Review of Putnam’s Race and Reason -- Part 1

Review of Putnam’s Race and Reason -- Part 1

Thomas Allen

       
    The following is a review of Race and Reason: A Yankee View (Public Affairs Press, 1960; Cape Canaveral, Florida: Howard Allen Enterprises, second printing 1980), by Carleton Putnam. My comments are enclosed in brackets. I have provided references to pages in his book and have enclosed them in parentheses.
    Putnam opposes the Supreme Court’s school desegregation decision in 1954 and the concomitant forced integration. Therefore, his book contains less deceit and fewer errors than books supporting the Court’s decision and integration. Thus, it requires fewer corrections. Most of my remarks are supporting commentary.
    Putnam was a Northerner. In Chapter 1, he sets out his credentials as a purebred Northerner. However, having resided and traveled extensively throughout the South, he has some appreciation of the Southern reaction to the Supreme Court’s school desegregation decision in 1954.
    Also, Chapter 1 contains an open letter to President Eisenhower and a discussion about that letter. Naively, Putnam thought that the President would intervene and do all in his power to prevent executing the Court’s desegregation order. [Putnam failed to realize that the people who owned Eisenhower, i.e., the ruling elite, wanted racial integration. They want to bring the United States down and to destroy the White race while concentrating evermore wealth and power in their hands. Because of Eisenhower’s inaction, the United States are no longer a constitutional federal republic. They have become a consolidated empire with the accompanying police state, warfare state, and welfare state.]
    Putnam remarks that the Supreme Court’s desegregation decision “was a sharp departure from the past — a confusion of equality of opportunity and equality before the law, with social and cultural equality — as well as a clear challenge to other American principles” (p. 4). [Here he seems to believe mistakenly that “Supreme Court rulings are the law of the land” (p. 6). However, later he declares that they are not (p. 100). They are not, and as a lawyer who majored in politics (p. 3), he should have known better. Only Congress can legislate. The Supreme Court merely interprets and applies the law to a particular case before it. If it legislates, which is what it did with the 1954 desegregation decision, it has usurped the constitutional authority of Congress.]
    On the Supreme Court’s ruling, Putnam comments, “Although not from the legal, in fact from the practical, standpoint the North, which does not have the problem, is presuming to tell the South, which does have the problem, what to do.” [Not long after Putnam wrote these words, desegregation became a problem for the North as federal judges forced integration on the North.]
    Putnam notes, “[S]ocial status has to be earned. Or, to put it another way, equality of association has to be mutually agreed to and mutually desired. It cannot be achieved by legal fiat” (pp. 6-7).
    [Often Blacks and negrophiles assert that] the Negro “hasn’t been given a chance” (p. 7). To this assertion, Putnam replies, “We were all in caves or trees originally. The progress which the pure-blooded black has made when left to himself, with a minimum of white help or hindrance, genetically or otherwise, can be measured today in the Congo” (p. 7).
    Putnam writes:

Throughout this controversy there has been frequent mention of the equality of man as a broad social objective. No proposition in recent years has been clouded by more loose thinking. . . . When we see the doctrine of equality contradicted everywhere around us in fact, it remains a mystery why so many of us continue to give it lip service in theory, and why we tolerate the vicious notion that status in any field need not be earned.

[Nowhere does equality truly exist. The closest man can come is equality before the law.] Furthermore, he claims that all humans are not equal before God (p. 8). [I have shown in “Review of Segregation and Desegregation” that God is no egalitarian.]
    Putnam claims that the Negro owes more to Abraham Lincoln than to any other man (p. 8). [By today’s standard Lincoln was extremely racist. If he had had his way, all Blacks would have been shipped out of the country. If his position had prevailed and had been maintained, the United States would not have a race problem today.]
    Putnam comments on Northern newspapers gloating over Southern parents being forced to choose between integration and no school at all for their children (p. 9). [A few years later these gloating Northerners faced the same predicament as federal judges forced Northern parents to choose between integration and no education. As a result, Blacks gained control of many major Northern cities as Whites fled them to avoid integration. With White flight came economic decay. All of this could have been avoided if the common Northerner had stood with the South against the Supreme Court.]
    In Chapter 2, Putnam discusses some of his critics. He also includes an open letter to the Attorney General identifying fatal flaws and errors used by the Supreme Court in arriving at its school desegregation decision. Naively, he thought that if the Attorney General knew the truth, he would intervene at his earliest opportunity to get the Court to overturn its decision. [He failed to realize that the people who owned the Attorney General wanted integration.]
    Many of his critics, who were teachers and ministers, “protested with incoherent emotion at the thought of my emotion, and who urged me to face the facts — which they had never faced themselves” (p. 15). A major criticism that he received was that he did not understand “modern” anthropology (p. 16). [Most “modern” anthropology is heavily contaminated with egalitarianism, Marxism, and political correctness. When reading the works of most mid-twentieth century and later anthropologists, one has to filter out this contamination. The works of a few anthropologists, such as John Baker, Carleton Coon, and Vladimir Andeyev, are not contaminated.)
    He notes that the “widening of the American doctrine of equality of opportunity into a doctrine of social, cultural, economic, and genetic equality” was behind the Supreme Court’s ruling (p. 16). [This widening has contaminated all aspects of American life and has so infested Europe that Europe is quickly dying.]
    Putnam comments that there is “no such thing as equality even between two leaves on the same bush — that this was not just a matter of difference, but of inferiority and superiority in terms of the value judgments of persons, communities, nations, and cultures, and that the heart of the matter as regards race lay in the area of heredity” (p. 16). Marxists and other egalitarians have “to denounce heredity in the biological . . . and make it appear that environment alone made the man.” They insist that nothing be innate (pp. 16-17). [Studies have shown that heredity is often more important than the environment in making man. Heredity extends beyond a person’s physical characteristics. It also influences his intelligence, character, personality, disposition, and talents. (V. Species of Men by Thomas Allen.)]
    Putnam reviews the works of Boas and other “scientists” on whom the Supreme Court relied in making its desegregation ruling. He discovered that their works were cleaver and ingenious propaganda “posing in the name of science, fruitless efforts at proof of unprovable theories. . . . [They used] slippery techniques in evading the main issues, the prolific diversions, the sound without the substance” (p. 18). [The anthropologists, sociologists, and psychologists on whose works that the Supreme Court based its school desegregation decision were Marxists. They sympathized with the racial integration program organized and led by Communists. (V. “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement.”)]
    Like Putnam, many scientists were aware of the Boas hoax, but they were afraid to expose it for fear of losing their jobs (p. 19). [In this respect, things have only gotten worse since Putnam wrote. Now it goes far beyond race.]
    Putnam believes that Southerners were more suited to make judgment calls about the Negro than Northerners. Southerners were around many more Negroes. Moreover, a higher percent of the Negroes in the North were racially mixed, mulatto. If one wanted to study and learn about the true Negro, he needs to go to Haiti or better to central Africa (pp. 20-21).
    About the Southerner’s attitude toward the Negro, Putnam writes:

Southerners understood the Negro and in large measure loved him. They realized that the agitation rending the South originated with organized white minorities in conjunction with mixed-bloods well over on the white side of the spectrum. They deplored the deterioration this agitation was producing in existing race relations in the blacker South. Yet they could scarcely bring themselves to hurt their own. The South, after generations of experience, had developed customs and a way of life with the Negro that took his limitations into consideration with a minimum of friction and a maximum of kindness. It was entirely against these customs, these adaptations, openly to analyze and publicize the reasons for them (p. 21).

    Putnam notes that a majority of the people in the United States opposed school desegregation and integration. Also, he could not find anything in the records of the Supreme Court’s desegregation decision of 1954 showing that the Attorney General, who is supposed to represent the people of the United States, challenging the anthropological egalitarian theories or opposing school desegregation cited by the Court in its ruling (pp. 21-22). [Thus, the Attorney General like the President sided against the American people.]
    Putnam discusses Myrdal and his book An American Dilemma, which the Supreme Court used to support its decision. Myrdal, a foreign socialist, condemned the U.S. Constitution. He declared “that in the conflict between liberty and equality in the United States ‘equality is slowly winning’” (p. 22). [At least he understands that liberty and equality cannot coexist.] Myrdal’s work builds on the work and philosophy of Boas, “the father of equalitarian anthropology in American,” and his disciples. Myrdal declared the dogma “that races are not by nature equal in their capacity for culture” is fallacious and unsubstantiated (pp. 22-23). [An honest observation of human history proves that this dogma is true. Aryans (Whites) and Turanians, have developed high cultures and advanced civilizations. Negroes, Indo-Australians, and Khoisans have not. Melanochroi may have also built high cultures and civilizations; however, for them, it seems that they did it under Aryan overlords in India and with Aryan captives in the Arabic Islamic region.)
    Next Putnam discusses the flaws and deceptions of Boas’ philosophy. According to Boas, the “present day cultural differences between the Negro and other races are due, not to any natural limitation, but to isolation and historical accident.” To refute Boas, Putnam cites the observation of a traveler, who appears to be a racial egalitarian. This traveler notes that China, India, Mesopotamia, and the Mediterranean coasts and islands developed a high level of culture although they were almost completely isolated from one another. Yet Negroes in Africa never showed any similar development (p. 24).
    Putnam refutes the environmental and slavery excuses used to explain the backwardness of the Negro. The climates of India and Mesopotamia are just as harsh as Africa’s. As the Sahara separates black Africa from the North, so do deserts block China, India, and Mesopotamia. Moreover, the African slave trade is only about a millennium old. He asks, “Why were the Africans not making slaves of the Portugese and Arabs” (pp. 24-25)?
    Next Putnam discusses IQ. He notes that racial egalitarians compare poor Whites with upper-class Blacks and mulattos to show that little difference in IQ exists between the races. However, when averages are compared, i.e., comparing like to like, the Negro’s IQ is significantly below that of Whites. True, some Blacks score above the mean White IQ, but on average the Black man’s IQ is significantly below the White man’s (pp. 25-26). (See Integration Is Genocide by Thomas Allen for a more detailed discussion of racial IQ.)
    Putnam writes:

The essential question in this whole controversy is whether the Negro, given every conceivable help regardless of cost to the whites, is capable of full adaptation to our white civilization within a matter of a few generations, or whether the record indicates such adaptation cannot be expected save in terms of many hundreds, if not thousands, of years, and that complete integration of these races, especially in the heavy black belts of the South, can result only in a parasitic deterioration of white culture, with or without genocide. I am certain neither you [the Attorney General] nor the Court, nor any significant number of Northerners would knowingly shackle their racial brothers in the South against their will with a system which would produce either of the latter results (p. 27).

[Here, Putnam errors — perhaps because he wanted to give the Attorney General and the Supreme Court the benefit of the doubt. The primary purpose of integration has been to use Blacks and other colored races to destroy the South, the United States, and most of all the White race. (V. “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement,” “The Dirty War: America’s Race War,” “Black Nationalism,” and Integration Is Genocide.)]
    Putnam discusses another citation by the Supreme Court in arriving at its school desegregation decision. That is, the assumption that segregation adversely affects Negroes and secondarily White children. He notes that nowhere are the possible adverse effects of integration on White children discussed. On the effects of integration on Whites, William Polk writes, “If the Negro is entitled to lift himself up by enforced association with the white man, why should not the white man be entitled to prevent himself from being pulled down by enforced association with the Negro” (p. 28)? [Denying the White man the choice of preventing himself from being pulled down shows that integration has been more about bringing the White man down than about lifting the Black man up.]
    The lower court claimed that “a sense of inferiority [produced by segregation] affects the motivation of a child to learn.” The Supreme Court accepted this assertion without question. In response to this assertion, Putnam writes, “[I]f a child is by nature inferior, enforced association with his superiors will increase his realization of his inferiority, while if he is by nature not inferior, any implication of inferiority in segregation, if such there be, will only serve as a spur to greater effort” (p. 29). [After more than 50 years of school integration, the average Black still has a great deal more difficulty in learning than the average White. What is the excuse now if not biology?]

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 2 

More articles on social issues.

