THE SOLDIER

[Editor’s note: This poem was written by my mother.]

THE SOLDIER

Josephine Armstrong

A soldier now is he,
The time has come for him to cross the sea, and fight for his country.
In the hammock at midnight he lay,
Not knowing what weariness he would face the next day,

Through the porthole the moon beams shone,
As the soldier lay there wishing; for the break of dawn.
But soon he was awaken,
Take your place on deck came a shout!
This was all the soldier could hear day in and day out.

The winds would whisper and the waves would roll,
And in the wild blustering of bullets and bombs
He could hear them call for his soul.
But brave was the soldier both day and night,
For he wanted to win his fight,

At last, he had reached the foreign land,
And there he stood just off deck upon the sand,
He lifted his right hand upon his forehead and said:
He would fight for his country until he was dead.

The soldier marched on with his body in pain,
He was not ready to give up in vain.
His heart was breaking for a word from love ones back home,
But his address to them was unknown.

The soldier marched forward through blood, toil, cloud, and fire,
Never knowing when he would be able to retire.
While down in the sod, the soldier often lifted his head to heaven above and prayed to God,
For the soldier knew that it is He who is God of the Country and could give men their freedom and liberty.

The soldier marched far,
Still trying the war to bar,
Suddenly he was struck down by a bullet so powerful and strong,
That even the strings of his heart were stung,
He closes his eyes for no more can he see,
And he utters a Whisper, “My country I have done the best I could for Thee.”

Josephine Ann Armstrong
Written ”Year, 1939”

Copyright © 1939 by Josephine Ann Armstrong

More poems

Review of The Deep South Says “Never” -- Part 2

Review of The Deep South Says “Never”

-- Part 2

Thomas Allen

    In Chapter 3, Martin describes the reaction of the Border States to the Supreme Court’s desegregation decision. They quickly surrendered unconditionally. [Such surrender did not lessen the frequency and intensity of racial strife and riots. If anything, surrendered encouraged them. During the 1950s most of the racial strife was Whites assailing Blacks. However, defeat after defeat eventually demoralized and cowed Whites while victory after victory emboldened Blacks. After Congress formerly joined the Communist integrationist movement in 1964 with the Civil Rights Act, Blacks began pushing and rioting in earnest. Thus, from the early 1960s to today most racial strife has been Blacks assailing Whites.] He focuses on Maryland, Missouri, and Kentucky and concludes with a discussion of Tennessee.
    To comply with the desegregation decree, Baltimore decided to allow “any child [to] attend any school in the city” (p. 80). [Later, courts would object to such a solution because allowing freedom of choice did not integrate schools as fully as judges desired.]
    St. Louis’ approach to desegregation was to redraw the boundaries of the school districts (pp. 84-85). [Later, federal judges would not accept this approach unless the borders of the school district were drawn to integrate schools sufficiently to satisfy the judges’ integrationist lust.]
    Martin quotes Philip Hickey, superintendent of the St. Louis school system: “We think we’re through it. It’s working even better than we expected” (p. 85). [Could Hickey have really been this naive or ignorant? They were only beginning. The worse was yet to come. Apparently, he did not realize that the long-run goal of desegregation was to bring down the White race, even if it also destroyed the Black race, and by that, bring down the United States, Western Civilization, and Christianity.]
    Kentucky offered more resistance than Maryland or Missouri. However, it also surrendered [to federal tyranny] (pp. 85-87).
    Martin presents some of the discussions between segregationists and desegregationists in some Kentucky towns. Some people argued that the Supreme Court had made a decision and the people should obey it (87ff). [The same thing has happened with the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize homosexual “marriages” and other pervert agendas. Obeying tyrannical rulings of the Supreme Court has brought the country to the edge of destruction. One or two more such rulings will push it into the abyss of no return.] The more religious integrationists declared that desegregation, integration, was God’s will (pp. 87ff). [It may be the will of their god, but it is not the will of the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible is a Segregationist. His prophets and even His Son preached segregation from beginning to end. (V.  Integration Is Genocide, False Biblical Teachings on the Races and Interracial Marriages, People of the Flood, “Review of Segregation and Desegregation,” “A Review of The South and Christian Ethics,” “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation,” and “Is Integration a Moral Law?” all by Thomas Allen.)]
    Martin cites Omar Carmichael’s, the superintendent of the Louisville school system, promotion of desegregation. Part of his promotion included “Negro and white school interchanged assembly program. At one a Negro choir sang The Battle Hymn of the Republic while a white choir simultaneously recited the Gettysburg Address” (p. 95). [Both of them are highly anti-South. The Battle Hymn of the Republic advocates stomping out the South. The Gettysburg Address is nothing but pure political hypocrisy (v. H.L. Mencken’s comments on it in “The War”)]
    Louisville’s desegregation scheme was redrawing school district boundaries without regard to race and then allowing students to transfer to schools in other districts if they so desired. Not unsurprisingly, the NAACP objected to Louisville’s approach (p. 97). [Like all other school desegregation schemes if some federal judge decided that people did not voluntarily integrate themselves to the satisfaction of the judge, he would reject the plan — and often impose his own plan.]
    [In his description of the Border States desegregating, Martin identifies no White leader who was pushing school desegregation voluntarily sending his children to Black schools. Thus, they were and still are all hypocrites. {Some Whites have been so brainwashed and are so full of self-hate and probably subconsciously hatred for Blacks that they go out of their way to send their children to predominantly Black schools.}]
    In Chapter 4, Martin discusses some school segregationists. They include:
    –    Sam Engelhardt, leader of the Citizens’ Councils of Alabama and chairman of the Citizens’ Councils of America (pp. 105ff);
    –    Asa (Ace) Carter, a Citizens’ Councils leader in Alabama and rival of Engelhardt (pp. 107ff);
    –    John Kasper, a segregation activist and Citizens’ Councils leader from Tennessee (pp. 119ff)
    –    Robert Patterson, founder of the Citizens’ Councils movement, head of the Association of Citizens’ Councils of Mississippi, executive secretary of the Citizens’ Councils of America (pp. 123ff);
    –    J.P. Coleman, Governor of Mississippi (he was a moderate [i.e., weak] segregationist) (pp. 134ff) [Coleman seemed more of a scalawag and a quisling although not as openly as Governor Folsom of Alabama];
    –    W.J. Simmons, editor of the Citizens’ Council (pp. 137-140);
    –    John U. Barr, retired rope manufacturer from Louisiana, former vice president of the Southern States Industrial Council, and organizer of the Federation of Constitutional Government (pp. 140-141);
    –    Leander Perez, corporate lawyer and district attorney (pp. 140-142);
    –    James Eastland, U.S. Senator from Mississippi (pp. 140-142);
    –    Herman Talmadge, U.S. Senator from Georgia (p. 140).
    Carter lost his job as a radio broadcaster because:

In the broadcast, made during Brotherhood Week, Carter compared the National Conference of Christians and Jews to the Communist Party and said it favored desegregation, the Genocide Treaty, “race mongrelization,” and “dictatorial federal law to enforce integration” (p. 108).

