Nationalists and Federalists

Nationalists and Federalists

Thomas Allen

Since the ratification of the Constitution of 1788, nationalists and federalists have been struggling to control the government of the United States. With the possible exception of the Cleveland administration, the nationalists have controlled the US government since the election of Lincoln. (Federalists should not be confused with the early Federalist Party of Washington and Adams, which was primarily a nationalist party. As contradictory as it may sound, the Antifederalists of that era were the real federalists.) The following is a comparison of nationalists and federalists.

1– Nationalists support a living constitution where the US Supreme Court, the President, and Congress continuously change the interpretation of the Constitution to meet current needs, i.e., to satiate their lust for power. Among their favorite clauses are the Interstate Commerce Clause, the General Welfare Clause (which means that anything Congress deems to be for the general welfare), and the Necessary and Proper Clause. They give these and other clauses extremely elastic interpretations.

On the other hand, federalists support a strict, limited interpretation of the Constitution. They advocate interpreting the Constitution to mean what the proponents of the ratification of the Constitution explained it to mean and its intent. Records of their remarks are available in the debates of the ratification conventions, the Federalist Papers, and other writings that promoted the Constitution.

2– While nationalists advocate the consolidation of political power where the national government (a.k.a. the central government, the federal government, the US government, and the general government) has unlimited power, federalists advocate the dispersal of political power where the federal government has limited, enumerated power.

3– According to nationalists, the Supreme Court is the final arbitrator of the constitutionality of federal acts (and even most State acts). Thus, the national government is the sole arbitrator of its political power.

Federalists assert that “we the people” of each State, either through their legislatures or special conventions, are the ultimate and final arbitrators of the constitutionality of a federal act. If a State finds that a federal act is unconstitutional, it is void in that State, but it may continue to be applied in the other States.

4– Nationalists maintain that all federal acts are constitutional until the Supreme Court declares them unconstitutional, which it rarely does. (Being a branch of the national government, the Supreme Court cannot be an unbiased arbitrator. Most of the time, it decides in favor of the national government and against the States.) 

However, federalists maintain that only federal acts pursuant to the Constitution are constitutional. Any federal act that does not implement or apply one of the powers expressly delegated to the federal government in the Constitution has not been made pursuant to the Constitution. Therefore, it is unconstitutional, i.e., it is not a law and consequently void.

5– Nationalists loathe States’ rights. They consider States to be merely administrative districts of the national government.  

Quite the opposite, federalists are ardent proponents of States’ rights. States, i.e., “we the people” of each State, are the heart and soul of the Constitution and the federal government that they created. Without the States, the Constitution and federal government would not exist. Furthermore, each State acting independently is the final judge of the constitutionality of all federal acts. Consequently, if a State finds a federal act unconstitutional, it is duty-bound to nullify that act within its jurisdiction.

6– Nationalists place the power of the national government above all. Therefore, they view secession as treason and a sacrilege.

Federalists place the welfare of their community, people, and land above the federal government. Thus, they view secession as a means of preservation.

7– Nationalists are inclined toward foreign intervention and imperialism and are, therefore, bellicostic. They seek hegemony.

Contrastingly, federalists desire not to meddle in the internal affairs of other countries and seek peace and trade with all. Consequently, they prefer peace to war.

8– Nationalists favor government-business partnerships, mercantilism, protectionism, centralized banking, easy credit (inflation), and government indebtedness. Thus, they favor big business, big labor, and the concentration of economic power. Prosperity is created through mercantilism, i.e., corporate welfare, protectionism, and central banking. 

On the other hand, federalists favor free trade, free markets, free enterprise, decentralized banking, the separation of government and banking, the stable value of money, and minimum or no government debt. Thus, they favor the dispersal of economic power. Free markets create prosperity.

9– Nationals accept the welfare state, for it increases the national government’s control over the people and, consequently, its power.

Federalists prefer private and church charities to governmental welfare. However, if a government is to be involved in welfare, it should be the local government.

10– Nationalists rely on the national government to promote and preserve the virtues of the people. Making people righteous is a primary function of the national government. (Today, perversion is often considered righteousness.)

Federalists rely on the independence of citizens to promote and preserve the virtues of the people. Making people righteous is primarily the work of churches (true churches and not today’s woke churches).

11– Nationalists construe the Constitution as a teleological document (establishing a society based on abstract principles of natural rights, equality, democracy, etc.)

Federalists construe it as a nomocratic document (bringing government under the rule of law).

12– Nationalists lean toward inclusion and, therefore, amalgamation.

Yet, federalists lean toward diversity and, therefore, separation. Moreover, 

federalists are more tolerant than are nationalists.

While nationalists promote the concentration of political, economic, and social power, federalists promote their dispersal.

Regrettably, most State governmental officials have sold their souls to the nationalists. Since most State officials prefer lucre to liberty, the nationalists have bought them with federal grant money. (Nowhere does the Constitution delegate the federal government the authority to issue grants — much less to use federal funds for bribery.)

In summary, while nationalists are centralists, federalists are decentralists (see “Centralism Verses Decentralism” by Thomas Allen.) Furthermore, while nationalists are statists, federalists are libertists (“Statists Versus Libertists” by Thomas Allen). Consequently, nationalists prefer the constitution that Lincoln and the Republicans, as further developed by Presidents Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and carried to fruition by the Warren Court, gave the United States, while the federalists prefer the Constitution of the Founding Fathers (see “What Is Your View of the US Constitution?” by Thomas Allen).

Federalism is achieved when more people know the names of their governors and State legislators than know the names of the President and their members of Congress.

Afterthought. Generally, nationalists divide into two major factions. One follows the attributes in the above list. The other follows the political and social attributes, although they disagree about the virtues that the national government should impose and the extent of the welfare state. However, the second faction agrees more with the federalists on economic matters. Further, some nationalists are less favorable to foreign interventionism than others.

Unfortunately, not all federalists are consistent. Many act like nationalists on economic matters. Some federalists are inclined toward the warfare state (foreign interventionism) and welfare states and support such endeavors, especially when their State receives money from the federal government for military bases and various social and welfare programs.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Why I am not a White Nationalist — Where They Are Wrong Economically

Why I am not a White Nationalist — 

Where They Are Wrong Economically

Thomas Allen

White Nationalists advocate adopting highly invasive, liberty-destroying, and immensely destructive economic and monetary programs. A discussion of some of them follows.

– Managed economy. White Nationalists have a low opinion of the free market, free enterprise economic system; like most people, they confuse it with capitalism. (See “Capitalists and Socialists” by Thomas Allen.) Even those who do not confuse it with capitalism have an especially low opinion of it. Since White Nationalists have more trust and confidence in bureaucrats than they have in the people, even White people, they prefer a governmentally managed economy to a free market, free enterprise economy.

