Founding Documents of Today’s United States

Founding Documents of Today’s United States

Thomas Allen

Most Blacks, progressives, liberals, neoconservatives, establishment conservatives, libertarians, Negrophiles, Albusphobes, Dixiephobes, and Confederaphobes (hereafter referred to as “these people”) consider the Declaration of Independence (especially the phrase “all men are created equal”), the Emancipation Proclamation, the Gettysburg Address, the US Supreme Court’s Brown v. Education (1954) decision, and Martin Luther King’s speech “I Have a Dream” (especially the sentence “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”) to be the founding documents of today’s United States. For them, the Constitution should be interpreted considering these five documents. Consequently, they interpret the Constitution to increase the power of the federal government and decrease the power of the States and to force integration and diversity. 

1. Declaration of Independence. For “these people,” the Declaration of Independence contains only one important phrase: “all men are created equal.” They ignore the two most important provisions.

First, “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government. . . .” This clause acknowledges the right of the people to abolish their government and replace it with another. However, Lincoln and the Republicans denied Southerners this right.

Second, “That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States. . . .” This clause shows that each colony declared itself to be a free and independent sovereign State. Each colony became a free and independent nation. (Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary defines “state” as “a politically unified people occupying a definite territory; nation.” Thus, each colony was a free and independent sovereign nation.) These sovereign nations formed the United States and established two governments: one under the Articles of Confederation and another under the Constitution for the United States. However, “these people” have to ignore this clause because it conflicts with the Gettysburg Address.

When the States created a union under these two constitutions, they did so without surrendering any of their sovereignty. Unlike today, where the United States is a consolidated empire with an all-powerful central government and the States are merely subjugated provinces, the United States were originally established as a federation of sovereign republican States and remained so until Lincoln’s War.

Although “these people” preach equality, they do not practice it. They believe that some people are more equal than others. Blacks are more equal than Whites. That is, Blacks are the superior race, and Whites are the inferior race while other nonwhites are in between. Above all of them are the oligarchs.

2. Emancipation Proclamation. Most of “these people” believe that Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves. It did not. The Emancipation Proclamation was a war propaganda document that freed no slaves. The Thirteenth Amendment freed the slaves. Lincoln even admitted that his proclamation had no legal justification or force, which is why he pushed a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery. 

With the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation, the genocide of Southerners began. Soon after its issuance, Lincoln’s army began warring against and deliberately killing children, women, and other civilians. This genocide continues to this day.

3. Gettysburg Address. Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address did not change the structure of the United States from a federation of sovereign republican States to a consolidated empire. The illegally and unlawfully ratified Fourteenth Amendment did that. (Another important component in changing the United States to a consolidated empire was Lincoln and the Republicans putting in place during Lincoln’s War the unconstitutional American System: protective tariffs, subsidies to businesses, central banking, and the concentration of political power in the federal government.) However, the Gettysburg Address declared the objective and underlying principle of Lincoln and the Republicans. To justify this new governmental structure, Lincoln had to distort (lie about) the historical and political foundations of the United States.

Before Lincoln’s War, the United States were a federation of sovereign republican States. After Lincoln’s War, the United States became a consolidated empire with the Southern States becoming exploited colonies. 

H. L. Mencken, who may be accused of being an iconoclast but who can hardly be accused of being a fire-eating unreconstructed rebel, succinctly summed up Lincoln’s War when commenting on the Battle of Gettysburg and the Gettysburg Address:

Think of the argument in it [the Gettysburg Address]. Put it into the cold words of every day. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination — ‘that government of the people, by the people, for the people,’ should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. What was the practical effect of the battle of Gettysburg? What else than the destruction of the old sovereignty of the States, i.e., of the people of the States: The Confederates went into battle free; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision and veto of the rest of the country — and for nearly twenty years that veto was so effective that they enjoyed scarcely more liberty, in the political sense, than so many convicts in the penitentiary.