[Carter was right — at least in the sense that the National Conference of Christians and Jews (now called the National Conference for Community and Justice) was promoting the same agenda that the Communist Party promoted. Both fostered desegregation, i.e., integration, a policy that leads to mongrelization. Both supported the Genocide Treaty, which prohibited the eradication of a race because of its race but allowed the eradication of a race for political reasons.  {Ironically, integration, especially governmentally forced integration, is contrary to the Genocide Treaty (v. Integration Is Genocide by Thomas Allen)} The Supreme Court’s desegregation ruling did lead to “dictatorial federal laws to enforce integration,” of which most proponents of that ruling support.]
    Engelhardt urged Southerners in general and Alabamians, in particular, to “‘talk white, think white, hire white, buy white, and remain white’” (p. 110). [For the most part, Whites have failed to heed Engelhardt’s words of wisdom. As a result, they are on the verge of losing their country, culture, and civilization. Blacks have done a much better job of talking Black, thinking Black, hiring Black, etc. Unfortunately, they have failed at keeping themselves Black as they strive to breed themselves out of existence.]
    Engelhardt offered some more sage advice: “We can’t give one inch. If we let a crack in the door, that’s it” (pp. 111-112). [The South cracked the door. Now they are on the verge of losing everything: their race, homes, religion, country, culture, and civilization. They have already lost their liberty, but most do not realize this loss.]
    Martin summarizes a speech that Congressman Grant gave at a Citizens’ Council meeting:

Announcing that he had “no apology for being here” and that he was a “friend of the Negro race,” he reviewed the legal history of the Court’s school desegregation decision. He attacked the “authorities” on whose testimony the Court had based its decision as men who belonged to Communist or Communist-dominated organizations. (Senator Eastland of Mississippi made a full dress Senate speech on this subject; it has been widely distributed by Citizens’ Councils.) He praised American greatness. He accused the State Department of trying to change American social customs in order to persuade other countries to accept “billions” that America was “giving away overseas” to thwart Russia. He said the NAACP wanted to wipe out all segregation, not only in schools and buses. This brought him to miscegenation, and he quoted prominent Negroes at length as favoring it. He said even “some white people right here in the state of Alabama in the teaching profession” believe in miscegenation. A Senate filibuster was the only hope against current “vindictive” and “punitive” civil rights legislation (pp 113-114).

[Grant spoke truthfully, but most ignored him. Thus, it was “the night they drove old Dixie down.”]
    Commenting on changes taking place in the school system prior to desegregation, Carter asks, “Is the system of education preparing our children for a competitive, free America, where there are naturally frustrations, or is it preparing them for a non-competitive, integrated, communistic slave-state?” (pp. 118-119). [With 60 years of hindsight, we now know the answer. The educational system was changed to prepare children “for a non-competitive, integrated, communistic slave-state.”] He states that a school superintendent told him that the changes were being made to “remove the competitive system and prevent frustrations” (p. 118). [Apparently, people involved in setting educational policies, including people in the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, were convinced that Blacks were intellectually inferior to Whites. Therefore, the curricula had to be dumbed down to prevent Black frustration.]
    Patterson said, “If there’s no Nigras, integration’s beautiful. A fine thing. Everybody’s for integration — for the other fellow. Resistance to integration is directly proportionate to the Nigra population” (p.126). [Polls at that time supported Patterson’s claim. Whites tended to favor integration in proportion to the lack of Blacks in their area. That is, Whites in areas with few or no Blacks favored integration much more than Whites in areas with a large Negro population compared with the White population.]
    [Patterson points out the hypocrisy of Yankees.] Senators Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota and Wayne Morse of Oregon were the strongest advocates of integration. Yet their states hardly had any Negroes with whom to integrate. Minnesota had 14,000, and Oregon had 11,000. Patterson declared:

If the North really wants to be objective, let all the Northern states bring themselves up to the national average — let each state import enough Nigras to bring its Nigra population up to 10 per cent, the national average. Minnesota needs 284,000 Nigras to bring it up to the national average. We don’t want to postpone this problem. Why doesn’t Hubert Humphrey go to his people and say, “I want you to work to provide  284,000 accommodations — schools, houses and churches — for 284,000 more Nigras that I’m goin’ to  bring in  here.”  We  realize  Senator Humphrey wants to help us or he wouldn’t be making all this racket. We’re in a better position to tell him how to help us than anyone else is. And we’re not going to tell them how to handle those Nigras. We’re not going to advocate civil rights legislation. We’re just going to share the problem since they are so willing to share the solution (p. 126).

