likely Aryan-Melanochroi hybrids.) However, He was clarifying that the Israelites could marry Aryans, such as the Philistines, who resided in the region of their present and future conquests. (What is not mentioned either way are the Rephaim, Anakim, Nephilim, and related people who lived in that area. They were remnants of the human species of giants that lived on the Earth before the Flood. [The Nephilim are mentioned as living before the Flood in Genesis 6:4 and after the Flood in Numbers 13:33.][10] God must have known the females of these people were so repugnant in the eyes of the Israelites that they would not consider marrying them. This species of human seems to have become extinct by the time that the Israelites split into Israel and Judah.)
    However, Tilson ignores Deuteronomy 23:2: “No half-bred may be admitted to the assembly of the Yahweh; not even his descendants to the tenth generation may be admitted to the Assembly of Yahweh” (The New Jerusalem Bible). If God approves of interracial mating, why does He forbid the mix breed offspring of such relations from entering His assembly? On the contrary, God values racial purity so much that He does not want a racially mixed person to be part of His congregation or church.[11]
    That the Rachab of Matthew 1:5 is the same as the Rahab of Jericho is highly unlikely. In Matthew, Rachab is identified as David’s great-great-grandmother. David was born about 1049 B.C. Jericho fell about 1450 B.C. Thus, 400 years elapsed between the fall of Jericho and the birth of David. Therefore, the average age of David’s father, grandfather, great-grandfather, and great-great-grandmother would be 100 years when they bore David or his ancestor. Too much time elapsed between the fall of Jericho and the birth of David for Rachab of Jericho to be David’s great-great-grandmother. The conclusion is that the Rachab who married Salmon was an Israelite.
    As for Ruth, true, she was a Moabite. However, she was a Moabite by residence — not by race. Ruth lived in the country of Moab and was, therefore, a Moabite. However, she was not racially a Moabite. Moab had absorbed much of Reuben, so she may have been a Reubenite. Mexico can be used to illustrate this phenomenon. Both Aryans and Turanian Indians live in Mexico. Both are called Mexicans, but they differ racially. Ruth was racially the same as Boaz, so miscegenation did not occur.
    Except for Ezra 9 and 10, Tilson fails to discuss any of the many verses that support those who oppose miscegenation and interracial mating. These verses include: Genesis 6:1-7, Genesis 24:1-4, Genesis 26:34-35, Genesis 28:1-2, 6-7, Genesis chap. 34, Exodus 11:7, Exodus 33:16, Exodus 34:10-16, Leviticus 19:19, Leviticus 20:26, Leviticus 21:14, Numbers chap. 23, 24, and 25, Deuteronomy 7:1-4, Deuteronomy 23:2, Joshua 23:12-13, Judges 3:5-8, 1 King 8:53, 1 King 11:1-8, 1 King 16: 30, 31, 1 King 21:25, Nehemiah 8:1-18, 9:1-3, Nehemiah 10:28-31, Nehemiah 13:1-3, 23-31, Psalm 106:28-35, Isaiah 2:1-9 (esp. v. 6), Jeremiah 2:19-25, 29, Ezekiel 16:15-39, Ezekiel 44:6-23, Hosea 5:3-7, Hosea 6:7-10, Hosea 10:1-10, 1 Corinthians 3:16-17, 1 Corinthians 6:18, 1 Corinthians 10:1-11 (esp. v. 8), Hebrews 12:12-17, Hebrews 13:4, 2 Peter 2:9-16, Jude 3-11, Revelations 2:12-14, Revelations 2:18-23, Revelations 5:9, 7:9, 11:9, 13:7, 14:6, 17:15, 21:24, 22:2.[12]
    Tilson does discuss Ezra 9 and 10, one of the strongest arguments in the Bible for racial segregation. He attacks that argument by making a host of assumptions that are not in the text. Thus, he is guilty of what he accuses the segregationists of doing, that is, making assumptions that are poorly supported by the text.
    Tilson discusses the importance of God as the Creator. He notes that there are two types of ways that people view God as Creator: “self-renouncing individuals standing on the threshold of despair, and self-centered individuals reminding the world and the Lord of their magnificent gifts and glorious achievements.”[13] Tilson probably considers himself the former, yet he gives God no credit for creating the races. Then he asks, “How can you possibly justify the attachment of so much importance to differences in the color of human skin?”[14] The answer is that God created them. This answer Tilson rejects. Since God created the races, people of all races need to work to prevent their demise. The surest action that will preserve them is racial separation, as that great civil rights leader Roy Innis declares.
    Tilson believes that people who want to separate from people of other races want God to give their race favorable treatment. There may be some truth to this. However, separate or different treatment does not necessarily mean better or worse treatment. What he claims about race is equally true of intelligence, talent, and ability. Ultimately, all these come from God. If one needs his appendix removed, his prejudice will lead him to discriminate against barbers in favor of a surgeon.
    Like most integrationists, Tilson equates the desire for racial separation and segregation with racial hatred. While some segregationists advocate racial separation or segregation because they hate Blacks, many do not. Where is hatred implied in the desire for segregation? Does one hate people with a level four or five contagious diseases because they do not want to be around them? Does someone hate people who speak a foreign language because he prefers not being around such people? Most people prefer segregating their children from pedophiles. Do they express this preference because they hate pedophiles? Catholic nunneries discriminate against men and refuse to integrate with men. Does this mean that nuns hate men? If he is consistent, Tilson would answer all these questions yes; they discriminate and segregate because of hate. Actually, these acts of discrimination and segregation are important to protect the health, morals, and welfare of the people involved. Likewise, racial segregation and separation are important in the protection of the lives of the races. Racial prejudice is not a sin; it is a love of one’s race. 
    Tilson asks, “Do you ground your plea for integration in the equality of men among men or in the equal dependence of all creatures on their Creator?”[15] According to Acts 17:26, God determined the boundaries of the habitats for the various races. As the Creator assigned each race its habitat, the integrationists must base their plea on the equality of men among men.
    Tilson believes that the Bible presents God as treating humans equally, i.e., God is an egalitarian. It does not, and God is no egalitarian. For example, according to Revelation 17:8, not everyone’s name is “written in the book of life.” Those “not found written in the book of life . . . [are] cast into the lake of fire” (Revelation 20:15). Some people receive eternal life. Some people receive eternal death. What greater inequality is there than this?
    Moreover, Daniel 12:2 shows a three-tier treatment of man. First “many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake.” Not everyone will be awakened — an inequality of treatment and condition. Second, of those awakened, some awaken “to everlasting life” and “some to shame and everlasting contempt” — again inequality of treatment and condition. If all men were equal, would they not all receive the same treatment?
    Other examples illustrating that God is not an egalitarian are found in Malachi 11:2, 3, Exodus 33:19, Deuteronomy 7:1-6, Matthew 15:26, 22:14, 25: 14-30, 25:31-34, 41, John 9:1-6, Romans 9:20-23, and 2 Peter 2:12.[16]
    In expressing his affinity for Negroes, Tilson argues for conditions, laws, and policies that result in the death of the Negro. He has a terminal case of Negrophilia-Albuphobia.[17] As much as he loves the Negro, he seems to hate the Aryan even more. The conditions, laws, and policies that he supports and advocates result in the death of both. Yet he would claim that what he promotes would not result in their death because neither really exists. He seems to believe or wants to believe that neither race exists in spite of writing a book condemning racial segregation, which cannot exist without races.
    Tilson presents integration as divinely ordained by God. If integration is good and holy as Tilson maintains, why would God let atheist Communists and their camp followers lead the charge for integration?[18] He does not say. Moreover, he seems oblivious to the involvement and importance of Communists in the integration and civil rights movement. The answer is that integration is not good and holy. In Old Testament times God often used pagan nations to punish Israel and Judah for straying from Him. Likewise, today God is using integration and related actions, such as open borders, to punish the Aryan people of the West for straying from Him.

