King on Transformed Nonconformist

King on Transformed Nonconformist

by Thomas Allen

In “Transformed Nonconformist,” Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 11–20, Martin Luther King Jr. argues against conforming to the status quo. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

For King, conforming was agreeing with the segregationists. Nonconforming was agreeing with him and the integrationists. Correctly, King writes, “Success, recognition, and conformity are the bywords of the modern world where everyone seems to crave the anesthetizing security of being identified with the majority.” (P. 12.) (Have we not seen this with COVID-19 and its so-called vaccine? Likewise, we have seen this with granting Blacks special privileges and elevating them as the superior race.)

Continuing, King cites Paul urging Christians not to conform to the world. (If he were writing this today and if he were consistent, he would have to condemn integration as conforming with the world and segregation as nonconformity.) Correctly, King writes that we should “be people of conviction, not conformity; of moral nobility, not social respectability.” (P. 12.)

Then, King writes, “When we would yield to the temptation of a world rife with sexual promiscuity and gone wild with a philosophy of self-expression, Jesus tells us that ‘whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.’” (P. 13.) (Regrettably, King did not practice what he preached. He was notorious for his womanizing and infidelity.)

Along with adulterous lust, King cites Jesus’s warning against seeking affluence. Again, citing Jesus, he also condemns choosing comfort over suffering for righteousness.

Next, King quotes Jesus saying that we should love our enemies. (Once more, King falls short of Jesus’s teachings. He displays little love for Southerners and none for segregationists — both of whom he considered his enemies.)

Although Jesus and Paul demanded that people not conform to the world but to live differently, most people are molded by the society in which they live.

Correctly, King writes, “Many people fear nothing more terribly than to take a position that stands out sharply and clearly from the prevailing opinion.” (P. 14.) (Most people fear thinking and having an opinion that differs from those who scream the loudest. Thus, wokeism prevails. King with his “nonviolent” movement was a forefather of today’s wokeism.)

(Although big corporations, primarily through foundations, financed King and other civil rights leaders,) King condemns big corporations and other big institutions. (However, he omits big government from his condemnations.)

Next, King condemns Southerners who oppose segregation and discrimination for not openly stating their opposition. Also, he implies his opposition to the influence of the military-industrial complex and to not allowing Communist China membership in the United Nations. (A few years after King died, Communist China replaced Taiwan in the United Nations.)

Again, King is correct when he writes, “Blind conformity makes us so suspicious of an individual who insists on saying what he really believes that we recklessly threaten his civil liberties.” (P. 15.) (Wokesters fear people who say what they believe and often react violently toward them.) He identifies a person who says what he believes as someone who carries a sign in a protest demonstration. (Some of these people are now serving long prison sentences for protesting the stolen 2020 presidential election.) Included in this group are Southerners who “dare to invite a Negro into his home and join with him in his struggle for freedom.” (P. 15.)

Ardently, King condemns the church because it is “an institution that has often served to crystallize, conserve, and even bless the patterns of majority opinion.“ (P. 15.) (The primary objective of the church before the Reformation was to crystallize, conserve, and bless the majority religious opinion.) He saw the church as the conservator and sanctioner of “slavery, racial segregation, war, and economic exploitation. . . . [T]he the church has hearkened more to the authority of the world than to the authority of God.” (P. 15.) (Since God is a segregationist and even separated the races, the segregationist clergy adheres to the Bible more than the integrationist clergy. Moreover, the Bible does not condemn slavery as a sin. Jesus, Paul, and Peter never ordered slave owners to free their slaves.) Churches should “be the moral guardian[s] of the community.” (P. 15.) (Churches that preach racial segregation were acting as the moral guardians of their communities. They were promoting a policy that preserved the races and, therefore, prevented their genocide. Moreover, churches that were at the forefront of pushing integration and other agendas of King, are now pushing wokeism, sexual perversion [homosexualism, transgenderism, miscegenation, etc.], equality [equity, i.e., equality of outcome and discrimination against Whites], social justice [special privileges and benefits for Negroes], and genocide of the White race [and by that, the genocide of the American Negro].)

Continuing, King condemns preachers who measure their success by the size of their congregation, who are showmen, and who “preach comforting sermons and avoid saying anything from [their] pulpit that might disturb the respectable views of the comfortable members of [their] congregations.” (P. 16.) (Today, such preachers preach the prosperity gospel, preach at mega television churches, or preach the agendas of wokeism and queerdom. Rare is a preacher who teaches the sin of miscegenation. Even rarer is a preacher who teaches the polygenetic origins of the races [species] of humans. Nearly all are evolutionists including those who teach that Adam and Eve are the parents of all races [species of humans]; all of them are monogenists.) 

