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

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

Thomas Allen

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

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

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

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 2 

More articles on social issues.

The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation

The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation
Thomas Allen

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

Endnotes

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

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

3. Tilson, p. 20.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13. Tilson, pp. 100-101.

14. Tilson, p. 102.

15. Tilson, p. 103.

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

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

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

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.

 More articles on religion.

Miscegenation Is Not a Personal Matter

Miscegenation Is Not a Personal Matter

Thomas Allen

    Every person has an obligation to ensure the welfare of his country, which, by the way, is not its government, which is often his country’s greatest enemy. He has a legitimate interest and right to protect his country from those within and without who would destroy his country. Whatever a person might do to endanger the welfare of his country is the concern of every one of that country. Therefore, the endangerment of a country is not a personal matter.
    So it is with the races, or more correctly species,[1] of humans. Every person has an obligation to ensure the welfare of his race. Thus, he has a legitimate interest and right to protect his race from those who would destroy his race. Whatever a person might do to endanger the welfare of his race is the concern of everybody of that race as a whole. Therefore, the endangerment of a race is not a personal matter.
    As miscegenation destroys both races involved, members of both races involved have a legitimate interest, even an obligation, to prevent interracial mating. Interracial marriages are not a personal matter. They lead to breeding the races out of existence. Therefore, they are detrimental to the races involved.
    Anyone who believes that miscegenation should take precedence over his race is a traitor to his race. As such, he should be treated as a traitor to his country is treated — even more so.
    Ira Calvin observes that betrayal of one’s race is worse than treason to one’s country:

If it be treason to advocate the overthrow of the government of a people, it follows, as truly as the fact that the whole is greater than any of its parts, that to advocate the destruction of the people themselves is the highest kind of treason.[2]

Thus, anyone who contrives in any way to integrate a person of one race into another race is guilty of the highest form of treason. Not only does he advocate the destruction of this race in a particular country, but he also advocates the destruction of that entire race globally.
    Each race has a duty to undertake actions to preserve itself. Geographical separation is the most effective way. When that is not practical, segregation becomes the most effective. Segregation is nothing more than each race building a fence around itself to protect itself from the other races.
    Few people would deny a farmer the right to erect a fence between his dairy cattle and beef cattle to prevent their interbreeding. Are not the races of men more valuable than breeds of cattle? If they are, should not people undertake erecting barriers between the races of men to prevent their interbreeding? Only a traitor would answer the last questions in the negative.
    People who want to allow interracial mating need to explain their hatred. Why do they hate the races involved so much that they willingly allow them to breed each other out of existence? Only hate could be behind such desire.
    Prohibition of miscegenation and the erection of barriers, segregation, that preserve each race do not deprive anyone of his rights. If they do, then erecting barriers to prevent treason also denies everyone his rights.
    On the contrary, segregation and the prohibition of miscegenation are based on one of the soundest principles known. That principle is that no one has the right to do things that destroy the property of another. Each race has its own unique set of physical, physiological, and psychological traits. Each has its own unique set of biological, anatomical, and morphological traits. Interracial marriage results in people of one race trying to steal or destroy the unique traits of another race. Therefore, each race has a duty to prevent this thief and destruction.
    Equal rights only exist where all have an equal legitimate interest. No person has equal rights in a house owned entirely by another. A person of one country does not have equal rights with the people of another country. He cannot vote, hold elective office, etc. Likewise, people of one race do not have equal rights with people of another race because each race has its own unique racial characteristics. They have no legitimate interest in any race other than their own. To claim that people of one race have a right to mix and mingle with another race is tantamount to giving people the right to enter and use the house of another without the owner’s permission.
    The sum of racial traits of a race belongs to that race and to no other race. They are the property of that race by birth and of that race only. Being born with these racial traits gives that person a legitimate interest and right in his race and in all matters that might affect his race. Where no legitimate interest exists, no rights exist.
    No person has equal rights in things where he does not have an equal legitimate interest. No person can be given rights in things where he has no legitimate interest. He can be given the privilege, but not the right, in things where he has no legitimate interest. Therefore, miscegenation is a privilege and not a right.
    Moreover, privileges usually violate liberty. Liberty exists where all men have equal rights in things where they have a legitimate interest and where no man has a right (privilege) in things where he has no legitimate interest.  (For example, liberty exists where every homeowner has the right to use his house, but does not have the right to use someone else’s house.) Thus, miscegenation violates liberty.
    The open-borders policy is the result of the U.S. government forcing, instead of preventing, the mixing and mingling of the races. Thus, the open-borders policy is a violation of equal rights. It gives people a right (privileges) in what is not legitimately theirs, i.e., it gives them rights in the country of another.
    People who oppose prohibiting miscegenation should also support an open-border-unlimited immigration policy. At least liberals most libertarians, and even some “conservatives” are consistent in supporting both miscegenation and open borders. However, when their own house is being violated, nearly all of them act inconsistently. They oppose people who have no legitimate interest in their houses acting as though they do. This is proof that they care nothing about their country or their race, or any other race for that matter. A consistent, rational person would favor policies that protect his race, country, and home and oppose policies that destroy them.
    Integration is a violation of equal rights. It gives people of one race a right in what is not legitimately theirs, i.e., it gives them the rights to the property of another race.
    About rights, O.R. Williams writes:

The right to racial segregation is based upon the RIGHTS OF MAN.  And the RIGHTS OF MAN must be  grounded  in  this principle: That no man should have any rights where he does not have a legitimate interest; and based upon this principle, no man, or any group of men, will have any rights to things that belong, only, to an individual — an individual person, or an individual group of persons.[3]

    One of the greatest lies since the serpent deceived Eve is that if two people of different races marry, that marriage is no one else’s business. Such a marriage is not an individual matter between the two individual members. It is a matter of everyone in each race involved.
    When someone does something that affects only himself, it is an individual matter. When someone does something that affects himself and others, it becomes a matter of the others affected. Interracial mating affects more than the two people involved. It affects their races. Each race is like an individual; thus, when two people of the same race marry, that marriage is an individual matter — both personally and racially. Such marriage does not lead to the destruction of that or any other race. However, when people of different races marry, it is more than an individual matter. It is even more than individual racial matter. A racially mixed marriage is a concern of every one of the two races involved because it leads to the destruction of both races. Interracial mating is a concern of every one of the races involved because it results in the amalgamation and mongrelization of the races involved. It destroys the common property of each race; that is, it destroys the unique racial traits of each race.
    To argue otherwise is to claim that traitors have the right to aid in the destruction of their country. Moreover, treason is a personal matter and should not be prohibited or punished. The only difference between race and country is that one is biological and the other is geographical.
    Writing at a time when some States cared enough about the races to prevent their self-destruction, Archibald Coody writes:

The law forbids the marriage of negroes and white persons, and provides that such marriages are void, which is certainly not discrimination. If either race feels humiliated or offended at this separation, it thereby confesses its sense of inferiority.[4]

Unfortunately, these laws have been stricken and removed.
    Not only does interracial mating lead to the destruction of the races, but it is also detrimental to the offspring. Coody summaries this detrimental effect of striving for social equality and the resulting miscegenation:

In a marriage of black and white, upon whose past, do we build? Sleswick or the Congo?  Of what history would the child be proud? To whom would homage be paid? To what ideals would its allegiance be given? A marriage between white persons, one an American and one, say a German, poses a problem of loyalty. The child has two great traditions of culture and achievement, but it must and will believe in one more than in the other. But it is a problem only of present and surface emotions and psychology. The problem of the mulatto is infinitely greater because he combines two diverse and irreconcilable traditions. Loyalty to one means repudiation of the other. He is at home with neither the white nor the black. Unable to be true to either parent, he cannot be true to self. These and other conditions needless to mention, are sufficient to show the utter futility of any plan of social equality. For social equality is worse than a farce if we draw the line at marriage — it ceases to have meaning.[5]

Most of these mulattoes end up being what the great civil rights leader Roy Innis calls “house niggers”:

In America today there are two kinds of black people — the field-hand blacks and the ‘house niggers.’ We of CORE — the nationalists — are the field-hand blacks. The integrationists of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People are ‘house niggers.’[6]

    Each race needs to respect the rights and property of all other races. Each race needs to support and undertake actions to protect and preserve the rights and the unique properties of all races. The most effective policies known to achieve this goal are separation and prohibition of miscegenation.
    All need to remember the words of wisdom given by Innis:

Under segregation, black people live together but their institutions are controlled by whites. Under integration, black people are dispersed and the institutions, goods and services are still controlled by whites. In effect, the two are the same. But under separatism, black people will control their own turf.[7]

Miscegenation is the highest form of integration.