– Communist threat to capitalists. Contrary to what many White Nationalists believe, capitalists do not have to be threatened with communism. Few White Nationalists know that if it were not for capitalists’ succor, communism would have died a stillbirth. (See “Soviet Union” and “China” by Thomas Allen.)

– Welfare. Although White Nationalists oppose Martin Luther King’s social justice (discrimination against Whites and special privileges for Blacks and other nonwhites), they not only want to implement his economic justice but also expand it. Like King, they are proponents of the welfare state. They seem to admire President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society (except the civil rights and immigration parts of it). Their primary objection to the Great Society is the recipients of the benefits. The principal problem that White Nationalists seem to have with King’s economic justice is that he did not go far enough. Like King, they have no qualms about forcibly taking property from producers and giving it to nonproducers.

Most White Nationalists advocate a welfare state for the benefit of the working and middle classes. Contrary to what many of them believe, mostly the working and middle classes will pay for this welfare state. Moreover, the welfare state benefits the oligarchs more than anyone else since it makes the working and middle classes more dependent on the government, which the oligarchs control. When a person is receiving financial benefits from the government, he is less likely to object to governmental actions even if they are detrimental to him because he fears losing his benefits. Some White Nationalists find such control desirable.

– Protectionism. Like many statists, White Nationalists are proponents of protectionism. They want to protect politically favored industries from competition. Thus, they are enamored with government-business partnerships, i.e., corporate welfare; protectionism is just a form of corporate welfare.

Protectionism may give workers in the protected industry higher pay, but it does so at the expense of other workers with higher prices, which lowers their standard of living. Protectionism is of little benefit to construction workers, plumbers, carpenters, electricians, medical faculty workers, teachers, hospitality workers, and most service providers. Often, protectionism adversely affects workers in the protected industries. Owners of the protected industries are the primary beneficiaries. (For more discussion on protectionism, see “Questions for Protectionists,” “Do We Really Need to Return to Hamilton,” and “A Letter: Tariffs” by Thomas Allen.)

Instead of giving politically favored industries special advantages with tariffs and quotas at the expense of consumers, a more prudent approach that would save taxpayers money and encourage manufacturers not to build their plants overseas should be used. This approach ends all subsidies that encourage them to locate their factories overseas. Moreover, the US armed forces would not be used to protect their property in foreign countries. Also, reducing regulations on domestic manufacturers would reduce the incentive to move outside the country. One thing that most people forget is that imports are bought with exports. The more a country imports, the more it must export. (Currently, a major export of the United States is the fiat US dollar.)

– Interest. Some White Nationalists want to outlaw interest. When the government suppresses the rate of interest, the country consumes its capital. As a country uses its capital for consumption, its economy deteriorates and poverty grows. Eventually, all its capital is consumed and it returns to the hunter-gatherer stage. (For a more detailed discussion on interest, see “Usury” and “Questions for Anti-Usurers” by Thomas Allen.)

– Fiat money. Like all statists, White Nationalists adore fiat money and abhor commodity money (gold and silver). (For the difference between fiat money and commodity money, see “What Is the Difference Between Commodity and Fiat Money” by Thomas Allen.) Unlike the founding fathers, who trusted the people and left control of the money supply directly in the hands of the people, White Nationalists trust politicians and bureaucrats to regulate and control the money supply. Under the gold coin standard contained in the US Constitution, the people decided how many gold coins were needed by the quantity of gold they brought to the mint for coinage and the quantity of gold coins they melted for nonmonetary uses. (See "Constitutional Money" by Thomas Allen.) The same is true for the silver standard. (For more on the gold standard, see “What is the Gold Standard?” by Thomas Allen.) Moreover, gold extinguishes debt, while fiat money merely discharges debt by passing it to another. (See “Extinguishing Debt” by Thomas Allen.) A major reason that fiat money adherents hate the true gold-coin standard is that the government cannot control the money under the gold-coin standard.

When accompanied by the real bills doctrine, enough money is created to clear the market of newly produced goods. Most of the money created under the real bills doctrine goes initially to the workers and suppliers of material used to manufacture the products. Further, when money created under the real bills doctrine has done its work, it is automatically removed from the market and does not cause inflation. A chief flaw of all fiat monetary systems is a lack of a mechanism to remove excess money from the economy; consequently, fiat monetary systems nearly always have problems with inflation. (For more discussion on the real bills doctrine, see “Real Bills Doctrine” by Thomas Allen.)

– Social credits. Some White Nationalists prefer the social credit fiat monetary system. This system is highly flawed and will fail to do what its supporters claim it will do. It is highly invasive and greatly swells the ranks of governmental bureaucrats. Moreover, it demands enormous amounts of record-keeping, reporting, and data analysis. Nevertheless, most White Nationalists probably know nothing about the social credit system, and many have never heard of it. (For a detailed discussion of the social credit system, see “Analysis of Richard Cook’s Monetary Reforms as Presented in We Hold These Truths” by Thomas Allen.)

Central bank digital currency is ideal for the social credit economy because it makes tracking private spending transparent and, therefore, easier. Further, it reduces the time between collecting and analyzing data and the injection of new currency. Also, it can be used to force people to spend by directly stealing their savings. (Most social credit advocates despise savings.)

Moreover, since the social credit economy requires an administrative state, it is compatible with an administrative state. (An administrative state is a state ruled by experts and technocrats for the benefit of the oligarchs.) Most other fiat monetary reform schemes also require an administrative state. Furthermore, the administrative state eliminates checks and balances by merging the executive, legislative, and judicial functions into one agency, which is what many White Nationalists seem to want.

– Guaranteed income. Like King, White Nationalists promote a guaranteed annual income. A guaranteed annual income is the foundation of the social credit system.

– Economic summary. The difference between the monetary and economic system that White Nationalism promotes and that fascism and socialism promote is difficult to distinguish. (Since the United States have adopted at least 80 percent of the planks in the Communist Manifesto, distinguishing between the US government and a communist government is often difficult. See “Are the United States a Communist Country?” by Thomas Allen.) All want to use the government to force people, ultimately under the penalty of death, to do what most people do not naturally want to do. 