King argues that integrationists should be nonconformists like the early Christians. (Yet, the early Christians promoted segregation. They wanted to segregate themselves from the pagans instead of integrating with them, which would require them to conform to paganism. Further, because most early Christians never met anyone who was not White, racial issues were of little importance.)

King writes, “Nonconformity in itself, however, may not necessarily be good and may at times possess neither transforming nor redemptive power. . . . Nonconformity is creative when it is controlled and directed by a transformed life and is constructive when it embraces a new mental outlook.” (P. 17.) (Today, the new mental outlook is segregation and separation. Some Negroes and other races are developing this new mental outlook. Most Whites would rather be tortured to death than develop this new mental outlook — at least, openly.)

Next, King argues for “an inner spiritual transformation . . . [to] gain the strength to fight vigorously the evils of the world in a humble and loving spirit.” (P. 18.) (King never seemed to have acquired the inner spiritual transformation.)

Then, King writes, “I confess that I never intend to become adjusted to the evils of segregation and the crippling effects of discrimination, to the moral degeneracy of religious bigotry and the corroding effects of narrow sectarianism, to economic conditions that deprive men of work and food, and to the insanities of militarism and the self-defeating effects of physical violence.” (King’s followers adjusted well to integration, especially King-idolizing conservatives. Most have adjusted to the crippling effects of discrimination against Whites. Many of his Negro followers, such as Black Lives Matter and the Negro rioters of the last 50 years, have adjusted to militarism and physical violence. Instead of being self-defeating, their violence has been highly profitable, especially for the leaders.)

In conclusion, according to King, he and the integrationists were nonconformists. Southerners and segregationists were conformists. Now, the integrationists are the conformists, and the segregationists are the nonconformists. Therefore, since King praised nonconformity, King-idolizers should promote segregation.

Also, King taught that all good Christians are nonconformists and should not conform to the community standards of the majority on racial issues. Since integration is the community standard today, then all good Christians should be segregationists.

If King were alive today, most likely he would condemn nonconformity and urge conformity because most of what he advocated in the 1960s has been accepted and adopted by the majority. When are Whites going to become nonconformists and protest discrimination against Whites using King’s “nonviolent” tactics?

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues.

Miscegenation Is Genocide

Miscegenation Is Genocide

Thomas Allen

Genocide is the systematic destruction of a race of people. If carried to its conclusion, miscegenation results in the destruction of at least one, often both, of the races that are intermarrying. Thus, miscegenation is genocide.

To illustrate this point, let us consider an island with 50 men and 50 women of race M and 50 men and 50 women of race T. The 50 men of race M kill the 50 men and 50 women of race T. What is the result?  Genocide. Race T has ceased to exist.

Again, the 50 men of race M kill the 50 men of race T. They then rape the 50 women of race T, who then have hybrid offspring of mixed-race MT. Or, the 50 women of race T voluntarily become the wives of the men of race M and have children with them. The result is still the same; they have hybrid offspring of mixed-race MT. Finally, if the men of race M have no sexual relationship with the women of race T, the women of race T have no children. What is the result of all three of these scenarios? Genocide. Race T ceases to exist when the last woman of race T dies.

One may say that these are obvious incidents of genocide because violence and murder are involved. However, what one fails to realize is that genocide can occur without violence and can even be voluntary.

Let us return to the example island. The 50 men of race M lust (or desire or whatever verb one wants to use) after the 50 women of race T and marry them while the 50 men of race T lust after the 50 women of race M and marry them. No violence or force is involved. Each man and woman freely and voluntarily chooses his and her mate. The offspring of these mixed marriages are of mixed-race MT. When the last man and woman of race M or race T dies, that race ceases to exist. What is the result?  Genocide. Both races have ceased to exist.

Many definitions include “deliberate” extermination as part of the definition, but not all definitions do. Whether something is deliberate or not is irrelevant if the result is the same. Some definitions use “kill” while others use “exterminate” to show that genocide can be accomplished by means other than killing. 

Now let us look at two definitions of genocide:

1. John Cox: “Genocide aims to not only eliminate individual members of the targeted group but to destroy the group’s ability to maintain its social and cultural cohesion and, thus, its existence as a group.” 

2. American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition: “The systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of a national, racial, religious, or ethnic group.”