Endnotes

1. Thomas Coley Allen, Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis (Franklinton, N.C.: TC Allen Co.), 1999.

2. Ira Calvin, The Lost White Race (Brookline, Mass.: Countway-White Publications), [1945], p. 111.

3. O.R. Williams, Sr., Segregation and Common Sense (Boston, Mass.: Forum Publishing Co.), 1961, pp. 206-207.

4. Archibald Coody IV, Capter Number Six: The Race Question from the White Chief: A Story of the Life and Times of James K. Vardaman (Jackson, Miss.: Archibald Coody IV). 1944, p. 70.

5. Coody, p. 85.

6. Francis X. Gannon, Biographical Dictionary of the Left, III (1972), p. 464.

7. Gannon, p. 462.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on social issues.

Species of Men

Species of Men

Thomas Allen

Either we must admit different species in the genus Homo, or we must entirely reform zoological classification. – George Pouchet

    The following tables show the major branches, racial types, and representative nationalities or people of the several extant species of men.

For a detailed description of these species and racial types, see Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis by Thomas Coley Allen and "The American Indian" and "Indo-Australian."

 More articles on anthropolgy.

Analysis of Money No Mystery

Analysis of Money No Mystery

Thomas Allen

    The following is an analysis of Money No Mystery: Mastery by Monopoly by Arnold Leese [1938] (Hollywood, California: Sons of Liberty). Leese  (1878–1956) was a British fascist politician. What is proposed in his book is a fascist monetary system. He discusses some Jewish issues that are not addressed since they are beyond the scope and objective of this article. His words and my paraphrases or summaries of his words, I have italicized. My commentary is in roman letters. I have provided references to pages in his book and have enclosed them in parentheses.
    Mr. Leese comments on gold’s suitability for money. One property that makes gold suitable for money is its rarity (p. 3.). Rarity is an important characteristic for money if it is not too rare. What makes gold the most suitable metal for money is its flow-to-stock ratio. Annually, newly mined gold accounts for about 2 percent of the above ground stock of gold available for monetary use. Thus, newly mined gold does not have much effect on the value of gold.
    Mr. Leese remarks that irredeemable paper money had reached “a stage of general stability” (p. 3.). That may have been true during the late 1930s when he wrote. However, that stability was lost during World War II and the decades that followed.
    Like all fiat money advocates, Mr. Leese believes that governmental fiat gives money its value. Government can give otherwise worthless pieces of paper great value by declaring them legal tender and by that eliminate any need for gold backing (p. 3.). If governmental fiat can give money value, bimetallism would have worked. Gold and silver would have exchanged at the same value at the ratio decreed by the government. (Presumably, they would exchange at the same value even if various countries had radically different ratios.) If government fiat and legal-tender laws gave money its value, a $10 U.S. note would have had the same purchasing power as a $10 gold coin in the United States between 1862 and 1879. Instead U.S. notes traded at a discount to gold until they became redeemable on demand in gold.
    Mr. Leese claims, “No one inside this country [Great Britain] cared a scrap whether the legalised paper money was convertible or not into gold; he didn’t want gold; he wanted goods, and got them, through the scraps of paper legalised by the State as National Money” (p. 3.). That may be true. Only a miser wants money because it is money regardless of form. Most people want money so that they can trade it or invest it now or some time in the future. Convertibility into gold serves as a regulator of credit, paper money, and keeps it within proper bounds. If the government or banks are issuing too much paper money or other types of credit money, people will redeem the excess and halt the expansion. Gold keeps the monetary system honest and thwarts the expansionist programs of statists, which is why fascists and other statists hate it.
    Mr. Leese has a better understanding of the gold standard than most post-World-War-II writers, including proponents of the gold standard. He knew that the British pound was the value of 113 grains of gold (p. 4).
    Like most opponents of the gold standard, Mr. Leese declares, “Few people wanted to do this [exchange bank note for gold], because gold has limited functions in general utility; you can’t eat it, drink it, make clothes of it or even flirt with it; before you can make use of it, you have to exchange it for something you want” (p. 4). Thus, he presents one of the most absurd arguments that opponents of gold give. One can eat and wear gold. However, such an argument against gold is stupid and is intended to deceive. The same thing can be said about paper fiat money and even more so about its electronic equivalent. How does one eat, drink, and wear electrons, which make up the bulk of today’s money, flowing through some unknown computer at some unknown location?
    Mr. Leese makes an error common to most opponents and proponents of the gold standard. He asserts that if all paper money is not fully backed by gold, a true gold standard does not exist (p. 4.). The true gold standard does not require all paper money and other forms of market-generated credit money to be backed by gold. Bank credit money (bank notes and checkbook money) can also be backed by commercial money, real bills of exchange, which are themselves a form of market-generated credit money — the real bills doctrine.
    According to Mr. Leese, the international gold standard leads to people and countries attempting to corner gold to “become masters of the International Industrial situation.” Jews were the primary people who cornered gold. By cornering gold, Jews gain control of fixing the rate of interest (p. 4-5). Where the real bills doctrine operates, many financial transactions are with commercial money — not with gold. The propensity of consumers to buy fixes the discount rate of bills of exchange, which is not really interest — not the hoarders of gold. Hoarders of gold have much less power than their opponents give them. (A more detail discussion on hoarding gold is given in “Is Gold Too Easy to Manipulate?”)  As Jews control most of the paper money issued today through central bank operations, abandoning the gold standard for fiat paper money does not eliminate this issue. It does not assuage Leese’s problem of Jewish control of the monetary system. (Perhaps this is why the Protocols of Zion advocates abandoning the gold standard in favor of fiat paper money [v.i.].)