Conclusion

Many White Nationalists seem to overlook the necessity of a firm moral foundation. Christianity used to provide this foundation. However, between World War I and World War II, it began earnestly to be phased out. During the civil rights era, this foundation has been nearly eradicated as Christian denominations replaced the gospel of Jesus with the gospel of King and wokeism. To replace dying Christianity, a few White Nationalists promote paganism, especially Nordic paganism. Yet, paganism offers no firm moral foundation. Various forms of paganism are prominent in America today; the three most popular are the worship of Hermes (sports), Gaia (climate change), and Moloch (abortion). Most White Nationalists seem to want to replace Christianity with the welfare state and the worship of the state.

Only a few White Nationalists seem to realize that the political and economic policies and programs that they advocate lead to despotic tyranny even if the country is entirely White. Although they deplore totalitarianism, their worship of the state and their proposed economic system leads to totalitarianism.

Their love of statism, support of the welfare state, and the proposed monetary and economic system disqualify me from being a White Nationalist. Nevertheless, they are generally correct in their solution to racial problems and many other social issues. However, their ignorance of economics knows no bounds. As abysmal as the current monetary and economic system is in the US, the proposals of White Nationalists are far worse.

Further, the primary difference between the typical White Nationalist and the typical left-winger is racial and social issues. Other than these issues, they mostly agree on other issues at least in principle although they may differ in details.

In summary, the foreign and social policies of White Nationalism are excellent. However, its political and economic policies are horrendous.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

 Part 2

More political articles.

King on the Man Who Was a Fool

King on the Man Who Was a Fool

by Thomas Allen

In “The Man Who Was a Fool,” Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 65–73, Martin Luther King, Jr. discusses the deleterious effects of pursuing wealth, poverty, materialism, theistic humanism, and the importance of the spiritual. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

King begins with the parable of a certain rich man found in Luke 12:16-20, a theme that he carries throughout this essay. If this rich man lived today, “he would be considered ‘a big shot’ . . . with social prestige and community respectability. He would be one of the privileged few in the economic power structure.” (P. 66.)

Continuing, King remarks that Jesus did not call this man a fool because he was rich but because he misused his wealth. “The rich man was a fool because he permitted the ends for which he lived to become confused with the means by which he lived.” (P. 66.)

King contends that each person “lives in two realms, the internal and the external.” (P. 66.) The external world is the material world. It is how a person lives, while the internal world is the purpose of a person’s life, its ends.

Then, King moves toward his social justice: “Religion at its best realizes that the soul is crushed as long as the body is tortured with hunger pangs and harrowed with the need for shelter.” (P. 67.) (Thus, King justifies governments taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Unfortunately, he seems unconcerned that governments only give a small amount of what they take to the poor; they keep most for themselves. Unlike King, Jesus was not a proponent of the welfare state. He wanted the rich man to give voluntarily to the poor because of concern for the poor.)

Correctly, King notices that the pursuit of wealth often makes a person intellectually and spiritually poor. People who make the pursuit of wealth their goal often fail to realize their dependency on others and God. They are “I” people instead of “we” people. They are victims “of the cancerous disease of egotism.” (P. 68.) (Often, King seems to suffer from the cancerous disease of egotism.)

Next, King applies this parable to the present world. He writes, “Our nation’s productive machinery constantly brings forth such an abundance of food that we must build larger barns and spend more than a million dollars daily to store our surplus.” (P. 68.) He urges giving the excess to the poverty-stricken people in Asia, Africa, and South America and the poor in America. (The United States have followed King’s recommendation. Yet, poverty still exists. King fails to investigate why some countries are rich while some are poor. He would discover that the innate differences of the people are the cause of most of the differences. Rich countries exploiting poor countries account for only a small part of the difference. For example, Africans sat on an abundance of mineral resources, but they did little with this treasure until the Europeans arrived and taught them how to extract and use the minerals. Likewise, with enormous agricultural potential, African agriculture was barely above subsistence level before the arrival of Europeans.) Erroneously, King asserts that “we can store our surplus food free of charge in the shriveled stomachs of the millions of God’s children who go to bed hungry at night.” (P. 68.) (Moving food from where it is produced to the stomachs of God’s children is not free of charge. Such action costs a great deal — often more than leaving the food in storage — especially if governments are involved in the movement.) “We can use our vast resources of wealth to wipe poverty from the earth.” (P. 68.) (Too many people are becoming wealthy from the poverty industry to allow poverty to be eradicated. Besides, today, politics is the cause of most poverty.)

Continuing, King discusses people’s dependency on other people and other countries. Then, he follows with one of his favorite statements: “ I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be, and you can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be.” (P. 69.) (Since no one has ever become and never will become what he ought to be, King never became what he ought to be. Because King never became what he ought to be, no one can become what he ought to be.)

Again, correctly, King notes that “man-centered foolishness [ignoring man’s dependence on God] has had a long and offtimes disastrous reign in the history of mankind.” (P. 69.) Then, he condemns the doctrine of materialism. “Having no place for God or for eternal ideas, materialism is opposed to both theism and idealism.” (P. 70.) Next, he discusses some of the absurdities of materialism.

After that, King condemns theistic humanism, which is another attempt to make God irrelevant, and discusses its flaws. It deifies man: “Man is the measure of all things.” (P. 70.)

Using the atomic bomb as an example, King remarks that “science can give us only physical power, which, if not controlled by spiritual power, will lead inevitably to cosmic doom.” (P. 71.) Then, he quotes Alfred the Great, “Power is never a good unless he be good that has it.” (P. 71.) (Unfortunately, most of the time, bad people end up wielding power.) Thus, he writes, “We need something more spiritually sustaining and morally controlling than science.” (P. 71.) When people forsake God, disasters follow.

Continuing, King states that a person dies when he fails to distinguish “between the means by which he lived and the ends for which he lived and when he failed to recognize his dependence on others and on God.” (P. 72.) 

King notices that the abundance that Western Civilization has produced has not brought peace of mind or serenity of spirit. “Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power.” (P. 73.) The hope of mankind lies in people reestablishing the spiritual ends of their “lives in personal character and social justice.” (By social justice, King means integrating and giving Negroes everything that they demand.)

In this essay, King makes several correct observations. He condemns materialism, theistic materialism, and scientism, although he does not use this term. He stresses the importance of not forsaking God or one’s fellow man. Also, he shows the importance and necessity of the spiritual. However, he is somewhat of a Luddite.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

King on the Dilemma of Negro America – Part 2

King on the Dilemma of Negro America – Part 2 

Thomas Allen

While King was a strong proponent of providing Negroes with better housing, he opposed urban renewal. (Much of urban renewal was done in the name of providing Negroes with better housing.) He laments that Negroes in the Chicago ghettos had sacrificed to save enough money to buy a house in the ghetto. Then the Urban Renewal Authority claimed their houses, not because they were substandard but because it wanted the land for a shopping center. Moreover, it paid less for some houses than the purchase price. Needless to say, such acts increased the bitterness of Negroes. (Apparently, King failed to realize that such urban renewal was a natural outgrowth of the despotic government that he advocated — especially since he preached that Whites needed to provide Negroes with better houses.)