According to Jim Cox's definition, miscegenation leads to genocide because it not only eliminates individual members of intermarrying races by eliminating their racial offspring, but it also destroys their ability to maintain the social and cultural cohesion of the race by eliminating the existence of the race.

Miscegenation also meets the definition of the American Heritage Dictionary.  When interracial mating becomes widely accepted, it becomes systematic and widespread and leads to the extermination of the races involved. 

Genocide can just as likely be voluntary as it can be involuntary. It can be murder when one race deliberately kills another. It can be suicide when one race deliberately kills itself by breeding itself out of existence. The only real difference between genocide by murder and genocide by miscegenation is that genocide by miscegenation usually takes longer. In both cases, the results are the same. The race ceases to exist.

Thus, miscegenation is genocide. That it is voluntary does not make it any less evil or sinful. Are homosexual acts any less sinful when they occur between consenting adults? Are adultery and fornication any less sinful when they occur between consenting adults? Is genocide any less sinful when it is voluntary (miscegenation) instead of done by force (murder)? The answer to all these questions is no. They are all sins. 

The only way to avoid the sin of miscegenation and the resulting genocide is to outlaw it and punish those guilty of the crime of miscegenation.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

King on a Tough Mind and a Tender Heart

King on a Tough Mind and a Tender Heart

Thomas Allen

In “A Tough Mind and a Tender Heart,” Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 1–9, Martin Luther King, Jr. discusses tough-mindedness, soft-mindedness, and tenderheartedness. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

King begins with what makes a man strong: “The strong man holds in a living blend strongly marked opposites.” (P. 1.) Accordingly, a strong man is the synthesis of opposites. (Needless to say, King considered himself a strong man.)

King envisioned himself as following Jesus’ directions in Matthew 10:16. He saw himself as being as tough as the serpent but as soft as the dove. So, naturally, he saw himself as having a tough mind and a tender heart. (He had neither. He may have had a stubborn mind, but it was dull. Moreover, he displayed little tenderness toward Southerners and especially segregationists.)

Then, King discusses the characteristics of a tough mind: “incisive thinking, realistic appraisal, and decisive judgment.” (P. 2.) Furthermore, a tough mind is sharp, astute, and discerning. It breaks “through the crust of legends and myths and sifting the true from the false.” (In short, a tough mind requires a level of intelligence and intellect that King lacked. A good example of people who lack a tough mind is those who idolize King. They cannot break “through the crust of legends and myths sifting the true from the false.”)

Correctly, King remarks that a tough mind is one of man’s greatest needs. (Unfortunately, a tough mind is almost absent in Whites concerning race.)

King writes, “Nothing pains some people more than having to think.” (He is being generous. He should have written, “Nothing pains most people more than having to think.”)

Continuing, King notes that gullibility is a sign of a weak mind. (An example of weak-minded gullible people is those who believe the government’s and the establishment media’s lies and propaganda about COVID-19 and its so-called vaccine.)

Correctly, King remarks that “authentic channels of information— the press, the platform, and in many instances the pulpit—do not give us objective and unbiased truth.” (P. 3.) (This claim is even more true today. Few people critically judge what they read and hear to discern fact from fiction. People who idolize King are a good example. Moreover, King illustrates that he lacks the toughness of mind to discern — for example, his reliance on Communists.)

Turning to the soft-minded man, King writes “The soft-minded man always fears change. He feels security in the status quo, and he has an almost morbid fear of the new.” (P.3.) For King, most Southerners and all segregationists were soft-minded. Soft-minded people prefer ignorance to knowledge. (Thus, soft-minded people do not see the world as King thinks that they should. Hence, integrationists are tough-minded, and segregationists are soft-minded.)

Then, King notes that dictators manipulate soft-minded people with emotions to submit to the dictators’ will. (King and other civil rights leaders used emotions to incite their followers, both Black and White, because they knew that their followers were soft-minded people.)

Next, King remarks, “Soft mindedness is one of the basic causes of race prejudice.” (P.4.) On the other hand, tough-minded people evaluate the facts before they reach a conclusion — they postjudge. Soft-minded people reach a conclusion before they evaluate the facts — they prejudge. He writes, “Race prejudice is based on groundless fears, suspicions, and misunderstandings.” (P. 5.) (Consequently, King proves that Southerners are tough-minded people concerning racial issues. Instead of prejudging, Southerners postjudge. Having lived, worked, and associated with Negroes for more than 400 years, Southerners have more than 400 years of experience with and knowledge of the Negro. Their knowledge of the Negro far exceeds that of Northern integrationists. Therefore, Southerners are void of racial prejudices. Since integrationists judge Southerners and segregationists before examining the facts, they are soft-minded people; they prejudge and are, therefore, prejudiced.)

