Thursday, October 12, 2023

King on the Dilemma of Negro America – Part 1

 King on the Dilemma of Negro America – Part 1


Thomas Allen


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 2.

More social issues articles.

Saturday, September 30, 2023

Commentary on John 20:28

Commentary on John 20:28

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The texts of the verses cited in this article are given in the appendix that follows.]

And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. (John 20:28)

Trinitarians consider John 20:28 as one of their strongest proofs of the Trinity Doctrine, which is Jesus is God the Son, the second person of the Triune God. This verse refers to Jesus as God. (According to the Trinity Doctrine, God exists as three distinct coequal, coeternal persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Yet these three persons are one person.)

To the extent that this verse declares Jesus to be the Supreme God, it supports modalism more than it supports the Trinity Doctrine. According to the modalist doctrine of God, God is one person who reveals himself in three modes or manifestations: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Most modalists believe that God revealed Himself as Jehovah in the Old Testament and as Jesus in the New Testament.

Consequently, Thomas' calling Jesus God supports modalism. To support the orthodox Trinity Doctrine, Thomas would have had to call Jesus God the Son.

In John 20:28, Thomas calls Jesus “my Lord and my God.” According to Trinitarians, if Jesus were not the Supreme God, God the Son, he would have corrected Thomas for calling him God. For Thomas to call Jesus God if Jesus was not God would have been blasphemy. Since Jesus did not correct Thomas, Jesus agreed that Thomas was correct; he was the Supreme God.

This Trinitarian explanation is based on Thomas, who had earlier doubted the resurrection of Jesus, suddenly understanding what no other apostle or early Christians including Paul understood. Upon the sight of Jesus, Thomas understood the Trinity Doctrine that Jesus was God the Son, the second person of the Triune God. However, this knowledge was lost with Thomas’ death and was not again discovered until the fourth century.

According to Trinitarians, Thomas recognizes and confesses that Jesus is God, that is, Jesus is the second person of the Godhead, God the Son. Nevertheless, according to some Trinitarians, if Thomas’ exclamation is to be considered a confession of faith, it goes far beyond what the early apostles taught.

Based on this verse, some Trinitarians claim that to be saved, a person has to declare that Jesus is his Lord and his God. (Does he also have to recognize the Father and the Holy Spirit being God?) Thus, to be saved, one must believe that Jesus is the divine Savior, i.e., God present with His people giving them eternal life. (If true, almost no one was saved before the fourth century because almost no one believed that Jesus was God in the Trinitarian sense.)

A Unitarian response to the arguments of the Trinitarians is that Thomas did not use the word “God” in the narrow sense of referring to the Supreme God, Almighty God. Instead, he used it in a broader sense. In biblical times and in the Bible, “god” is used in reference to angels, prophets, rulers, and judges. In Acts 12:22, a ruler, Herod, is called “god.” In 2 Corinthians 4:4, Paul calls the Devil “god.” Judges are called “god” in Exodus 21:5-6 and 22:8-9. Moses is called “god” in Exodus 4:16 and 7:1. Even Jesus refers to humans as “god” in John 10:35-36. Thus, beings other than the Supreme God can be called “God.”

Consequently, Thomas called Jesus God because Jesus represented the Father, who is the Supreme God, and had divine authority. Thomas recognized that Jesus was the Messiah, who according to Old Testament prophecies would be a man. (Likewise, Paul calls the Messiah a man [1 Timothy 2:5].) Also, Jesus knew what Thomas meant; Jesus knew that Thomas did not mean that he was the Supreme God.

Another explanation is that Thomas addressed his remark to both Jesus and Almighty God. Thus, the “Lord” is Jesus, and “God” is the Father, who is Almighty God. However, this is a weaker explanation.

Whatever Thomas meant by his comment, he did not mean that Jesus was God the Son, the second person of the Triune God.


Appendix. Cited Bible Verses

These verses are from the American Standard Version.

Exodus 4:16: And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people; and it shall come to pass, that he shall be to thee a mouth, and thou shalt be to him as God.

Exodus 7:1: And Jehovah said unto Moses, See, I have made thee as God to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

Exodus 21:6 then his master shall bring him unto God [the judges], and shall bring him to the door, or unto the door-post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever.