[Of course, the North would never entertain such a solution. Deep down, Yankees despised Blacks; they just love them in the abstract. They did not and most still do not want to be around Blacks. To them, Blacks were and are an abstraction and not a concrete reality as they were and are in the South. Thus, they enacted the civil rights laws and related laws to encourage Blacks to stay in their place, i.e., to stay in the South. The plan worked for a few years until some renegade federal judges began enforcing the civil rights laws in the North.]
    Patterson adds, “Hubert Humphrey says we should integrate because of Russia and the cold war and the opinion of the Asiatics. So I’m to destroy my children here in Sunflower County in order to impress the Asiatics” (pp. 126-127). [That’s right! Actually, Patterson was to offer his children to bring down the Southerners. Humphrey was not going to do anything to harm the Soviet Union. He always sought to appease the Soviet Union and Communists. He was about as close as one can be to being a Communist without becoming a card-carrying member of the Communist Party. Moreover, he was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (v. “Council on Foreign Relations” by Thomas Allen) and a founder and vice president of the socialist American for Democratic Action. Humphrey promoted the New World Order with its one-world government (Francis X. Gannon, Biographical Dictionary of the Left, I (1969), p. 374). {Also see, That Man from Minnesota by Joyce Press.}]
    Patterson notes that many people in the North believe in segregation. His proof is that they live in segregated neighborhoods. He adds, “It’s a pitiful thing in this nation when a man is not allowed to speak out for what he believes” (p. 127). [Such oppression has only gotten worse over the last 60 years. People have lost their jobs for speaking out.]
    Patterson remarks that changes in agriculture and the economy is making the Negro unwanted. Mechanization of agriculture and the conversion of cotton fields to pastures for cattle are driving the Negro from the land. Industrialization has not helped the Negro much. Manufacturers want skilled labor, not unskilled former farmhands. Moreover, desegregation is also making the Negro unwanted. As a result, Negroes are migrating northward. [Thus, the scheme of Yankeedom to keep the Negro in his place — in the South — has backfired.]
    About the Indians in Mississippi, Patterson says, “The Indians don’t want niggers in their schools. They’re proud of their race” (p. 132).
    He remarks that the White schools that his children attend are not nearly as good as the Black school. Thus, he is a victim of prejudice (p. 132).
    Patterson thought that segregation would prevail and eventually spread to the Northern states. [Patterson was wrong. Within a few years, all the schools throughout the South would be integrated. A few years after that, those in the North would be integrated. Integration did not stop with schools; it invaded every aspect of life.]
    In Chapter 5, Martin discusses how desegregation has worked in the Border States. [In short, the Border States surrendered completely and unconditionally with hardly any resistance to federal tyranny.] He discusses some problems that teachers and pupils, especially Black pupils, have had. The problems that Black pupils had were learning to behave and trying to perform at the same level as White pupils. Martin fills this chapter with praises for Black pupils and parents.
    The excuse offered by school officials and other integrationists for the lower achievement of Blacks is social and economic conditions and “inferior teaching in the old all-Negro schools” (p. 148). [This excuse means that Black teachers are inferior to White teachers, and is, therefore, an insult to Black teachers.] For segregationists, the lack of Black achievement resulted from “inherent Negro inferiority” (p. 148). [This is the old environment versus genetics argument. The segregationists were right.  As many scientific studies show, genetics is a far more important determinant of intelligence than is environment. Genetics accounts for about 75 percent of intelligence. {V. The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray, The Inheritance of Mental Ability by Cyrll Bur, Man’s Racial Nature and Race and Politics: the Racial Controversy by H.B. Isherwood, Race Difference in Intelligence by John C. Loehlin, Major Findings from Twin Studies of Ability, Personality, and Interests by Robert C. Nichols, Racial Difference in Mental Growth and School Achievements by R. Travis Osborne. Race, Intelligence and Bias in Academe by Roger Pearson, Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective by J. Philippe Rushton, A Question of Intelligence: The IQ Debate in America by Daniel Seligman, and Integration Is Genocide by Thomas Coley Allen}
    Martin writes “[E]veryone except dedicated segregationists expect that in a few years Negroes will do as well as Whites” (p. 148). [Everyone except the dedicated segregationists was wrong. After sixty years of integration and dummying down the educational system for the benefit of Blacks, Blacks on average still lag behind Whites intellectually. Rigging the system for their benefit and to the detriment of Whites has not helped Blacks. However, it has hurt Whites and the country — thus harming Blacks.]
    Martin quotes a teacher saying, “I haven’t heard one say we’d been unfair” (p. 151). [How things have changed!]
    Martin notes how integrated sports teams destroyed resistance to integration (p. 151). [That goes to show that most people place sports above the preservation of their race.]
    In Chapter 6, Martin discusses the resistance to desegregation in the Deep South. He continues his discussion of the work of the Citizens’ Councils to prevent desegregation, the future of the Citizens’ Council, and opposition to the Citizens’ Councils. He remarks that “the Councils are essentially a middle-class movement, with a sprinkling of the top of society” (p. 155). Also, he discusses the rise of the Klan and the progress made to desegregate. Then he identifies three by-products of opposing desegregation: the rise of anti-Semitism, trouble in the labor movement, and abridgment of free speech.
    Martin writes, “Some Southerners, weary of being caricatured as a bunch of Claghorns and Kluxers and haters, wish the agitation would stop” (p. 155). [These Southerners invert the motto of North Carolina, which is “To Be Rather Than To Seem,” to “To Seem Rather Than To Be.” Their self-esteem is so low that it depends on what people whom they have never met and will never meet think of them. However, they are conceited enough to believe that these strangers will think about them. Moreover, they fail to realize that there are three types of people in this world. First are those who go with the flow, which is the majority, and do not matter. Then there are those who just want to be left alone and those who are determined not to leave them alone. As long as anyone in these two groups lives, peace and harmony cannot exist.]
    Martin states, “Jews, themselves a religious minority, have traditionally tended to view sympathetically the plight of any minority” (p. 159). [One minority whom Jews do not view sympathetically and whom they have sought to destroy is the Southerner. {Many Jews in the South opposed integration and did not seek to destroy the South}Furthermore, Jews controlled the NAACP and many were Communists. Thus, segregationists gave the appearance of being “anti-Semites.” So many integrationists were Jews and so many Jews were integrationists that to oppose integrationists gave the appearance of opposing Jews per se. Furthermore, Martin errors when he refers to Jews as a religious group. They are not. They are an ethnic group, a nationality. Most Jews, probably a majority, are atheists, agnostics, or nonreligious {v. Zionism: A Brief History 1800-1949 by Thomas Allen}].
    Martin writes, “A third by-product is the abridgment of free speech. Preachers who opposed segregation lost their pulpits. Books were banned, professors fired.” [Any preacher who preaches against the clear teachings of the Bible ought to lose his pulpit. Moreover, proponents of integration, miscegenation, and amalgamation of the races have been far more effective at banning books and firing professors. Most people live in such fear of them that they always have to watch what they say so as not to offend easily and highly offended integrationists, miscegenationists, and amalgamators.]
    Martin quotes Roy Wilkins of the NAACP saying, “I didn’t expect murders, nor the petty, cruel persecution of ordinary Negroes who signed school petitions. This is the Hitler pattern, the Soviet Russia pattern” (p. 168). [Wilkins has it backward. In Hitler’s Germany and Soviet Russia, the central government imposed tyrannical, despotic decrees on the people. In the South, the people were trying to protect themselves from a tyrannical, despotic central government imposing its decrees on them. Thus, the exact opposite was occurring in the South as occurred in Hitler’s Germany and Soviet Russia. Unfortunately, they failed, and the country is being destroyed by an ever-growing tyrannical, despotic government that is becoming more and more like Nazi Germany. Furthermore, Martin fails to mention that Wilkins was affiliated with at least seven communist organizations, and therefore, pro-Soviet Russia organizations. Thus, Wilkins was a front man for Communism and the Soviet Union {v. “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement” by Thomas Allen}.]
    Martin writes, “An expert, asked when he thought the Deep South would desegregate, replied, "Never. . . . Most Southerners agree” (p. 168). [Either Southerners then had a short time span for “never,” or they were extremely naive, or they were deliberately fooling themselves. Within a few years, all school systems would be fully interrogated. By the end of the Centennial in 1965, the South had been as thoroughly defeated as it was in 1865. Within a decade, the rest of the country would have been as abjectly defeated as the South.]
    Martin notes that Southerners were aware of the possibility of the U.S. government using troops to enforce desegregation. Many expected that if it did, a civil war or something close to it would happen. Simmons of the Citizens’ Council said, “To me it is inconceivable that the rest of the country would stand for the South to be put to the sword” (p. 170). [The U.S. government did use troops in Alabama and Arkansas. Not only did the rest of the country stand by and do nothing, parts of it cheered the tyrant on. To the detriment of the country, the South submitted and surrendered unconditionally to despotism and tyranny. Now the country is enjoying the fruits of the South’s defeat.]
    Martin asks, “How high a price is the South willing to pay to maintain its peculiar institution? And how high a price is the North willing to exact to destroy the institution?” (p. 172). [To the detriment of the country, the White race, Western Civilization, and Christendom, the North was willing to extract a higher price than the South was willing to pay. Thus, the North brought down the country, the White race, Western Civilization, and Christendom. Nearly all the problems of today can be traced back to the Supreme Court’s disregard for and destruction of the Constitution with its desegregation ruling of 1954.]


Copyright © 2016 by Thomas Coley Allen 

Part 1 

More articles on social issues

Review of The Deep South Says “Never” -- Part 1

Review of The Deep South Says “Never”

-- Part 1

Thomas Allen

    This article is a review of The Deep South Says “Never” by John Barlow Martin (New York: Ballantine Books, 1957). My comments are enclosed in brackets. I have provided references to pages in his book and have enclosed them in parentheses.
    Martin favors desegregation but is more sympathetic toward the segregationists than are most integrationists. Most of his book is a discussion of the struggle to desegregate schools in the South, especially the Deep South between 1954 and 1957. Most of his discussion is presented through the eyes of the Citizens Councils and its supporters and opponents. The Citizens’ Councils fought to keep schools segregated.
    In Chapter 1, Martin discusses the origins and expansion of the Citizens’ Councils. These Councils were formed to support the status quo of segregation and to oppose the Communist organized and led desegregation-integration movement. (V. “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement” by Thomas Allen.) [Desegregation, which implies choice, is a euphemism for integration, which is force.]
    Robert Paterson was a founding member of and driving force behind the Citizens’ Councils (pp. 1-3). He declared:

We just felt like integration would utterly destroy everything that we valued. We don’t consider ourselves hate-mongers and racists and bigots. . . .  We were faced with integration in a town where there are twenty-one hundred Negro students and seven hundred white. We didn’t feel the Supreme Court had the right to come into the state and forcibly cause the schools which were supported by the taxpayers of Mississippi to be integrated and therefore destroyed (p. 3).

