Do Bank Notes Cease Representing Merchandise?

Do Bank Notes Cease Representing Merchandise?

Thomas Allen

    Under the gold standard, banks often use bank notes to buy real bills of exchange.[1] That is, banks convert real bills of exchange (commercial credit money) into bank notes (bank credit money). Thus, these bank notes represent the merchandise that the bill represents.
    Many opponents of the real bills doctrine admit that when a bill is converted into bank notes, these bank notes represent the merchandise represented by the bill. However, they also claim that as these bank notes pass to other hands, this representation is lost. They represent merchandise to the person receiving them via selling the bill to the bank. However, when the person to whom the bank gives the bank notes spends them, these bank notes cease representing merchandise. They are now merely currency representing nothing — neither merchandise nor specie. This is true even though these bank notes are convertible in gold or merchandise.
    (If these opponents of the real bills doctrine are consistent, the same argument is true when a person sells gold to a bank for bank notes, i.e., converts specie to bank notes. These bank notes represent gold to the person receiving the bank notes from the bank. However, when he spends the bank notes, these bank notes cease representing gold and begin representing nothing although they can be used to buy gold from the issuing bank [redeemed] or merchandise in the markets.)
    To the contrary, these bank notes continue to represent merchandise no matter how often they are spent or how many hands through which they pass. That duty is never discharged until they are returned to the issuing bank. Then they are retired. All bank notes not lost eventually return to the issuing bank.
    Bank notes issued for a particular bill may continue to circulate for months after that bill has been paid and extinguished. However, that does not make these bank notes inflationary. An equivalent amount of purchasing media (gold, other bank notes, or checkbook money) has been removed from circulation to pay the bill.
    Opponents of the real bills doctrine who use this argument never describe the process by which bank notes cease representing merchandise. They do not because they cannot. They cannot because bank notes never cease representing merchandise. To do so, they have to transmute bank notes from something into nothing.
    Much of the confusion about bank notes comes from observing the actions of  government notes and nonconvertible bank notes issued by a central bank for its government. These notes are not tied to merchandise and do not represent merchandise. They represent nothing except the government’s credit, i.e., the government’s ability to force its subjects to surrender their property to it, commonly called the government’s ability to tax. Because no relationship exists between government notes and new goods entering the markets, government notes are inflationary. (Under the real bills doctrine, bank notes are directly tied to new goods entering the markets and can only increase as the quantity of new goods increase.) Being inconvertible, government notes lack quality and trade at a discount to gold coin.
    Additional confusion comes from observing bank notes issued by banks that have suspended convertibility. All the checks offered by convertibility are lost. Banks can over issue bank notes deliberately (e.g., buying treasury bills and bills of accommodation) or accidently (e.g., buying bills that are not paid). Like government notes, these bank notes lose quality and become inflationary, i.e., trade at a discount to gold coin.
    If the gold standard and convertibility into gold remains, bank notes issued to buy real bills of exchange represent merchandise and maintain the same quality as gold coin. They never cease representing merchandise and are not inflationary regardless of their quantity.

Endnote

1. Most of the time banks buy real bills of exchange by crediting the seller’s checking account with the amount of the purchase. This checkbook money is functionally the same as bank notes. They are both forms of bank credit money. Both represent merchandise. The only real difference is that bank notes often pass through more hands before returning to the issuing bank for cancellation.

Copyright © 2014 by Thomas Coley Allen.

 More articles on money.

Bank Notes and the Real Bills Doctrine

Bank Notes and the Real Bills Doctrine

Thomas Allen

    Under the real bills doctrine, bank notes are not fully backed by gold under the gold standard. They represent the items on a real bill of exchange that has been converted into bank notes.
    As Moutein notes, a real bill of exchange is commercial money, which can be used to discharge debt. As such when a bank buys a bill with bank notes it is converting one form of money, commercial money, into another form of money, bank notes. The same process happens when a person deposits a gold coin in his checking account. The bank converts the gold coin into checkbook money.
    Proponents of 100-percent gold standard claim that bank notes are, or should be, receipts for gold. Bank notes are, or should be, certificates backed 100 percent by gold.
    Although bank notes can be redeemed in gold under the gold standard, it is not specifically a receipt for gold. It is a coupon, so to speak, that can be redeemed in whatever is being offered in the market. However, it is not a coupon for a specific item. Like a gold certificate, it is a general coupon. That is, it is redeemable in whatever is being offered for sale in the markets. Gold is only among the many products available in the markets into which a bank note can be redeemed. A gold certificate is a warehouse receipt for gold that can be redeemed for other things being offered in the markets.
    Like gold certificates, bank notes are either canceled against other forms of credit money (other bank notes, gold certificates, and checkbook money) or is converted to gold and canceled.


Copyright © 2014 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on money. 