Continuing, King asserts that segregationists, whom he considers soft-minded people, want to perpetuate segregation “because Negroes lag behind [Whites] in academic, health, and moral standards.” (P. 5.) According to King, segregation and discrimination caused Negroes to lag behind Whites in academic, health, and moral standards. (After more than 50 years of integration where Negroes have received vastly more benefits and privileges than Whites ever had during the height of Jim Crow and White supremacy, Negroes still lag behind in academic, health, and moral standards. Consequently, the soft-minded people, according to King, were correct and the tough-minded people were wrong. Whatever caused Negroes to lag was not segregation or discrimination.)

(A tough-minded person would have studied the facts and discerned that the shortcomings of Negroes were innate. Segregation did not cause them, so integration would not eliminate them. Consequently, King proves himself to be soft-minded for failing to realize that genetics causes the Negro’s problem and not segregation. However, if King knew it, he was hypocritically deceiving his followers.)

Next, King discusses tenderheartedness. “Tough mindedness without tenderheartedness is cold and detached. . . . The hardhearted person never truly loves.” (Pp. 5-6.) 

A hardhearted person is a utilitarian who values people according to their usefulness to him. “He is unmoved by the pains and afflictions of his brothers.” (P. 6.) (King, his followers, and integrationists in general were unmoved by the pains and afflictions that they brought upon Southerners. Many even enjoyed causing Southerners pain and afflictions. Therefore, they were hardhearted people.)

King notes that hardhearted people may give to charity, but they never give their spirit. “The hardhearted individual never sees people as people, but rather as mere objects or as impersonal cogs in an ever-turning wheel.” (P. 6.) (King insinuates that Southerners who opposed integration did not care about their Negro neighbors. Otherwise, they would have integrated with them. They merely saw Negroes as cheap labor.  Only, Northerners, especially Northern integrationists, saw Negroes as real people who were equal to Whites. On the contrary, Southerners saw Negroes as real, concrete people. Northern integrationists saw Negroes as abstractions. They were merely tools to execute their Dixiephobic war to genocide Southerners. While most Southerners personally interact with Negroes daily, many Northerners may not personally interact with Negroes for a week or more. According to King’s description of hardheartedness, Northerners were more hardhearted than Southerners.)

Continuing, King writes, “To have serpentlike qualities devoid of dovelike qualities is to be passionless, mean, and selfish. To have dovelike without serpentlike qualities is to be sentimental, anemic, and aimless.” (P. 6.) The two need to be combined. (King’s serpent-like qualities far outweighed his dove-like qualities.)

Finally, King writes, that Negroes “cannot win the respect of the white people of the South or elsewhere if we are willing to trade the future of our children for our personal safety and comfort.” (P. 7.) (Negroes succeeded in destroying the respect that Whites had for the White race. Consequently, Negroes failed to gain the respect of Whites. People who cannot respect their own race cannot respect others.)

Concluding, King urges his (so-called) “nonviolent resistance, which combines tough mindedness and tenderheartedness and avoids the complacency and do-nothingness of the soft minded and the violence and bitterness of the hardhearted.” (P. 7.) (King’s tactics were not nonviolent. They were designed to cause violent reactions, and were highly successful in achieving violent responses to provocations — so much for tenderheartedness.)

In closing, King compares himself and his “nonviolent” tactics to God. The Bible shows God’s “tough mindedness in his justice and wrath and his tenderheartedness in his love and grace.” (P. 8.)

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

A Discussion with an Idiot

A Discussion with an Idiot

Thomas Allen, editor

Below is a discussion between me and an idiot. This discussion resulted from a comment that I made to a comment that another person made to an article. The article is titled “Police Officer Arrests Man Reciting Bible Verse at Pride Rally” at https://wltreport.com/2023/06/06/police-officer-arrests-man-reciting-bible-verse-at-pride-rally/#comment-6210524182. [Note: If you go to this site, you will not see my comments because it has banned me. Apparently, I objected too much about it censoring my comments telling the truth about God’s chosen people and their political movement.]