Commentary on Genesis 12:3

Commentary on Genesis 12:3

Thomas Allen

And I will bless they that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. (Genesis 12:3)

    Christian Zionists understand Genesis 12:3 to mean that countries and people who support modern-day Israel will be blessed. Opponents of modern-day Israel will be cursed.
    The most ardent supporter of Zionism today is the United States. With a nearly omnipotent, omnipresent government, the United States are no longer the country to which the Declaration of Independence gave birth. They are rapidly fading as the economic giant of the world. With unlimited immigration, the population is quickly becoming that of a third-world country. Zionism is swiftly reducing the United States to an impotent third-world corrupt police state.
    Here is a short list of blessings that the United States have received for their unhesitating, unquestionable support of Israel. Tens of millions of babies have been sacrificed to Lucifer in the abortion mills. Homosexuals are now considered normal and acceptable, even to the point of being able to marry legally a person of their sex. Miscegenation (adultery) is accelerating. Nonwhites are overrunning the country and will soon be a majority. Divorce is rampant. With Waco, Oklahoma City, and 9-11, the United States government has declared war on the American people so that the American people will give those who control the government absolute power over their lives. America has become a police state. Patriotism has been subverted from doing what is best for the country to unquestionable obedience to the President. Christianity, Western Civilization, and the Aryan people are dying. Children are no longer educated but are taught to be slaves of the illuministic controlled government. America is the greatest debtor country in history. Decadence, moral decay, crime, gambling, pornography, and drug abuse are growing. Self-reliance, freedom, security, and prosperity are fading. Even the United States themselves are on the verge of vanishing as one treaty and international agreement after another strip them of their sovereignty. It sounds more like America has been cursed rather than blessed for its support of Israel.
    The last part of Genesis 12:3 ends with  “and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” Does this blessing come through the Jew as the Christian Zionists suggest? Or does it come through Christ?
    Christian Zionists act as though the answer is the Jew. However, according to Paul, the answer is Christ. Paul writes, “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ” (Gal. 3:16). Paul argues that the people who receive the blessing promised Abraham are those who believe in Christ. They, not the Jews or Israelis, are the true seed of Abraham that receive the blessing. Abraham’s real children are not his natural descendants, but those who share his faith; those who like him are justified by their faith and not by their deeds. They receive the blessing by faith in Christ independent of their position or opinion about Israel or Jews.
    Thus, those who bless true Christians are blessed. Those who curse true Christians are cursed. Because Christians are now cursed in the United States and Europe outside Russia, the United States, and Europe are being cursed instead of being blessed.
    Unger suggests that the blessing in Genesis 12:3 is personal. It applies to Abraham personally. Nonetheless, he adds that antisemitism brings God’s curse. Then he reverses himself by citing Galatians 3:16 and John 8:56-58 and declares that the blessing comes through Abraham's posterity, i.e., Christ[1] (not the Jews). (Thus, being anti-Christian brings the curse instead of antisemitism bringing the curse. Being pro-Christian brings the blessing, not being pro-Israel or pro-Jew.)
    Whereas Christian Zionists declare Abraham to be a “father” of the Christians and the Jews, Pfeiffer does them one better. He also declares Abraham to be a father of the Moslems[2] in addition to the Christians and Jews. However, John quotes Jesus as saying to the Jewish leaders, “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. . . .” Thus, Jesus identifies the devil as the father of the Jewish leaders. (Declaring them children of the devil makes Jesus an anti-Semite. The Jewish holy book, the Talmud, describes Jesus as a bastard and a sorcerer.) Furthermore, John writes in 1 John 2:22, “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.” Therefore, Jews and Muslims are antichrist.  According to Paul in his letter to the Galatians, neither Jews nor Muslims can be of the seed of Abraham without faith in Christ.
    About Galatians 3:16, Wesley writes, “Doubtless in confirmation of that grand doctrine, that we are justified by faith, even as Abraham was. The apostle, both in this and in the Epistle to the Romans, makes great use of the instance of Abraham: the rather, because from Abraham the Jews drew their great argument, as they do this day, both for their own continuance in Judaism and for denying the Gentiles to be the Church of God.”[3] In this regard, many Christian Zionists seem to hold the same belief as the Jews.
    Christian Zionists who use Genesis 12:3 for unquestionable, unhesitating support of Zionism and Israel in reality demand blessing those, Jews, who curse Christ and seek to destroy Christianity.
    Far too many Christians ignorantly confuse “the Israel of God,” the Israel of the Bible, with the modern state of Israel, a state brought into existence by political maneuvering, terrorism, and military might. Christian Zionist leaders, who seem to place Zionism and Jews above Christ, encourage and feed this ignorance. Actually, the European Aryans more closely fit the description of God’s chosen people than the Jews. European Aryans have been the people who have blessed mankind with their creativity and by spreading the teachings of Jesus (see Genesis 28:14.).
    Much of the ignorance of Christians and corruption of Christianity comes from Jewish control of the Christian Church. As Harold Rosenthal remarked, “Judaism is not only the teaching of the synagogue, but also the doctrine of every ‘Christian Church’ in America. Through our propaganda the Church has become our most avid supporter. This has even given us a special place in society, their believing the lie that we are the ‘chosen people’ and they, gentiles. These deluded children of the Church defend us to the point of destroying their own culture.”[4]

And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. (John 8:32)

Endnotes
1. Merrill F. Unger, Unger’s Bible Handbook: An Essential Guide to Understanding the Bible (Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1966), p. 64.

2. Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison, editors, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Chicago, Illinois: 1962), p. 17.

3. John Wesley, Explanatory Notes upon The New Testament (London: The Epworth Press, rpt. 1948), pp. 686-687.

4. “The Harold Wallace Rosenthal Interview 1976: The Hidden Tyranny.” http://www.antichrist conspiracy. com/HTML...old_Wallace_Rosenthal_Interview_ 1976.htm. February 16, 2004.

Copyright © 2016 by Thomas Coley Allen. 

More articles on religion.