Review of Segregation and Desegregation -- Part 3

Review of Segregation and Desegregation -- Part 3

Thomas Allen

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

    In Chapter 4, Matson discusses desegregation and integration. Included in his discussion are desegregation versus integration, desegregation’s progress and problems, desegregation plans and prospects, and integration and intermarriage.
    Matson argues that technically desegregation and integration differ. “Integration involves more than the removal of barriers and the elimination of compulsory segregation. This may be accomplished by desegregation. The latter is legal and more or less formal. Integration is voluntary and social” (p. 62). Technically, the two do differ. However, one cannot have desegregation without integration. Integration is the only way that a company, institution, organization, or government can prove that it has really desegregated and is not practicing covert segregation. Federal courts went even further by ordering integration, so much for integration being voluntary; they demanded quotas to prove that desegregation had occurred.  Matson is definitely wrong when he claims that integration is voluntary. Congress, federal courts, and the President ended all pretense that integration was voluntary. (Most opponents of desegregation knew that it would lead quickly and directly to forced integration. Was Matson being a  liar and a hypocrite by soft-selling desegregation by claiming throughout his book that it would not lead to forced integration?)
    Matson likes to “split hairs” over the meaning of integration. It requires much more than race mixing. According to him, “integration has taken place only when those of another race or class are accepted as full equal partners in a common task. It is based on mutual respect and on a sense of dignity and worth of the human person” (p. 63). Only when the races have bred themselves into motley mongrel man could full integration be achieved in the sense that he means. Even then, such integration is doubtful because of physical and mental variations that would occur in motley mongrel man.
    Moreover, respect and worth have to be earned. Individuals of the segregated race can earn respect and worth, and many did earn them, under segregation while many have failed to earn them under integration. Whether a person earns respect and worth is independent of segregation and integration.
    Generally, when people use the term “desegregation” and “integration,” they mean “desegregation” offers the races the opportunity to mix; “integration” requires the races to mix. That seems to be the distinction that courts have made. However, most people use the two terms synonymously.
    Matson does admit desegregation cannot be successful unless considerable integration occurs (p. 64).
    Matson states that a major argument against desegregation is that it will lead to the mongrelization of the races. He claims “this argument implies the inferiority of the Negro” (pp. 64-65). If true, when a Negro opposes interracial marriage, he does so because he believes Blacks are inferior to Whites. When people oppose desegregation for this reason, they are aware that when two or more races mix, they soon start mating with each other and breeding themselves out of existence — thus, destroying the races that God created.  (Ezra Chapters 9 and 10 illustrate this outcome. For that reason, God commanded the Jews to send their alien wives away along with the children born of their illicit marriages.) Other than love and justice, Matson fails to explain why Christians should support a situation that leads to the destruction of God’s creation. Where are the love and justice in such wanton willful destruction? The desire to oppose situations that result in destroying the races, species, of humans that God created rests on love and justice and not the inferiority or superiority of any race. Moreover, why would Matson or anyone else want to support breeding the Negro into extinction?
    Matson remarks that the Supreme Court's desegregation decision did not “require the arbitrary mixing of the races in school” (p. 65). If true, this aspect of its ruling was soon forgotten or ignored as Congress and especially federal courts began requiring the arbitrary mixing of the races in school. Matson adds, “The arbitrary mixing of races might violate the right of individual choice as much as forced segregation” (p. 65). Finally, he got something right! Then he goes on to write that force will be necessary. However, it should be limited to the minimum necessary to get people to agree with him on the segregation-desegregation issue (pp. 65-66).
    Matson comments on school desegregation and notes the number of districts that had desegregated schools and those that did not (pp. 66-67). How does he know which district had not desegregated unless he was judging them by how well they had integrated? After all, the Supreme Court had voided all school segregation laws. Yet he maintains desegregation does not mean integration.
    Matson notes that one of the biggest casualties of school desegregation is the Negro teacher (p. 72). As Blacks integrated into White schools, fewer teachers were needed.
    Matson comments on a Gallup Poll on the Supreme Court’s school desegregation ruling. About two-thirds of the people in the South disapproved the ruling and about two-thirds outside the South approved it. Matson interprets this survey to mean that the South better not resist or else it will be sorry (pp. 72-73). What the survey really reveals is the hypocrisy of Northerners and Westerners. People who would be least affected by school desegregation and integration at that time were willing to force them on those who would be most affected. However, when their turn came and the U.S. government forced integration on them, many objected vigorously — for example, forced integration of the Boston schools.
    Matson argues that because people confuse integration with desegregation and because people equate integration with amalgamation, the interracial marriage argument against desegregation is hollow (pp. 73ff). He does state that school integration could lead to some increase in interracial marriages, but he expects it to be slight. First, one cannot have desegregation without integration. Second, integration leads to increased interracial marriages and amalgamation.
     In 1960 only 0.4 percent of White marriages were interracial of which 0.1 percent were with Blacks. By 2010 interracial White marriages had risen to 3 percent of which 1.1 percent were with Blacks. By 2010 14 percent of Black marriages were interracial; of these 11.8 percent were with Whites. If the current trend continues, the Negro will breed himself out of existence in a few generations. Integration is truly genocide.[7] Again, Matson is wrong.
    Matson actually claims “that there could be desegregation of public schools with comparatively little mixing of the races” (p. 74). One must wonder what he was smoking when wrote his book. For him to make a statement like this, he must have been living in chimera land. History shows that school desegregation resulted in massive race mixing, which is what promoters of school desegregation wanted.  As shown above, integration has significantly increased interracial marriages — especially for Blacks who seem to be trying to breed themselves into extinction. For the Negro, integration is genocide. Their leaders wanted to integrate schools to emasculate and destroy the White race and by that bring down America.
    Matson believes that desegregation would improve education for the Negro. This improved education leads to greater achievement by the Negro, which increases his racial pride. As a result,  “the frequency either of sex relations with Whites outside marriage or of interracial marriages with them” is reduced (pp 75-76). Again, one must wonder what Matson was smoking on his trip through chimera land. History shows that desegregation brought a significant increase in interracial mating.
    Matson claims that the restrictions concerning intermarriage in the Old Testament were primarily national or tribal and not racial (p. 80). If true, why does God forbid the half-breed from being part of His assembly (Deuteronomy 23:2)? Moreover, in Ezra Chapters 9 and 10, God does not order the people to be separated by religion. The separation is by race. All foreign or alien women and their children were sent away, even those who were believers. All Jewish men remained, even those who were nonbelievers.
