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.

King on Racism and the White Backlash – Part 2

King on Racism and the White Backlash – Part 2

Thomas Allen

Next, King discusses the American Indian. He preferred genociding the American Indians by breeding them out of existence to White driving them from their land and replacing them. 

Continuing, King writes, “Thus through two centuries a continuous indoctrination of Americans has separated people according to mythically superior and inferior qualities while a democratic spirit of equality was evoked as the national ideal.” (P. 85.) He complains about the country not going full-throttle to give the Negro whatever he wanted and demanded. (Today, the Negro has much more than King thought possible. Now, the Negro has enslaved Whites to serve and support him.)

Then, King discusses the War on Poverty and complains about not enough money being spent on Negroes.

Correctly, King writes, “There is a double standard in the enforcement of law and a double standard in the respect for particular laws.” (P. 87.) (King is right. Negroes are allowed to violate laws, especially criminal laws, more so than are Whites. Police and most governmental agencies are less likely to enforce a law against a Negro than against a White.)

King writes, “To live with the pretense that racism is a doctrine of a very few is to disarm us in fighting it frontally as scientifically unsound, morally repugnant and socially destructive.” (P. 88.) (Except for White Communists and White oligarchs, all Whites are racists.) However, he continues, “A people who began a national life inspired by a vision of a society of brotherhood can redeem itself. But redemption can come only through a humble acknowledgment of guilt and an honest knowledge of self.” (P. 88.) (Thus, only self-debasement and kowtowing to the Negro in unconditional submission, do Whites have a slight chance of redemption. [Many Whites have so humiliated and degraded themselves, but they still are not redeemed.] In other words, Negroes have to treat Whites worst than the meanest and vilest White ever treated a Negro for White even begin thinking about achieving redemption. Of course, all of this is done in the name of love.)

Next, King writes, that “all men are created equal; every man is heir to a legacy of dignity and worth; every man has rights that are neither conferred by nor derived from the state, they are God-given.” (P. 89.) (Here, King mixes truth with falsehood. Not all races are made in the image of God; only the White race is made in the image of God [see "What Race Was Adam?" by Thomas Allen.] Men are not created equal. A five-foot, fat, klutz does not have the same opportunity of becoming a professional basketball center as does a seven-foot, agile, athlete. [See “Gottfried and Equality” by Thomas Allen.]  Short, fat klutzes may have an equal opportunity to apply for a job, but genetics denies them an equal chance of getting the job. Peoples are not even equal before the law [see “The Heritage Foundation on Critical Race Theory” by Thomas Allen]. Moreover, God is not an egalitarian [see “Respecter of Persons” by Thomas Allen]. If God were an egalitarian, then all would be saved with the same rewards, or all would be condemned with the same torment.)

The first step to redemption is “the journey home, the journey to full equality, . . . [which requires] a radical reordering of national priorities.” (P. 90.) Consequently, Whites need to spend their money primarily for the benefit of Negroes. Likewise, governments need to spend the taxpayers’ money for the benefit of Negroes. A just society requires spending vast sums of money for the benefit of Negroes. If Whites pay insufficient protection money to Negroes, riots and other acts of violence will occur. (In addition to giving Negroes  all sorts of benefits and privileges that Whites never enjoyed, Whites have spent vast sums of money for the benefit of Negroes. Yet, the Negro’s lust for lucre is still not satisfied. Now, they demand trillions of dollars in reparations.)

Further, King argues that money spent on space exploration and war should be spent on the Negro. (King-idolizing conservatives need to push that money wasted on war be given to Negroes.)

Next, King comments on the struggle of Negroes to attain dignity. (Negroes may or may not have obtained dignity, but they sure have stripped many Whites and nearly all White governmental, corporate, religious, media, and academic leaders of their dignity.)

Continuing, King declares, “The Negro is no longer ashamed that he is black —  he should never have permitted himself to accept the absurd concept that white is more virtuous than black.” (P. 92.) (However, many Whites are now ashamed of being White.) Negroes should not have allowed Whites to crush them with the propaganda that Whites are superior. “That day is fast coming to an end.” (P. 92.) (That day arrived decades ago. Now, Whites and Negroes have crushed Whites with the propaganda that Whites are inferior.)

According to King, poverty prevented Negroes from attaining dignity. (With the enormous quantities of money transferred from Whites to Negroes, poverty should be eliminated as an excuse for the lack of dignity.)  “If the society changes its concepts by placing the responsibility on its system, not on the individual, and guarantees secure employment or a minimum income, dignity will come within reach of all.” (P. 92.) (All King-idolizing conservatives need to promote democratic socialism, for this is what King is describing and wants.)

King writes, “Over the last few years many Negroes have felt that their most troublesome adversary was not the obvious bigot of the Ku Klux Klan or the John Birch Society, but the white liberal who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice, who prefers tranquillity to equality.” (P. 93.) (Robert Welsh, the founder of the John Birch Society, was a staunch integrationist [see “John Birch Society and Segregation” by Thomas Allen]. Also, William Jasper, editor of The New American, a magazine associated with the John Birch Society, was an integrationist [see “A Letter: Miscegenation” by Thomas Allen].) Continuing, King adds, “Even in areas where liberals have great influence — labor unions, schools, churches and politics — the situation of the Negro is not much better than in areas where they are not dominant.” (P. 92.) (In recent decades, most liberals seem to have overcome this deficiency as they outdo each other by lavishing privileges, wealth, and power on Negroes.)

Correctly, King notes, “Often white liberals are unaware of their latent prejudices.” (P. 93.) (Unlike Southerners, Northern liberals have not spent much time around Negroes, so they have to rely on mysticism or prejudicial stereotyping to guide them. While Southerners who have not been indoctrinated with wokeism view Negroes realistically, Northerners generally view Negroes in one of two ways. Some idolize the Negro and believe that he is like a White person of high moral character but only with dark skin. Others resort to stereotypes: The Negro is a criminal brute or a lethargic, listless, lazy loafer.) King condemns liberals for their lack of alacrity and speed in surrendering White America unconditionally to King’s demands. (Since King wrote this essay, not only have liberals surrendered unconditionally to the Negro, but so have most conservatives. Is America any better now than then?)