    Mr. Leese writes, “The Financier can, by using his control of Gold to expand or contract the volume of Money (currency or credit) in circulation, create boom or slump in Britain” (p. 5.). As post World-War-II history shows, the financier can more easily expand and contract the volume of paper money. He can expand the money supply far greater under today’s monetary system than he could under the gold standard. Thus, when the inevitable slump comes, it is more severe or last much longer than it would have under the gold standard.
    Like most opponents of the gold standard, Mr. Leese asserts that gold cannot “supply the industrial need for National Money” (p. 5). As I show in “There Is Enough Gold,” enough gold exists to accommodate world commerce several times over when accompanied by the proper credit system, the real bills doctrine. Enough gold was available in 2004 to accommodate 3.8 times the gross world product of 2007 without fractionalization of gold.
    Mr. Leese discusses Britain’s return to the gold standard following World War I (pp. 6-7).
    Mr. Leese writes, “OUR National Money must be divorced from its association with Gold” (p. 8). This part of his proposal has been achieved. In 1971 when President Nixon ended the gold exchange standard, Bretton Wood system, gold ceased any formal role in the world’s monetary systems.
    Mr. Leese states that countries (Great Britain) should pay for imports with domestic paper money that can only be exchanged for goods and services in the importing country (p. 8). To some degree, bills of exchange serve this purpose. The world is in the process of achieving the intent of his proposal by abandoning the U.S. dollar standard that has been in place since World War II. However, his proposal seems to require country A to buy from country B the value of products that it sells to country B. Such an arrangement would greatly hamper foreign trade.
    Mr. Leese recognizes the need to control the amount of money issued (p. 8). He does not offer any mechanism for doing this other than trusting politicians and bureaucrats. Thus, politicians and bureaucrats would have to act contrary to their nature by not seeking to increase their prestige, power, and wealth.
    Mr. Leese discusses how the practices of lending for interest came to Great Britain and the adverse effects of interest (pp. 9-12). Under fascism, interest on foreign loans belong to the people of the country as a whole and not to the individuals who lend the money abroad (p. 11). By “people as a whole” he probably means the government — at least that is what most statists mean. However, the government is not the people as a whole. It has never been and never will be. It is the small group of people controlling it. If the people as a whole are to receive the interest paid on foreign loans, some mechanism needs to be in place to divide that interest among the individuals of the country without the government getting part of it.
    Mr. Leese opposes the Social Credit scheme (p. 12). I discuss the flaws of Social “Credits in Analysis of Richard Cook’s Monetary Reforms.”
    Mr. Leese presents the monetary reforms of the Imperial Fascist League (pp. 12-15). A “Department of Issue is established to control absolutely the issue of currency and credit” (p. 13). Its objectives are:
    (1) Gradually inflate money and credit until the price level of commodities are raised to the level reached at the end of World War I (p. 13).
    (2) After achieving item 1 and in accordance with item 3, stabilize the purchasing power of money so that it becomes as fixed as the yard (meter), pint (liter), and pound (gram) and no longer varies; expand and contract the money supply to maintain a stable level of a general-price index (p. 13).
    (3) Adjust currency and credit until production is sufficient to satisfy the needs of the country and its exportation overseas (p. 13).
    (4) Retire gradually all external and internal interest-bearing government securities with non-interest bearing currency (pp. 13-14), i.e., with non-interest bearing government notes or central bank notes that function like government notes.
    (5) Adjust gradually “to the new values by limiting currency inflation, in the early stages, to State disbursements” (p. 14), i.e., the government gets the new money first before it loses value.
    (6) Distribute equitably credit inflation to agriculture and industry (p. 14).
    (7) Balance imports and exports by tariffs, embargoes, and trade packs that enforce equality in exchange value (p. 14). The trade issue is discussed above.
    Mr. Leese does not propose governmental ownership of banking. However, banks are stripped of their ability to create money via lending. That is, he advocates 100‒percent reserve banking. The government introduces new money by buying government securities and cancelling them and with low-interest loans. Only the government can lend money for mortgages, which are lent through deposit banks. The government fixes all bank interest rates (pp. 14-15).
    His proposal has so many flaws, one knows hardly where to begin. His system depends on the wisdom and integrity of politicians and bureaucrats. If that were not enough, his proposal also depends on them be omniscient. Governments have attempted items 1, 2, and 3. So far they have all failed.
    Moreover, all price indexes are flawed. They always over count some items and under count others. As people’s tastes constantly change, price indexes need to be revised often to account for changing tastes. Also, changes in technology affect quality and cost as well as offering new items not in the index. These changes need to be considered. An ever-changing price index makes comparing the cost of living over an extended time questionable. Furthermore, governmentally generated price indexes are subjected to political consideration. Politicians like to conceal inflation, so they adjust price indexes to hide the real cost of living.
    Most countries can achieve item 4, if so desired, by having their central banks buy all their securities. To keep such action from resulting in massive inflation,  if not hyperinflation, would require large-scale restraint of the monetary and banking system.
    When governments fix interest rates, they drive high-risk borrowers to the black market (loan sharks) for loans. To propose involving the government in the mortgage and lending markets is fuel for corruption and disaster. Governmental intervention in the mortgage and lending markets was a major contributor to the crash of 2008. When governments become involved in economic activities, politics usually trump economics.
    A great irony of Mr. Leese’s fascist proposal of replacing the gold standard with fiat paper money is that the Jewish Protocols of Zion has the same proposal. The Jewish proposal is set out in Protocol 20:

        The present issue of money in general does not correspond with the requirements per head, and cannot therefore satisfy all the needs of the workers. The issue of money ought to correspond with the growth of population and thereby children also must absolutely be reckoned as consumers of currency from the day of their birth. The revision of issue is a material question for the whole world.
        You are aware that the gold standard has been the ruin of the States which adopted it, for it has not been able to satisfy the demands for money, the more so that we [Jews] have removed gold from circulation as far as possible.
        With us [Jews] the standard that must be introduced is the cost of working-man power, whether it be reckoned in paper or in wood. We shall make the issue of money in accordance with the normal requirements of each subject, adding to the quantity with every birth and subtracting with every death.[1]

The two proposals merely disagree in the criteria to use in deciding how much money the government needs to inject into the economy. Was Mr. Leese an agent of the Jews?
    Mr. Leese’s proposal fails to achieve his purported goal. It does not make the monetary system or economy better — at least not in the long run. However, it greatly increases the power of the government, i.e., those who actually control the government, over the economy and the people. As such control is a goal of fascism, Mr. Leese’s proposal does successfully achieve that fascist goal.

Endnote
1. Protocol of the Learned Elders of Zion, ed. Sergyel Nilus, trans. Victor E. Marsden (1905, 1922), p. 16.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.

 More articles on money.