The idiot is somewhat arrogant and a racial nihilist. As a racial nihilist, she does not care about persevering the American Negro and seems to rejoice in the Negro’s demise. On the contrary, she denies that the Negro race, the White race, and any other race exists. (I use “she” and “her” for pronouns for this idiot because she did not specify which one of the 100 plus pronouns is her preferred pronoun.)

Moreover, this idiot is a worshiper of St. Martin Luther King the Divine and probably considers herself a conservative. Further, she is convinced that King had a high moral standard, was a strict follower of biblical morality because that is where King got his morality, and was faithful to his wife. Thus, she has a weird understanding of the Bible and seems to believe that the Bible does not condemn illicit sex. For someone who mentions the Bible as frequently as she does, she has a shallow understanding of the Bible. Also, she understands the Bible through the lens of wokeism.

Moreover, although she idolizes King, her comments show that she knows little about him. One would think that anyone who idolizes King as much as she does would know about his infidelity, which is common knowledge. Either she is too stupid to know or she rejects what she knows is true because it tarnishes her idol.

Originally, I thought that this person was ignorant. Later, I discovered that she was stupid. Ignorance can be fixed with knowledge; stupidity cannot be fixed. However, I did not find her stupid because she disagreed with me. I found her stupid by the way that she disagreed and what she wrote. (I have had many people disagree with me whom I do not consider stupid. An example is King.)

Furthermore, this person is not the only idiot that I have encountered. For example, one moronic person claims that he knows more about what a clause in the Constitution means than does the person who wrote it.

I have left the idiot’s comments and the other comments as they were posted. To one of my comments, I have added some clarification and have enclosed it in brackets. I have substituted “Idiot” for her pseudonym, “Me” for my pseudonym, “Original Commenter” for the person who commented on the article, and “Third Party” for the person who commented during our discussion. 

The comments are not in chronological order but are in the order that they appear in the comment section. The discussion follows.

 Original Commenter: In the Last Days what is good will be called evil and what is evil will be called good. This is a fine example of that scripture. The good man was trying to warn of the consequences of sin. We don’t make the laws, God does and still have consequences for disobedience.

Me: Martin Luther King writes, “An unjust law is one in which people are required to obey a code that they had no part in making because they were denied the right to vote.” Thus, the ten commandments and the other laws that Moses wrote in the Old Testament are unjust because no one had any part in making them. According to King, people should not obey unjust laws.  https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2023/05/the-real-king.html

Idiot: Em, the ten commandments are the laws that God gave mankind for mankind’s benefit. Which of these laws would you propose we not obey, and why? Just curious ...

Thou shall not murder perhaps? Thou shall not bear false witness? Do these seem “unjust” to you?

Me: I did not say that we should not follow the ten commandments. I am saying that the greatest conservative ever, the archconservative St. Martin Luther King the Divine said that no one is obliged to obey any law that they did not help make by voting for those who made the law.

Idiot: oh, btw, Martin Luther King said we are not obliged to follow IMMORAL laws. Big difference.

“One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” Martin Luther King Jr.

Note the “MORAL responsibility” - WHERE do you suppose REVEREND King got his “morality” from, hmmm?

Idiot: I didn’t say to not follow the ten commandments either.

YOU said any law we didn’t have a part in making, we are not obliged to follow.

We didn’t have a part in making the ten commandments, so we shouldn’t be obliged to follow them.

So I asked YOU which of these laws would you NOT follow?

Soooo?

Me: I did not say that we are not obliged to follow laws that we didn’t have a part in making. King said that. King defines an unjust law as one in which people had no part in making because they were denied the right to vote. According to King’s definition, the ten commandments are unjust because people had no part in making them and, therefore, they are not obliged to obey them.

Idiot: The quote YOU provided was about something totally different. People who are denied the right to vote shouldn’t have to follow laws they had no say in making. We actually fought an American Revolution for this very reason. Britain throwing people in jail without trial by jury and imposing tax laws on Americans when Americans had no say in parliament, where the laws were coming from.

It was a quote about people who are denied the right vote.

Me: But the principle is still applicable to OT laws since people were denied the right to vote and neither the Israelites nor anyone else beyond God had a say in making them. Throughout most of history, all laws have been unjust because people who were required to obey them had no part in making them. Even today, the same is true for minors because they have no part in making laws that apply to them.

Idiot: No, it does not apply. That was not even close to what King was referring to. For one, he definitely said we have a moral responsibility to follow just laws. Where did REVEREND King get his morality, and just laws from? THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.

Me: “Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood.” Then, “I don’t expect that anything I write will change the minds enclosed in concrete already...."