According to King, any liberal who fails to accept interracial marriages negates his claim to genuine liberalism. (Thus, King reveals that he has no reservations about genociding the American Negro via miscegenation. Likewise, most liberals and conservatives lack reservations about genociding the Negro via miscegenation.) When interracial marriage is so acceptable and common that no one ever questions it, the disease of racism is cured. (Thus, the cure of racism is to genocide the races via miscegenation. One wonders if King believed that mulattos and mestizos are superior or if he hates Whites so much that he is willing to genocide the American Negro to genocide the White race. And this is evidence of love?)

Then, King states, “The white liberal must see that the Negro needs not only love but also justice.” (P. 95.) Further, King states, “The white liberal must affirm that absolute justice for the Negro simply means, in the Aristotelian sense, that the Negro must have ‘his due.’” (If the Negro received ‘his due’ and the same justice as Whites, far more Negroes would be in prison, and fewer Whites would be in prison.)

Next, King asserts that the Negro’s demand for justice is “a troublesome concept for many liberals, since it conflicts with their traditional ideal of equal opportunity and equal treatment of people according to their individual merits. But this is a day which demands new thinking and the reevaluation of old concepts. A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, in order to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis.” (P. 95.) (Since King did not want Negroes to be judged on their merit, he must have believed that they lacked merit and were really inferior. Thus, King demanded equity, equality of outcome, for Negroes instead of equality of opportunity and treatment. [Consequently, King-idolizing conservatives should cease preaching equality of opportunity and start preaching equality of outcome.] To placate the Negro, merit and equality of opportunity and treatment have been replaced with special privileges and benefits for Negroes so that they can achieve equity. Now, less-qualified Negroes are hired instead of more-qualified Whites. Universities admit less-qualified Negroes over more-qualified Whites. Yet, the Negro’s greed and lust remain unsatisfied.)

Mistakenly, King claims, “The Negro has not gained a single right in America without persistent pressure and agitation.” (P. 96.)  (The fifteenth amendment gave suffrage to Negro men. Negro pressure and agitation did not cause this amendment to be ratified. White Republicans gave them suffrage because of the growing popularity of the Democrats in the North. To retain control of Congress, the Republicans needed more Republican voters in the North. They expect most Negroes to vote for Republicans, so they gave them the vote.)

King writes, “that the oppressed person who agitates for his rights is not the creator of tension.” (P. 96.) (That is, the Negro has no responsibility for any of his violent acts and should not be held accountable for his violent acts. Whites are the blame for all violent acts of Negroes. Even after surrendering unconditionally to the demands of Negroes and giving them nearly everything that they demand, except reparations, Whites are still the blame.)

Moreover, King insists that the Negro protests, demonstrations, and riots did not cause a White backlash. “[T]he hatred and the hostilities were already latently or subconsciously present.” (P. 96.) By bringing these hostilities to the surface, the Negro was like a physician informing his patient that he has cancer. Therefore, the Negro was doing Whites a service by destroying their country, society, and culture to save them from the rot of racism.

Next, King, condemns Negroes who “have uttered anti-Semitic sentiments.” (P. 97.) However, “the amount of anti-Semitism found among Negroes is no greater than is found among white groups of the same economic strata.” (P. 97.) “The limited degree of Negro anti-Semitism is substantially a Northern ghetto phenomenon; it virtually does not exist in the South.” (P. 97.) (The lack of antisemitism among Southern Negroes may result from a lack of contact that they had with Jews. Familiarity breeds contempt as often as it breeds harmony.) Nevertheless, Jewish maltreatment of Negroes caused the antisemitism of Negroes. (Again, Negroes are not responsible.) Moreover, “Negroes cannot be expected to curb and eliminate the few who are anti-Semitic.” (P. 98.) (Yet, King expected White liberals to curb and eliminate White segregationists.)

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Allen.

Part 1, Part 3

More social issues articles.

King on Where Are We

King on Where Are We

Thomas Allen

In “Where Are We?,” Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? (Boston: Beacon Press, 1968), pages 1–22, Martin Luther King, Jr., discusses what the Negro wanted and expected following the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

(First, I must remind the reader that most conservatives and nearly all conservative commentators consider King a conservative. Furthermore, many conservative commentators assert that King is an archconservative and the greatest conservative ever. Some have even deified him. Hereafter, all these conservatives are referred to as King-idolizing conservatives. Since King is an archconservative, these King-idolizing conservatives should advocate everything that King advocated.)

In signing the Voting Rights Act into law, President Johnson said, “Today is a triumph for freedom as huge as any victory that’s ever been won on any battlefield . . . today we strike away the last major shackle of . . . fierce and ancient bonds.” (P. 2.) Whatever these ancient bonds were, the slavery of the welfare state soon replaced them.

Johnson understood the common Negroes better than King did. King thought that the common Negroes wanted to be like the White man: having self-respect, accepting the responsibility of taking care of his family, planning for the future, being punctual, delaying gratification, and being polite. The only things holding Negroes back from achieving this goal were education and segregation. Johnson knew that the common Negroes did not want responsibilities; they did not want to plan for the future or delay gratification. In short, they did not want to abandon the slave mentality. They wanted cradle-to-grave care with someone else making their decisions and quickly satisfying their gratification. And that is what Johnson gave them. The last 55 years have proven Johnson right. (One great irony is that Negroes behaved more like Whites during the Jim Crow Era than they have during the Civil Rights Era.)

King discusses the protests that the Voting Rights Act received. Negroes rioted in several Northern and Western cities. Most Northerners and Westerners had supported the civil rights movement because they thought that it only affected the South and Southerners. Most never thought that civil rights and related laws would apply to the North, but now it was too late to halt the movement.

Negroes wanted power not only in the South but also in the rest of the country — and the White oligarchs gave it to them. Moreover, Negroes wanted to be equal to Whites. Although most Whites treated Negroes decently, they did not treat them as equals — King complained. Not only did the Negro become the White man’s equal, he eventually became his superior with privileges that White never dreamed of having.

Continuing, King writes, “White America was ready to demand that the Negro should be spared the lash of brutality and coarse degradation, but it had never been truly committed to helping him out of poverty, exploitation or all forms of discrimination.” (P. 3.) So, Johnson declared his War on Poverty with all sorts of welfare for Negroes. Moreover, laws and court orders led to affirmative action, quotas, set-asides, and similar acts that discriminated against Whites in favor of Negroes. (Since the greatest conservative ever supported Johnson’s War on Poverty, King-idolizing conservatives should support the War on Poverty, the welfare state, and discrimination against Whites.)