Exodus 22:9 For every matter of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, whereof one saith, This is it, the cause of both parties shall come before God [the judges]; he whom God [the judges] shall condemn shall pay double unto his neighbor.

John 35-36: 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came (and the scripture cannot be broken), 36 say ye of him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Acts 12:22: And the people shouted, saying, The voice of a god, and not of a man.

2 Corinthians 4:4: in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them.

1 Timothy 2:5: For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus.


Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Wednesday, September 20, 2023

King on Racism and the White Backlash – Part 3

King on Racism and the White Backlash – Part 3

Thomas Allen


Then, King remarks that “racism can grow and destroy nations.” (P. 99.) (True. Negro racism is destroying America, which is what the White oligarchs want Negroes to do. However, since Negro lethargy prevents Negroes from destroying America fast enough, the oligarchs are importing colossal numbers of nonwhites.)

About Negroes, King claims that “they have never been guilty of crimes against a whole people.” (P. 99.) (If this claim were true when King wrote it, it is no longer true today. Today, Negroes are willing active participants in the genocide of Whites — especially Southerners.)

About the church, King writes, “Among the forces of white liberalism the church has a special obligation. It is the voice of moral and spiritual authority on earth.” (P. 101.) (To support the Communist civil rights movement and Negrophilia-Albusphobia, many clergymen have abandoned the teachings of the Scriptures. They emphasize social justice. They teach that salvation is through social justice as the progressive Negroes define it and not through faith in Jesus.)

Then, King condemns the church for accepting slavery before Lincoln’s War and segregation afterward. For King, such acceptance was the unpardonable sin. (As stated above, the Bible does not condemn slavery. Further, God is a segregationist. Therefore, unless God is a sinner, segregation is not a sin [see “Does God Abhor or Approve Miscegenation?” by Thomas Allen].) 

Next, King condemns segregated churches and praises churches that have abandoned the Scriptures for social justice, especially integration. (In the South, most Churches were integrated although the races were usually separated. However, Negroes wanted Negro churches independent of Whites; they wanted to be free from Whites. Thus, the churches became segregated.) King demands that “the church must acknowledge its guilt, its weak and vacillating witness.” (P. 102.)

Interestingly, King states, “Today the judgment of God is upon the church for its failure to be true to its mission. If the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal, it will become an irrelevant social club without moral or spiritual authority.” (P. 104.) (Most churches followed King’s urging and replaced teaching the Scriptures and salvation by faith in Jesus with social justice, integration, surrendering unconditionally to Negro demands, the genocide of the races via miscegenation, idolizing the Negro, and sanctifying King. Consequently, these churches have become irrelevant social clubs without moral or spiritual authority.)

Next, King asserts, “A religion true to its mission knows that segregation is morally wrong and sinful.” (P. 102.) (Since the God of the Bible is a segregationist and ordains segregation, this religion referred to by King is not true Christianity. At best, it is a pseudo-Christianity [see “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation” by Thomas Allen].) Continuing, King claims that segregation is based “on pride, hatred and falsehood.” (P. 102.) (On the contrary, segregation is based on God’s Scriptural commands and examples.)

Then, King discusses each man universally sharing in the image of God, God stamping each human his personality, human worth lying in a relationship to God, etc. “Every man must be respected because God loves him.” (P. 102.) “An individual has value because he has value to God.” (Pp. 102-103.) (Throughout this discussion, King says nothing about preserving the races that God created. Most likely, King thought that they evolved and were not worth preserving; he advocated their genocide via miscegenation. God hates interracial mating so much that He forbids the mongrel [mulattos and mestizos] from entering His assembly [see “Commentary on Deuteronomy 23:2" by Thomas Allen].)

For King, freedom “is, first, the capacity to deliberate or to weigh alternatives. . . . Second, freedom expresses itself in decision. . . . A third expression of freedom is responsibility.” (P. 104.) From his description of freedom, he concludes that segregation “cuts off one’s capacity to deliberate, decide and respond.” (P. 104.) (Yet, the segregationist considers and weighs alternatives: segregation and integration. Then, he decides in favor of segregation and responds and accepts responsibility for his choice. If segregation denies the integrationist the capacity to deliberate, decide, and respond, then integration denies the segregationist the capacity to deliberate, decide, and respond.)