Libertarians and Immigration

Libertarians and Immigration

Thomas Allen

    Most libertarians have an unlibertarian view of immigration if they value property rights. Like liberals and neo-conservatives, most libertarians favor open borders and unlimited, unrestricted immigration.
    On the other hand, libertarians are staunch advocates of property rights. No one should go on another’s property without the owner’s consent. To enter without approval is an act of trespass.
    The libertarian position on open borders conflicts with their position on trespass and property. As every piece of land in the United States is owned by some person, no one can enter without the consent of the owner. To do otherwise is an act of trespassing. Whenever an individual enters illegally, he is trespassing.
    If a libertarian does not believe that such an act is trespassing, he should “practice what he preaches.” He should allow anyone who wants to enter his house to enter at any time. If someone wants to move in with him, he should allow that too. If he does not, he is a hypocrite.
    Moreover, many types of property are collectively owned and can only be collectively owned. Culture, race, ethnicity, and nation (as opposed to country) are among such properties.
    (Likewise, liberals, neo-conservatives, and all other proponents of open borders need to open their own houses to all comers. Moreover, they need to provide these roomers with free meals, free clothes, free entertainment, etc.  Unlike libertarians, liberals place little value on property rights unless the trespass is against their own property. However, in spite of their worship of collectivism, liberals and neo-conservatives place little value on naturally collectively owned property like culture and race.)
    The American Indians failed to control immigration. As a result, many tribes have vanished along with their cultures. Because the Neanderthals failed to stop the immigration of other races, they perished. The Romans failed to control immigration, and their culture vanished. Not only did the Romans not control immigration, they, like the United States, encouraged it. (Unlike the United States, at least the immigrants who overran Rome were racially kindred.) Many more examples can be given to show that uncontrolled, unrestricted immigration results in the death of culture, race, ethnicity, and nationality.
    If libertarians want to be consistent, they need to abandon their position either on immigration or on property rights.

Copyright © 2016 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on politics.

Homosexuals

    Homosexuals

    Thomas Allen

    Theologians and ministers who teach the acceptance of sodomy, homosexual activity, are deceiving and misleading their students and congregations. They preach and teach that sodomy is not a sin and that the Bible does not condemn it. Moreover, God considers sodomy, homosexual activity, to be a virtue, or at least something that He finds acceptable. They claim that God does not consider sodomy as a sin.
    Contrary to what these theologians and ministers teach, God condemns homosexual activity as an egregious sin. According to the Bible, God’s word, sodomy ranks with murder as a sin deserving death.
    The first Biblical encounter with homosexuals and their sodomy is the story of Sodom in chapters 18 and 19 of Genesis. Their wickedness was so great that God destroyed Sodom and all its inhabitants.

    Leviticus 18:22: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind [homosexual act]: it is abomination.

    In Leviticus 18:22, God declares sodomy, homosexual acts, to be an abomination. Some newer translations, such as the Living Bible and the New Life Version, translate “lie with mankind, as with womankind” as “homosexual act.” Likewise, they translate this phrase as “homosexual act” in Leviticus 20:13.

    Leviticus 20:13: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman [homosexual act], both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

    In Leviticus 20:13, God declares that homosexual acts are such an abhorrent abomination that those guilty of it are to be executed. (As the author of the Torah of which Leviticus is part, Moses is perhaps the greatest of all Jews. By definition, to disagree with a Jew of Moses’ stature is a blatant act of antisemitism. Therefore, anyone who does not believe that homosexuals should not be executed needs to explain his antisemitism.)

    Deuteronomy 23:18: Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore [lesbian], or the price of a dog [male homosexual], into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the Lord thy God.

    In Deuteronomy 23:18, God again declares sodomy an abomination. Both the Complete Jewish Bible and the Living Bible translate “dog” as “male homosexual.” A male homosexual or sodomite is often called a dog “because of the practice of his vice reminds one of the sexual intercourse of animals.”[1]
    Not only is the homosexual act condemned in the Old Testament, but it is also condemned in the New Testament.

    1 Corinthian’s 6:9-10: [9] Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind [homosexuals], [10] Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

    According to 1 Corinthians 6:9, homosexuals will not inherit, possess, the kingdom of God. (See comment below.) Many modern translations translate “abusers of themselves with mankind” as “homosexuals.”

    1 Timothy 1:9-11: [9] Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, [10] For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind [homosexuals], for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; [11] According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

    In Timothy 1:10, homosexuals are listed among the lawless and ungodly. Many modern translations translate “them that defile themselves with mankind” as “homosexuals.”

    Revelation 22:15: For without are dogs [homosexuals], and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

    According to Revelation 22:15, homosexuals are not allowed to enter the New Jerusalem, the Messianic Jerusalem, the eternal city. The Complete Jewish Bible translates “dog” as “homosexual.” (See comment below.)
    As shown, homosexual activity is an abomination. Homosexuals are to be executed. Moreover, they do not inherit the kingdom of God and are not allowed to enter the New Jerusalem.
    Thus, any theologian or minister who teaches or even implies that sodomy is acceptable or that God does not condemn homosexuals is not teaching the Bible, God’s word. He is teaching the doctrines of Lucifer.
    (Comment. Wilkin believes that once a person believes in Jesus, he has everlasting life (John 3:16, 3:36, 5:24, 6:47, 11:26). Furthermore, he cannot lose his salvation once saved (John 10:28-29) regardless of any later sins. In his commentary on 1 Corinthians 1:9-11, he argues that a saved homosexual who continues to perform homosexual acts will not lose his inheritance in the Kingdom of God. He is still allowed to enter the Kingdom of God and still have eternal life.[2]  However, he will have one of the lowest statuses in God’s kingdom. Then he seems to contradict himself with his commentary on Revelations 22:15. He states that “dog” not only includes homosexuals, male prostitutes, but it includes all enemies of God’s word. Thus, sinners will not be part of the New Jerusalem. They are in the lake of fire.[3] Those in the lake of fire endure eternal and unending misery.[4] To endure eternal misery, one must have eternal life. If the saved gain eternal life by believing in Jesus, then in whom or what do the unsaved believe to gain eternal life?)

Endnotes
1. Merrill F. Unger, Unger’s Bible Handbook: An Essential Guide to Understanding the Bible (Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1966), p. 148.

2.  Robert N. Wilkin, The Grace New Testament Commentary, Vol. 2, “Romans – Revelation” (Denton, Texas: Grace Evangelical Society, 2010), pp. 729-730.

3.  Ibid., p. 1333.

4.  Ibid., p. 1328.

Copyright © 2016 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on religion.