King laments that “the white segregationist and the ordinary white citizen had more in common with one another than either had with the Negro.” (P. 4.) (What has occurred since he wrote these words would bring him joy. Although ordinary Whites still have more in common with each other than they have with Negroes, the White oligarchs, who have backed the civil rights movement from the beginning, have turned Whites against Whites and have caused the genocide of the White race, especially Southerners. Further, the oligarchs have maneuvered most Whites into kowtowing to the Negro with many, especially conservatives, deifying King.)

Moreover, King regrets that Southerners were not beaten into submission. (Not long after his death, an unrelenting genocide of Southerners began and this genocide has been vigorously pursued ever since. King would rejoice in the genocide of Southerners. After all, he loathed Southerners more than the Democrats loathe Trump.)

King demanded that Whites pour ever more money into the education of Negroes (— as though more money would overcome the genetic intelligence and intellectual disadvantages of Negroes). Also, he demanded more high-paying jobs for Negroes (— affirmative action and quotas solved this problem). Further, he demanded the eradication of slum housing (— urban renewal accomplished much of this although many Negroes were driven from their homes in the process).

(Although Johnson planned to use his War on Poverty to enslave Negroes to the Democratic Party, which he accomplished,) King favored the War on Poverty. Whites should be taxed for the benefit of Negroes.

King erred when he claimed that when the Constitution was adopted, the Negro was considered only 60 percent of a person. (Free Negroes were considered as a whole person. Only slaves were considered as 60 percent of a person. King’s despised South wanted to consider all Negroes as a whole person while the North wanted to consider them not a person all.)

King described how bad life was for the Negro. He writes, “Economic discrimination is especially deeply rooted in the South. In industry after industry there is a significant differential in wage scales between North and South.“ (P. 7.) (A major cause of the difference in the wage scale and the large degree of poverty in the South was Lincoln’s War and Reconstruction.  Yankees so plundered the South that more than a century was required for its recovery — and it still has not fully recovered.) However, King blamed the lower Southern pay scale on cheap Negro labor. (At that time, many Negroes worked as farm laborers, which was among the lowest-paid jobs.) According to King, Southerners prevented Negroes from moving into higher-paying industrial jobs. (He overlooked that Whites in the South received lower pay than Whites in other parts of the country. Even Southerners in industrial jobs received lower pay.)

Citing polls, King remarked that 88 percent of Whites “would object if their teenage child dated a Negro. Almost 80 percent would mind it if a close friend or relative married a Negro.” (P. 8.) (He seemed to have wanted to break down all barriers to interracial mating. Now, he can revel in knowing that the barriers to interracial mating have been dismantled as both Whites and Negroes genocide each other through interracial mating. Equality, which King, liberals, progressives, and King-idolizing conservatives advocate, can be accomplished with the races  amalgamating and homogenizing — so they believe.)

For King and the Negro, equality means that Negroes have the same economic standing as Whites, i.e., equality of outcome, now called equity. Yet, for most Whites, equality means the opportunity for improvement, i.e., equality of opportunity. (King-idolizing conservatives who preach equality of opportunity need to follow the archconservative King and start preaching equality of outcome.)

Continuing, King writes, “The Negro on a mass scale is working vigorously to overcome his deficiencies and his maladjustments.” (P. 9.) (Statistics for crime, abortion, single-parent households, dependency on welfare, deteriorating cities governed by Negroes, etc. show that the Negro has failed to overcome his deficiencies and his maladjustments. Despite receiving massive sums of money and more benefits and privileges than Whites ever received during the height of White supremacy and Jim Crow, the Negro has failed. King must not have understood his people as well as he thought he did.)

King disagreed with many Whites who supported the Supreme Court’s desegregation decision. For these Whites, desegregation meant an end to legalized segregation and giving Negroes the opportunity to attend White schools. (For example, T.B. Maston, see “Review of Segregation and Desegregation” by Thomas Allen.) For King, desegregation meant forced integration. (Consequently, all King-idolizing conservatives should ardently support forced integration — and many do.)

Because many Whites who had earlier supported the civil rights movement showed less alacrity in their support as time passed, Negroes lost confidence in themselves. (Why should their confidence in themselves depend on Whites, King failed to explain?)

King remarks, “The increases in segregated schools and the expanded slums are developments confined largely to the North. Substantial progress has been achieved in the South.” (P. 13.) (Thus, while Negroes progressed in their despised South, they regressed in their beloved North. In the minds of many Northerners, the civil rights act and related laws were only supposed to apply in the South where the Negro was hated and never in the North where the Negro was loved. Consequently, in the early years of the civil rights movement, the North cheered the Negro destruction of the South. However, after Negroes had defeated the South, they turned their attention to the North, and the North protested. Nevertheless, Negroes eventually defeated the North.)

Unsurprisingly, King blames racism in the North and West on Southerners who had migrated to the North and West. These Southerners brought their prejudice and discrimination with them. Southerners caused segregation in the North. (First, although Northerners may have been prejudiced against Negroes, Southerners were not. Collins English Dictionary defines prejudice as “an opinion formed beforehand, esp an unfavourable one based on inadequate facts.” Random House Kernerman Webster’s College Dictionary defines prejudice as “an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.” The attitudes of Southerners toward Blacks were based on 400 years of observation, knowledge, thought, reason, and facts. Consequently, they were not prejudiced against Blacks. Second, antebellum history shows that Northerners discriminated against Negroes more than did Southerners — and this was before many Southerners migrated to the North.)

King believes that if it were not for Southerners, the United States would have been fully integrated a century ago (and Negroes would have been amalgamated out of existence), and the United States would be at least as socialistic as Western Europe. (Thus, only Southerners defended liberty from despotic government, which King wanted, and the preservation of the races including the Negro race.) Consequently, King writes, “Until the disproportionate political power of the reactionary South in Congress is ended, progress in the United States will always be fitful and uncertain.” (P. 14.) (As the political power of Southerners waned, progressivism waxed. Since progressivism and socialism now dominate the country, King should be happy.)

Continuing, King discussed the hardships that Negroes had endured and their rebellion. He commented on the changes that Negroes had brought and their victories. Nevertheless, much more is needed.

Following the death of segregation in the South, the Negroes needed to gain control of the social and economic systems of the United States and to change them for the benefit of the Negroes. (They have accomplished this goal, and King-idolizing conservatives ought to be rejoicing.)