    Matson claims that Deuteronomy 7:1-8, which some people use to oppose interracial marriages, is not about interracial marriage. It prohibits Israelites from marrying outside their religion (pp. 79-80). No matter which claim is true, these verses show that God is a Segregationists. He forbids the Israelites to integrate and intermarry with the seven nationalities listed in Deuteronomy 7:1. Whether segregation is based on race, nationality, or religion, the result is the same: Segregation has occurred.
    Matson claims, “The scholars generally agree that the prohibition against intermarriage throughout the entire Old Testament were primarily and almost exclusively based on religions grounds” (p. 80). As many of these scholars are agnostics and atheists, their assertions should not be taken at face value. Moreover, the story of Dinah shows the enforcement of the prohibition of marrying outside one’s race. Chapter 34 of Genesis tells the story of Simeon and Levi, two of Jacob’s sons, slaying a city of Hivites over the issue of interracial marriage. The prince of the Hivites wanted to marry their sister, Dinah. So, the Hivites of this city offered to intermarry with the Hebrews. Before they could intermarry, Simeon and Levi told the Hivites that they needed to convert to the Hebrew religion. The Hivites converted and were circumcised. Thus, the two people would not be unequally yoked religiously. Now both of them were of the same religion: the Hebrew religion. However, they differed racially. The Hebrews were Aryans or White; the Hivites were Aryan-Melanochroi hybrids (or possibly Melanochroi). Simeon and Levi slew the Hivites not because of religious differences, for they were of the same religion. They slew them because of racial differences.  Even if these scholars are correct, they still show that God is a Segregationist. A segregationist is a segregationist despite the reason for the segregation.
    In Chapter 7, Matson discusses the church and segregation. Included are discussions of the church of God, the Body of Christ, an appraisal of the church, and the problems of the church.
    Matson writes about Paul’s reference to the church, where he uses the terms “the church of the living God” and “the church of God.” Matson focuses on two passages in 1 Corinthians (pp. 123-124). He fails to note that the people to whom Paul wrote in Corinth were White. Scripture gives no indication that any nonwhites were in the audience to whom Paul wrote.
    Matson notes that Paul suggested that the Corinthian Christians show their sanctification, dedication and union with Christ, etc. “‘with all those who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.’” Matson maintains that Paul is urging them to share fellowship with all classes and races (pp. 123-124). Paul was lecturing the Corinthians on the division in the church in Corinth, the immorality of members of that church, litigation, improper sexual relations, food offered to idols, etc. He was not lecturing them on integration versus segregation. He also urged the Corinthians to support him in his ministry.
    Matson cites 1 Corinthians 10:32 where Paul tells the Corinthians to stop being a stumbling block to Jews and Gentiles or to the Church of God (p. 124). Thus, Matson implies that Christians who do not desire or at least cease objecting to integration are a stumbling block. It never occurs to him that the integrationists and integration can be stumbling blocks.
    Matson writes, “Christians will glorify God and will ‘give no offense’ to the church or to those who are outside the Christian fellowship, if they will honestly and sincerely seek to reveal to the world the nature, the character, and the will of the God who is their Father and also the Father of all who believe” (p. 124). Christians like Matson who promote and support desegregation, integration, and the civil rights agenda must be offending many people. Over the last 50 years, Christianity has been retreating faster that these agendas have been advancing.
    Matson comments on Paul’s analogy of the church being like the human body. Matson uses this analogy to support integration (p. 125). Booker T. Washington used the same analogy to describe segregation. Washington is correct. Hands segregate from the feet, and eyes, from ears. Under the integrationist model, hands mingle with feet, and eyes and ears become one. The integrationist model results in a massively confused body while the segregation model results in a well-organized, orderly, functioning body.
    Matson discusses Christ being the head of all things, including the church (pp. 126-127). His implication is that Christ can only be the head of an integrated or at least desegregation church. He cannot be the head of a segregated church.
    Matson cites James 2:1 about not showing partiality, being no respecter of persons. He writes that “the principle of no partiality applies not only to the treatment of the wealthy and the poor but to any other man-established divisions of mankind” (p. 131). As God created the races of mankind, they are not man-established divisions. Man has merely identified them. (Does Matson credit some other being or thing besides God with the origins of the races?) Therefore, James' admonition does not apply to racial segregation or integration according to Matson’s interpretation.
    Matson emphasizes James’ use of “my brethren” and comments that “the thing that made them brethren was their shared faith in the same Lord” (p. 131). They were also of the same race as James. Thus, he could just as easily have been implying his racial kinship with them.
    Matson states that Jesus was no respecter of persons (p. 131). Yet, Jesus expends a great many words castigating and insulting the Jewish leaders and turning people from them. Jews certainly saw him as a respecter of persons. Because of it, they managed to get him executed. Moreover, Jesus respected the woman who gave her two small coins, which were about a cent, much more than he respected the well-to-do Jews who gave from their surplus (Luke 21:1-4). He also respected the tax collector who admitted that he was a sinner more than he did the self-righteous, self-centered Pharisee who boasted about his great works and not being a sinner (Luke 18:10-14).
    Matson asserts that God is no respecter of persons (p. 131). If true, the Universalists are correct: All are saved. Most Christians maintain that only some are saved to eternal life in heaven. The remainder are condemned to eternal death. If God allows some into heaven and condemns others to eternal death, He is certainly a respecter of persons. The more fatalistic Christians believe that God arbitrarily chooses who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. How does anyone exceed this arbitrary choice of God in being a respecter of persons? Surely, it exceeds racial segregation as a respecter of persons since it is eternal.
    Moreover, God acted like a respecter of persons with Jacob and Esau. He loved Jacob and hated Esau (Malachi 1:2,3). He chose Jacob or Israel and his descendants to become His chosen people from whom Jesus would come. This choice certainly looks like the act of a respecter of persons. Another example of God acting like a respecter of persons is His rejection, disposing, of Saul and choosing, raising up, of David (Acts 13:22).
    Matson states, “There is no indication of segregation, based on race or color, in the churches of the first centuries of the Christian era. The same was true in the Middle Ages” (p. 134). This statement is misleading. Rarely did the Christians in the first centuries and especially the Middle Ages encounter people, much less Christians, of any race other than Whites. Only in Egypt, Arabia, and southern Mesopotamia (southern Iraq) were Christians likely to encounter nonwhites and only a few of them were Christian. The primary inhabitants of these areas were Melanochroi. Rarely, if ever, during these eras would a Christian see a Negro.
    In Chapter 8, Matson discusses segregation and world missions. Included in his discussion are the commission of the church, the people of the world, the challenge of communion, and the burden of the missionaries.
    Matson comments on Christ’s commission to make disciples of all nations and remarks that churches have failed to be inclusive in the homeland (p. 144). By being inclusive in the homeland, he means not only to evangelize in one’s homeland, but also to desegregate and integrate.