About urban renewal projects, King complains that “the democratic process breaks down, for the rights of the individual voter are impossible to organize without adequate funds, while the business community supplies the existing political machine with enough funds to organize massive campaigns and control mass media.” (Pp. 124-125.) (Why did not King’s SCLC, other civil rights organizations, and Negrophilic White liberals come to the aid of these people and pressure the city to reverse its decision? After all, they had mustered enough resources to bring than the South.) King blamed this destruction of Negro houses on Northern ambivalence about the civil rights movement. (These Northerners were not ambivalent. Civil rights and related laws were to apply only in the South and never in the North.)

King reveals Northern and Western hypocrisy with their fervent opposition to open housing legislation. He writes, “Nothing today more clearly indicates the residue of racism still lodging in our society than the responses of white America to integrated housing.” (P. 125.) Continuing, King writes that opposition to open housing is based on “the fear that the alleged depravity or defective nature of the out-race will infiltrate the neighborhood of the in-race.” (P. 125.) (Generally, when the number of Negro families moving into a White neighborhood reaches a certain, but small, percent, that neighborhood begins to deteriorate toward the level of the neighborhood from which the Negroes fled. Consequently, this fear of depravity or defective nature of Negroes does have some foundation.)

King argues that opposition to Negroes moving to White neighborhoods is based on race and not moral character. After all, “professional white hoodlums and racketeers are located in the best neighborhoods of Cicero is fit proof that the opposition to open housing is not based on behavior or moral standards.” (P. 125.) (True, White criminals live in White neighborhoods. However, statistically, Whites are much less likely to be hoodlums or criminals. Statistically, Negroes are more likely to be rowdy and people of low moral standards. Nevertheless, King is partially right, race is at least part of the reason because most people prefer living among people of the same race.)

Continuing, King maintains that each person should be judged by “his individual culture, brilliance and character. . . . To the racist . . .  every Negro, lacks individuality” (Pp. 125-126.) (Never did King practice what he preached. Never did he judge each individual Southerner by his individual culture, brilliance, and character. He just lumped them together as vile, evil, despicable, degraded degenerates. Never once did he make any effort to discover my parents’, grandparents’, aunts’, and uncles’ individual culture, brilliance, and character. He just lumped them in with all other Southerners. Thus, he judged by ethnicity and not by character.)

Then, King discusses real estate brokers. Shrewdly and subtly, they used the “racist doctrine [from the slavery era] to justify the profitable real estate business.” (P. 126.) They thrived by keeping the housing market closed. “Going into white neighborhoods where a few Negroes have moved in, they urge the whites to leave because their property values will depreciate.” (P. 126.) (Therefore, real estate brokers were the cause of White flight — so King claims.) They made huge profits from relocating Whites and from Negroes moving in.

Next, King states, “Many whites who oppose open housing would deny that they are racists.” (P. 126.) (First, by definition, all Whites are racist [racism is in their genes] and to claim that one is not a racist is proof that one is a racist. Moreover, since race precedes the cultural environment, race creates the cultural environment in which it lives. However, the cultural environment may influence the race once it is created. Furthermore, some races are connately more inclined toward criminal activity than others — probably because of genetic hormonal differences. Genetics has given some races greater intelligence and intellectual capabilities than others. Genetics also influence personality, temperament, character, etc. Thus, genetics has a great deal of influence on the cultural environment that a race creates. Consequently, people of one race not wanting people of other races polluting their cultural environment is not irrational or hateful.)

King writes “When Negroes move into a neighborhood and whites refuse to flee, property values are more likely to increase. It is only when blockbusting takes place and whites begin to move out that property values decrease.” (P. 126.) (What King inadvertently shows is that Whites keep property values up, and Negroes bring them down.)

Continuing, King remarks “that many white Americans oppose open housing because they unconsciously, and often consciously, feel that the Negro is innately inferior, impure, depraved and degenerate.” (P. 127.) (The last 50 years of open housing have done more to prove these Whites right than to prove them wrong.)

About Negro employment, King complains, “Some of the most tragic figures in our society now are the Negro company vice presidents who sit with no authority or influence because they were merely employed for window dressing in an effort to win the Negro market or to comply with federal regulations in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.” (P. 127.) (The reason that these Negro vice presidents had no authority was that they were incompetent. Still, not much has changed since then. Most Negroes in high-ranking jobs in corporations and especially governments hold their jobs because of their race and not because of their competence or capabilities. Competent Negroes who fill such positions work under the suspicion that they got the job because of race and not merit. Such is the penalty of affirmative action, quotas, etc.)

Then, King describes what it is like to be a Negro in America. (His description comes close to describing what is happening to today’s Southerners.)

King condemns the notion of “a separate black state or a separate black nation within the nation. This approach is the most cynical and nihilistic of all, because it is based on a loss of faith in the possibilities of American democracy.” (P. 130.) (Thus, King lacks confidence in Negroes governing themselves. They need White succor and rule to overcome their deficiencies — so King implies. Haiti and cities governed by Negroes support King’s lack of confidence in the Negro’s ability to govern competently.)

Also, King objects to Negroes trying to lighten their skin and straighten their hair so that they may look more like White people. He was an adherent of “Black is beautiful.” (Yet, he wanted the descendants of Negroes to be more White by encouraging interracial marriages.)

King writes, “From the inner depths of our being we must sing with them: ‘Before I’ll be a slave, I’ll be buried in my grave and go home to my Lord and be free.’” (P. 131.) (A large number of Negroes have opposed King on this issue. They prefer being a slave of governments through the welfare state to being free.)

Then, King asserts, that the first step “that the Negro must take is to work passionately for group identity.” (P. 131.) (Yet, integration destroys group identity because it leads to amalgamation and homogenization of all groups into an indistinguishable mongrel.)

Next, King states, “Group unity necessarily involves group trust and reconciliation.” (P. 131.) (True. Today, Negroes have a strong group unity, and Whites have almost no group unity. Although Whites greatly outnumber Negroes, Negroes have presented a united front and have gotten Whites to turn on and devour each other. Consequently, the Negro defeated the White race.)

Continuing, King recognizes that Negroes would disagree with each other. However, when confronting Whites, they needed to present a united front. (For the most part, Negroes have followed King’s advice and have presented a united front against Whites. However, for nearly 90 years or so, Whites have never presented a united front against Negroes. Worse, many Whites united with Negroes against Whites. Has this White disunity made the country better?) 