The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement -- Part 3

Martin Luther King 

Thomas Allen

[Editor's note: Footnotes in the original are omitted.]
    In 1955 Rosa Parks, a Negro and a Communist party activist,[101] began what became the Montgomery boycott when she refused to move to the back of a bus. She worked for the NAACP and had been instructed in agitation at the communist Highlander Folk School (HFS). Thus, Parks was not a simple seamstress; she was a communist operative. After deliberately violating the Montgomery bus ordinance, she was arrested and fined. As a result, she became a heroine of the Communist Party. Thus, Communists through front operations began the civil rights movement in 1955.
    The Montgomery bus boycott was not a spontaneous event; it was planned. Parks had previously defied bus segregation laws. She was chosen to initiate the Montgomery boycott. King was chosen to lead it.
    Martin Luther King’s rise from obscurity to a godlike statue began with the Montgomery boycott. He conducted the boycott through the Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA). Fred Shuttlesworth formed MIA. Bayard Rustin, King’s secretary and advisor, joined them in leading the boycott. (Rustin later accompanied King to Oslo, where King received the Nobel Prize for Peace.)
    In 1957 King, Shuttlesworth, and Rustin formed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC). King became its president, and Shuttlesworth, its vice president. (Later Shuttlesworth became the president of the Southern Conference Education Fund [SCEF], a communist front.) Andrew Young was the program director of SCLC.
    Also, in 1957 King attended a workshop at the HFS where he spoke. He praised Audrey Williams, a Communist, and Myles Horton, director of HFS. King was a sponsor of this workshop.
    In 1959 King invited Anne Braden and her husband Carl to join SCLC. Both were Communists and leaders in SCEF. King also fellowshipped with James Dombrowski, a Communist and executive director of SCEF. Moreover, SCEF provided financial support to King.
    King supported Jesse Gray. Gray promoted the use of violence to achieve Negro racist goals. King's support of Audrey Williams, Gray, and the SCEF shows that King did not abhor the use of violence. Furthermore, King wrote the foreword to Negroes With Guns by Robert Williams, a Communist, who promoted guerrilla warfare by blacks. He showed no aversion to associating with Communists and promoters of violence. Contrary to his reputation, he was not a peace-loving man. King associated with known Communists and communist sympathizers and with communist fronts. (FBI surveillance under the direction of Attorneys General Robert Kennedy and later Nicholas Katzenbach, who succeeded Kennedy, shows that King was closely associated with known Communists.)
    King supported, sponsored, promoted, and otherwise associated with communist fronts besides SCEF. These fronts included the National Appeal for Freedom, the National Committee on Un-American Activities, and Highlander Folk School.
    In 1963, state and local police seized internal documents when they raided SCEF’s headquarters in New Orleans. Based on these documents, the Louisiana Joint Legislative Committee on Un-American Activities issued a report exposing the close relationship between SCEF and King and his SCLC and SNCC. Commenting on this report, columnist Holmes Alexander noted:

        It links the Fair Play For Cuba Committee, a Castro front, by common membership to the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee and the Southern Conference Educational Fund. It ties Martin Luther King to Communist leaders like James Dombrowski, Benjamin Smith and Bruce Waltzer, all three under indictment for multiple violations of the Louisiana anti-Communist statutes.
        . . . It traces the Communist-led race riots, which began in the South and moved to the North, through a maze of names like Bayard Rustin and King which reappeared last summer in the march on Washington.[102]

    A 1963 letter to Lee Lorch, a Communist,[103] from Dombrowski showed that the Communist party lobbied for the Civil Rights Act and that King collaborated with them. The letter reads in part:

        As part of a massive letter writing campaign, we propose to place a full-page ad in at least one newspaper in each of these 15 states.
        We enclose a layout and text for the ad to be signed by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference; Dr. Martin Luther King, president; the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee; and SCEF.
        SCEF will raise the money. . . .[104]   

       Another 1963 letter, this one from Carl Braden to Dombrowski, also reveals King’s close affiliation with Communists. This letter in part reads:

        The pressure that has been put on Martin [Luther King, Jr.] about [Hunter Pitts] O’Dell helps to explain why he has been ducking us. I suspected there was something of this sort in the wind.
        The UPI has carried a story quoting Martin as saying they have dumped O’Dell for the second time because of fear that the segreationists [sic] would use it against them. He expressed no distaste for Communists or their beliefs, merely puts it on the pragmatic basis that SCLC can’t handle the charges of Communism.[105]