[His prophecy proved to be much more accurate than the proponents of desegregation (v. “A Review of The South and Christian Ethics,” “A Review of the Negro Revolution in America,” and “Review of Segregation and Desegregation” all by Thomas Allen). School integration did lead to the destruction of what most Southerners valued. Integration led to flooding the country with non-White immigrants and aliens, both legal and illegal. Whites will soon be a minority in their own country. It led to the war on poverty, the war on drugs, the war on terrorism, among other wars, and the civil rights movement. These lead to the welfare-warfare state and the police state where the movements and communications of every inhabitant are tracked. Integration has led to the Supreme Court, President, and Congress making the Constitution irrelevant.]
    [However, Martin was a poor prophet.] He writes, “Today [1957] it seems unlikely that desegregation will be accomplished in the Deep South in the foreseeable future” (p. 4). [He does not define “foreseeable future.” If he meant a decade, he was wrong. Within 10 years of his writing not only did school integration rule the South, but so did the integration of just about everything else. With the exception of small, scattered, irrelevant pockets of resistance, the South had surrendered unconditionally to the Communist-led civil rights movement. With the fall of Lester Maddox in 1964 nearly all resistance ceased. Even Maddox had  mostly surrendered by the time he became governor in 1967.]
    Martin shows that the civil rights movement trumped the Constitution: “And in West Virginia when mothers picketed a desegregated school a judge said if they didn’t stop: “I’ll fill the jail until their feet are sticking out of the windows” (p. 5). [This example shows the utter contempt that this judge has for the First Amendment. In matters of race, most federal judges have the same attitude toward Whites.]
    Martin notes that most schools in the Border States desegregated in 1955 and 1956 without court orders and without incident (p. 5). [Later, the courts would order many of these school districts to integrate because not enough Blacks chose to attend White schools and almost no Whites chose to attend Black schools.]
    He also notes that many of the Black pupils in White schools sat in segregated classrooms (p. 5). [Courts would soon intervene and order classrooms to be integrated.]
    Martin remarks that although schools in Northern cities were desegregated de jure, they were segregated de facto (p. 6). [In most areas in the North, school districts were drawn along neighborhood lines. As Blacks and Whites lived in different neighborhoods, they attended neighborhood schools, which were segregated. Courts ended this practice by ordering forced busing. As a result, protests by Whites in the North were often as violent, if not more so, than what had occurred earlier in the South.]
    As Martin points out, many Southerners saw the Supreme Court’s decision to desegregate schools as destroying the Southern way of life. It went far beyond schools and entered every aspect of life. Martin gives this description:

To Southerners the Court’s decision seemed to do far more than break down segregation in the schools; it rent the seamless garment of apartness. Apartness of the races is a black and white thread woven into the fabric of Southern life — its social, political, sexual, cultural, economic life. Apartness is like a vine which, rooted in slavery, never uprooted but merely twisted by the Civil War, flourished and by now entangles everyone and everything in a suffocating net from which no one, white or black, knows how to extricate himself. Its manifestations have an infinite richness and complexity (p. 7).

    He adds that in the South Blacks and Whites segregate mostly because of custom. Very few laws prescribed segregation (p. 7).
    Martin describes some of the actions taken by some Southern States in response to the Supreme Court’s desegregation decision. They included denying funds to desegregated schools, tuition grants to children to attend private schools, and empowering school boards to assign Blacks and Whites to different schools but not based on race. The South sought to fight the Supreme Court through lawful resistance (pp. 7-8). [Such an attempt was doomed to fail. Long ago the States, in disregard of the Constitution, had acceded to the Supreme Court the ultimate authority to decide what was lawful. Only the most naive would expect the Supreme Court to decide against itself. This resistance only delayed the inevitable.]
    Martin describes the Citizens’ Councils as follows:

From the outset, the Citizens’ Council movement forswore violence. It proposed to prevent desegregation by legal means. It sought the leadership in every town of only the most respected citizens. It avoided entanglement with former Klan leaders. It eschewed secrecy; its meetings were held in downtown public buildings and were open to the public (though policy was likely to be made at smaller private meetings in the leaders’ homes). Thus the Councils sought to enlist the support of professional men, clergymen, politicians, business leaders and the middle class (pp. 13-14).

[In short, Citizens’ Councils were not nefarious. They sought to counterbalance organizations like the NAACP to protect the White man’s interest — something most Whites have no desire to do today.]
    Martin discusses the spread of the Councils and some of the key members and their thoughts. He gives a synopsis of Judge Brady’s Black Monday, which reflects the thoughts and positions of the Councils (pp. 16ff). Judge Brady identifies the amalgamation of the races as the ultimate goal of desegregation. Brady declares, “The Negro proposes to breed up his inferior intellect and whiten his skin and ‘blow out the light’ in the white man’s brain and muddy his skin” (p. 19). [Marriage statistics support Brady’s claim of Blacks lusting to interbreed with Whites. Interracial White marriages increased by 1518 percent between 1960 and 2010 while interracial Black marriages increased by 1353 percent during that time. In 2010, 3 percent of White marriages were interracial compared with 0.14 percent in 1960. In 2010 14 percent of Black marriages were interracial compared with 1.65 percent in 1960. (V. “Interracial Marriages” by Thomas Allen.)] Martin continues his discussion of Black Monday by giving some of Brady’s solutions (p. 20). These solutions included:

    1.    creating a state to which all American Negroes could be shipped [American Negroes should be given an independent country so that they can be free of the White man’s rule and to thwart the White man’s self-destruction.];
    2.    adopting constitutional amendments to strengthen states’ rights [This is one of his best recommendations.];
    3.    electing Supreme Court justices and the attorney general by popular vote;
    4.    establishing qualifications for Supreme Court justices;
    5.    abolishing public schools if all else fails and refunding taxes to White parents to finance private education while letting Blacks educate themselves [Public education ought to be abolished in any event. The primary purpose of public schooling is to indoctrinate children to become obedient servants of the ruling elite. Why should anyone be forced to have his children, or anyone else’s children, taught doctrines and dogmas with which he disagrees?];
    6.    employing economic boycotts by Whites ceasing hiring Blacks and shipping the resulting destitute Blacks to the North [If all Blacks in the South were shipped to the North and put in the neighborhoods of the ruling elite, the Supreme Court would quickly rule that not only is school segregation required by the Constitution, but geographical segregation is also required.].

    Martin continues describing the growth and objectives of the Citizens’ Councils (pp. 21ff). He quotes from a leaflet titled The Citizens’ Council by Patterson. In it Patterson writes:

Maybe your community has had no racial problems! This may be true; however, you may not have a fire, yet you maintain a fire department. You can depend on one thing: The NAACP, aided by alien influences, bloc-vote-seeking politicians and left-wing do-gooders, will see that you have a problem in the near future. The Citizens’ Council is the South's answer to the mongrelizers. We will not be integrated (p. 22)!

[Patterson was both right and wrong. He was wrong in that the mongrelizers did force the South to integrate. He was right about the NAACP and its allies bringing the integration-Negro-“civil rights” problem to the North. Within a decade Blacks were rioting, looting, and burning throughout the North and in the West.]
    Moreover, “Patterson wrote: ‘If we are bigoted, prejudiced, un-American, etc., so were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and our other illustrious forebears who believed in segregation’” (p. 22). [Because Washington and Jefferson were segregationists and, worse, slave owners, Blacks and self-hating Whites are trying to eradicate their names from the country. Buildings and streets named after them, and other segregationists and slave owners, are being renamed. Soon the name of a state and the capital of the country may be changed because they are named after the slave-owning Washington.]
    In his leaflet, Patterson writes, “If we submit to this unconstitutional, judge-made integration law, the malignant powers of atheism, communism and mongrelization will surely follow . . .” (p. 22). [Again, Patterson proves to be a much greater prophet than the integrationists. The United States have been de-Christianized. The ten planks of the Communist Manifesto have been mostly implemented. Mongrelization is accelerating.]
    Patterson stated that if Southerners stood united against the integrationists they could defeat them. [Southerners did not stand. Too many followed the quisling and scalawag political, business, academic, and religious leaders who betrayed the South and the White race to the Communist-led civil rights movement. (V. “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement” by Thomas Allen.)] To this unconditional surrender and integration-is-inevitable-and-we-can-do-nothing-about-it attitude, Patterson retorted:

Our Southland by every material line of reasoning should already be a land of mulattoes. Eighty years ago our unconquerable ancestors were beaten, in poverty and degradation, unable to vote and under the heel of Negro occupation troops. . . . Are we less than they? We are the same blood; white blood that was kept pure for you for 6,000 years by white men (p. 24).