King boasted about his nonviolent approach, which resulted in a great deal of violence, to civil rights. He condemned the Black Power movement because it promoted riots. (In the end, the open violence of the Black Power movement worked better than the concealed violence of the nonviolent movement. At least the Black Power movement was less hypocritical. What has excited Negroes most about the civil rights movement has been the violence of their protests and riots and the lucre that these acts have brought them.)

King laments, “Yet the civil rights revolution appeared to drain energy from the North, energy that flowed South to transform life there while stagnation blanketed Northern Negro communities.” (P. 19.) Negroes needed to turn their attention to the North and liberate the Northern Negro.  (And they did and destroyed much of the North in the process.)

To get Northern cities to capitulate to the Negro’s demands, King described what he considered nonviolent tactics. If enough Negroes marched in the city, they can force its operations to cease. Then, the city will surrender to the Negroes demands. According to King, such a protest does not harm persons or property. (He is wrong. When city services that people depend on cease, they suffer harm. Moreover, the city must tax their property to pay for the Negro’s demands. This is hardly nonviolence although the violence is more subtle than a riot.)

King declares, “Northern white leadership has relied too much on tokens and substitutes, and on Negro patience. The end of this road is clearly in sight.” (P. 22.) (He was right. Several years after his death Negroes defeated the North just as they had defeated the South. Since then, the oligarchs have used Negroes to control the country although mestizos and Indians from Latin America and queers are now replacing Negroes.)

King closes his essay by urging Whites to pressure their local and State governments and the federal government to implement the reforms that the Negro demands to prevent riots. (So much for nonviolence.) “Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention.” (P. 22.)

Throughout his essay, King expresses disdain for segregationists, Southerners, the South, and all that is related to them.

One wonders what King would think about the way that Negroes have turned out 55 years after he wrote this book. Despite all the privileges and benefits that Negroes have received over the years, in many respects, most are no better off than they were under Jim Crow — however, they are materially better off because of the welfare state. Most of the Negroes who have advanced probably would have done just as well under Jim Crow. In many respects, the Civil Rights Era has been a failure unless the objective was destroying liberty with a despotic government and the genocide of the White race while the wealth of Whites was being stolen for the benefit of nonwhites with the oligarchs taking a large cut.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues.

King on Black Power – Part 1

King on Black Power – Part 1

Thomas Allen

In “Black Power,” Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? (Boston: Beacon Press, 1968), pages 23–70, Martin Luther King, Jr., discusses the rise of Black Power, its flaws, and his objections to it. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

(First, I must remind the reader that most conservatives and nearly all conservative commentators consider King a conservative. Furthermore, many conservative commentators assert that King is an archconservative and the greatest conservative ever. Some have even deified him. Hereafter, all these conservatives are referred to as King-idolizing conservatives. Since King is an archconservative, these King-idolizing conservatives should advocate everything that King advocated.)

King begins his essay by discussing the shooting of James Meredith, which occurred in June 1966 and some events that followed. Meredith’s wounds prevented him from continuing his march in Mississippi. So, King, who represented the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), Stokely Carmichael, who represented the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), and Floyd  McKissich, who represented the Congress for Racial Equality (CORE), continued Meredith’s march. (For more about, Carmichael, McKissich, SCLC, SNCC, and CORE, see “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement” by Thomas Allen.)

Then, King describes the events leading to the resumption of the Meredith Mississippi Freedom March. He discovered that many young Negroes in the troop had become more openly militant. Unfulfilled promises had caused this militant anti-White attitude. Although King wanted to continue his “nonviolent” way, members of CORE and SNCC want to be more militant.

King opposed being openly violent because they “had neither the resources nor the techniques to win.” (P. 27.) To trick and provoke Whites into attacking “peaceful,” unarmed protestors was King’s tactic. 

Carmichael of SNCC opposed Whites joining the march. King’s speculated that  Carmichael’s opposition came from his experience in 1964 in Mississippi when Northerners flooded into Mississippi to work with and instruct Negroes, and the parental attitude of these Northerners made Negroes feel even more inadequate. (Many Northerners, especially Yankees, still believe that Negroes are incapable of taking care of themselves and of advancing without the succor of Whites.) However, King wanted the march to be interracial, and he persuaded Carmichael and McKissich to agree with his (King’s) conditions for the march: nonviolent and interracial. (Unlike Carmichael and McKissich, King appeared to have no qualms about genociding the American Negro via breeding them out of existence with interracial mating, which is a natural result of racial integration.)

During that march, “the birth of the Black Power slogan [entered] in the civil rights movement” (pp. 29-30) although the phrase had been used earlier. However, King  “had the deep feeling that it was an unfortunate choice of words for a slogan.” (P. 30.)

A schism began to occur between the Black Power folks led by Carmichael and the Freedom Now faction led by King. King argued, “The words ‘black’ and ‘power’ together give the impression that we are talking about black domination rather than black equality.” (P. 32.) (Eventually, the Negro not only achieved equality, but the White oligarchs gave the Negro domination over all Whites but themselves. Now, Negroes have far more privileges than Whites ever had at the pinnacle of White supremacy or Jim Crow. Moreover, White oligarchs have enslaved common Whites to support a vast number of Negroes through the welfare state, affirmative action, quotas, etc.) In the end, the Black Power folks and the Freedom Now folks segregated and separated from each other. (So much for these hypocrites adhering to integration.)

Next, King explains that “it is necessary to understand that Black Power is a cry of disappointment. . . . It was born from the wounds of despair and disappointment.” (P. 33.) (Negroes may have been disappointed then, but now they have more than most ever dreamed of having as Whites cower before them.) 

King writes, “For centuries the Negro has been caught in the tentacles of white power. Many Negroes have given up faith in the white majority because ‘white power’ with total control has left them empty-handed. So in reality the call for Black Power is a reaction to the failure of white power.” (P. 32). (Now, Whites are caught in the tentacles of Black Power. Evidence is Whites debasing themselves before Black Lives Matter as though such debasement would ever earn them the respect or admiration of Negroes. Instead, it has earned them the Negro’s disgust and disrespect. Not only did this debasement earn the disgust and disrespect of all self-respecting Negroes, but it also earned the disgust and disrespect of all self-respecting Whites.)

Continuing, King comments on the number of Negro and White civil rights workers killed in Mississippi and the number of churches bombed or burned. He notes, “This is white power in its most brutal, cold-blooded and vicious form.” (P. 34.) (With numerous riots since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and their vast destruction of property and many resulting deaths, Black Power has far exceeded White power in its most brutal, cold-blooded, and vicious form. When the brutal viciousness that Negro criminals perpetrate against Whites is included, Black Power makes King’s description of White power look benevolent.)