    He notes that most of the world is nonwhite; his estimate is 75 percent. He also remarks that racial minorities in the United States are acquiring the rebellious nature of their kindred in Africa, Asia, and elsewhere. To evangelize effectively these people, Americans need to desegregate and integrate (pp. 147ff).
    Whites have expended so many resources evangelizing nonwhites that they have lost their homeland. Except perhaps in Russia, Christianity is dying in White countries and is almost dead in Europe. As the Communist-led civil rights movement and desegregation and integration have advanced, Christianity has retreated. Human secularism, agnosticism, atheism, paganism, Satanism, Luciferism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and new age cults are the growing religions. Instead of the world becoming more Christianized, it is becoming more secularized and un-Christianized. In Europe, Islam is replacing secularism and most likely will be the dominant religion in Europe in a few decades — all because of the desegregation-integration mentality of Whites.
    Commenting on the restless movements of the masses in Asia and Africa, Matson states, “The Christian missionary movement must share the responsibility” (p. 149). Is it because of or in spite of the Christian missionary movement that most of the movements of the masses in Asia and Africa have been Marxist oriented? Some of them have been outright communist movements. Were these missionaries following the example of the Catholic priests in Latin America and preaching the teachings of Marx more than the teachings of Jesus?
    Matson credits the rise of Communism in these countries to the failure of missionaries “to understand that basic concept of the Christian faith demanded a new social structure” (p. 149). One such concept is the dignity and worth of the human person (p. 149). According to him segregation strips a person of his dignity and worth, while integration gives him dignity and worth. Few things can exceed abortion in denying a person of his dignity and worth. Yet abortion has exploded as integration has expanded.
    Matson contends that the greatest foe of Christianity is Communism. It challenges Christianity at home and on foreign mission fields (p. 151). Matson remarks that Communists are using segregation in the United States to undermine Christian missionaries in Asia and Africa (p. 153). Thus, he contends that desegregation, which he prefers to the more honest integration, as though a country can have one without the other, is necessary to battle Communism. Yet he joins the Communists in the desegregation-interrelation-civil-rights movement, which Communists have organized and led. Either he knew this or he did not. If he did not know, which being a learned man, he should have known, that Communists and its allies led the desegregation charge, he is extremely ignorant. If he knew, then he is a hypocrite and a liar. Either way, his ignorance or hypocrisy makes everything that he writes promoting desegregation highly questionable. This is especially true since Matson understands the evils of Communism (pp. 151-152).
    He was not ignorant of Communist involvement; he willingly dismisses it. He notes that many people charged “that the movement to desegregate the schools and the churches is a communist plot” (p. 153). Thus, he was aware of at least the possibility of Communist involvement. However, he brushes off such claims as the work of “little minds and little people.” (Acting like a respecter of persons, is he not?) They “label anyone who supports desegregation as a communist” (p. 153). Communists often work through sympathizers, collaborators, fellow travelers, etc. to advance their agenda. One must conclude that Matson was a sympathizer or a collaborator.
    He contends that segregation in the United States burdens missionaries aboard (p. 154). Apparently, segregation in the United States is primarily responsible for the advancement of Communism and Marxism aboard. Amazingly, Communism and Marxism have made their greatest advances in the world after the United States desegregated and integrated with special privileges for nonwhites becoming the norm.
    In Chapter 9, Matson gives a statement of convictions. He summarizes his convictions as presented in his book.
    He states that discrimination “is contrary to the spirit and teachings of Jesus. It violates the very heart of the message proclaimed by the churches”  (p. 163). So, Christians are not to discriminate. They are not to choose to do good instead of bad because that is discrimination. They are not to choose faithfulness to their spouse over adultery because that is discrimination. They are not even to choose to marry because that is discrimination against many in favor of one. A lack of discrimination has led to the moral decline of the United States and the acceptance of homosexuality as a normal lifestyle. It is a lifestyle acceptable to God in spite of Him condemning it, because it proves discrimination has been overthrown. For that reason, pedophilia will become acceptable.
    In summary, school desegregation has had a deleterious effect on public education. Some of these deleterious effects of the desegregation of schools are:
    1.    Desegregation has filled Whites with self-hatred and self-loathing and makes them feel inferior.
    2    It has made a mockery of the Constitution and caused rule by federal judges, who not only judge but also legislate.
    3    Contrary to Matson’s argument, it forced school integration. Thus, it destroyed the notion of neighborhood schools with forced busing and gerrymandering of school districts.
    4.    Desegregation drove large numbers of Whites, including hypocritical Whites who favored desegregation, from urban areas to the suburbs. Only Whites too poor to leave remained. Thus, urban schools become predominantly Black.
    5.    College enrollment has come to depend more on race than merit. Nonwhites receive preferential treatment. The standards for enrollment have been lowered to guarantee more Black enrollment.
    6.    Desegregation has promoted the residential separation of the races.
    7.    It has led to a steady decline in national averages of scholastic aptitude tests.
    8.    It has caused students of each race “to adopt the worst customs, habits, morals, and speech of the other.”[8]
    9.    Not only has desegregation substantially slowed the progress of White students, but it has also increased the number of Black students dropping out of schools.
    10.    Negro students are often promoted based on age instead of achievement. Thus, many Negroes graduate with only a third or fourth-grade education.
    11.    It has led to a two-tier grading system: Teachers grade Blacks more leniently than Whites to ensure that more Blacks pass and to avoid the accusation of racial prejudice.
    12.    Desegregation has led to Black studies programs, which teach Negro racism. However, White studies programs are forbidden. (Blacks have beaten Whites into submission because of Black racism. Blacks are strongly racist. Whites are almost void of racism.)
    13.    Textbooks have been rewritten to disparage White institutions and to downgrade the importance of historical White leaders, such as George Washington and other founding fathers. Minor Negroes are elevated above the much more important White leaders.
    14.    Desegregation has caused education to abandon its primary purpose: the transmission of culture. The primary duty of the educator is to safeguard the culture. Under desegregation, public schools and universities have failed this essential task.
    15.    Desegregation has caused a general deterioration in public education.
    16.    The only good thing to come from desegregation has been revealing the extreme hypocrisy of high-ranking federal officials.  While they busied themselves forcing school integration on the masses, they sent their children to segregated schools, albeit these schools may have a token Black or two.
     Canada has had desegregated schools for more than 130 years, but economically and socially, the Negro is still at the bottom.[9] Contrary to what Matson asserts, desegregation has done little to help Blacks, but it has done a good deal of harm to Whites.
    Robertson describes the destructive effects of desegregation as follows:

The kind of learning that prepares a people to prevail and endure must be primed by centuries of common history and millennia of common ancestry. Desegregation kills it by destroying its binding force — the homogeneity of teacher and pupil. The disappearance of this vital bond from the American classroom may prove to be the greatest educational tragedy of all.[10]

    For the most part, Blacks and Whites lived a more Christian life under the evil of the “un-Christian” regime of segregation than they have under the holy, sacred regime of desegregation and integration. Under desegregation and integration, abortion; divorce; acceptance of homosexuals, transgender, transvestites, and pedophiles; violent crime by Blacks; the desire for war; etc. have grown. The quality of education, constitutional government, peaceful existence, tolerance, the sacredness of life and marriage, the quality of music and art, etc. have declined.
    Matson’s solution to the race problem is for the Black man to become a dark-skin White man. He should be made the White man’s equal in all aspects of life — even if the White man must be brought down to the Black man’s level. Yet God made the Negro different. He gave him different attributes, abilities, levels of intelligence, etc. Instead of striving to become White, the Negro should strive to become the best Black man that he can be.
    As for the White man, he needs to regain his self-respect and cease destroying his country, culture, and race to bring down the White to raise up the Black man. Instead of striving to become like the Negro, the White man should strive to become the best White man that he can be.
    Robertson remarks:

If Majority members [Whites] would only comprehend that the whole point, the whole drive, the very essence of minority racism is not to obtain equality but superiority, most of the misunderstandings and misinterpretations of contemporary Negro behavior would be avoided.[11]

    We all need to remember Santayana’s observation: “The more two different peoples grow in externals, the more conscious and jealous they become of diversity in their souls. . . .”[12]

Endnotes -continued

7. Allen, Integration Is Genocide.

8. Robertson, p. 293.

9. Robertson, p. 535.

10. Robertson, p. 301.

11. Robertson, p. 223.

12. Robertson, pp. 53-54.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 2 

More articles on social issues.

Review of Segregation and Desegregation -- Part 2

Review of Segregation and Desegregation -- Part 2

Thomas Allen

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

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

 Endnotes -- continued

3. Robertson, p. 152ff.

4. Robertson, pp. 204-207.

5. Gannon, p. 442.

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

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 1, Part 3 

More articles on social issues.