[A major handicap that Whites face is that they are unable to unite like Blacks. Blacks are effective at uniting and acting en masse with voting, boycotts, etc. Whites seem completely unable to unite even save their race or country from mongrelization. The White ruling elite, who place the acquisition of wealth and power and service to Lucifer above all else, manipulate Blacks to act en masse to advance the causes of the ruling elite while they keep Whites divided. Thus, they are destroying the White race so that they can bring down America, Western Civilization, and Christianity.]
    Besides the Citizens’ Councils, Martin identifies several other pro-Southern organizations: the American States’ Rights Association, the National Association for the Advancement of White People, the National Association for the Preservation of the White Race, the Southerners, the Heritage Crusade, and the Southern Gentlemen (p. 26).
    Martin describes some of the tactics used by the Citizens’ Councils to forestall integration. Exposure was chief among them. Another was economic boycotts (pp 28ff). [Blacks would later use economic boycotts much more effectively than Whites ever did in the South.]
    [Just as President Obama’s rhetoric increase gun sales,] so did the Supreme Court’s desegregation decision increased the membership of the Ku Klux Khan (p. 32).
    Martin identifies some criticism levied against the Citizens’ Councils. They included displacing the lawful authority of the courts, silencing their critics in churches, denying credit to their opponents, using economic boycotts, and driving people who disagreed with them out of the State (p. 32). [When Black organizations use the same or similar tactics to advance their cause, which are often nefarious, they are heralded as heroes overcoming oppression. When Southerners used them to overcome the oppression of a despotic, tyrannical government, they were condemned.]
    Martin presents Governor Folsom of Alabama as a scalawag. [Most likely, he does so unintentionally.] Folsom sided with the despotic, tyrannical U.S. government in its war against the South and against the Whites of Alabama. He sided with the NAACP and against the Citizens’ Councils (pp. 37-38). [Martin does not state that Folsom acted so bluntly or overtly.  Nevertheless, this is the essence of what Folsom did. Perhaps Folsom’s appeasing action was behind the Communists and the NAACP and other Black organizations choosing Montgomery for their bus boycott (v. “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement” by Thomas Allen). Moreover, they could foment riots by enticing the police to batter protesting Blacks to gain sympathy and support — especially from reconstructionist Yankees who wanted to destroy the South and rebuild it in their own image (v.  “The First Reconstruction” and “The Second Reconstruction” by Thomas Allen). They got the riots.]
    Martin discusses the incident of a federal court ordering the University of Alabama to admit Autherine Lucy, a Negro, and how it greatly increased the membership of the Citizens’ Council (pp. 38-39).
    In Chapter 2, Martin discusses the poor Black farming communities of Clarendon County, South Carolina. He contrasts these Negro communities with the small town of Summerton, which is inhabited mostly by Whites. However, Negroes also live in this town where they own and operate their business (pp. 43-45). Then he discusses the involvement of Negroes of this county in a lawsuit that lead to the Supreme Court’s desegregation decisions of 1954 and 1955 (v. next paragraph) and some of the court’s proceedings and its decision. Next, he describes Clarendon County, life there, and the schools. The three Black schools are newer than the one White school (pp. 52-62). Finally, he discusses the reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision, which was to resist it. He also describes the response of Blacks and their attempt to overcome the economic boycott. The desegregation decision greatly strained race relations (pp. 61-77).
    This lawsuit was combined with several other similar lawsuits and brought before the Supreme Court. Thurgood Marshall of the NAACP represented the Negro plaintiffs (p. 48). [However, Martin fails to mention Marshall’s Communist leanings and his hatred of Whites (v. “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement” by Thomas Allen).] Martin notes that in parts of the South, the desegregation decision would force many White children to attend Black schools (p. 50). [This situation contrasts sharply with the common perception and propaganda of the integrationists of that time that only a few Blacks would attend White schools. Integrationists seldom mentioned Whites being forced to attend Black schools. To his credit, Martin is one of the few who does.]
    Martin quotes federal Judge John Parker as saying:

Whatever may have been the views of this court as to the law when the case was originally before us, it is our duty now to accept the law as declared by the Supreme Court. Having said this, it is important that we point out exactly what the Supreme Court has decided and what it has not decided in this case. It has not decided that the federal courts are to take over or regulate the public schools of the states. It has not decided that the states must mix persons of different races in the schools or must require them to attend schools or must deprive them of the right of choosing the schools they attend. What it has decided, and all that it has decided, is that a state may not deny any person on account of race the right to attend any school that it maintains. The Constitution, in other words, does not require integration. It does not forbid such segregation as occurs as the result of voluntary action. It merely forbids the use of governmental power to enforce segregation (pp. 53-54).

[One wonders what kind of drug this judge was on when he made this absurd statement. The Supreme Court would make clear within a few years that Parker was wrong. Federal courts would soon “take over and regulate” public schools, even to the point of levying local taxes and appropriating local funds. Moreover, federal courts would soon decree “that the states must mix persons of different races in the schools.” The Constitution does not require integration, but federal courts certainly did. By 1865 the Constitution had ceased being the law of the land. Edicts, whims, of the U.S. government, primarily through the Supreme Court, had become the supreme law of the land. When parents did not voluntarily choose to integrate in sufficient numbers to satisfy some federal judge, the judge with the backing of the Supreme Court forced integration. To the surprise of and against the wishes of many Northerners, federal courts even forced the integration of Northern schools. At least some poetic justice came out of the integration movement. Most Northerners were only too happy to impose integration in the South. However, when the monster that they had fed and encouraged turned to devour them, they strongly objected.]
    Martin notes that most Blacks in Clarendon County earned their living in agriculture, mostly working in cotton fields. However, mechanization eliminated many of these jobs. Moreover, the federal farm program that drastically reduced the acreage used for growing cotton cost many Blacks their jobs — probably more than mechanization (pp. 58-59).
    In a small gathering of Whites and Blacks, Reverend Henry Rankin said, “. . . about the fallacy of trying to get your rights by going to court. That’s not the way to get your social rights. It always leaves a bad taste in the mouth, no matter who wins” (p. 65). [Unfortunately, too few Negroes heeded his wise words.]
    Martin reveals the naiveness of far too many Southerners during this era (p. 72) [a naiveness that unfortunately still exists]. [They actually thought that federal judges would listen to reason and not impose integration. They failed to realize that the ruling elite wanted integration. Whites were going to integrate regardless. If Whites did not voluntarily integrate, the courts would force them to integrate, and the courts did. Whatever Whites or even Blacks thought about this matter was irrelevant.]
    Martin quotes Reverend Richburg, a Black minister. Richburg believed that White opposition to integration based on mongrelization was just an excuse. He said, “They pretend we’re just like a lion, going to jump on a white girl and rape her. Or going to marry her. It wouldn’t happen” (p. 77). [Unfortunately for Richburg, crime statistics (v. “The Dirty War: America’s Race War” by Thomas Allen) and marriage statistics (v. “Interracial Marriages” by Thomas Allen) prove him wrong.] [Like most Blacks,] Richburg accused Whites of prejudice (p. 77). [Prejudice as defined by pro-integrationist T.B. Matson means “a prejudgment, or judgment not based on knowledge or experience. It implies an opinion based on insufficient or irrelevant data.” This is a good definition. Having lived, worked, and associated with Negroes for more than 400 years, no group knows the Negro better than Southerners. 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 Richburg surmised. However, racial prejudice may in part explain why sanctimonious Northerners, who are much less familiar with the Negro, segregated racially by custom.]
    Richburg was right about one thing: Whites in the South would not abolish public schools. If they did, it would be short-lived (p. 76). [In spite of all the bombast to the contrary, Southerners would choose the public school (public indoctrination) system over freeing themselves from governmental indoctrination. They chose to have their children indoctrinated with the “virtues” of integration and mongrelization among other perversions like the homosexual agenda. They chose to have their children taught a new religion instead of Christianity. Their children would now be taught to worship Martin Luther King and the Negro race. (In Islamic terms, the Negro is God and King is his prophet.) Moreover, they chose to suppress freedom of speech for the sake of political correctness (v. http://tcallenco.weebly.com)]