Extinguishing Debt

Extinguishing Debt

Thomas Allen

    Commodity money, such as gold and silver, is real money. Real money is a medium of exchange that extinguishes debt and other financial obligations. Credit money, such bank notes, government notes, gold certificates, checks, and bills of exchange, is not real money. Credit money does not extinguish debt or other financial obligations. It merely discharges the debt or obligation by passing it to another person or entity.
    Although checks, bank notes, government notes, and certificates, are used as mediums of exchange, they are not real money themselves. Only real money can extinguish debt. They are promises to pay money. Under today’s monetary system, the issuer has no intentions of keeping that promise. Therefore, under today’s monetary system only national bankruptcy via hyperinflation or repudiation can extinguish debts.
    When a person buys groceries, he can pay with full-weight gold coins (assuming the gold standard) or with a check or bank note. If he pays with gold coins, no further obligation exists. The grocer has received something that is no one else’s obligation, gold coins. If the buyer pays with a check or bank notes, the buyer’s obligation to the grocer has been discharged. However, it has not been extinguished. The grocer has received a promise to transfer gold to the grocer. The obligation is not extinguished until the grocer presents the bank notes or check to the bank that issued them, and the bank converts the check or bank notes to gold coins.
    Likewise, with debt, a borrower extinguishes the debt when he pays with gold coins. He has paid the lender with money that is no one else’s obligation. If he pays with bank notes or check, he has merely discharged the debt. It has not been extinguished. It has been transferred to the bank. The debt is not extinguished until the lender presents the check or bank notes to the issuing bank, and the bank converts them to gold coins.
    If the buyer or borrower uses governmentally issued notes, like U.S. notes or gold certificates, he has discharged his financial obligation to the grocer or debt to the lender. However, the financial obligation or debt has not been extinguished. It has been passed to the government. The obligation or debt is not extinguished until the government redeems its notes and certificates in gold, that is, commodity money.
    In the United States between 1879 and 1933, gold certificates (first issued in 1882), bank notes, and government notes, which were called U.S. notes and nicknamed greenbacks, were redeemable in gold on demand. (U.S. notes were legal-tender; the other two were not.) If a debtor used one of these forms of credit money to pay his debt, he discharged his debt, but he did not extinguish it. If he paid with bank notes, the obligation was transferred to the issuing bank. If he paid with gold certificates or U.S. notes, he transferred the obligation to the U.S. government. The debt was not extinguished until the bank note, certificate, or greenback was converted to gold. (This conversion permanently retired the bank note and gold certificate. However, it did not permanently retire U.S. notes. The Secretary of the Treasury had a statutory obligation to reissue U.S. notes after they were redeemed.)
    Under today’s paper monetary system, debts and other financial obligations are never extinguished. They are merely passed from one person to another and eventually become an obligation of the government or its central bank. (In the U.S. all debts become obligations of the U.S. government as federal reserve notes are by law obligations of the U.S. government. Since the Bank of England is a department of the British government, its bank notes are obligations of the British government.) Nevertheless, these debts will eventually be extinguished.
    Under a fiat monetary system, debts may be extinguished in several ways. First and most likely, is to inflate the debt away by destroying the value of the money and pushing it to zero. (The Continental, assignat, the Hungarian inflation of 1945-46, and, more recently, the Zimbabwe dollar are examples of this phenomenon.) However, this approached is often forestalled by replacing one fiat paper money with another fiat paper money. (This has occurred often in Latin American countries.) Even countries that have destroyed their paper money with hyperinflation usually choose to replace the old paper money with new paper money. Another way debt can be extinguished under a fiat paper money system is for the issuing country to die as the result of war. (That is what happened to debts denominated in Confederate dollars. When the Confederate States of America died as the result of the War for Southern Independents, their money, which was not legal tender, also died. Along with the death of the money was the extinction of debts denominated in Confederate dollars.) Countries may also extinguish debt by repudiating them as monarchs of the Middle Ages occasionally did. Another approach is to return to a commodity monetary system, such as the gold standard, where paper money is convertible in the monetary commodity. (Great Britain took this approach some years after the Napoleonic Wars when it returned to the gold standard. The United States returned to the gold standard in 1879 after leaving it in 1861.)
    Thus, debt can be extinguished in several ways. One is by reputation. Another is by the death of the currency from inflation or war. The best and least painful way to extinguish debts is with commodity money, such as gold. That is, by paying debt with money that is no one else’s obligations.
    Commodity money, such as gold and silver, extinguishes debts and other financial obligations. Credit money, such as checks, bank notes, government notes, and bills of exchanges, cannot extinguish debts and other financial obligations. They discharge debts and financial obligation by transferring them to another.
    (Bills of exchange were another form of credit money used under the gold standard. A retailer accepted a bill of exchange from a wholesaler. The wholesaler could use the bill to discharge his debt to the manufacturer. When the wholesaler paid with the bill, he was no longer in debt to the manufacturer. He had discharged his debt to the manufacturer with a debt, the bill, which promised to pay gold by a specific date. The wholesaler paid his debt by passing it to the retailer. The debt still existed. Now the retailer had the obligation to extinguish the debt by paying gold to the manufacturer instead of to the wholesaler. When the retailer paid the bill in gold to the manufacturer, he extinguished the debt. The financial obligations represented by the bill, and the bill itself, ceased to exist.)

Copyright © 2016 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More article on money.

What Race Was Adam?

What Race Was Adam?

Thomas Allen

The following is an excerpt from Adam to Abraham: The Early History of Man by Thomas Allen (Franklinton, N.C.: TC Allen Co., 1998), with some grammatical corrections. The footnotes in the original are omitted.