Then, King condemns Negro newspapers for failing to fervently agitate for social change. He attacks Negro social and professional groups for “a preoccupation with frivolities and trivial activity.” (P. 132.)

Continuing, King writes, “that our women must be respected, and that life is too precious to be destroyed in a Saturday night brawl, or a gang execution.” (P. 133.) (Unfortunately, on this issue, too many Negroes have ignored King.)

Next, King writes, “While not ignoring the fact that the ultimate way to diminish our problems of crime, family disorganization, illegitimacy and so forth will have to be found through a government program to help the frustrated Negro male find his true masculinity by placing him on his own two economic feet, we must do all within our power to approach these goals ourselves.” (P. 133.) (Since most of these problems are as bad today, if not worse, as in the 1960s, neither governments nor Negroes have been effective in solving these problems. Yet, governments have expended enormous resources trying to solve them. Today, these problems cannot be blamed on segregation or discrimination against Negroes because they died decades ago. Nevertheless, Negroes blame their problems on slavery although slavery ended almost 160 years ago.  But, then, could the real cause of the Negro’s problems lie in his genes? In any event, Negroes need to grow up and stop acting like little children who never accept responsibility for anything.)

King discusses the advancements that young Negroes were making. (Much of the advancements that he describes occurred before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related laws and court orders that followed. Negro advancement before the Civil Rights Era was based on merit. Negro advancement during the Civil Rights Era is based mostly on governmental force. Many Negroes who have advanced during the Civil Rights Era are tainted. People, including themselves, do not know if their advancement is because of ability or because of race.)

Further, King was not a patient man. According to him, time was an ally of the segregationist; therefore, it was the enemy of the integrationist.

Continuing, King writes, “Equally fallacious is the notion that ethical appeals and persuasion alone will bring about justice.” (P. 137.) (Therefore, governmental force, which is usually unethical, must be used. How using unethical force brings about justice, King does not explain. Probably, in his mind, all forces that suppress segregation and institute integration are ethical.)

King remarks that ethical appeals should not be abandoned. “It simply means that those appeals must be undergirded by some form of constructive coercive power.” (P. 137.) (For the victim of coercive power, that power is hardly constructive. Besides, whether coercive power is constructive or not depends on perspective. A segregationist may consider governmental force used to enforce segregation as a constructive coercive power, but King would not.)

Then, King writes that “we must agree that we will not violently destroy life or property; but we must balance this by agreeing with the person of violence that evil must be resisted.” (P. 138.) (In other words, if the community did not surrender unconditionally to King’s demands, riots or some other forms of violence would follow. To King, Southerners and segregationists were per se persons of violence.)

Next, King asserts, “The American racial revolution has been a revolution to ‘get in’ rather than to overthrow.” (P. 138.) (Negroes got in, and then they overthrew.) “We want a share in the American economy, the housing market, the educational system and the social opportunities.” (P. 138.) (Negroes have received far more than their share. Their major problem now is to protect their share from the nonwhite aliens and immigrants with whom the White oligarchs are flooding the country. Unfortunately, for the Negro, he will not be able to control them with guilt as he has controlled Whites. Moreover, most of these nonwhites have less use for the Negro than does the stereotypical Klansman.)

Further, King complains that the Constitution does not assure “the right to adequate housing, or the right to an adequate income.” (P. 138.) He insists “that every person [should] have a decent house, an adequate education and enough money to provide basic necessities for one’s family.” (P. 138.) (King may not have been a card-carrying Communist, but he certainly advocated the progressive welfare state. He had no qualms about using the force of government to steal from one group of people and give the stolen loot to another group of people. Yet, while advocating violence, King calls himself nonviolent.)

Next, King discusses what Negroes must do to achieve their goals. He states, “The use of creative tensions that broke the barriers of the South will be as indispensable in the North to obtain and extend necessary objectives.” (P. 139.) (Would the North have restrained its hatred of the South if it had known that the monster that it sent to destroy the South would turn on it?)

Then, King condemns the Negro middle class for not enthusiastically pushing King’s agenda. “It is time for the Negro haves to join hands with the Negro have-nots. . . . The relatively privileged Negro will never be what he ought to be until the underprivileged Negro is what he ought to be.” (Pp. 140-141.) (In this and other essays, King gives the impression that all Negroes lived in severe poverty and barely at a subsistent level. So, how can a Negro middle class exist? Moreover, how could a Negro middle class ever have existed under the segregation of the Jim Crow Era? [During the Jim Crow Era, the Negro middle class was growing so robustly that Stalin sent agents to destroy it.])

Finally, King tries to draw Puerto Ricans, Mexican Americans, Indians, and Appalachian Whites into his movement by offering them federal bribes with the War on Poverty. Then, he claims that Negroes are winning rights for themselves and “have produced substantial benefits for the whole nation.” (P. 141.) (Since the country is more divided now than at any time since 1860, what substantial benefits has King’s civil rights movement brought? Whatever they are, King-idolizing conservatives need to support them.)

Concluding, King states that “there is a need for a radical restructuring of the architecture of American society.” (P. 141.) (This goal, the Negro has achieved. So, why are they still complaining?)

King ends his essay by showing his socialist tendencies: “Our economy must become more person-centered than property- and profit-centered.” (P. 142.) (Therefore, King-idolizing conservatives need to stop promoting capitalism and start promoting socialism.)

Because of slavery and segregation, Whites have caused all the Negro’s problems; therefore, Whites should solve them — King contends. Further, Negro’s are incapable of solving their problems and governing themselves — King implies.  Moreover, integration solves all problems, heals all wounds, and leads to universal love — King maintains. How integration undoes all the damage segregation supposedly caused, King does not explain.

One thing about which King is emphatic is that regarding Negro demands, Whites should never be niggardly. Whites have followed King’s demand and have sacrificed their liberty, their property, and everything else that they have, even to genociding themselves, for the Negro.

With sacrificial and even suicidal succor from Whites, Negroes have overcome most of the handicaps that King describes. As a result, they have thoroughly defeated the Whites and are now the superior race. They have enslaved the White race to provide them with all sorts of privileges and benefits.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 1.

More social issues articles.

King on the Dilemma of Negro America – Part 1

 King on the Dilemma of Negro America – Part 1

Thomas Allen

In “The Dilemma of Negro America,” Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? (Boston: Beacon Press, 1968), pages 109–142, Martin Luther King, Jr., discusses the dilemma of the American Negro, slavery, the Negro family, life in the ghetto, integrated neighborhoods and open housing, Negro cohesion and unity, and the Negro middle class. 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.)