Next, King protests that if he cannot choose to do what he wants to do or live where he wants to live, he is reduced to an animal. (If true, then everyone is reduced to an animal. No one can do what he wants to do all, or even most of, the time. Many cannot live where they want to live.)

King commands, “The church must take the lead in social reform. It must move out into the arena of life and do battle for the sanctity of religious commitments. And it must lead men along the path of true integration.” (P. 105.) (Most churches obeyed King’s command and preached what he ordered them to preach. As a result, churches have become irrelevant. They have converted far more people to atheism and agnosticism and have made more people areligious, nonreligious, irreligious, and unreligious than they have converted to true Christianity. Such are the results of preaching what is contrary to the Scriptures.)

King maintains, “True integration will be achieved by men who are willingly obedient to unenforceable obligations.” (P. 107.) People must become “possessed by the invisible inner law which etches on their hearts the conviction that all men are brothers and that love is mankind’s most potent weapon for personal and social transformation.” (Pp. 106-107.) (Today, this inner law possesses far more Whites, both in percentage and absolute numbers, than it does Negroes. Is this possession causing Whites to decline in numbers and power while Negroes rise in numbers and power?)

Next, King declares, “The Negro’s agony diminishes the white man, and the Negro’s salvation enlarges the white man.” (P. 107.) (Contrariwise, the White man’s agony empowers the Negro, and the White man’s salvation decreases the White man while increasing the Negro.)

King concludes, “What is needed today on the part of white America is a committed altruism which recognizes this truth.” (P. 107.) (White America gave King and the Negro everything that they demanded and more — although White America has not yet agreed to reparations, but that is coming. Is America, which is on the verge of collapse and possibly civil war, any better for surrendering unconditionally to the Negro and making him the White man’s superior?)

Frequently, King insists that the Negro wanted equality. Then, hypocritically, he demands that the Negro be given special benefits and privileges that Whites never enjoyed. If Negroes wanted equality, they would denounce all these special benefits and privileges — and a few have. Since they do not, they reveal that they want supremacy.

According to King’s description of a superior and an inferior race, today, the Negro is the superior race, and the White race is the inferior race. Negroes are now the racial supremacists as Whites kowtow and grovel before them. 

America has become a fully integrated society where only nonwhites are allowed to segregate. While integration has elevated the Negro to supremacy, it has almost destroyed the White race. If he were alive today, King would be overjoyed about the Negro’s progress under integration and the demise of the White race. Further, he would approve of the genocide of the American Negro via interracial mating.

Additionally, King emphatically declared that the Negro seeks power and justice. They want power so that they can have justice. Now, the Negro has power, but they do not use it to obtain justice. They use it for vengeance and for “get out of jail free cards.” If a White kills a Negro in self-defense, Negroes demand that he be tried for murder or at least manslaughter. Often, the innocent White is tried and found guilty. Thus, vengeance is more important than justice. Also, their power has brought them freedom from being arrested and tried for many of their crimes. Seldom is any Negro rioter convicted for the destruction of property or for injuring and even killing an innocent person. Thus, the freedom to commit large-scale crimes without penalty is more important than justice. Did King know that Negroes would use their power for these miscreant purposes instead of for justice? Most certainly, he did.

A Negro whom I knew told me that light-skinned Negroes felt superior to dark-skinned Negro and so acted. (She and I could frankly discuss racial issues, which is unusual in this country.) Consequently, despite all his prattle and demands, the problems that King sought to solve did not go away; they just reappeared in a different form.

While oligarchs started the civil rights moment and the Negro revolution and have used them to destroy White America, they do not care an iota about the Negro. Once he has served his purpose, they will discard him.


Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Allen.

Part 2

More social issues articles. 

Wednesday, September 13, 2023

King on Racism and the White Backlash – Part 2

King on Racism and the White Backlash – Part 2

Thomas Allen


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Allen.

Part 1, Part 3

More social issues articles.