Creation of Adam
    The last species of men whom God created was Adam, the father of the Aryans. Adam was created about 8,100 B.C. on the Pamir Plateau. With Genesis 1:27 begins the cultural history of man with the creation of Adam.
    Genesis 1:26 reads, “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over . . . all the earth.” The Hebrew word in this verse translated as “man” is ̓âdâm. This word is translated as “Adam” in the second chapter of Genesis. More than five hundred times, 'âdâm is translated Adam. If this word had been translated as “Adam” instead of “man,” there would be no doubt that the Bible deals only with the Adamic race. The Adamic, Aryan, or White race, is the race created in the likeness of God and given dominion over the earth.
    A more literal and correct translation of Genesis 1:26 and 27 is “. . . God said, Let us make Adam (̓âdâm) in our image, after our likeness . . . And God created the Adam [or, the Adamite](ha-̓âdâm) in his own image . . . .” This translation clearly shows that Adam and the Adamite are the race whom God created in His own image. If the traditional translation of  ̓âdâm as man is used, these verses should read, “. . . Let us make a man in our image . . . And God created the man in his own image. . . .” Such a literal translation clearly shows that a particular man is being created, not mankind in general. This record of Adam’s creation strongly suggests the existence of other races of men at the time of his creation.
    God created the Adamic race to “have dominion over all the earth.” He created the Adamic race to civilize mankind. As shown below, the Adamic race is the source of civilization. He exalted this race, and other races have recognized it as God’s chosen (Acts 13:17). God also chose the Adamic race as the race from which He would bring His Son, who would be man’s savior.
    The Scriptures do not claim that Adam was the first man or that he is the father of all the races of man. On the contrary, the Scriptures present evidence that other people already existed before Adam was created.
    When God placed Adam in the Garden of Eden, He gave Adam two duties to perform. First, he was to tend or dress the Garden of Eden. Second, he was to protect (keep) it.
    The word translated “keep” in the King James Version is shâmar (Strongs O.T. #8104), which means “to hedge about (as with thorns), i.e., guard; generally to protect, attend to, etc.” Although most versions translate this word as “keep,” the Amplified Bible translates it as “guard and keep,” and Moffatt translates it as “guard.” Those who translate shâmar as “keep,” translate it in the sense of preserving, watching over, and defending if they translate it according to the root meaning of the word.
    From whom was Adam to defend the Garden of Eden? His enemy appeared not to be wildlife, for God brought them to Adam to name. That he was to defend it from Satan is also unlikely. God would not have asked Adam to protect the Garden of Eden from a being more powerful than he. The Bible clearly illustrates that man lacks the power to protect himself, much less anything else, from Satan. (He must rely solely on the power of God for such protection.) So, who was the enemy from whom Adam was to guard the Garden? The most logical answer is that he was to defend it from other men—most likely the ones to whom Cain fled in Nod.
    Another indication that the world was well populated at the time that Cain slew Abel is that Cain lured Abel into the countryside to kill him. He goes into the countryside away from any population center, so no one would witness his murder. If the only people on Earth were Adam, Eve, Cain, and Able, and an unnamed daughter with whom Cain could flee, as the traditionalists claim, Cain would not need to take his brother into the country to kill him.
    Furthermore, in Genesis 4:14, Cain claimed that he would be a fugitive and expressed fear that anyone who found him would slay him. Whom did Cain have to fear if Adam and Eve were the only people alive at that time? From whom would he be a fugitive? No evidence is given in the Bible that Adam and Eve had another child until after Cain had fled. Even if they did, Cain had no more reason to fear his brothers and sisters than his parents — perhaps even less fear since, according to the traditionalists, he married one of his sisters. Cain was not expressing fear of his family. He was expressing fear about people of other races who existed before Adam’s creation. God affirmed this conclusion in His response to Cain in Genesis 4:15 when He told Cain, “Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.” Then He placed a mark on Cain. God was acknowledging that many other people were then living who could have slain Cain, and that He would avenge Cain’s death if any of them slew him. If only Adam and Eve were living, and some brothers and sisters, as the traditionalists claim, what purpose would the “mark “ have served? After all, his parents knew their own son. If he had any siblings at the time of his flight, surely they knew their own brother. The “mark” was so that the other people then living could recognize that Cain was under God’s protection. Cain was certainly aware that other people were then living who would delight in killing him.
    Genesis 4:17 provides more evidence that Adam and Eve were not the first man and woman. This verse shows that Cain found a wife, who bore his children. If Adam and Eve were the only people at this time, then how was Cain able to find a wife? No evidence is given in the Scriptures that Adam and Eve had any daughters to whom Cain could marry at the time the Bible describes Cain's marriage. In fact, Adam and Eve do not appear to have had any daughters until well after Cain's marriage. His marriage, the birth of his son Enoch, and his building of a city all occurred before Eve gave birth to Seth. According to the Bible, Adam and Eve had no daughters until after Seth's birth.
    The conventional explanation for Cain’s wife is that he married his sister. If Cain's wife was a daughter of Adam, why should she be punished along with Cain for a crime of which she was innocent? Why should she be banished along with him and forever separated from her parents? Why should her children be denied proper religious training and righteous rearing? The answer to these questions is that Cain’s wife was not a daughter of Adam. The scriptural evidence that Adam and Eve had any daughters for Cain to marry at the time the Bible describes his marriage is lacking.
    Cain did not marry his sister. He married a woman of another race, probably a Turanian. Jude supports the belief that Cain married outside his race. In verses five through eleven, Jude condemns old and new apostates. He compares the new apostates with the old. The most common sin that he identifies with the old apostates is the sin of miscegenation. In verse seven, he states that Sodom and Gomorrah had “given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh.” That is, they lusted after people of a different race. In verse eleven, he states the apostates had “gone in the way of Cain” and had followed “the error of Balaam.” The error of Balaam was his advice to Balak, King of Moab, to destroy Israel by having his mongrel people integrate with the Israelites and intermarry with them. Using Cain’s name in parallel with Balaam, Jude strongly suggests that both of them were guilty of the same sin, miscegenation.
    Further evidence that the world was populated at the time God created Adam is that Cain built his son Enoch a city (Genesis 4:17). The building of a city certainly implies the presence of a large population. Even if this city were no more than a village of huts, as some commentators claim, it still implies a population much larger than would have been the case if all mankind were descended from Adam and Eve. The building of a city strongly suggests that the land to which Cain fled was already inhabited. Why would he bother building a city if the area to which he fled was uninhabited? The dwelling that he, his wife, and son had would surely have sufficed.
    In an attempt to prove that Adam was the first man of all mankind created and the father of all races, theologians who preach the doctrine of the unity of man quote Genesis 3:20, 1 Corinthians 15:45, Acts 17:26, Galatians 3:28, Romans 10:12, and Colossians 3:11. None of these verses, however, support their claims.
    Quoting Genesis 3:20 (“. . . Eve . . . was the mother of all living”), these theologians claim that Eve is the mother of all the species of men. As discussed in detail in the chapter on the Flood, “all” does not always mean the whole number of or every last one. It frequently means many or a large number. In this passage, Eve is being called the mother of the Aryan race, the mother of all Adam’s descendants. She is the mother of all with whom the Bible is concerned, i.e., the Aryans. Expressions like this one that appear to refer to all the inhabitants of the Earth, nearly always only refer to those created in God's image, i.e., Adam’s descendants, the Aryans.
    These theologians are fond of quoting the first half of 1 Corinthians 15:45: “So it is written, The first man Adam became a living soul.” Then they argue that all men are descended from Adam. They overlook the last half of the verse: “The last Adam became a live-giving spirit.” They omit it because it makes no sense considering their doctrine. It immediately raises the question: Who is the last Adam? (The answer, of course, is Jesus Christ, with which nearly all, if not all, theologians agree.) The correct reading of this passage is that Adam was the first man of the Adamic line, not of all the racial lines existing today. Then the answer that Jesus Christ is the last Adam becomes clear. Jesus was born out of Adam through Abraham, Judah, and David. Verse 47 supports this conclusion: “The first man [Adam] is of the earth, earthly: the second man [Christ] is of heaven.” Adam was the “first man” only in the same sense that Christ was the “second” man. Adam was the figure of Christ (Romans 5:14). If these verses are to be interpreted consistently, they cannot be understood as describing Adam in a physical sense. If they are referring to Adam in a physical sense, then Jesus was, according to verse 45, the last man, which is absurd. These verses outline a basic theme of the Bible: death in Adam and life in Christ. This is the light in which these verses should be understood—not as proof that Adam fathered all the races of men.
    Perhaps the favorite verse of the preachers of the doctrine of the unity of man is Acts 17:26: “And he [God] hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.” This is the King James Version. The American Standard Version, New American Standard Version, Revised Standard Version, Berkeley Version, and The Holy Bible in Modern English, translated by Ferrar Fenton, omit the word “blood.” Weymouth, in his New Testament in Modern English, gives in a footnote the literal translation, “from one,” and notes that “from one blood” is an alternative reading found in some manuscripts. “One blood” appears only in some later manuscripts and, therefore, probably is not in the original.
    This verse does not prove that all the races of men descended from Adam. It does show that God created each race of man. He created them at different times or by “the times before appointed.” He placed each of them in their own specific zoological zone or geographical area (“bounds of their habitation”).
    The preachers of the doctrine of the unity of man also like to quote Galatians 3:28, Romans 10:12, or Colossians 3:11: “Where there is neither Greek nor Jew.” The Jew and the Greek referred to in these verses are both descendants of Adam. They are both Aryans. These verses are referring to one race, the Aryan race, living in different countries and conditions, and being united under Christ. They do not prove the doctrine of the unity of man.
    Thus, the verses often quoted to support the doctrine that all races of men descended from Adam fail to support this doctrine. Only the White race descended from Adam.