“The dilemma of white America is the source and cause of the dilemma of Negro America.” (P. 109.) (Thus, King blames all the problems of the Negro on Whites and relieves the Negro of all responsibility.)

Correctly, King states “that ‘no white person can ever understand what it means to be a Negro.’” (P. 109.) (Conversely, no Negro can ever understand what it means to be White. Even the great King realized this, which is why he tried to bend Whites to his will and train them what to think and do.)

Next, King asserts that “if the present chasm of hostility, fear and distrust is to be bridged, the white man must begin to walk in the pathways of his black brothers and feel some of the pain and hurt that throb without letup in their daily lives.” (P. 109.) (Once more, King places all the burdens on Whites. Obviously, he does not believe that the Negro is competent enough or capable of bridging the chasm. Whites must raise the Negro, and they have.)

Then, King claims, “The central quality in the Negro’s life is pain.” (P. 109.) (Since Whites have surrendered unconditionally to all Negro demands except reparations, Negroes should now have no pain. Or, is the lack of reparations the cause of their unbearable pain today?)

Next, King writes, “Being a Negro in America means being scarred by a history of slavery and family disorganization.” (P. 110.) (If true, why are not Whites scarred by their history of being slaves and serfs? Whites overcame their scarring without the aid of anyone else. If Whites can overcome their scarring without succor, why cannot Negroes? King preaches racial equality, so Negroes should show that they are equal to Whites by overcoming the scarring of slavery without White succor. Are Negroes that incompetent and inferior? Can they not do what Whites did? Moreover, Negroes had more intact families during the Jim Crow Era than they have had during the Civil Rights Era.)

King's answer to these questions is that the two groups cannot be compared. “Negroes were brought here in chains.” (P. 110.) Most Whites came voluntarily. (Yet, many of these Whites were descendants of serfs and slaves.)

King notes that other ethnic groups that came to America were racially the same as American, and, therefore, could easily assimilate. (He omits East Asians, who were discriminated against as much as, if not more, than Negroes. Moreover, various European ethnicities could assimilate without committing racial genocide. If Europeans and Negroes assimilate, they would genocide each other, which King desired.)

Next, King notes that under slavery, the family structure of Negroes was deliberately torn apart. (Under the welfare state, of which King approves and which is an integral part of the civil rights movement, the Negro family has been deliberately torn apart.)

Continuing, King describes the treatment of African slaves and how their families were torn apart. Then, he discusses the plight of the Negro during Lincoln’s War and Reconstruction. Negroes lived in poverty as sharecroppers for generations following Lincoln’s War. (So did many Southerners.) Negroes who migrated north ended up living in slums. Because of slavery, Negro culture developed into a matriarchy. (Even more than 150 years since slavery, the Negro as a whole has been unable to break free of matriarchy. However, since patriarchy is officially condemned, Negroes are now more advanced than Whites.)

Continuing, King comments about the difficulty that Negroes have finding gainful employment. Because of his race, skilled Negroes had difficulty finding work. (This was more of a problem in the North where labor unions were strong. Besides, a rising Negro middle class proves that many Negroes were competent enough to create wealth even under segregation.)

Further, King blames Negro men beating their wives and children on White segregating and discriminating against Negroes. Wife beating was a protest against social injustice. (Thus, King degrades Negro men.)

Then, King remarks that “nothing is so much needed as a secure family life for a people seeking to rise out of poverty and backwardness.” (P. 114.) However, White injustice keeps Negroes in poverty by preventing Negroes from having a secure family life. (Again, King blames Whites for the problems of Negroes. Negroes have no responsibility for improving themselves through their own efforts. Or, did King believe that they were innately too incompetent and incapable of improving themselves by their own efforts?)

King states that African “mothers fought slave traders fiercely to save their children.” (P. 114.) (He omits that the slave traders that these mothers fought were African Negroes.)

Continuing, King remarks, “The Negro family is scarred; it is submerged; but it struggles to survive.” (P. 115.) (Yet, the welfare state, which King adores, tears Negro families apart.)

Next, King writes, “To grow from within, the Negro family — and especially the Negro man — needs only fair opportunity for jobs, education, housing and access to culture.” (Pp. 115-116.) (Whites have given all these and more to Negroes. Unqualified Negroes are given jobs instead of highly qualified Whites. Likewise, in education, universities admit barely qualified Negroes instead of highly qualified Whites, especially White men. Whites have spent billions of dollars on housing for Negroes. So many Negroes received housing loans for which they did not qualify that it caused a financial crash. They got these loans because they were Negroes. If a lack of these things that King claimed caused the Negro’s dysfunctionality, then Negroes and their families should be far better off than Whites and their families. So, why are Negroes still complaining?)

Instead of blaming the dysfunctionality of the Negro family on the brutal and oppressive treatment that Negroes have received from Whites, King fears that it would “be attributed to innate Negro weaknesses.” (P. 116.) King implies that Negroes need Whites to solve their dysfunctional family problems. (Once more, King blames Whites for the Negro’s problems. Negroes bear no responsibility for causing or solving their problems. According to King, Negroes are too incompetent to solve their problems. Whites must do it for them.)

Next, King discusses the pain of “color shock,” especially by Negro children. He describes a coloring test that supposedly shows the emotional problems suffered by Negroes. (One of the most important pieces of evidence that swayed the Supreme Court in its school desegregation decision was the doll study of Kenneth Clark, a Negro. Clark testified that a majority of Black children from segregated schools preferred the White doll to the Black doll and chose the White doll as the one looking most like themselves. Earlier Clark had done his doll study with a much larger sample of Black children from public schools in Arkansas and in Massachusetts. He found that “the southern children in segregated schools are less pronounced in their preference for the white doll, compared to the northern [integrated] children’s definite preference for this doll. Although still in the minority, a higher percentage of southern children, compared to northern, prefer to play with the colored doll or think that it is a ‘nice’ doll.” Thus, to the extent that the doll study shows personality damage, segregation is less damaging than integration. [See “Review of Putnam's Race and Reality – Part 2” by Thomas Allen.] Of course, Negroes would have no “color shock” if they had their own monoracial country.)

Continuing, King writes, “Being a Negro in America means being herded in ghettos, or reservations, being constantly ignored and made to feel invisible.” (Pp. 117-118.) (This is more true in the North where Negroes concentrate in large cities where the ghettos are. Whatever ghettos existed in the South have mostly occurred in the Civil Rights Era as Negroes concentrate in cities in search of welfare. However, in the South, Negroes are scattered throughout, and Whites frequently see and interact with them.)