Tuesday, September 5, 2023

King on Racism and the White Backlash – Part 1

King on Racism and the White Backlash – Part 1

Thomas Allen


In “Racism and the White Backlash,” Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? (Boston: Beacon Press, 1968), pages 71–108, Martin Luther King, Jr., discusses White backlash, White supremacy, racism, slavery, the American Indian, liberals, and the church. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

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

King writes, “It would be neither true nor honest to say that the Negro’s status is what it is because he is innately inferior or because he is basically lazy and listless or because he has not sought to lift himself by his own bootstraps.” (P. 71.) (Many, but not all, Negroes proved King correct during the Jim Crow Era. Although many were lazy and listless, many were not, and they lifted themselves up. A vibrant Negro middle class was rising, which is why Stalin sent agents to destroy the Negro middle class. During the Civil Rights Era with all the benefits and privileges given to the Negro, people of all races suspect that the Negro race is inferior to all the other races. If it were not, it would not need these special benefits and privileges. Moreover, the welfare state reveals that many Negroes are lazy and listless.)

King blames all the Negro’s problems on Whites. (The Negro is not responsible for any of his problems.) White America bears the guilt of the Negro’s inferior status (as though genetics affecting nonphysical traits has nothing to do with the Negro’s status). (Because of genetics, races vary significantly in nonphysical traits such as intelligence, reaction time, behavior, rate of maturity, and proneness to certain diseases [see “Nonphysical Racial Differences” by Thomas Allen])

Erroneously, King declares that “since the birth of our nation, white America has . . . proudly professed the great principles of democracy. . . .” (P. 72.) (All the founding fathers who commented on democracy condemned it.)

King describes White backlash as the “old prejudices, hostilities and ambivalence.” (P. 72.) (Southerners, whom King loathed, were not prejudiced toward Negroes. Collins English Dictionary defines prejudice as “an opinion formed beforehand, esp an unfavourable one based on inadequate facts.” Random House Kernerman Webster’s College Dictionary defines prejudice as “an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.” The attitudes of Southerners toward Blacks were based on 400 years of observation, knowledge, thought, reason, and facts. Consequently, they were not prejudiced against Blacks.) Continuing, King writes, “The white backlash is an expression of the same vacillations, the same search for rationalizations, the same lack of commitment that have always characterized white America on the question of race.” (P. 72.) (Again King errs. The founding fathers and nearly all Americans before World War I had no ambivalence, vacillations, or lack of commitment concerning race. They were fully committed to the White race. For the founding fathers, the first nationalization law proves that commitment as it only allowed Whites to be nationalized. Moreover, they wrote the Constitution for Whites. [See “For Whom Is the Constitution Written?” and “Addendum to ‘For Whom Is the Constitution Written?’” by Thomas Allen.] Further, the commitment of latter generations is shown by the treatment and severe restrictions placed on immigrants from Asia. The Negro was a problem for which they had no viable solution although, before Lincoln’s War, many believed that repatriation was the best solution. Even Lincoln favored this solution.)

King writes much about White racism. He uses Dr. George Kelsey’s description: “‘Racism is a faith. It is a form of idolatry.’” (P. 73.) To this, he adds Ruth Benedict's explanation: “‘the dogma that one ethnic group is condemned by nature to hereditary inferiority and another group is destined to hereditary superiority.’” (P. 73.) “Since racism is based on the dogma ‘that the hope of civilization depends upon eliminating some races and keeping others pure,’ its ultimate logic is genocide.” (P. 74.) (Today, racism is Negro racism and not White racism. Negroes adore their race and seek to advance it as the superior race. In this endeavor, they have been highly successful. On the other hand, most Whites are racial nihilists, and many Whites are albusphobes and desire the genocide of the White race. Only the White race is being deliberately genocided. The ever-growing numbers of Negro supremacists far outnumber the almost extinct White supremacists.)

Although White America has not sought deliberately to genocide the Negro, according to King “it has, through the system of segregation, substituted a subtle reduction of life by means of deprivation.” (P. 74.) (If true, why was the Negro middle class growing under segregation?) Again erroneously, King maintains, “If a man asserts that another man, because of his race, is not good enough to have a job equal to his, or to eat at a lunch counter next to him, or to have access to certain hotels, or to attend school with him, or to live next door to him, he is by implication affirming that that man does not deserve to exist.” (P. 74.) (This statement is void of logic, common practices, and common sense. Nevertheless, since segregation laws applied to Whites as well as Negroes, and if King were consistent, he was claiming that Whites did not deserve to exist. [He did seem to believe that Southerners did not deserve to exist.] On the contrary, segregation preserved the Negro while integration genocides him.)