4. US Supreme Court’s Brown V. Education. In Brown v. Education, the Supreme Court established two new basic principles. First, “feelings of racial inferiority have a constitutional status.”[1] Second, “racial integration is the remedy for these ‘feelings of inferiority.’”[2] Therefore, “private discrimination is a constitutional evil and racial diversity is a constitutional good.”[3] Thus, racial integration is the remedy for the feeling of inferiority. However, an exception exists and that is Whites feeling inferior, and today many Whites feel inferior. (If these Whites did not feel inferior, they would not hate themselves and their race and promote the genocide of the White race.) Racial integration is the primary cause of White feeling inferior.

This Supreme Court ruling gives the federal government almost absolute control over everything anyone does. Consequently, it destroys all freedoms and liberties.

The Supreme Court’s ruling is based on a false premise. While the ruling justifies integration, it also justifies diversity. Yet, racial integration leads to amalgamation and homogenization, which destroys diversity.

5. Martin Luther King’s Speech “I Have a Dream.” Although King advocated judging people by the content of their character instead of their race, he wanted Blacks to be judged by their race and given special benefits and privileges. At least subconsciously, he knew that judging Blacks by their character placed them at a disadvantage. Judging Blacks by their character is a losing situation for Blacks. When compared with Whites and most other races, Blacks overall are more lethargic, lazy, impulsive, violent, criminally inclined, vociferous, rowdy, sexually immoral, irresponsible, superficial, childlike, and demanding.

Moreover, if Blacks were judged by merit, most would lag behind most Whites because they innately have lower intelligence and intellectual capabilities. Only in most sports and menial labor do they have an advantage over Whites. Because Blacks lag behind Whites in the most prestigious professions, quotas become necessary to fill these professions with Blacks who are less qualified than Whites. 

Constitution. Through these five documents, “these people” interpret the Constitution. Consequently, to implement these five founding documents, the federal government may undertake any action necessary to prevent discrimination against Blacks and other nonwhites except East Asians and to force discrimination against Whites. Moreover, they interpret the Constitution such that political power is concentrated in the federal government and the States are reduced to subjugated provinces. 

Furthermore, using these five documents, they interpret the Constitution to give advantages, benefits, and privileges to Blacks and other nonwhites at the expense of Whites. Thus, the Constitution requires discrimination against Whites although “these people” assert that the Constitution forbids racial discrimination.

Consequently, the implementation of these founding documents abolishes the Constitution that the founding fathers gave the country — in principle if not in words, i.e., the words of the Constitution remained the same but their meaning changed. Thus, the implementation of these five documents suppresses liberties and freedoms, especially the freedom of speech, religion, and association.

Summary. The following summarizes the five founding documents of today’s United States:

1. The Declaration of Independence declares that all men are equal — except Southerners, Afrikaners, Palestinians, and a few other despicable ethnicities who are only worthy of genocide.

2. The Emancipation Proclamation freed the Black slaves (so “these people” claim), but it has resulted in Whites being enslaved to support Blacks and other nonwhites with welfare and job preferences.

3. The Gettysburg Address outlines the change in the political structure of the United States from a federation of sovereign States (we the peoples) to a consolidated empire under an all-powerful central government that the oligarchs control for their benefit.

4. The US Supreme Court Ruling on Brown v. Education has led to forcing integration and diversity (although the two conflict) and giving Blacks benefits and privileges at the expense of Whites. 

5. The “I Have a Dream” speech provides the camouflage for discriminating against Whites and making Blacks the superior race.

Endnotes

1.  Jesse Merriam, How We Got Our Antiracist Constitution (Claremont Institute), p. 5.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

King on the Dilemma of Negro America – Part 2

King on the Dilemma of Negro America – Part 2 

Thomas Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 1.

More social issues articles.

King on the Dilemma of Negro America – Part 1

 King on the Dilemma of Negro America – Part 1

Thomas Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 2.

More social issues articles.

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.

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. 

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.

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.