Review of Segregation and Desegregation -- Part 1

Review of Segregation and Desegregation -- Part 1

Thomas Allen

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

    The following is an analysis of Segregation and Desegregation: A Christian Approach by T.B. Maston (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1959). 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.
    Throughout his book, Maston deceptively argues that desegregation would not necessarily lead to integration. Like most other writer who attempts to use a Christian argument to promote or defend desegregation and integration, Matson is long on generalities and void of  specific Biblical verses to support his argument. The segregation argument is much easier to support biblically and can be supported with specific verses.
    Maston states that the objective of his book “is primarily an attempt at an evaluation of segregation and desegregation from the Christian perspective” (p. vii). From his subverted Christian perspective, segregation is evil, a great sin. Desegregation and integration are divinely good.
    In Chapter 1, Maston discusses the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954. Maston states that the Supreme Court’s decision of May 17, 1954, “declared that school segregation was contrary to the federal constitution” (p. 1). How can school segregation, based on earlier Supreme Court rulings, be constitutional on May 16, 1954, and unconstitutional on May 17, 1954, without any change in the Constitution? Obviously, the Supreme Court’s ruling was more political than judicial. As it relied on sociologists and other social scientists instead of the Constitution, previous Supreme Court rulings, and historical understanding and intent of the Constitution proves that the decision was political. The Supreme Court, especially since Franklin Roosevelt’s appointments, seldom lets the Constitution stand in the way of political expediency.
    Maston claims that the Supreme Court “has the final word concerning the meaning of the United States Constitution” (pp. 1-2). If so, it is because it has usurped such power and the President, Congress, and the States have let it get away with this usurpation. The Constitution grants it no such power or duty. President Jackson understood this when he ignored rulings of the Supreme Court. Having created and adopted the Constitution, the States should have the last say on what the Constitution means.
    In its ruling, the Supreme Court relied on the extremely elastic, and thus meaningless, “equal protection” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. First, the Fourteenth Amendment was never legally, constitutionally, adopted. Second, it was never intended to apply to public schools. Those who wrote it, promoted its adoption, and adopted it never pushed for integrated schools. If this amendment were intended to prohibit segregated schools, schools across the country would have been desegregated 85 years earlier. The Supreme Court admitted that those who wrote and adopted the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend for it to integrate schools (p. 4).
    Maston seems to agree with the Supreme Court’s position that “new problems and particularly new insights require a new interpretation” (p. 11). The Court was not bound by the words of the Constitution or the intent of those who wrote and adopted it (p. 11). Thus, the Constitution is a meaningless piece of paper. The country is now under the rule of men instead of the rule of law.
    Maston is probably among that class of theologians who change their interpretation of the Bible to mean whatever the current socio-political climate wants.  Thus, sodomy becomes an acceptable lifestyle accompanied by homosexual marriages instead of a capital crime as the Bible declares. God does not really mean what He says in the Bible. The Bible means whatever twisted interpretation the likes of Maston can give it to fit “new problems and particularly new insights.”
    Maston cites the great educational advancements made by Negro during the first 50 years of the twentieth century (pp. 12-13). Obviously, school segregation was not holding Negroes back. They were making great strides under “separate but equal.”
    Maston remarks that being a world power, the United States needed to desegregate schools and integrate (p. 14). The United States became a world power under segregation. How destroying the race that made the United States a world power enhances them as a world power, Maston does not explain. Moreover, he claims that people in other countries know and are concerned about what happens in the United States (p. 14). To the extent that they are concerned, it is what they can get from the American taxpayer. They are too concerned about their mistreatment by their own leaders to be overly concerned about how Blacks or anyone else is treated in the United States. Furthermore, Maston claims that the United States are handicapped in world leadership because of their failure to apply consistently democratic principles to their minority groups (p. 14). Full integration in the United States where Blacks have special privileges denied Whites has done nothing to stop the horrible discrimination occurring in Africa, where one African tribe hacks to pieces other tribes within its country.  Continuing, Matson states that the elimination of segregation had more to do with foreign relations than with the Constitution (p. 14). Thus, the Supreme Court mutilated the Constitution for the sake of foreign policy.
    Maston asserts “that all men are equal before God” (p. 16). God is no egalitarian.  According to Daniel 12:1, only those whose names are “found written in the book” will be delivered from the “time of trouble.” By inference those whose names are not found in the book are not delivered—hence, inequality of treatment and condition. 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 — again 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 before God, would they not all receive the same treatment?
    Romans 9:9-13 shows that God discriminates against people before they are born. Genesis 17:17-21 shows that God discriminates against people after they are born. If God were an egalitarian, would He not treat all people the same?
    In Exodus 33:19, God says, “. . . I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.” Therefore, God does not treat all people equally. If all people were equal before God, would He not treat them equally?
    “Many are called, but few are chosen” (Matthew 22:14). Would not all be chosen or none chosen if all people were equal before God?
    According to Matthew 25:31-43, Jesus will separate the nations as a shepherd separates sheep and goats. Those on his right hand are exalted and inherit the kingdom prepared for them (verse 34). Those on his left hand are condemned and sent to the eternal fire (verse 41). If all people were equal, would not all be on the same hand and receive either the kingdom or the fire?
    One may become a new person by believing in Jesus. However, people will witness great inequality in the hereafter. According to Jesus, people will not be treated equally in heaven. Some will rule over many cities; some, over none. Some will receive many crowns; some, few crowns.
    Besides, if the Bible is as fluid as the U.S. Constitution as Maston asserts, God may be a respecter of person one year and not a respecter of person the next year. One year He may condemn a certain act, such as sodomy, as a sin and find it acceptable and not a sin the next year. After all, the Bible was written thousands of years ago. Times change, circumstances change, and man’s knowledge changes.
Therefore, the Bible needs to change to fit new times, circumstances, and knowledge whatever God’s original intent and words.