Next, King writes, “Racism is a philosophy based on a contempt for life. It is the arrogant assertion that one race is the center of value and object of devotion, before which other races must kneel in submission.” (P. 74). (Based on King’s assertion, today’s the Negro is the superior race because Whites literally kneel in submission before Negroes. During the height of Jim Crow and White supremacy, Negroes were not expected to kneel literally in submission to Whites.)

Again, King errs when he writes, “For more than two hundred years before the Declaration of Independence, Africa had been raped and plundered by Britain and Europe, her native kingdoms disorganized, and her people and rulers demoralized.” (P. 75.) (Negro Africans captured Negroes and sold them to the Europeans. Since they grew rich from the slave trade, these Negro African rulers were hardly demoralized. Moreover, the European slave trade probably would have quickly died if Europeans had to venture inland to capture slaves.)

King credits the Negro as “the creators of the wealth of the New World.” (P. 76.) (If it were not for White management, these Negroes would have created little above subsidence. Haiti illustrates this. Under White rule and management, Haiti was one of, and perhaps, the wealthiest colony in the New World. Under Negro rule and management, it degenerated to become one of the poorest countries in the world.)

Next, King chastises religious leaders for not only not condemning slavery but for using the Bible to justify slavery. (Does King also condemn the Bible? Nowhere does the Bible condemn slavery. Instead, it sets forth a code for the treatment of slaves. Jesus never told slave owners to free their slaves. Neither did Paul nor Peter; rather they told slaves to be obedient to their masters. Because the Bible does not condemn slavery, the abolitionists abandoned it.)

Another error that King makes is that in the Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court “affirmed that the Negro had no rights that the white man was bound to respect.” (P. 79.) (The Supreme Court ruled that like Indians and unnaturalized immigrants, Negroes were not citizens under the Constitution [see “Addendum to ‘For Whom Is the Constitution Written?’” by Thomas Allen]. Its rulings did not authorize Whites to do as they pleased to Negroes. If a White man murdered a Negro, he was guilty of murder — Whites had to respect the lives of Negroes.)

Correctly, King affirms that the founding fathers preferred the White race to the Negro race. None believe that the Negro race was equal to the White race. (Except for albusphobic Whites and racial nihilists, most people prefer their own race and believe that it is superior, whatever that means, to other races. Negroes do not want equality with Whites, they want to be and are now superior to Whites — except the White oligarchs.)

Next, he discusses the struggle that Washington and Jefferson had with slavery. At least, King comes closer to what Jefferson meant by “all Men are created equal” than most of today’s conservatives. “Jefferson’s majestic words, ‘all men are created equal,’ meant for him, as for many others, that all white men are created equal.” (P. 81.) (Some understand the phrase even more narrowly to mean that all Englishmen were equal in their rights. When Jefferson and others wrote about their struggles with slavery before the abolitionist movement, their dislike for the institution of slavery was the issue and not the Negro. They had no desire to make Negroes the political and social equals of Whites. Certainly, they would have detested making the Negro their superior as has been done today. Moreover, King failed to mention that many, maybe most, Americans before Lincoln’s War thought the solution to slavery was repatriation. Societies were established to repatriate freed slaves. They even established a country, Liberia, in Africa for the freed slaves. Suddenly freeing the slaves as the Republicans did at the end of Lincoln’s War and filling the country with freed Negroes was the last thing that they wanted. Correctly, they thought that the two races could not live harmoniously in the same country — and today’s race problem proves them right.)

Then, King discusses the torment that slavery caused Lincoln. Lincoln believed that the solution to the Negro problem was to colonize the Negro in Africa or the West Indies. Lincoln held this position well into his war. Later, he changed his position and “issued the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing the Negro from the bondage of chattel slavery.” (P. 83.) (Like most people, King errs when he claims that the Emancipation Proclamation freed the Negro from slavery. It did not free any slaves in areas under the control of the Union army. It only freed slaves beyond the control of the Union army. Moreover, Lincoln lacked the constitutional authority to free slaves. But then, like Lincoln, King never cared about the Constitution. Consequently, no King-idolizing conservative should care about the Constitution. The Emancipation Proclamation was primarily issued as war propaganda. Likewise, Congress had no constitutional authority to free slaves — thus, the need for the thirteenth amendment. [This amendment freed no slaves in the defunct Confederate States because they were free before this amendment was ratified. It only freed slaves in the Union States.])