Copyright © 2016 by Thomas Coley Allen 

Part 2 

More articles on social issues 

Constitutional Money

Constitutional Money

Thomas Allen

    The April issue of The Gold Standard had an article about the governor of Arizona vetoing a bill that would have treated gold as money. When the governor vetoed this bill, he violated his oath of office to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. Likewise, all State and federal officeholders who stand in the way of gold being money have violated their oath of office. The Constitution recognizes only two things as money: gold and silver.
    Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the Constitution prohibits the States from making anything except gold and silver a tender for payment of debt. Therefore, States cannot constitutionally make federal reserve notes legal payment for debt. That any State has to consider making gold money is absurd and ridiculous and shows how far that the United States have degenerated.
    Moreover, for Congress to declare federal reserve notes to be legal tender money is also unconstitutional. In spite of what judges who base their rulings on political expediency instead of the Constitution may declare, Congress has no authority to issue paper money. Moreover, Congress has no authority declare anything legal tender; it can only declare what it will accept in payment of taxes. Under the Constitution, only States may declare an item to be legal tender. Thus, as the States may only make gold and silver legal tender, only gold and silver can be legal tender.
    Furthermore, Congress may not constitutionally delegate powers that it does not have. Thus, it may not authorize the federal reserve banks to issue legal tender notes. (Also, the Constitution grants Congress no power to create a bank. Therefore, it has no constitutional authority to create the Federal Reserve System.)
    The original draft of the Constitution contained a clause that allowed Congress to emit bills of credit (to issue paper money). The Constitutional Convention removed this clause and it was not part of the Constitution adopted by the States. When the Convention removed this clause, it was convinced that it had denied Congress the power to issue paper money and making paper money legal tender.
    Some argue that the prohibition against States making anything except gold and silver legal tender does not apply to the U.S. government. However, based on a Supreme Court ruling involving the Fourteenth Amendment, the restrictions that the Constitution places on the States are also placed on the U.S. government.[1] Therefore, since the Constitution prohibits the States from making anything  gold and silver a tender for payment of debt, it also prohibits the U.S. government for making anything but gold and silver a tender for payment of debt.
    The Constitution mentions three units of measure: the dollar, mile, and year. Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 grants Congress the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof. When the Constitution was adopted, people understood that the dollar meant the weight of silver in a Spanish milled dollar. Thus, when Congress regulates the value of money, it finds the weight of silver in a Spanish milled dollar and declares the U.S. dollar to be a monetary unit that contains this weight of silver. If Congress may change the well-understood definition of the dollar on a whim, it may likewise change the well-understood definition of a year from being one revolution around the sun to be 100 revolutions — and in effect give its members life terms.
    From the adoption of the Constitution until President Roosevelt suspended the gold standard, bank notes, which is what Federal Reserve notes are, were never legal tender. Only after the gold standard was abandoned did Federal Reserve notes become legal tender. The 1934 series of Federal Reserve notes was made legal tender for all debts, but it promised redemption in lawful money. The previous series, the 1928 series, was not legal tender and promised redemption in gold. The 1963 series declared itself to be legal tender with no promise of redemption in anything.
    Whenever a State considers anything, including Federal Reserve notes, other than gold or silver to be legal tender for the payment of debt, it is acting unconstitutionally. (A more detailed argument on the unconstitutionality of paper legal tender money is found in Reconstruction of America’s Monetary and Banking System: A Return to Constitutional Money by Thomas Allen.)

Endnote
Martin A. Larson, The Federal Reserve and Our Manipulated Dollar, p. 269. Paul Bakewell, 13 Curious Errors About Money, pp. 92-93.


Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on money

JOHN BROWN’S CONNECTION TO ZIONISM

JOHN BROWN’S CONNECTION TO ZIONISM

Thomas Allen

    In 1859, John Brown, the father of modern-day terrorism, led an armed invasion of the South. His objective was to promote a slave revolt. Prominent abolitionists financed his invasion. They included Thomas Wentworth Higginson, Dr. Samuel Gridley Howe, Rev. Theodore Parker, Franklin Benjamin Sanborn, Gerrit Smith, and George Luther Stearns. This group became known as the Secret Six for their involvement with Brown. Other leading New Englanders who aided Brown were Samuel Cabot and John Murray Forbes.
    Higginson was from a leading New England banking family and a national leader of American Freemasonry. He funneled money from British radicals to abolitionists in Massachusetts who agreed with his goal of abolishing the United States Constitution and dissolving the United States.
    Howe was from a wealthy banking family and husband of Julia Howe, who wrote the anti-Southern song the “Battle Hymn of the Republic.” Howe and his wife, Julia, founded The Commonwealth, an antislavery tabloid.
    Parker was a leading Transcendentalist and Congregationalist minister and an activist in the Masonic tradition. He married into the Cabot family. He was the chief organizer of the Secret Six to finance John Brown’s raid.
    Sanborn was a disciple of Parker and Ralph Waldo Emerson. In 1857, he became Brown’s chief agent in New York.
    Smith was the first to finance Brown. He was the son of John Jacob Astor’s business partner. He was the largest land owner in New York, holding more than a million acres. Smith also gave Mazzini, the Italian revolutionary and later the most powerful man in the Western world, at least eight million dollars.
    Stearns was the leader of the Free Soilers (the Free Soilers were antislavery agitators in Kansas). He provided Brown and his terrorist gang money and a farm in Kansas from which to operate.
    Cabot paid for rifles for Brown to use in Kansas. Later his bank, Cabot Bank, lent Brown money for his terrorist operations. Brown never repaid this loan, and Cabot made no attempt to collect it.
    The Massachusetts State Disunion Convention, which Higginson called in 1857, laid plans for the Harper’s Ferry raid. Its objective was to split the United States. This convention was little more than a continuation of the Essex Junto, except instead of New England States leaving the Union, the Southern States would be driven out of the Union. The Essex Junto was behind the secession movement in New England at the time of the War of 1812.
    After Brown was executed, he became a martyr of the abolitionists. Ralph Waldo Emerson, a Young America supporter, an agent of the British imperialism, and ideological leader of the abolitionists conspiracy, eulogized him and promoted him as a saint.
    Closely associated with the Secret Six was C.I. Scofield. They used their influence to get him admitted to the bar in Kansas although he never attended law school and did not seem to have attended any college. They got him appointed U.S. District Attorney for Kansas, but scandal soon forced him to resign. After he was convicted of forgery, he became a follower of J.N. Darby, founder of the Brethren Movement.
    The Secret Six believed that the only way that America could be converted to socialism was for Christians to abandon politics and the affairs of state. (Abolitionism, socialism, and Zionism come from the same source and have the same hostility toward Christianity.) Christians had to cease being militant advocates of God’s law and the Holy Scriptures. The First Amendment needed to be subverted. Instead of meaning that government could not interfere with religion, it came to mean that the Christian Church was to be silent in the affairs of state.
    Samuel Untermyer, who was a wealthy corporate Jewish lawyer, a Zionist, and a communist sympathizer if not an outright Communist, was a major supporter of Scofield and the Scofield Reference Bible. Scofield came forth to emasculate Christianity. Through his annotated Bible, he taught a futuristic eschatology: Christ will return in the last days and rapture Christians from planet Earth thereby saving them from the evils of Satan, his anti-Christ, and his one world government and one world religion. The world must become worse and worse. An absolute autocrat must arise and rule the world. Scofield taught Zionism, the establishment of a Jewish political state to supplant the Palestinians in Palestine. This Jewish state must come into being before Christ returned. The result of his work was to convert Christians to Zionists. He demoralized and neutralized Christians.
    Untermyer later got President Wilson to appoint Louis Brandeis to the Supreme Court. Brandeis, a Zionists and a lawyer for the Jewish bank Kuhn, Loeb and Co., was the first Jew to serve on the Supreme Court.
    Wilson’s enjoyment of writing love letters to married women made him vulnerable to blackmail. Untermyer offered to give Wilson the money to buy these letters from his blackmailer if Wilson would allow him (Untermyer) to select the next Supreme Court Justice. Wilson accepted the offer, and Louis Brandies became the first Jew to serve on the Supreme Court. Brandies also became Wilson’s advisor on the Jewish Question.
    When the British government became hesitant about giving the Jews Palestine as a homeland, Wilson came forward and pressured the British government in keeping the promise that it made in the Balfour Declaration. With the Balfour Declaration, the British promised Palestine to the Jews as a Jewish homeland if the Jews brought the United States into World War I on the side of the British.
    The Secret Six had supported John Brown and his war of terrorism. They also supported Scofield, who later received the support of Untemyer. These two got the Scofield Bible published, which greatly aided Zionism. Untemyer went on to get Wilson to appoint Brandis to the Supreme Court. Brandis became Wilson’s advisor on Zionism, and Palestine became the Jewish homeland. Following World War II, Jewish terrorism gave birth to Israel. Thus, the Secret Six are to some extent responsible for the turmoil occurring in the Middle East today.