Then, King discusses the difficulty of Negroes getting jobs beyond the hardest, ugliest, and most menial work. Negroes knew that they were not going to get “well-paying construction jobs, because building trade unions reserve them for whites only.” (P. 119.) (This was more of a Northern problem where unions were strong than a Southern problem where unions were weak.) King notes that Negroes ”built the bridges, the mansions and docks of the South.” Yet, they were denied work on constructing new buildings in Northern cities. 

Ignoring ghetto Negroes led to the 1965 Watts riot. However, King expresses surprise that so few ghetto Negroes have rioted.

Then, King discusses life in the ghetto and remarks that most ghetto Negroes are law-abiding. He focuses on the ghettos of Chicago where he worked for a while.

Continuing, King notes that in the Chicago area, much more money was spent on schools in White neighborhoods than in Negro neighborhoods. (Was not the Supreme Court’s desegregation ruling, which Northerners cheered and which quickly led to school integration in the South, supposed to end these discrepancies? However, forced busing had not yet arrived when King was in Chicago. Under forced busing, Negro children were bused to White neighborhoods, and Whites children were bused to Negro neighborhoods. And, education began declining to the Negro level.)

Next, King complains that Negroes in the slums of Chicago paid more rent than Whites paid for modern apartments in the suburbs. (Why did not King’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), other civil rights organizations, and Negrophilic White liberals move these Negroes to cheaper and superior apartments in the suburbs?)

Continuing, King complains that consumer goods cost more in Negro ghettos than in suburban White neighborhoods. (The primary reason for the higher prices is risk. In Negro ghettos, store owners suffer higher losses from thefts and a much greater risk of having their store destroyed during a riot.) King blames the higher prices on a captive market. Many residents of the ghetto lack the means to shop outside the ghetto. (Why did not King’s SCLC, other civil rights organizations, and Negrophilic White liberals provide the residents transportation so that they could shop outside the ghetto? It would have taken fewer resources for King, civil rights organizations, and Negrophilic White liberals to resolve these problems of the ghetto Negro than they expended to destroy the South.)

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 2.

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.

Capitalists and Socialists

Capitalists and Socialists

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: an addendum was added in 2026.]

Traditionally, socialism meant governmental ownership of the means of production, and capitalism meant private ownership of production. Now, these two terms mean the control of production and distribution through a government-business partnership. The difference between the two is that socialists make government the senior partnership while capitalists make big business the senior partner. (What most people mean when they use the term “capitalism” is a free market, free enterprise economy with minimum governmental intervention. What true capitalists and socialists mean by “capitalism” is a highly governmentally controlled economy for the benefit of the capitalists who control the government. “Socialist” as used in this article means a proponent of centralized governmental economic and social planning that may, but usually does not, require governmental ownership of production and distribution.) Because both promote similarly and frequently the same agendas, capitalists and socialists are often indistinguishable.

S.D. Parks identifies three classes in modern America: “managers (institutional elites), producers (taxpaying small business-owners, the middle and working classes), and dependents (nontaxpaying dependents of government).” (Chronicles, Nov. 2021, p. 3.) In the first class, managers, are found the capitalist and socialist oligarchs. However, only a small number of this class comprises the oligarchs.

Both capitalists and socialists are adherents of a powerful government with centralized planning. Most capitalists and socialists favor some kind of fascism, such as democratic socialism, national socialism, corporatism, and government-business partnership. Most socialists prefer democratic socialism (if they control the elections), which is now morphing into national socialism with Whites and the COVID unvaccinated replacing the Jews. Capitalists prefer government-business partnership followed by corporatism, which the plutocrats favor.

Under capitalism and socialism, an elite controls the economy. (At least, they attempt to control the economy. Unfortunately for them, the market is more powerful than any cabal, which is why centralized economic planning always fails unless the objective is to impoverish the masses.)

Another of the many things that capitalists and socialists have in common is that both want the people to be interchangeable cogs. Consequently, racial, ethnic, and sexual differences are undesirable. Recognition of them interferes with the notion that people are just producers and consumers. The purpose of the masses is to buy what they produce after the elite, the oligarchs, have taken their share of their production. Beyond being slaves of the oligarchic elite, the people, the masses, have no utility.

Accordingly, both capitalists and socialists promote an inclusive economy where the people are homogeneous cogs. Thus, they promote feminism, transgenderism, homosexualism, and racial integration. Moreover, both support unlimited immigration, especially the immigration of nonwhites, and affirmative action. Loyalty to the state and corporation supersede loyalty to the family and community.

Although inclusiveness and diversity contradict each other and are incompatible, both capitalists and socialists support and promote them. (While inclusiveness requires integration and amalgamation, diversity requires segregation and separation.) They may have different reasons for supporting them; nevertheless, the results are the same.

Likewise, both promote equality of the masses. However, the oligarchs, the plutocrats who are the ruling elite, under no circumstance want equality with the masses. Instead, they are always to remain the masters of the masses. 

Furthermore, both support the Communist orchestrated civil rights movement and the concomitant race riots. Consequently, capitalists and socialists are united in their support of Black Lives Matter and Antifa and their riots and the social justice agenda. Further, they are united in their disdain of Whites — except they seem not to disdain White oligarchs, and, therefore, both promote Critical Race Theory.

Both have used the COVID plandemic to advance the police state. To make the people easier to control, they seek to impose vaccine passports.

Both support and promote the welfare state and the accompanying warfare state. The oligarchs use the welfare state and the warfare state to control the people and to keep them loyal to the government that the oligarchs control. However, the capitalist oligarchs lean toward the warfare state because it transfers wealth and power from the masses to the plutocratic oligarchs, while the socialist oligarchs lean toward the welfare state.

Being advocates of progressivism, both capitalists and socialists have little use for true conservatives and traditionalists. Capitalists and socialists are universalists, cosmopolites, and globalists. Consequently, they oppose particularists, localists, and nationalists. 

Moreover, they abhor independent thinking. For this reason, public schools indoctrinate instead of teaching critical thinking.

Being the oligarchs in a capitalist state, capitalists control the politicians and bureaucrats and, therefore, the government and state. Likewise, the socialist oligarchs in a socialist state control the politicians and bureaucrats and, therefore, the government and state. Both seek to use the power of the state and government for their own benefit.