Then, King complains, “Four million newly liberated slaves found themselves with no bread to eat, no land to cultivate, no shelter to cover their heads.” (Pp. 83-84.) (Unfortunately for these Negroes, they were liberated into a society without a welfare state, although Congress established the Freedmen’s Bureau to provide some assistance, where playing the race card was meaningless and where merit determined one’s survival.) According to King, to free these Negroes without the government supporting them was a great injustice. (Apparently, King wanted these Negroes to exchange their plantation masters for federal bureaucrat masters. Moreover, if the White man had to support these Negroes, how could they be the White man’s equal?)


Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Allen.

Part 2

More social issues articles.

Monday, August 28, 2023

Chodorov on Joseph

Chodorov on Joseph
Thomas Allen

In One Is Crowd: Reflections of an Individualist (New York: The Devin-Adair Company,  1952, pages 104-108), Frank Chodorov explains how Joseph became a statist. The following paraphrases Chodorov’s explanation.

Chodorov begins his story about how Joseph ended up in Egypt. Soon after he arrived, Potiphar, an Egyptian bigwig, acquired Joseph. Because of his cleverness, Joseph soon became the chief foreman of Potiphar’s estate. However, Potiphar’s sex-starved wife, whom Chodorov speculates was a homely woman whose husband misunderstood her, attempted to seduce Joseph. He rebuffed her advances. Like a scorned female, she framed her jilter, and her husband sent Joseph to jail.

While in jail, Joseph acquired a reputation as an interpreter of dreams — thus, beating Freud by many centuries. (He began his dream interpreting years earlier at home. His interpretations got him in trouble with his brothers, and they sold him to a caravan going to Egypt.)

Pharaoh began having disturbing dreams. None of his advisors had the psychiatric skills to help him. Then, one of his servants remembered that Joseph had correctly interpreted his dream when he and Joseph were fellow prisoners, and recommended Joseph to Pharaoh.

Joseph cleaned himself up and offered his services to Pharaoh. Pharaoh described his dream, and Joseph replied that the answer was simple. He explained that Egypt was about to experience the well-known business cycle, commonly called the “boom and bust” cycle. “‘The knowledge came to him by divine revelation,’ he said, which was far more reliable than the wisdom of the Harvard school of economics” (p. 105).

Joseph’s positiveness of his prediction astonished Pharaoh. Showing his true statist mantles, Joseph presented Pharaoh with a plan to solve the problem, that is, a plan to cheat Jehovah out of his bust. Joseph’s plan called for laying up a reserve during the years of plenty. To execute the plan, Pharaoh appointed Joseph as Secretary of Agriculture. Since the Senate did not exist in those days, Pharaoh did not have to wait for Senatorial approval, so his appointment was immediate. Having no Bible or Constitution to swear by, “Pharaoh made the appointment stick by putting his own signet ring on Joseph’s hand and a solid gold chain around his neck. For lack of an automobile, an official chariot was assigned to the new dignitary” (p. 106).

No longer did Joseph need to interpret dreams. He was now an administrator who had a plan to execute. Because Egypt’s economy was completely agricultural, Joseph’s position made him the top commissar, the real boss of the economy.

“The first thing he did was to pass laws; without them no plan can work. And the first law on his agenda was, quite naturally, a tax-law. One-fifth of all that these profligate farmers should produce, during the years of plenty, must be taken from them and put under lock and key. It is reported that this 20 percent income tax yielded quite an amount; the grain piled up ‘as sand of the sea,’ and undoubtedly there was a shortage of bins, barns and elevators, for ‘it was without number’” (p. 106).

After seven years of boom, the depression hit. However, whether the depression resulted from overproduction or underconsumption is unknown. (“[A]t that time the learned professors had not yet discovered the sun-spot theory or even the velocity theory of money. The magicians of that day were without benefit of postgraduate courses in economics” [pp. 106-107].)

This depression was called a “famine.” However, what is not told is the cause of the famine. Did a “drought, pestilence or other unforeseeable accident, or,  perhaps . . . the constant sapping of the economy by seven years of heavy taxation” (p.107) cause it?