Much of the blame for the rise of Black Power, King places on the federal government. The federal government failed to become despotic enough quick enough to ram all the demands of the Negroes “down the throats” of Whites — especially Southerners. (Within a decade, the federal government had become despotic enough to force Whites to surrender unconditionally to the demands of the Negro. Over the decades, this despotism has grown until now White oligarchs are giving Negroes privileges and benefits that they never dreamed possible or even thought about.)

Not only does King condemn the South, but he also condemns the North.  “In the Northern ghettos, unemployment, housing discrimination and slum schools mock the Negro who tries to hope. . . . The gap between the wages of the Negro worker and those of the white worker has widened. Slums are worse and Negroes attend more thoroughly segregated schools today than in 1954.” (Pp. 35-36.) (For most Northerners, civil rights and special privileges and benefits for Negroes were only supposed to apply in the South. They were not supposed to apply in the North. If Northerners had known that they were going to be suffocated and devoured in the tentacles of the civil rights movement that they wished on the South, the civil rights movement would have died before it began.)

According to King, the Vietnam War was a major cause of the rise of Black Power and Negroes becoming more violent. Also, Negroes had become disappointed “with timid white moderates who feel that they can set the timetable for the Negro’s freedom.” (P. 36.) They had become disappointed “with a federal administration that seems to be more concerned about winning an ill-considered war in Vietnam than about winning the war against poverty here at home.” (P. 36.) Thus, King wanted resources wasted on the Vietnam War to be allocated to the War on Poverty. (Consequently, King-idolizing conservatives should be ardent supporters of the welfare state and should demand that resources spent on foreign wars promoting American hegemony be spent on the War on Poverty.)

Moreover, King condemns both Whites and Negro clergymen who fail to support the civil rights movement with sufficient alacrity. Their apathy was a cause of the rise of Black Power. The Negro middle class also suffered his wrath. 

About Black Power, King writes that “in its broad and positive meaning, [Black Power] is a call to black people to amass the political and economic strength to achieve their legitimate goals.”(P. 37) (White oligarchs would give the Negro enough political and economic power to achieve their goals, legitimate or otherwise.) King laments about the Negro’s lack of power. (Now, the Negro has power that probably exceeded what King imagined possible.)

Continuing, King writes, “The problem of transforming the ghetto is, therefore, a problem of power.” (P. 37.) (Negroes have gained control of the governments of many major cities. Not only have ghettos not vanished under Black Power, but they have often grown worse — even with the influx of enormous amounts of federal money.) King expresses a great deal of lust for power and associates power with love. 

Then, King writes that “the ultimate answer to the Negroes’ economic dilemma will be found in a massive federal program for all the poor.” (P. 39) (Eventually, King’s demand for massive federal expenditures on poverty came to fruition, yet poverty remains. [Too many people are getting rich from poverty for it to be eliminated.] Moreover, since King was a fervent supporter of the welfare state and the War on Poverty, all King-idolizing conservatives should also be zealous supporters of them.)

King urged Negroes to combine their resources and to develop habits of thrift and techniques of wise investment. (Unfortunately, most Negroes ignored his advice.)

“Black Power is a psychological call to manhood. For years the Negro has been taught that he is nobody, that his color is a sign of his biological depravity, that his being has been stamped with an indelible imprint of inferiority, that his whole history has been soiled with the filth of worthlessness.” (P. 39.) (For the most part, Negroes have overcome these psychological problems. White oligarchs and Negroes teach Whites that they are worthless oppressors and are not worthy of respect and are inferior to the Negro. However, as crime statistics show, the Negro has failed to overcome his biological depravity, which is in his genes.)

Summarizing his discussion of the impact of slavery on Negroes, King writes, “Here, then, was the way to produce a perfect slave. Accustom him to rigid discipline, demand from him unconditional submission, impress upon him a sense of his innate inferiority, develop in him a paralyzing fear of white men, train him to adopt the master’s code of good behavior, and instill in him a sense of complete dependence.” (P. 40.) (In many respects, Negroes have vanquished the effects of slavery. They are not subject to discipline or submission. [Whites are expected to submit to Negroes.] They no longer fear Whites, but Whites fear them. Most Negroes have abandoned the code of good behavior. However, most Negroes still have a sense of complete dependence. They depended on the welfare state and the special privileges and benefits that the oligarchs have given them.) Then, King writes, “Black Power is a psychological reaction to the psychological indoctrination that led to the creation of the perfect slave.”

King asserts that the Negro “must no longer be ashamed of being black.” (P. 42) (Although Negroes are no longer ashamed of being black, many Whites are ashamed of being White. Further, realizing the benefits and privileges that Negroes have but are denied Whites, a growing number of Whites are claiming to be Negroes.)

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Allen.

Part 2

More social issues articles.

King on What the Negro Wants

King on What the Negro Wants

Thomas Allen

In his speech, “Where Do We Go from Here?” (1967), I Have a Dream: Writings and Speeches that Changed the World (James Washington, ed., Harper Collins Publishers, 1986, 1982), Martin Luther King, Jr., presents what the Negro desiderates. A discussion of some of King’s demands follows.

Most conservatives claim that King is an archconservative. Many believe that he is the greatest conservative ever. Some have even deified him. Therefore, these conservatives should not only agree with all the demands of the greatest conservative ever, but they should also ardently promote them.

Like all integrationists, King blames the poor academic performance of Negroes on segregated schools. He notes, “In elementary schools, Negroes lag one to three years behind whites, and their segregated schools receive substantially less money per student than the white schools.”(p. 170.) Although schools have been integrated for half a century and standards have been lowered to accommodate Negroes, they still lag behind Whites by one to three years academically in elementary and even further behind in high school. Whatever the cause of Negroes lagging behind Whites, it has nothing to do with segregation. Does it ever occur to King, conservatives, and other integrationists that the reason that Negroes lag behind Whites is genetics and not segregation?

(In “The Rising Tide of Racial Consciousness” [1960] of the same book, King describes the high academic achievements that Negroes had accomplished during the Jim Crow Era [p. 64-65], which contradicts much of the agreement of the integrationists. Segregated schools had not held Negroes back academically.)

King declares that Negroes “must no longer be ashamed of being black.” (p. 170.) At least the Negro has overcome this problem. The self-esteem of the typical Negro far exceeds that of the typical White.