What Race Was Adam?
    Adam was created White. The name “adam” is ̓âdâm in Hebrew and means a “ruddy human being” (Strong's O.T. #120). It is derived from “adam” (Strong's O.T. #119), or ̓âdam in Hebrew, which means “to show blood (in the face), i.e., flush or turn rosy.” Only one race has the characteristic of blushing or showing blood in the face or skin, and that race is the White or Aryan race.
    Adam was named “Adam” because he possessed a ruddy or rosy complexion. He was fair and White and, therefore, the hemoglobin showed through his nonpigmented skin, giving a ruddy or flushed look. His name described his physical appearance. It is a physical characteristic that appears only in the White race.
    The Bible further proves that Adam and Eve were of the White race with fair and ruddy or rosy complexion by the way it describes their descendants. 1 Samuel 16:12 and 17:43 describe David as being “ruddy and of fair complexion.” 2 Samuel 13:1 describes David’s daughter, Tamar, as “fair.” Genesis 12:11 and 14 describe Sarah as “very fair,” and Genesis 24:16 and 26:7 describe Rebekah as “very fair.” They are descendants of Adam. In Songs of Solomon 5:10, Solomon is said to be “white and ruddy.” In Lamentations 4:7, the Nazarites (consecrated persons) of Judah are described as “whiter than milk” and “more ruddy in body than rubies.”
    Adam and Eve were White. The church has historically always depicted them as White and correctly so. As recorded in the Bible, Adam’s descendants end up being White or at least of a light complexion. This is a fact that no one seriously denies. Yet traditional creationists also claim that all the other races are also descended from Adam.
    Adam was not the father of the human race. He is only the father of the Aryan race. Each race is a distinct and separate creation. God created each race independently of the others and at different times. Hence, each race is a distinct species.
    Scientific evidence suggests a high antiquity of man, along with evidence of definite anatomical differences. Each race of man is descended from a different human pair whom God created with different external and internal characteristics.
    The Scriptures and science agree. The fossil record supports the Bible, and the Bible supports the fossil record. Adam was not the first human that God created. Adam was only the first individual of a new species, the Aryan race of man.
    Although traditional creationists and evolutionists view each other’s theories with enmity, their theories have much in common. Both claim that all races of men have a common origin. Both claim that early man possessed a wide variety of genetic traits that allow for the different races. Both claim that only minor variations exist among the races today. Both claim that the races are the result of climate, environment, natural selection, and group isolation. Both claim one species, race, or kind can produce others—the principle of speciation. Both claim that God did not create the individual races of men. Both claim that no pure race exists because gene flow can and has occurred among the races.
    Only two areas of any real disagreement exist between the traditional creationists and evolutionists. First, the creationists believe in the Divine creation of the initial pair. Evolutionists, for the most part, believe in some sort of spontaneous generation. Second, the creationists believe that the races of men evolved (or developed, as they prefer to say) over a few generations. The evolutionists believe that they evolved over tens of thousands, if not several hundreds of thousands, of years.
    Both the traditional creationists and evolutionists ignore the fact that man can only invent falsehoods in science and religion. True science is nothing more than God’s revelation through His work in nature. New discoveries in science may conflict with religious errors preached over the centuries. With religious truths, however, they can never conflict. Both science and Scripture have the same Author.