However, the chronicler does suggest that Joseph may “have anticipated the consequence of his taxing scheme: the abject subservience of the Egyptian proletariat” (p. 107). Soon hunger filled Pharaoh’s kingdom. People came to Joseph, the Secretary of Agriculture, and begged him to return the grain that he had taken from them. Instead of giving them the grain, he sold them the grain. (Thus, he was not a proponent of the welfare state.)

When the people ran out of money, they traded their horses, cattle, and other livestock for grain. “Still the hunger was upon the people, which was natural, for their capital was all gone, and without capital there is little production” (p. 107). Joseph had brought state capitalism to Egypt. The only jobs available for the hungry masses were with the state. As the state was the sole employer, the people had to work for what the state condescended to offer. “They offered themselves as ‘servants unto Pharaoh’ in exchange for bread. Then Joseph said unto the people: ‘Behold I have brought you this day and your land for Pharaoh: lo, here is seed for you, and you shall sow the land.’ In common parlance that means that he had nationalized the land and the labor of Egypt” (p. 107).

Joseph’s plan was great for Pharaoh and Joseph. However, most likely, “some of the proletariat were perturbed over a moral principle: the right of a man to his property” (p. 107).

Joseph ordered farmers to be moved from one part of Egypt to another. Was the migration the result of a slave revolt?  Was it Joseph executing the well-known migratory purge? The chronicler does not explain the cause.

A delegation of Egyptians came to Joseph and told him that they were willing to be Pharaoh’s servants. Thus, “the proletariat had come to terms with collectivism (since that was the only way to get by in this world) and were content with whatever security the Secretary [Joseph] would provide” (p. 108). Nevertheless, Joseph “had to make some concession to private property, perhaps to encourage more taxable production; he restored to some of the Egyptians the land he had taken from them in their adversity, on a rental basis” (p. 108). His rent was one-fifth of the annual production.

Chodorov concludes his story of Joseph:
Though the succeeding monarchs and the succeeding commissars did well under the plan introduced by Joseph, it seems (according to later historians) that it put upon the proletarians a moral blight, so that when conquerors from other lands came to Egypt they met with little resistance; those who had nothing to lose had nothing to fight for. So that even the monarchs had to beg the invaders for administrative jobs. And lots of dust fell on the civilization of Pharaoh (p. 108).
(Since statism is a form of idolatry, was Joseph an idolater?)

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Friday, August 18, 2023

Commentary on John 8:58

Commentary on John 8:58

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The texts of the verses cited in this article are given in the appendix that follows.]

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. (John 8:58, KJV)

According to Trinitarians, Jesus declares himself to be Almighty God, God the Son, the second Person of the Triune God, when he says “I am.” (Some translations have “Am” or “AM” to indicate deity. However, since the original autograph did not distinguish between lowercase and uppercase letters, then writing “Am” or “AM” results from the translators’ Trinitarian bias.)

Trinitarians interpret Jesus speaking chronologically. That is, he is saying that he existed as a conscious being, i.e., he existed as God the Son, before Abraham was born. In this interpretation, the Jews also agree; they understood Jesus to be saying that he existed physically before Abraham. However, the Jews did not understand Jesus describing himself as the eternal second person of the Triune God. While the Jews understood Jesus literally (he lived on earth before Abraham did), Trinitarians understand Jesus claiming his eternal existence (since Jesus is eternal, he came before Abraham). Yet, most Trinitarians hold that Jesus does not mean continuity of consciousness from his preexisting state through his birth to the time that he was speaking to the Jews.

Moreover, according to Trinitarians, Jesus is referring to Exodus 3:14 where God says “I Am That I Am” in reply to Moses asking God what His name is. Thus, by saying “I am,” Jesus is declaring himself to be Jehovah (Yahweh). Further, the Jews understood Jesus as saying he is the one who answered Moses’ question, i.e., that he is the great I Am. (The Jews are a highly unreliable source since they despise Jesus and fail to recognize Jesus as the Messiah.) 

When Jesus says “I am,” he is declaring himself to be the self-existing creator of Abraham and, therefore, is both greater than Abraham and precedes Abraham chronologically. Further, many Trinitarians claim that Jesus did meet physically with Abraham several times. (When the Bible mentions God or Jehovah being in the physical presence of Abraham, according to these Trinitarians, it is referring to Jesus before his incarnation. Yet, according to John [1 John 4:12], no one has seen God, but these Trinitarians claim that Abraham saw God. Moreover, being omnipresent God cannot move. Yet, God moved visibly in Abraham’s presence.) Thus, Jesus before his incarnation is the I Am who met with Moses.