Moreover, King complains that the infant mortality rate of Blacks is significantly higher than White infant mortality rate (p. 170). Today, the leading cause of death of Negro infants is abortion. Although in this speech, King does not mention abortion; most likely, today, he would support abortion without restrictions because that is the progressive thing to do.

King was ahead of his time in changing and corrupting language. He favored eliminating negative connotations with “black” and positive connotations with “white” (pp. 170-171). Thus, King was woke decades before wokeism became the guiding principle of the country.

Continuing in his speech, King complains that the Negro contribution to American life has been ignored (p. 171). Black history month solved this problem. For a whole month, America is saturated with minor contributions of Negroes that make the work of Washington, Jefferson, and the other founding fathers pale into insignificance.

Next, King says, “‘Yes, I [the Negro] was a slave through my foreparents and I am not ashamed of that. I’m ashamed of the people who were so sinful to make me a slave.’” Contrary to what King may believe, the Bible does not condemn slavery or consider it a sin. Jesus never commanded that slaves be emancipated. Neither did Paul nor Peter. On the contrary, both Paul and Peter instructed slaves to be faithful to their masters.

Further, King complains about the lack of power that Negroes have (pp. 171-172). Negroes have overcome their lack of power. Today, they can bring down almost any White public figure by accusing him of being a racist, which now has at least 800 definitions, even without proof. Moreover, they have trained Whites to hate themselves so much that they will attack Whites who tell the truth about Negroes and smear them as “racists.”

Continuing, King says, “The problem of transforming the ghetto, therefore, is a problem of power.” (p. 172) Negro ghettoes are located in large cities, many of which Negroes govern. Moreover, these cities receive large influxes of federal grant money. For the most part, Negro ghettoes in these Negro governed cities are worse today than they were under Jim Crow when Negroes presumably had no power. Furthermore, the rest of these cities have deteriorated — this deterioration is directly proportional to the power of the Negro, just as it was in the South during Reconstruction.

Whatever the cause of the plight of the Negro during the Jim Crow Era, it had nothing to do with his lack of power. Where the Negro has had power, the condition of the Negro has not noticeably improved — except for those who govern and their cronies.

Then, King says “We must develop a program that will drive the nation to a guaranteed annual income.” (p. 173.) Consequently, since King is the greatest conservative ever, a guaranteed annual income is conservatism and not progressivism. All these King-worshiping conservatives are blaspheming their lord if they do not support and promote a guaranteed annual income. When are these conservatives going to institute and implement their lord’s demand for a guaranteed annual income?

Continuing with his speech, King argues for a war on poverty, which President Johnson gave him and every president has since continued (p. 174). (Since archconservative King advocated a war on poverty, then all good conservatives must fervently support the federal government’s war on poverty, the Constitution notwithstanding.) The country has been at war with poverty for 60 years and has little to show for it other than the squandering of trillions of dollars.

(In “The Rising Tide of Racial Consciousness” [1960] of the same book, King describes how Negroes were making enormous advances economically during the Jim Crow Era [p. 65]. And, they were doing so by their own efforts and merit, unlike today where their advancement depends mostly on handouts and governmental coercion such as affirmative action, quotas, set-asides, etc.)

Nevertheless, if all the noncash welfare benefits are considered, many of those identified as paupers live better than many taxpaying wage earners. Only a few homeless people are truly paupers. So, in this sense, the war has been won.

When King gave this speech in 1967, he said that riots were futile because “the local police, the state troopers, the National Guard and, finally, the army to call on—all of which are predominantly white.” (p. 175.) Today, many local police forces are predominately nonwhite — and the State police, National Guard, and the army are becoming ever more nonwhite. Most of the time, even Whites side with the Negro rioters. Consequently, riots can be and have been more effective in the twenty-first century than in the 1960s at cowardizing Whites into surrendering to Negro demands. 

One of the main reasons that King opposed a violent revolt by Negroes was that he believed that the Negro could not win such a revolt (p. 175). He was probably right. However, through propaganda, guile, threats, protests, and occasionally riots, the Negro could and finally did defeat the White man. Thus, following King’s advice, the Negro has not only defeated the White man; with the aid of self-hating Whites, the Negro is also well on his way to annihilating the White race.

Although King expressed a great desire for love and disdain for hate in his speech (pp. 175-176), his movement has led to a great deal of hatred toward Whites. This hatred is concealed in crime statistics of violent Negroes crimes perpetrated against Whites (see “The Dirty War: America’s Race War” by Thomas Allen). Worse, King’s movement has led to the hatred of White realists and White separatists by White albusphobes and Whites racial nihilists.

Like all good conservatives, King blames capitalism for poverty (p. 176). He favors an economic system between communism and capitalism — a blend of the two, which is what the country has today. Although he does not use the terms, what King is advocating is democratic welfare-state fascism, which is called democratic socialism in Europe. All good King-worshiping conservatives should support King’s economic philosophy.

Moreover, King opposed foreign investments because they exploited poor countries and led to the use of military force to protect foreign investments (p. 177). So far, King’s followers have failed to eliminate foreign investments and the concomitant wars. (Neoconservatives and establishment conservatives, who are the most ardent worshipers of King, are the most warmongering conservatives. Why have they ignored their god on this point?)

Also, in “Facing the Challenge of a New Age” (1957) of the same book, King writes:

There is nothing in all the world greater than freedom. It is worth dying for; it is worth losing a job; it is worth going to jail for. I would rather be a free pauper than a rich slave. I would rather die in abject poverty with my convictions than live in inordinate riches with the lack of self-respect. Once more every Negro must be able to cry out with his forefathers: “Before I'll be a slave, I'll be buried in my grave and go home to my Father and be saved.” (p. 27.)

Many of King’s followers have ignored his teachings about freedom. Many Negroes have enslaved themselves to the government via the welfare state. They prefer loafing in comfort with cradle-to-grave care to living free as a pauper.

Negroes have not gotten everything that King claimed that they wanted, such as a guaranteed annual income, although the welfare state comes close to it. In some respects, they have gotten more than they thought possible, such as getting Whites to genocide themselves. (Nevertheless, White supremacy will continue to exist long after the White race becomes extinct because White supremacy is so powerful that it will continue to dominate the world forever. Besides, Negroes cannot let White supremacy die because then they will have to accept responsibility for their failures instead of blaming Whites for their failures.)