Copyright © 1995 by Thomas Coley Allen

More articles on history.

Climate Change

Climate Change

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: This article appeared as a letter to the editor in The Franklin Times, September 1, 2016, in response to a letter by Citizens' Climate Lobby, which was asking for members.]
    I have never heard the promoters of global warming, now called climate change, answer three fundamental questions. (1) When was the last time that the climate was not changing? (2) What is the ideal climate? (3) How do we know that it is the ideal climate?
    Perhaps Citizens’ Climate Lobby can answer these questions. If it does not know the answers to these questions, how will it know that it has achieved its goal of defeating climate change?
    In the 1970s to the mid-1980s, the big climate fear was that the planet was entering another ice age. Then in the late 1980s, the big climate fear became global warming. Imagine that, a complete turnaround in the climate within a few years. Now to cover themselves from any warming or cooling, they now use “climate change.” Also, the raw data show that the planet has been cooling for at least 15 or 20 years. Consequently, the government adjusts the raw data to continue to show warming.
    Whether the promoters of climate change know it or not, the real goal of the climate change movement is to transfer ever more wealth and power from the common folk to the rich and powerful.

More articles on politics.

Review of Putnam's Race and Reason -- Part 3

Review of Putnam's Race and Reason -- Part 3

Thomas Allen

    About the claim “that integration is part of the communist conspiracy in America,” Putnam writes:

The communists have made the integration movement a part of their conspiracy, although of course communism is not the only force back of integration. Communism is one phase of a disease, of which equalitarianism and socialism are milder phases, all of which stem from the general leftist overdrift (p. 73).

[For the most part, egalitarians and socialists are not formal Communists; they are communist sympathizers and fellow travelers. They strive for the same goals and objectives. Their disagreements are ones of methods, not of substance.] Contrariwise, Putnam writes that:

[T]he equalitarian ideology, which presumes to justify integration, is playing into communist hands, not only by setting section against section in America, but by spreading the equalitarian virus, and thus weakening the body politic to a point where more dangerous phases of the disease are contracted (p. 73).

    Putnam comments on the connection between wealthy foundations and foundations supporting the Communist cause of integration (pp. 74-75). [V. “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement” and “Foundations.”]
    To the question “[D]oes not our democracy need to practice equalitarianism at home in order to fight communism aboard,” Putnam replies, “[Y]ou do not fight a disease by contracting it” (p. 75). [In a sense, this is the theory underlying vaccination.] He adds, “[I]f a gangster offers your child opium to get him to join his side, you do not also offer him opium to keep him on yours” (p. 73). Then he quotes the humanitarian Albert Schweitzer:

        The Negro is a child, and with children nothing can be done without the use of authority. We must, therefore, so arrange the circumstances of daily life that my natural authority can find expression. With regard to the Negroes, then, I have coined the formula: 'I am your brother, it is true, but your elder brother.’
        The combination of friendliness with authority is the great secret of successful intercourse. One of our missionaries, Mr. Robert, left the staff some years ago to live among the Negroes as their brother absolutely. He built himself a small house near a village between Lambarene and N’Gomo, and wished to be recognized as a member of the village. From that day his life became a misery. With his abandonment of the social interval between white and black he lost all his influence (p. 76).

     Next Putnam writes, “[Black Africans] do not really desire or understand freedom and its responsibilities; they wish equality and the capture for themselves of the fruits of the intelligence and enterprise of others” (p. 76). He reminds us that liberals and churchmen demand that Europeans take over backward countries to end the cruelty and horrors practiced by the natives. Now they demand that  Europeans return these countries to the natives so that they can again practice these cruelties and horrors (p.77). [When Europeans turned over their African colonies to native Black Africans, Africans in most of them proceeded to hack up members of other tribes.]
    Putnam comments negatively on economic aid being able to help Africa (pp. 77-80). [Economic aid has made many African leaders wealthy beyond their dreams while doing little for the common people. As the saying goes, “foreign aid is poor people in rich countries giving money to rich people in poor countries.”] He questions the wisdom of granting independence to African countries. [Abandoning their colonies was more for the benefit of Europe than the colonies that gained their independence. The major mistake made, probably deliberately, was failing to redraw the borders of countries to match tribal boundaries. Such an action would have made Africa a much more peaceful continent. Africa proves that diversify is not strength; it is a detrimental weakness. It only benefits the ruling elite because it increases their power.] Putnam saw granting colonies their independence as creating a vacuum for the Communists to fill. [It did create such a vacuum, and the United States often aided the Communists in filling the vacuum.]
    Next he comments on new African countries hating colonialism (pp. 80-81) and the White race being outnumbered by two to one by the colored races (p. 81).
    Putnam explains that he and his philosophy are not authoritarian (pp. 82-83) or extreme rightist (pp. 83-84). [Egalitarianism, out of which comes integration, requires authoritarianism to overcome the natural innate inequality of humans.]
    About egalitarianism, Putnam writes:

[B]y a series of insidious steps the equalitarian virus produces that most disastrous of all diseases, the complete appeasement of evil. At some point, all ability to discriminate is lost, all resistance to wrong ceases, all indignation dies, all evil is met with sobbing pleas which evil most naturally greets with contemptuous laughter, and the red death of a Godless communism settles on the earth (p. 83).

    Putnam believes that the reason that the leaders of the major political parties ignore the Southern viewpoint is ignorance of its scientific validity. “But this ignorance they are inclined to cherish, and to avoid correcting, because of the balance of power held by Negro voters in certain key states” (p. 84). [The main reason is that the ruling elite wants integration because it increases their power.]
    Putnam comments on the economic backwardness of the South, which was caused by the War for Southern Independence and Reconstruction. However, the South retains much more of the country’s traditional cultural heritage than does the North (pp. 85-86).
    Putnam believes that the NAACP could do great work for the Negro, but it does not (pp. 88-90). [Marxist and other egalitarians founded the NAACP, and they have controlled it ever since {v. “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement”}. Its primary objective is not helping Blacks, but to destroy the White race — at least that has been the result of its actions.] He continues:

        In the long run, it does him [the Negro] only harm to encourage him to blame others for his own shortcomings. It is particularly harmful to encourage ingratitude, insolence and aggressive imposition on the whites of the South.
        Under equalitarian influence, with a strong assist from communism, it has become the fashion in the North to regard the Southern Negro as the victim of oppression, while the truth is that the Negro in the South is on the whole the product of a friendliness and helpfulness unequalled in any comparable instance in all history (p. 88).

    He contrasts the lives of Blacks in the segregated South with those of Blacks in the Black governed countries of Liberia and especially Haiti. Blacks in the South live “in greater luxury than many Whites in foreign countries” (p. 89). Putnam adds, “I know of no case anywhere in the world in which whites have lived with large numbers of blacks without segregation and avoided genocide” (p. 90).
    In response to the comment “that the Negro owes nothing to the white man except his troubles,” Putnam writes, “If the Negro likes what our white civilization has to offer, then he should remember that he owes that to the white man” (p. 90).
    To the suggestion that “the best way to elevate the Negro [is] to give him a chance to associate socially with white people,” Putnam replies, “Although such a procedure is basic to the equalitarian philosophy, the best way to lift the inferior up does not lie in pulling the superior down” (p. 90). He adds:

    In forcing integration upon the schools of the South, the equalitarians have chosen the most defenseless elements of the community — the children and their under-paid teachers — to carry a burden even the strongest should not attempt to bear. Under the circumstances it is not hard to understand the anger of Southerners, and why it sometimes becomes passion (pp. 90-91).