If Jesus is declaring himself to be Almighty God in John 8:58 with reference to Exodus 3:14, then his declaration fits modalism much better than it fits orthodox Trinitarianism, the Trinity Doctrine. Although some Trinitarians identify Jesus as Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, other Trinitarians identify Jehovah as God the Father. Thus, Jesus is identifying himself as the same person as God the Father. That is, God manifests Himself as Jehovah in the Old Testament and as Jesus in the New Testament. (According to the modalist doctrine of God, God is one person who reveals himself in three modes or manifestations: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Most modalists believe that God revealed Himself as Jehovah in the Old Testament and as Jesus in the New Testament.)

Unitarians respond that Jesus’ statement in John 8:58 is to be understood figuratively and not literally. He does not mean that he literally existed as a conscious being before Abraham was born or even before his conception. (This response excludes the Arian type of Unitarians, such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who maintain that Jesus existed consciously before Abraham was born; nevertheless, Jesus is not eternal and is subordinate to God.)

Also, because of Jesus’ special, unique relationship with God, he is superior to Abraham. Therefore, he ranks above Abraham, i.e., comes before Abraham. Additionally, in the sense that Abraham saw the Messiah’s coming before his actual arrival, Jesus preexisted in Abraham’s mind.

Moreover, if Jesus is declaring in John 8:28 that he is an eternal and divine person who existed consciously before he was born, then he is contradicting Matthew (Matthew 1:18) and Luke (Luke 1:35) because according to them, Jesus did not consciously exist until his conception. What John is portraying is that Jesus is the Messiah in a present reality and not a future one.

Additionally, because a person says “I am,” that does not mean that he is God. For example, a man whom Jesus healed said “I am” in John 9:9 (KJV). (Most translations translate this phrase to read “I am he,” “I am the man,” or “I am the one.”) Yet, he is not claiming to be God. If these other translations translated the “I am” phrase consistently, they would have translated John 8:58 to read “I am he” or “I am the one.” Then, it would be clear that Jesus is speaking of himself as the Messiah and not God Almighty.

Also, in John 8:24 and 28, Jesus uses the same “I am” phrase that he uses in John 8:58. Yet, the translators translate the phrase as “I am he” in these two verses. If the translators were consistent, they would have translated John 8:58 “I am he.”

Furthermore, contrary to the Trinitarian claim, the Jews may not have understood that Jesus was identifying himself as God when he said “I am.” They thought of God by his common Old Testament name of Jehovah and not as I Am — especially since Jesus used a significantly different phrase than that in Exodus 3:14. (Both the Trinitarians and Unitarians seem to know what the Jews were thinking when Jesus said: “I am.”) A better translation of Exodus 3:14 is “I will be what I will be” In his translation, Moffatt uses this phrase. However, some Trinitarians assert that regardless of the translation of Exodus 3:14, Jesus is declaring his deity and that he is the eternal living God. Consequently, he is adopting Jehovah’s name “I am.” (These Trinitarians seem to believe that Jesus is not Jehovah, who would be God the Father, in contrast with other Trinitarians who assert that Jesus and Jehovah refer to the same person, God the Son.)

No matter how one interprets John 8:58, Jesus did not mean that he was the God of the Old Testament or the New Testament or that he was God the Son, the second person of the Triune God. In John 17:3, Jesus declares that the Father is the only true God and identifies himself as being distinct from God.

Trinitarians interpret John 8:58 literally: Being eternally begotten, Jesus existed personally and consciously as God the Son before Abraham was born. Even some Unitarians interpret this verse literally except instead of Jesus being God the Son, he is the firstborn of creation. Other Unitarians interpret this verse to mean that Jesus existed in God’s plan as the coming Messiah before Abraham was born and even before Jesus came into being, which was after Abraham was born.


Appendix.

These verses are from the King James Version.

Exodus 3:14: And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you.

Matthew 1:18: Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Luke 1:35: And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

John 8:24: I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

John 8:29: Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

John 9:9: Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he.

John 17:3: And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

1 John 4:12: No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.


Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.