If one questions capitalists supporting these socialist ideas, one needs only to look at where capitalist foundations, such as the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, George Soros-Open Society Foundation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and other capitalists’ foundations, spend their money. Likewise, the boards of many corporations support socialist causes, such as feminism, transgenderism, homosexualism, inclusiveness, diversity, Critical Race Theory, and the restructuring of American society. Big Pharma, Big Ag, Big Tech, Big Banks, Big Med, Big Ed, and Big Business in general push the progressive (socialist) agenda, such as global warming, abortion, and population reduction.

The communist version of socialism is the ultimate monopoly. Since all capitalists want a monopoly for their business, most capitalists do not find communism incompatible with capitalism if the capitalists control the government.

The capitalist and socialist oligarchs have reprobate minds. They are narcissists, sadists, and sociopaths. They are the enemy of the people.

Addendum

After I published this article, I came across an excellent definition of “capitalism.” In The South and the American Empire: Essays (Columbia, South Carolina:  Shotwell Publishing LLC, 2026), Joseph R. Stromberg defines “capitalism” as “any economy with private ownership of capital, production for profit, rational accounting, marlet prices, and free (propertyless) wage laborers.” (p. 244) Furthermore, under capitalism, private enterprise prevails over private property. Additionally, centralized financial capital is promoted.

American-style capitalism grew through “active, open-handed federal or state assistance for favored businesses through loans, subsidies, grants, favorable statutes and judicial decisions, and other institutional favors, with little real obligation of these businesses toward society or state.” (p. 274) Moreover, corporations became legal “persons” with potentially perpetual life. Property morphed from the tangible, e.g., land and commodities, to the intangible, e.g., stock certificates and bonds — paper. Furthermore, commodity money, e.g., gold coins, transmuted into credit money, e.g., today’s federal reserve notes. Corporate management replaced ownership. Agriculture was sacrificed for industrialization and banking.

Copyright © 2023, 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

More Social Issues Related to Blacks

More Social Issues Related to Blacks

Thomas Allen

White supremacy, preservation of the American Negro, segregation at universities, and social justice reforms are discussed below.

White Supremacy

Do White supremacists exist in the United States today? Yes, a majority of the White population in the United States is White supremacists.

White supremacy is alive and prospering. However, it is not in the form of the stereotypical Klansman of yesteryear, who is now almost extinct. Today’s White supremacists are progressives, liberals, neoconservatives, establishment conservatives, many libertarians. Today, White supremacists are those who support the civil rights movement and the welfare state because they believe that Blacks cannot succeed on their own. They need Whiteys’ succor. If these people want to see a White supremacist, all that they need to do is to look in a mirror.

White supremacy today exists as White parentalism toward Blacks. These Whites believe that Blacks can only advance and prosper with Whitey’s aid. Thus, they have granted Blacks many privileges that they deny themselves, such as affirmative action, quotas, lower scores for college entrance, and set-asides. Further, these White supremacists support the Civil Rights Acts, the welfare state, and most of the programs of Johnson’s Great Society and their descendants. 

Moreover, Blacks who support or believe the claims of civil rights and welfare proponents believe in White supremacy because they believe that Blacks are so inferior that they can accomplish nothing without Whitey’s granting Blacks special privileges.

Preservation of the American Negro

If conservatives, liberals, progressives, and libertarians were asked if the American Negro, the Black race of America, should be preserved and saved from genocide, all would answer yes. Likewise, if asked if they opposed policies that resulted in the genocide of the American Negro and supported policies that preserved the American Negro, they would again answer yes.

However, if one looks at the policies that conservatives, liberals, progressives, and libertarians promote and the policies that they oppose, one would discover that they have lied. They do not care about protecting the American Negro from genocide. If they wanted to save the American Negro, they would support policies that segregate and separate the races. Moreover, they would oppose policies that integrate and amalgamate the races. Therefore, they act oppositely from their assertion about their desire to preserve the American Negro, the Black race of America. The exception is that some liberals and progressives weakly promote some policies that aid in the preservation of the American Negro. 

Segregation at Universities

Senators Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Kelly Loeffler (R-GA) sent a letter to Attorney General Barr urging him to investigate the “alarming trend of racial segregation” occurring at some universities. Universities are allowing nonwhite students to create race-based dormitories and events for Blacks and other “people of color.” (Whites are not granted such privileges except by exclusion.)

Specifically, they object to one major university having racially segregated online discussion groups with racially segregated moderators. Thus, the university created a discussion group for nonwhites only and another for Whites only.

Also, they object to another major university holding “segregated training sessions for resident assistants (RA), students who oversee dorms and enforce policies and rules.” One session was for resident assistants who were White, and another was for resident assistants who were Black and other people of color. The nonwhite session was described as “Healing Space for Staff of Color,” and the White session was described as “White Accountability Space.”

These two senators claim that such segregation violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. They express sadness about the growing trend of segregation, especially on college campuses. (These two senators err in believing that the Civil Rights Act applies to segregation by nonwhites. It intended to prevent Whites from segregating. It was never intended to prevent nonwhites from segregating.)

These two senators rail against the defense offered by the universities. The universities’ defense is that racial segregation gives “members of certain racial groups, especially minority groups, spaces where they can discuss shared concerns and issues. Thus, these defenders attempt to portray racial segregation as a tool to further diversity.” (Blacks who are seeking segregation and the university administrators who approve these requests for segregation show much more intelligence than these two senators. Unlike these senators, Blacks know that segregation promotes diversity. They know that segregation preserves diversity while integration destroys diversity. [See “Diversity” by Thomas Allen.])

Like neoconservatives and liberals, Senators Cotton and Loeffler believe that the United States are a creedal country and not a genetic country. (Also, these two senators are racial nihilists, who practice the new morality, and have no qualms about genociding the American Negro. Genociding the American Negro will be the result of the policies that they are urging.)

(Reference: “Public Colleges Defy Federal Law with Racially Segregated Events to Further Diversity,” Judicial Watch, November 13, 2020, https://www.judicialwatch.org/corruption-chronicles/public-colleges-defy-federal-law-with-racially-segregated-events-to-further-diversity/, accessed December 2, 2020.)

Social Justice Reform

Social justice reform is easy. All that the government has to do is to release all Blacks from prison and exempt all Blacks from all laws. Then, Blacks would no longer have to pay taxes or obey traffic laws. Moreover, they will no longer be arrested for any crime including battery, theft, rape, or murder. Also, they should be allowed to take any job of any White including that of a CEO of major corporations. Further, the employer cannot require Blacks to do any work and cannot fire them. Blacks may take the house of any White along with his furniture, cars, and all other property, and the White may not object. Also, Blacks may use White women, men, and children for their sex toys without any objection from the White toys. Thus, Blacks will have received justice — if they can stop killing each other long enough to enjoy the fruits of their thefts.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.