Endnotes

1. Everett Tilson, Segregation and the Bible (Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press), 1958.

2. Thomas Coley Allen, Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis (Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Co.), 1999.

3. Tilson, p. 20.

4. Thomas Coley Allen, False Biblical Teachings on the Origins of the Races and Interracial Marriages (Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Co.), 2001, pp. 18-19. V. S. Herrell, The Six Law of God Ού μοιχεύσεις, 3rd ed.  (Kodak: Herrell Brothers Publishing House), 1999.

5. Thomas Coley Allen, Integration Is Genocide (Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Co.), 1997, pp. 10-13.

6. Thomas Coley Allen, Adam to Abraham: The Early History of Man (Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Co.), 1998, pp. 51ff.

7. Allen, False Biblical Teachings, p. 12.

8. Allen, False Biblical Teachings, p. 12. Allen, Adam to Abraham, p. 71.

9. Allen, Integration Is Genocide, pp. 73-77.

10. Allen, Adam to Abraham, pp. 185-189.

11. Allen, False Biblical Teachings, pp. 19-21.

12. Allen, Integration Is Genocide, pp. 13-17.

13. Tilson, pp. 100-101.

14. Tilson, p. 102.

15. Tilson, p. 103.

16. Allen, Integration Is Genocide, pp. 77-79.

17. Allen, Integration is Genocide, pp. 64-65.

18. Thomas Allen, “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement,” 2015.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.

 More articles on religion.