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

The Yankee

The Yankee

Thomas Allen

    Who is the Yankee? In his book The Yankee Problem: An American Dilemma (Columbia, South Carolina: Shotwell Publishing LLC, 2016), Dr. Clyde Wilson gives an excellent description of the Yankee. (Pages numbers in parentheses reference Wilson’s book.)
    The Yankee is a descendant of New England Puritans and their latter allies, the radicals and revolutionaries, many of whom were Jews, who fled Europe after their failed Revolution of 1848. He is easily recognized by his “arrogance, hypocrisy, greed, lack of congeniality, and penchant for ordering other people around” (p. 1). Also, he is “self-righteous, ruthless, and self-aggrandizing” (p. 2). The guiding principle of the Yankee is that he is compelled to meddle in everyone else's business, both at home and abroad. He cannot just leave people alone. Moreover, he has an uncontrollable desideratum to remake the world in his own image.
    Furthermore, the Yankee is “contemptuous of good manners, boastful, ever ready to cast away traditions for the newest idea, and see making money as the chief object of life. Equality and majority rule for them should determine everything — in society and culture as well as before the law” (p. 20). (An example of the “out with the old” and ‘in with the new” is the condemnation and overt destruction of traditional man-woman marriages while promoting same-sex “marriage.” Heterosexuals are now abnormal while homosexuals and transgenders are now normal.) He is never satisfied unless he is making changes.
    The Yankee reveals himself as “the greedy rent-seekers through government and the moralistic reformers. . .” (p. 24). Greedy-rent-seeking-through-government results in protective tariff and import quotas, subsidies for agriculture and businesses, centralized banking, and internal improvements (subsidies for building roads, canals, harbors, and airports and for urban renewal) — in short, the Hamiltonian government-business partnership made permanently by Lincoln. Moralistic reform results in abolitionism, prohibition of alcohol and tobacco, the war on drugs, the war on poverty, the civil rights movement, homosexual and transgender rights, the drive to make every religion acceptable except Christianity, which must be eradicated, etc. Furthermore, the Yankee is the “builder of the all-powerful ‘multicultural’ therapeutic state (with himself giving the orders and collecting the rewards) which is the perfection of history. . .” (pp 8-9).
    As Wilson notes, “Yankees have no civilization — only money and ideology. Without us [other Americans especially Southerners] to abuse and claim to feel superior to, they would not exist” (p. 15). Thus, Yankees are the real supremacists. Nevertheless, hypocrites that they are, they are always condemning supremacists — white and racial supremacists, male and sexual supremacists, civilization and cultural supremacists, the wealthy, etc. Moreover, continues Wilson, “The identification of God with America and the United States with infallible righteousness is Yankee stuff through and through. It is exactly the type of ‘religion’ that was used to deify Lincoln and justify the conquest of the South in 1861-1865” (p. 15). Such underlaid Bush in his war with Iraq and Afghanistan and Obama’s continuation and expansion of wars in the Middle East and Africa.
    The Yankee places great value on education and was a pioneer in public schools, government churches. However, the education that he promotes is superficial. He wants people to be educated enough to read and be swayed by a demagogue, but not learned enough to analyze what he has read. To the Yankee, the purpose of education is to train obedient servants and workers; it is not to enlighten and teach people to think and be creative.
    In the nineteenth century, Yankees were the abolitionists, prohibitionists, and promoters of protective tariffs, centralized banking, and internal improvements. John Quincy Adams, Henry David Thoreau, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Horace Greeley, William Cullen Bryant, Thaddeus Stevens, John Brown, and Horace Mann are notable nineteenth-century examples. Today, notable examples are Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and both George Bush the elder and the younger. Other examples are Teddy Roosevelt, Timothy McVeigh, and John Dewey. On the religious side, Yankeeism appears in Charles G. Finney, Joseph Smith (founder of the Mormons), William Miller (founder of the Seventh Day Adventists), and Billy Sunday. Besides birthing Mormonism, Seventh Day Adventism, abolitionism, and prohibition, Yankeeism has also birthed vegetarianism, feminism, progressive education, and all sorts of social experiments. (Abolitionism had almost nothing to do with the plight of Black slaves and a great deal to do with hatred of Southerners.) Over the last two centuries, the Yankee has seized control of the American educational system, American history, American literature, the media, and just about every other aspect of American life. In the United States today, the domain of the Yankee is easily recognized. It is the blue states — the northeast, the upper Midwest, and the Pacific Coast.
    If one wishes to learn more about these peculiar people, Yankees, he should read Dr. Wilson’s The Yankee Problem.

Copyright © 2016 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Articles on Southern Issues.

The Best and Worst Presidents

The Best and Worst Presidents

Thomas Allen

Below are my lists of the ten worst presidents beginning with the worst and the ten best presidents ending with the best. Along with the name of the president, his party, years of his term, and a brief reason for inclusion on the list are given.
The hardest part about compiling these lists was deciding whom to leave off the worst list and whom to include on the best list. These lists are not partisan. Five Republicans and five Democrats are identified as the worst presidents. One Federalist, two Democratic-Republicans, two Whigs, three Republicans, and two Democrats are named as the best presidents.
The presidents named in the list of the worst presidents not only ignored their oath of office, but they also grossly violated it. However, the presidents in the list of the best presidents strove to keep their oath of office to defend the Constitution.
With this revision, Jackson has been removed from the list of best presidents and Cleveland has been added to the list of best president. The ranking of the best presidents has been reordered. Revisions have been made to Lincoln, Roosevelt, Johnson, Wilson, Bush, Nixon, Obama, Jefferson, Tyler, Washington, Coolidge, and Monroe.

The Worst Presidents
1. Abraham Lincoln, Republican, 1861-1865: destroyed the Constitution; caused the death of more than 600,000 men to impose his protective tariff; gave the country legal-tender paper fiat money; established the imperial presidency; gave the United States their (“its” in his mind) first conscription law; committed treason according to the Constitution when he levied war against States that he calmed never left the union; suppressed opposing opinions even with imprisonment without trial.

2. Franklin Roosevelt, Democrat, 1933-1945: brought fascism to the United States; ruled like dictator; virtually destroyed the family farm with his regulations; stole the people’s gold (real money); lied the United States into World War II; placed the United States economy on a wartime footing from which they have never left; recognized the Soviet Union and thus aided Stalin in his tyranny and butchery and gave Eastern Europe (really Central Europe) to the communists; laid the framework for the United Nation and the globalist foreign policy that followed.