[When the North’s turn to integrate came, Northern parents in cities with a large Negro population reacted just as passionately as Southern parents, if not more so. After all, integration was just to be for the South and nowhere else so these sanctimonious Northerners thought.]
    Putnam notes that Southerners are far less prejudiced than Northerners. “Prejudice is simply . . . judging before getting the evidence. The South has far more evidence, far more experience, concerning the Negro than the North. And hence it is the North that is pre-judging when it tells the South what it ought to do about the Negro problem (p. 91).”
    Putnam remarks that because “it is wrong to bully, humiliate or exploit a Negro, does not make it right to integrate him” (p. 91).
    He comments on the exceptional Negro. They are either mixed breeds or statistical outliers and are not typical (pp. 92-93).
    Putnam notes that the distinction between “desegregation” and “integration” is irrelevant. Desegregated schools will integrate. [Desegregation failed to cause schools to integrate fast enough. So, courts, Congress, and the President forced integration on the country.]
    Putnam gives an excellent response to the concern of second-class citizens. He remarks, “Segregation does not make a second class citizen” (p. 94).
    About condemning a man because of his skin color, Putnam writes, “Skin color has no bearing on the matter. The Negro’s limitations are in the realms of character and intelligence, and the fact they are associated with a black skin is irrelevant” (p. 94).
    Putnam refutes the notion that segregation deprives Blacks of pride and self-respect, which some integrationists believe are essential in developing personality (p. 95). [Sellers argues that White pride is a primary cause of segregation (v. “A Review of The South and Christian Ethics”). Black pride must be good, and White pride, bad.]
    Putnam comments on discrimination and how egalitarians have corrupted the meaning of the word to the detriment of society (p. 95) and tolerance, which can be a virtue or a vice (p. 95).
    Next, he responds to the comment Southerners are racial bigots (pp. 95-96) and concludes that “the Southern position on race [is] more reasonable by far than that of the North. The North is proving itself both irrational and blind” (p. 96).
    To the notion that segregationists are preaching hate instead of love, Putnam replies, “It is those who are forcing the Negro into an unnatural relationship with the white race that are guilty of hostile aggression. . . . The spirit of those back of the integration movement is not love” (p. 96). [How can destroying a race and a country be love, which is what integration does?]
    Putnam notes that the integrationists are far more emotional on school desegregation than Southerners (p. 96).
    He identifies problems and illegalities with the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment (pp. 97-98). He adds:

    [T]here was never the slightest suggestion on the part of Congress or anybody else that the Amendment was intended to apply to schools. Congress, having direct control of this matter in the District of Columbia, maintained segregated schools there from the beginning, which is sufficient indication of the intent of the body which proposed the Amendment (p. 98).

[Besides using it for forced integration, the U.S. government has used the Fourteenth Amendment as a cover for many of its other nefarious, power-grabbing activities.]
    To the comment “that the trend of previous decisions made integration decision inevitable,” Putnam replies, “A trend. which made the integration decision inevitable was a trend in the wrong direction. . . . If the trend be wrong, it should be stopped. If it be right up to a point, it should be stopped at that point” (p. 99). He adds, “Desegregation in a non-social situation is one thing. Integration in a social situation is quite another, A trend in one might be justified while in the other it should never be allowed to start” (p. 99). [What may be considered a non-social situation in one community may be considered a social situation in another.] Thus, he notes that the line “is sometimes hard to draw and is a matter which, under our federal form of government, should be left to local decision” (pp. 99-100).
    To the comment that the decision of the Supreme Court is the law, Putnam replies, “Unlike the Constitution which is the law of the land, a decision of the Supreme Court is ‘the law of the case,’ reversible at will by the members who handed it down, or by other members of the same court at any future date” (p. 100). [In 1954 the Supreme Court declared segregated schools illegal after previous Supreme Courts had declared them legal. Moreover, under the Constitution, only Congress can make laws; the Supreme Court has no such constitutional authority.]
    Putnam objects to the notion that opposition is hopeless and people should integrate and make the best of it. He was convinced that the fight had only begun (pp. 100-101). [Unfortunately, Putnam has been proven wrong. Within a few years, Whites surrendered unconditionally to the integrationists and are now on the verge of losing their country. Soon Turanians, primarily Latinos and East Asians, will control the country. Many of them hate Blacks with a passion greater than the stereotypical Klansman and will segregate Blacks who survive with an intensity that they have never known possible. Moreover, Turanians do not suffer from false White guilt, so Blacks cannot bend them {Turanians} to their {Blacks’} will as they do Whites. Blacks will rue the day when they conspired with Communists, Marxists, and other egalitarians, most of whom are self-hating Whites, to bring down the White race.]
    Putnam believes “that the best answer to the humanitarian integrationist is the even more humanitarian segregation . . .” (p. 101). He condemns the surrender attitude held by far too many Whites (pp. 101-102). [Integrationists use humanitarianism as propaganda to brainwash dulled Whites and Blacks into supporting them. However, the objective of the inner core is the opposite of humanitarianism. Their objective is to destroy the United States and the White race even if it means destroying the Black race. Over the last 60 years, they have made great progress and are close to achieving their goal.]
    Putnam comments on the “melting pot” fallacy (p. 104). [What he states that he opposes (p. 104) is coming to pass.]
    He poses nine questions, the answer to which shows the detrimental effects of racial integration with Negroes on the country, Whites, and Blacks (pp. 105-106).
    When asked “[W]hat is the solution to the Negro problem . . . other than integration,” Putnam answers, “It should be left to the sovereign states to solve in accordance with the way the issue is presented in each separate area” (p. 107). [Genocide — breed the races to extinction —is the solution offered by integrationists. The best solution is separation. That is, each nationality has its own nation-state. Thus, the races would govern themselves independently of other races. This solution preserves their integrity.]
    Putnam discusses the flaws of the Supreme Court’s school desegregation decision and ways to reverse it (pp 108-113). He concludes that educating “our” leaders is necessary. [One cannot educate people who do not want to learn. For the most part, “our” leaders do not want to be educated. They do not want their fragile egos to be bruised. Moreover, if they learn the truth, they may feel compelled to undertake corrective action, which makes them uncomfortable.]
    Putnam believes that the South should de-emphasize the states’ rights argument and focus on the limited racial adaptability of the Negro and convince “the North that integration is morally wrong because it is destructive of the white civilization of the South” (p. 110). [Later, Northerners got to witness the integrationist destruction of the white civilization of the North. When their turn came, Northerners surrendered unconditionally after some ineffective protest just as Southerners had done. To do otherwise, they would have had to admit that they had been wrong, which is hard for people to do. Furthermore, by that time Whites had been taught to tremble in fear before the word “racist.” None would want to be labeled a “racist.” Only a “racist” could oppose integration and its destructive effects. Because Northerners failed to come to the aid of the South in the 1950s, the United States will cease being a White country around 2040. The primary blame for the death of America lies with Whites outside the South. White quisling leaders in the South who capitulated are also guilty.]
    In Chapter IV, Putnam presents his conclusions. He concludes:

The mulatto who was bent on making the nation mulatto was the real danger. His alliance with the white equalitarian often combined men who had nothing in common save a belief that they had a grudge against society. They regarded every Southerner who sensed the genetic truth as a bigot and used every tactic of deceit and every balance-of-power position to teach and vote a genetic fallacy. Here were the men who needed to be reminded of the debt the Negro owed to white civilization (p. 117).

    Putnam has written an excellent book supporting segregation. His book is full of wisdom and gems too numerous to present in this review.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen. 

Part 2 

More articles on social issues.