    Uriah Fields, King’s secretary during the early years, wrote, “King helps to advance Communism. He is surrounded with Communists.”[106]
    Soon after the King Holiday became law, Michael Parenti wrote a letter to the New York Times that stated, “What if communists had links to Dr. King? The three areas in which King was most active — civil rights, peace and the labor struggle (the latter two toward the end of his life) — are also areas in which U.S. Communists have worked long and devotedly.”[107] Parenti, who was a frequent contributor to Political Affairs, an official magazine of the Communist Party, shows that the civil rights movement is a communist movement and that King was a frontman for the Communist Party.
    Senator Jesse Helms remarked in the Congressional Record:

    . . . there is no evidence that Martin Luther King was a member of the Communist Party, but the pattern of his activities and associations in the 1950s and 1960s show clearly that he had no strong objection to working with and even relying on Communists or persons and groups whose relationships with the Communist Party were, at the least, ambiguous. It should be recalled that in this period of time (far more than today) many liberal and even radical groups on the left shared a strong awareness of and antipathy for the anti-democratic and brutal nature of Communism and its characteristically deceptive and subversive tactics. It is doubtful that many American liberals would have associated or worked with many of the persons and groups with whom King not only was close but on whom he was in several respects dependent. These associations and, even more, King’s refusal to break with them, even at the expense of public criticism and the alienation of the Kennedy Administration, strongly suggest that King harbored a strong sympathy for the Communist Party and its goals.[108]

    Although he was not a member of the Communist Party, King was a Marxist and an advocate of political, social, and economic egalitarianism. He told his SCLC staff, “We must recognize that we can’t solve our problems now until there is a radical redistribution of economic and political power.”[109]
    King was a powerful promoter and advocate of the Negro Revolution. In a 1968 interview, he stated:

America is deeply racist and its democracy is flawed both economically and socially. . . . the black revolution is much more than a struggle for the rights of Negroes. It is forcing America to face all its interrelated flaws — racism, poverty, militarism, and materialism. It is exposing evils that are rooted deeply in the whole structure of our society. It reveals systemic rather than superficial flaws and suggests that radical reconstruction of society itself is the real issue to be faced.[110]

    In 1967 he told his SCLC staff:

For the last twelve years we have been in a reform movement. . . . But after Selma and the voting rights bill we moved into a new era, which must be an era of revolution. I think we must see the great distinction here between a reform movement and a revolutionary movement [which would] raise certain basic questions about the whole society. . . . this means a revolution of values and of other things.[111]

    Congressman John Ashbrook said before the House of Representatives, “King has consistently worked with Communists and has helped give them a respectability they do not deserve.”[112] Ashbrook “found King to be an apostle of violence and lawlessness, a racist, a power-hungry tyrant, an associate of ‘the most radical elements in our society,’ an individual who ‘has done more for the Communist Party than any other person of this decade.’ Ashbrook described King’s methodology as ‘criminal conduct and conspiracy, not civil disobedience.’”[113] Ashbrook was privy to many confidential reports on King.
    William Hoar described King as “a notorious libertine who was trained, backed, and advised by top Communists to provoke violence and build racial hatred as efficiently as any Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.”[114]
    If one were to judge King by his character instead of his race, one would find him as anti-white, anti-freedom, anti-American, anti-morality, anti-free-market economy, anti-Western Civilization, and anti-South.
 [Editor's note: The list of references in the original are omitted.]

Endnotes --- Continued

101. Henry Makow, “Rosa Parks & Our Communist Corporate Elite,” Dec. 1, 2010, http://www.henrymakow.com/001228.html, accessed Dec. 8, 2010.

102. Stang, It’s Very Simple, p. 127.

103. Francis and Helms, p. 32.

104. Francis and Helms, p. 32.

105. Francis and Helms, p. 33.

106. “Chapter 4. Communism and Racial Tension,” The Modern History Project, http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php ?Article=FinalWarn04, accessed Nov. 5, 2005.

107. Francis and Helms, p. 6.

108. Francis and Helms, pp. 42-43.

109. Francis and Helms, p. 43.

110. Francis and Helms, p. 43.

111. Francis and Helms, p. 43.

112. Francis and Helms, p. 44.

113. Gannon, I, p. 400.

114. Hoar, Architects of Conspiracy, p. 317.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.
 
Part 2

More articles on social issues.

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

The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement

Thomas Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gannon writes about the NAACP:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wright and Satterfield continue:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is slavery?

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

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

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

That isn’t slavery.

It’s civil rights.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More articles on social issues.