3. Lyndon Johnson, Democrat, 1963-1969: brought the Civil Rights Act, war on poverty, the welfare state, an immigration law that favored non-Whites while discriminating against Whites, and other programs to enslave Blacks and to bring down Whites; enacted the Gun Control Act of 1968; reduced the States to mere provinces of the federal government; lied the United States into an expanded war in Vietnam; probably the meanest president ever and a co-conspirator in the assassination of Kennedy.

4. Woodrow Wilson, Democrat, 1913-1921: brought the interventionist foreign policy to the United States and thus globalism to America, the federal reserve system, direct election of senators (17th Amendment), the income tax (16th Amendment), and draconian laws that destroyed free speech and other liberties in the name of national security; lied the United States into World War I; dictatorially controlled the United States economy and nationalized the railroads and radio broadcasting to control information; established the regulatory state where regulatory agencies enacted rules (legislative), enforced their rules (executive), and decided if their rules had been violated (judicial).

5. George W. Bush, Republican, 2001-2009: allowed 9-11 to happen, established the Department of Homeland Security, with his war on terrorism brought the police state to the United States and sweeping spying on the American people; lied the United States into a war with Iraq; bailed out the big banks; gave the American people Agenda 21 by which they will lose all control of their property.

6. Richard Nixon, Republican, 1969-1974: ended the last connection that the dollar had with gold; recognized communist China and, by that, began China’s growth into a major world power; extended the Vietnam War for political purposes and abandoned American-Vietnam-War prisoners of war in Laos, adopted guaranteed income; imposed wage and price controls; created the EPA and OSHA; enforced force busing, ushered in affirmative action and racial quotas.

7. Barack H. Obama, Democrat, 2009-2017: destroyed what little the previous presidents had left of the United States, thus fundamentally transforming the United States; according to the Council on Foreign Relations, his was the “most multilaterally-inclined US administration in history;” made appointments without the advise and consent of the Senate.

8. William McKinley, Republican, 1897-1901: lied the country into war with Spain and made the United States an imperialistic country with the Spanish-American War and thus overthrew the tradition of the American foreign policy of nonintervention.

9. Ulysses S. Grant, Republican, 1869-1877: resided over most of Reconstruction with one of the most corrupt governments the country has ever had; brought the Long Depression, 1873-1879, which by some measures was worse than the Great Depression; accepted Sherman’s genocide of the plains Indians; ended the free coinage of silver, i.e., the Crime of ’73 (he claimed that he did so unknowingly, but he did not try to correct the problem once he became aware of it — a problem that was never corrected).

10. Jimmy Carter, Democrat, 1977-1981: probably the most incompetent president ever, admitted before he was elected that his presidency would be a failure (he said that if any Trilateralists were found in his administration that it would be a failure; then he proceeded to fill his administration with Trilateralists); established the Departments of Education and Energy.

The Best Presidents
10. James Monroe, Democratic-Republican, 1817-1825: was the last one standing after all the others were eliminated; generally followed Jefferson’s philosophy of government.

9.  John F. Kennedy, Democrat, 1961-1963: must have had something going for him since the CIA, FBI, the military-industrial complex, Lyndon Johnson, the Texas oil men, the Israelis, French, South Vietnam (Diem regime), Cubans (Castro), Russians, and others wanted him dead.

8. Warren G. Harding, Republican, 1921-1923: said no to the bankers when they wanted him to intervene to assuage the Depression of 1920-21, which was more intense than the Great Depression, for them; unlike the presidents who followed Franklin Roosevelt, he took the country off a wartime footing; eschewed the imperial pretensions of Woodrow Wilson; launched a disarmament movement that resulted in reducing the world’s navies and the Kellogg-Briand treaty to outlaw war.

7. Rutherford B. Hayes, Republican, 1877-1881: ended Reconstruction, though it was a political deal to give him the presidency at least he kept his word; ushered in returning to the gold standard (although the law to do so was enacted during the Grant administration).

6. Calvin Coolidge, Republican, 1923-1929: proponent of limited government,  protected the balance between the federal and State government, last president who truly favored States’ rights; pushed to reduce or eliminate the war taxes and unconstitutional regulations enacted during the Wilson administration; opposed farm subsidies because they were unconstitutional and would destroy the farmer’s independence and would increase supply while decreasing consumption; supported permanent peace and therefore opposed foreign adventurism and entangling alliances and thus opposed entering the League of Nations and refused to join the world court; the last president who tried to save the country; the last president to believe the Constitution as ratified.

5. George Washington, Federalist, 1789-1797: a republican at heart; could have been king but chose not to; set a policy of not entering into any entangling alliances; avoided getting involved in the war between Great Britain and France; thought that the veto should be reserved only for unconstitutional enactments.

4. Grover Cleveland, Democrat, 1885-1889 and 1893-1897: the last Jeffersonian president; attempted to return the country to constitutional government, vetoed more unconstitutional laws than any other president, took his oath of office seriously; supported limited government, frugal government, sound money, honest and responsible public servants, limited corporate privileges; opposed the federal government usurping powers reserved by the States or the people, handouts to special interests, the annexation of Hawaii against the will of the Hawaiian people; appointed Confederate veterans to his administration; refused to intervene to support the banks and big businesses that suffered from the Panic of 1893

3. John Tyler, Whig, 1841-1845: Abandon the Whig’s government-business partnership philosophy and adopted a strong states’ right philosophy (he became the president without a party); adhered to the Constitution better than any other president (no other president took his oath of office as seriously as he) and, therefore, some consider him to be the best president ever; supported secession; vetoed unconstitutional bills for a central bank, internal improvements, and protective tariffs (all of which were Whiggish programs); opposed patronage, i.e., the spoils system; presided over the annexation of Texas.

2. Thomas Jefferson, Democratic-Republican, 1801-1809: perhaps had the most frugal government of all presidents; perhaps came closer to obeying his oath of office than any other president (at least during his first term); believed in executive restraint, rejected the notion that the president should be involved in legislation (the president job is limited to making recommendations, Congress and not the president should the primary body for setting policy); opposed the Supreme Court usurping the authority to declare a law unconstitutional; opposed centralized banking.

1. William Henry Harrison, Whig, 1841: was not in office long enough to do any damage.

Copyright © 2017 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Articles on Politics.

Review of The Negro Revolution in America -- Part 2

Review of The Negro Revolution in America -- Part 2

Thomas Allen

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

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

Endnote

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

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

3. Allen, Integration Is Genocide.

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

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

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen. 

Part 1

More articles on social issues.