    Using fluid Biblical interpretation, theologians like Matson can justify murder, such as abortion, forced vaccination, and euthanasia. They can justify theft, such as confiscatory taxation and civil forfeiture. Furthermore, they can justify fornication and adultery and all sorts of illicit marriages, such as homosexual marriages and interracial marriages. They can make God’s word support everything it opposes. Most likely, Maston would have supported most of these transgressions and would have claimed that the Bible supported them.
    In Chapter 2, Maston discusses reactions to the Supreme Court’s desegregation decision. He discusses the immediate reaction, resistance to its decision, the reaction of Negroes, the reaction of the church, and the “New Reconstruction.”
    Maston comments that the South did not “want to be a problem area for the nation as it faces the challenge of communism” (p. 20). Yet the Supreme Court, President, Congress, and much of the rest of the country wanted to force the Communist organized and led civil rights agenda on the South. The South, along with the rest of the country, finally did surrender to the Communists. (Not only did the United States surrender to the Communist-led civil rights movement, they surrendered to every plank in Marx’s Communist Manifesto.)
    Maston identifies several religious groups that supported the Supreme Court’s desegregation edict. One of them was the Christian Life Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention (p. 21). Once it joined the Communist-led civil rights movement, it in principle agreed to all other illicit movements. Yet the Southern Baptist Convention has the audacity to object to and oppose the homosexual agenda, including rebelling against the Supreme Court’s decision legalizing homosexual marriages. Homosexuals have merely used the arguments that the Communists, Negroes, and negrophiles used to promote and force the integrationist agenda and interracial marriages on the rest of the country. For the most part, the recommendations adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention (p. 22) for following the Supreme Court decision on school desegregation in 1954 could easily apply to the Supreme Court’s decision on homosexual marriages in 2015.
    Maston cites several governors of Southern and Border States expressing support for the Supreme Court’s decision. Most contain the phrase “obey the law,” “comply with the law,” and the like (pp. 22-23). In effect these governors were claiming that the Supreme Court was legislating from the bench. Under the Constitution, only Congress has legislative powers. These governors spat on the Constitution.
    Maston notes that the Citizens’ Council was the primary leader of the opposition. One effect of the Council was shutting off debate and discussion about racial issues (pp. 25-27). The effectiveness of the Council stifling debate about racial issues pales to insignificance when compared with progressives, Marxists, negrophiles, Black leaders, etc. silencing any discussion by Whites about race — except about how despicable and loathsome Whites are. Seldom does any White today say anything about race, and most of the few who do apologize for discussing race. Only nonwhites can talk openly and candidly about race. “Racist” and “racism” have surpassed “anti-Semitic” and “anti-Semitism” and “fascist” and “fascism” as the most feared smear or slur word in America. If a person is labeled as a “racist,” he irredeemably becomes persona non grata. Most likely, Maston would not object to this outcome of desegregation.
    Maston quotes Thurgood Marshall, chief counsel for the NAACP and later Supreme Court Justice, saying about the Supreme Court’s decision, “This decision gives the lie to communist propaganda” (p. 29). To find greater lying hypocrisy than Marshall’s statement would be extremely difficult. The civil rights movement was organized and led by Communists. Communists and their fronts wanted such a decision from the Supreme Court. Marshall was as close to being a Communist as one could be without being a card-carrying member of the Communist Party. Moreover, he was a racist, who said during his confirmation hearing for his appointment to the Supreme Court, “I want you to understand that when the colored people take over, every time the white man draws a breath, he’ll have to pay a fine.”[1]
    Maston notes that although most Negroes approve the Supreme Court decision, they were not overly enthusiastic about it. Now they would have “to accept the full responsibility that first-class citizenship” places on them. They “must measure up to higher standards than they have in the past.” No longer “could they explain away or rationalize their failures by saying that they were Negroes and did not have a chance” (p. 29). Sixty years later, many Blacks either refuse to or are incapable of accepting the responsibilities of first-class citizenship. They blame their failures on Whites, racism, slavery, the Confederate flag, etc. — everything but themselves. They still use the excuse that they are Negroes and do not have a chance.
    Matson cites endorsements given by various religious organizations approving racial integration (pp. 31-37). Many of these same organizations have endorsed and promoted the homosexual agenda. Most likely, they will endorse and support the pedophilia agenda as proponents of that agenda move forward to legalize pedophilia. The arguments that they used to support racial integration can just as easily, and have been, used to support the homosexual agenda and the up-and-coming pedophilia agenda.
    Matson notes that many church members oppose the statement approved by their general denominational bodies (p. 33). This opposition shows that the typical church member has a better understanding of the Bible than ministers, theologians, and other church leaders.
    Matson wonders whether the “New Reconstruction” or the Second Reconstruction will fade away like the First Reconstruction (p. 37). The Second Reconstruction has not faded away. It has grown and metastasized. Not only has it gone a long way in destroying the South and Southerners, it has brought down the White race and the United States in everything but name as its cancerous effects have spread across the country. The founding fathers would no longer recognize the federal republic that they founded. The Supreme Court has subverted the Constitution so much that it is now a meaningless scrap of paper.  With the police state, Marxist, fascist, plutocratic government that seeks to micromanage every aspect of life; with open borders flooding the country with nonwhites; with perpetual wars to transfer ever more wealth and power to the ruling elite, the Second Reconstruction has brought down the United States. If Whites are going to sacrifice themselves on the altar of racial integration within the country, why not sacrifice themselves on the altar of racial integration of the world. Then they will kill those hideous White cancer cells that inflict America and the world.
    Maston would be happy at the success of opening the borders to nonwhites. He favors an integrated world, which means the death of the White man, who has, or at least his inventions, discoveries, institutions, etc. have eliminated much of the world’s poverty. Without him, the world would not have advanced beyond that which existed before the arrival of White traders (circa 1490).
    One thing that Matson and most other integrationists of the late 1950s failed to see, or refused to acknowledge, was that once the civil rights movement ignited, it would burn across the States outside the South much more furiously than it would in the Southern States.
    Although the real movers behind the desegregation-integration-civil-rights movement were mostly Northern White and disproportionately Jewish, the worst race riots occurred outside the South. Blacks came to realize the cowardice and hypocrisy of Northern Whites who were pushing them to hate Southerners. Blacks took advantage of the riots to destroy White, mostly Jewish, businesses, which they perceived as overcharging them in the ghettos.[2]