Image of God
    “And God created man [Adam] in his own image, in the image of God he created him. . . .”(Gen. 1:27). Adam had the physical nature of the Universe. He possessed life as found in other animals. But he was more. God had made Adam distinctly different. Like other races of men, Adam possessed reason, personality, and free will. Unlike the other races of men, he was created in the image of God. He possessed special qualities of God lacking in other races. Adam was the first man that God made in His own image.
    Pre-Adamic men were not created in the image of God — at least not in the sense that this phrase is used in Genesis. Pre-Adamic men had no closer union with their Creator than do their untutored descendants (Turanians, Negroes, Melanochroi, Khoisans, and Australians) have today.
    Adam, however, was unique. God had made him as a special image of His own eternity. God made Adam immortal (this immortality Adam lost through sin). He was a creature, a species of man, with whom God could visit and have fellowship and communion (this unique fellowship with God, the Adamic race lost when Adam sinned). He possessed a spiritual quality lacking in others. This spiritual quality was directly related to kinship to God. He had the ability to think God’s thoughts in purity and holiness without corruption. Adam had the capacity to commune with God as no other race could. He could reach spiritual heights unattainable to the other species of men. God gave Adam a moral and spiritual nature that enabled him to understand his Creator, to commune with Him in this life, and to look forward to eternal bliss.
    Among the Divine qualities identified by Campbell that God gave Adam was a conscience or moral sense. This conscience in the Adamic race differs entirely from that in the other species of men. In the other races of men, conscience is a perceptive faculty. It provides them with some idea of right and wrong, but it never causes them to feel as though they must do right except where doing right is expedient. When they do wrong, they seem to lack an inward accuser or judge. They seldom show remorse about their crimes or sins; they only have remorse about being caught. In Adamic man, conscience provides moral guidance and protection from sinning. It is an innate part of his moral and spiritual constitution. His conscience convicts him of sin. The conscience of Adamic man is entirely different from that of other men
    Adam’s unique privilege before God was conditioned by his obedience and responsibility to God. God had created Adam and the Adamic, Aryan, race to be his representative and steward on the Earth. God had delegated to Adam a share of His own authority. He made Adam a responsible being. The Divine purpose for the Adamic race was world dominion. (Because of sin, the Adamic race can now only achieve its Divine purpose by the intervention of Christ Jesus.)
    “And Jehovah God formed man [Adam] of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” (Genesis 2:7) Thus, God breathed His spirit into Adam and made him a living soul. This, God did not do for the other species of men. This is what separates Adamic man from the other races. The other races do not possess the ever-living spirit of God as does Adamic man. Unlike other beings, he shared something in common with his Creator.

Copyright © 1998 by Thomas Coley Allen.

 More articles on religion.

Views on Race

Views on Race

Thomas Allen

    People’s attitude toward the races of humans falls into one of three primary categories: racial nihilism, racial supremacy, and racial preservation. Many people seem to want to believe or hold two or three of these views simultaneously; thus, they have a garbled, confused view toward the treatment of the races. While in this state of confusion, such people end up supporting, knowingly or unknowingly, racial nihilism.
    Racial Nihilism. Racial nihilism ranges from races do not exist to they do exist but are irrelevant. Racial nihilists believe that races are not worth preserving, especially their own. They consider racial identities irrelevant or something to be eradicated. The most despicable racial nihilists look forward with great delight to the death of their race. Not only do they not object to the races amalgamating into motley mongrel man, but most find such amalgamation desirable. Consequently, racial nihilists promote racial assimilation, racial intermixing; thus, they promote racial genocide and the end of racial identity. Of the three views, it is the most incomparable with Biblical teachings and principles. Racial nihilism is the predominant view in Europe and the United States, especially among Whites, regardless of their political or religious persuasion. Most self-hating Whites are racial nihilists; however, some self-hating Whites are racial supremacists for non-White races.
    A subset of racial nihilism is racial Marxism. Racial Marxism denies the existence of biological races. Genetics does not determine races; therefore, races are not biological. Thus, race is an artificial social construct; races are classes of mankind and are not biological populations. According to racial Marxism, only two races, classes, exist: the White (the oppressor class) and the non-White (the oppressed class). Racist Marxism contends that the “White” race did not exist until Europeans began conquering and colonizing the Americas. Then Europeans, Whites, established themselves as a class to dominate non-Europeans, non-Whites. Consequently, racial Marxism is not about science, but about racial politics.
    Racial Supremacy. Racial supremacists believe that one race, usually their own, should dominate and rule the other races. The most extreme supremacists hold that all but one race should be exterminated. The stereotypical Klansman is an example of a racial supremacist. European imperialists were also racial supremacists: racial supremacy is racial imperialism. Moreover, racial supremacists promote racial segregation, and many hate racial differences. Most non-Whites are racial supremacists. An exception appears to be many self-appoint, self-anointed Black leaders, who act like racial nihilists. Racial supremacy is a poor intermediary between racial nihilism, with which it is closely related, and racial preservation, with which it is alienated. Racial supremacy is the second most popular view of the races among Whites and is the most popular view among the non-White races.
    Racial Preservation. Racial preservation seeks to preserve and protect all human races. All races are worth protecting and preserving. Thus, racial preservationists love and value racial differences and consider them worthy of conservation: Racial differences are important, and their preservation is desirable. Racial preservationists believe that no race should rule or govern another race. (Thus, they follow the Biblical instruction that a nation is not to “set a stranger [nokri, i.e., a person of a different race] over thee, which is not thy brother” [Deuteronomy 17:15]. “Nation” means a people who have a common origin, i.e., of the same race, language, culture, and traditions, and are capable of forming or constituting a nation-state.) Of the three views, it is the most comparable with Biblical teachings and principles. The only way to protect and preserve the races is geographical separation. Consequently, racial preservationists promote the geographical separation of the races. Therefore, each race should have its own monoracial countries with their own independent governments. Unlike racial nihilists, racial preservationists promote the preservation of true racial diversity. Of the three views on race, racial preservation is the least popular.
    Thus, racial nihilism and racial supremacy are negative. Hate guides them; therefore, they are highly destructive. Racial preservation is positive. Love guides it; therefore, it is highly constructive.
    Where racial nihilism and racial supremacy destroy races, racial preservation conserves the races. Americans and Europeans have to choose. If they hate their race and believe that it should be annihilated, then all they need to do is to continue to follow racial nihilism. If they love their race and believe that it should be saved, then they need to change direction and become racial preservationists.
    For a more detailed discussion of racial nihilism and racial preservation, see The Racial Compact at http://www.racialcompact.com/index.html#anchor80549.

Copyright © 2016 by Thomas Coley Allen. 

More articles on social issues.