Endnotes

1. Francis X. Gannon, Biographical Dictionary of the Left, I (1969), p. 439.

2. Wilmot Robertson, The Dispossessed Majority (Cape Canaveral, Florida: Howard Allen Enterprises, Inc., 1981 ed., 1981), p. 220.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 2 

More articles on social issues.

Of One Blood

Of One Blood

Thomas Allen

    Proponents of the unity-of-man doctrine who use the Bible to support their doctrine like to quote the first part of Acts 17:26: “And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth. . . .” Therefore, they conclude that all humans have a common origin. They imply, if not outright claim, that the blood of the races of humans is identical. Thus, races cannot be distinguished by blood.
    Most modern scholars doubt that the Greek text used by the translators of the King James Version of the Bible, for this verse was a copy of the original. The best Greek texts do not contain the word “blood.” The word “blood” appears mainly in later Western manuscripts as an interpolation. Most likely, “one” in Acts 17:26 refers to God, who is the maker of all nations of humans.
    Even if the word “blood” is in the original, this verse does not show that all humans descended from Adam. It merely shows that God made each race of humans.
    Whatever blood means in this verse, it does not mean blood flowing through the veins. As shown below, the frequency of genes, alleles, antibodies, and proteins in the blood of the races of humans varies significantly.
    The blood of the races varies at least statistically. The percentage of the population of the several races having certain blood groups varies enough so that the race of a population, if not of a particular individual, can often be identified based on blood analysis. Further, a person’s blood can often eliminate him as a member of a particular race.

[1]

    The Diego (Di-a) blood antigen is absent in Aryans and Negroes, but high in Turanians.[2] The Kell (K) antigen is common in Aryans, but is rare in Negroes and Turanians.[3] The Sutter (Js-a) antigen occurs only in Negroes.[4] Indo-Australians have an extremely low frequency of the B gene, approaching zero, a low frequency of the M gene, no A-2 gene,[5] and a high frequency of the N gene.[6] Asian Turanians have a high frequency of the B and Rh-z genes and almost no A-2 gene. American Turanians have a low frequency of the N gene, little or no B gene, and no A-2 gene. Negroes have a high frequency of the A-2 and Rh-o genes and possess some frequency of the Rh− gene. Aryans have a moderately high frequency of the Rh− gene, and a moderate frequency of the B and A-2 genes.[7] Rh− (cde) blood is almost none existent in Turanians, Indo-Australians, and Khoisans.[8] Blood group A-1,2 is found in Negroes, but is seldom found in Aryans or Turanians.[9] Compared with other races, Aryans have a high frequency of A-2 and Rh−.[10] Negroes are high in Rh-o, P, and Haptoglobin Hp-1 and very low Fy-a (Duffy positive). They have “private genes attached to the MNSU system, including Hunter, Henshaw, and V; a special Rh gene, e-s, in the combination Dce-s; and a gamma globulin variant Gmab.”[11] Indo-Australians are high in CDe (Rh-z), N, NS, Duffy positive (Fy-a), and Haptoglobin Hp-1.[12] Contrary to popular myths, the races do not share a common blood.
    Moreover, the blood of humans strongly resembles that of chimpanzees.[13] Even a chimpanzee with type-A blood can receive a transfusion of human type-A blood.[14] If the criterion of having the same blood makes all the races of humans descended from Adam, then chimpanzees are also his descendants.
    Furthermore, “blood” in Acts 17:26 cannot be referring to the genetic makeup. The different races of humans have significantly different genetic makeup.[15]
    As shown above, the various species of humans differ in their blood. Humans do not have a common blood.

Endnotes

1. Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza and Francesco Cavalli-Sforza, The Great Human Diaspora: The History of Diversity and Evolution, trans. Sarah Thorne (Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1995), p. 125. Carleton S. Coon, and Edward E. Hunt, Jr., The Living Races of Man (New York, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1965), p. 286. Richard A. Goldsby, Race and Races (New York, New York: The Macmillian Company, 1971), p. 59. R. Ruggles Gates, Human Ancestry from a Genetical Point of View (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1948), pp. 158, 338, 356. Stanley M. Garn, Human Races (Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas • Publisher, 1961), p. 47.

2. Stephen Molnar, Races, Types, and Ethnic Groups: The Problem of Human Variation (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1975), p. 76. Coon and Hunt, p. 283. Lionel Casson, et al. Mysteries of the Past, ed. Joseph J. Thorndike, Jr. (New York, New York: American Heritage Publishing Company, Inc., 1977), p. 219.

3. N. E. Morton, “Interracial Crosses and Group Differences,” Racial Variation in Man, ed. F. J. Ebling (New York, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1975), p. 152.

4. Morton, p. 152.

5. William C. Boyd and Isaac Asimov, Races and People (New York, New York: Abelard-Schuman, 1955), p. 158.

6. Gates, p. 157.

7. Boyd and Asimov, p. 158.

8. Casson, p. 219.

9. Carleton S. Coon, The Origin of Races (New York, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1962), p. 173.

10. Coon and Hunt, p. 286.

11. Coon and Hunt, p. 286.

12. Coon and Hunt, p. 287.

13. Coon, pp. 172-176.

14. Herbert Wendt, It Begin in Babel: The Story of the Birth and Development of Races and Peoples, trans. James Kirkup (Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1961), p. 374.

15. See the works of Luigi Lucia Cavalli-Sforza — especially The Great Human Diaspora: The History of Diversity and Evolution (1995) and The History and Geography of Human Genes (1994). Officially, he takes the politically correct position of racial equality and the unity of man. Also, see Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis (1999) by Thomas C. Allen for a polygenetic position.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on anthropology.

Review of The Negro Revolution in America -- Part 2

Review of The Negro Revolution in America -- Part 2

Thomas Allen

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

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

Endnote

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

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

3. Allen, Integration Is Genocide.

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

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

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen. 

Part 1

More articles on social issues.