Third Party: You cannot use reason to debate or convince or inform someone who has rejected reason.

If reason is your argument, and he won’t hear it, you are wasting your breath and conceding any hope before you begin.

Idiot addressing Third Party: Yep, you perfectly described why Me has desperately avoided answering where Reverend King got his morality from. :-) When you avoid reasoning and facts you have rejected them. When your mind is that closed, you will never be able to learn anything new. Sad, isn't it?

Idiot: Oh Lord, I don’t want to admit where Reverend King got his morality from! Noooo! It'll make me look stupid!

Me: I don’t know where King got his morality and just laws from, but I do know that he did not get them from the Bible.

Idiot: You don’t know where REVEREND King got his morality from, but you somehow do know it wasn’t from the Bible??????

Liar. You tried to avoid the question because you DO know, and didn’t want to answer. :-)

I suspect that you know exactly where King got his morality from. Everybody else does.

You just exposed yourself, dear. Good job!

Me: Where did King get his morality? Although you seem to think that he got it from the Bible, he did not. King was an integrationist and hated segregationists. The God of the Bible is the great segregationist; therefore, King loathes him. Proof that God is a segregationist: The world’s two greatest segregationist events were the Noachian Flood (where God segregated Noah and his family from the rest of the people) and the Tower of Babel. God was the cause of both of them. Further, God told the Israelites that when they entered Canaan not to integrate with the inhabitants, i.e., segregate themselves. Also, God segregates the saved from the unsaved. Thus, while God teaches segregation, King teaches integration.

According to Acts 17:26, when God created the races, He determined the boundaries of the habitats. Did God create the races of man, or did they evolve? The Bible supports creation; you probably support evolution. King's racial policy of integrating the races leads to amalgamation and, therefore, the destruction of the races. Do you support the deliberate destruction of what God created? God so despises amalgamation that He forbids mongrels, multiracial people, to enter His assembly. https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2017/05/commentary-on-deuteronomy-232.html

King seems to have got his morality from Satan, but that is speculation on my part.

Idiot: God forbids “mongrels” and “multi-racial” people from His assembly??

Quote the Chapter and verse FROM THE BIBLE that proves this????

Good luck with that one, dear. :-)

Me: The New Jerusalem Bible reads, “No half-bred may be admitted to the assembly of the Yahweh; not even his descendants to the tenth generation may be admitted to the Assembly of Yahweh.” The Hebrew word translated “half-bred” means “mongrel.” If you had consulted the link that I gave you, you would have learned this. [I did fail to cite the verse, which is Deuteronomy 23:2; however, it was cited in the link of my previous comment. Obviously, she had not read the linked article.]

Idiot: Once again you have failed. Source? Chapter and verse please.

Idiot: You also know nothing of the Bible but you are revealing yourself in very profound ways.

oh, btw. The Bible NEVER mentions anything about different "races."

Different people groups, such as the Hittites, Cushites (African tribes), Israelites, etc. But NEVER different races because there is only ONE race in the Bible. THE HUMAN RACE.

The ONLY segregationist here honey, is YOU.

God separated the people at the tower of Babel because His plan was NEVER for a “one world order.” Thank God for that!

And different races don’t “evolve.” That's a non-sensical [sic], totally UN scientific statement. DUH! What is WRONG with you???? Doesn’t even relate to “evolution or creation.” The ignorance here is astounding.

And how the hell does God “dispise amalgamation????”

So glad you posted that last post. You discredited yourself beyond repair. My dear, you are your own worst enemy.

Reverend King, and ALL Christians, get their morality from the BIBLE. The living word of God. Period. Now go back to your mummy's basement before you hurt yourself.

Me: Obviously, you suffer from intellectual hernias, racial nihilism, invincible ignorance, terminal ignorance, mental imprisonment, cognitive dissonance, arrested development, delusional psychosis, and dissociation of sensibility. People like you are causing the dying of the country, the decaying of Christianity, and the growing genocide.

Further, your knowledge of the Bible is appalling. Cush is Arabia (https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2020/03/cush-and-ethiopia.html) The Bible NEVER mentions anything about “the United States,” “Russia,” “nuclear war,” and many other things that people find in the Bible. Some translations do use the word race in the sense of ethnicities. Also, the Bible speaks of tribes and nations. Ethnicities, tribes, and nations are monoracial in the biological sense and are subdivisions of a race — thus, implying race in the biological sense.

When God separated the people at Babel, He segregated them; He certainly did not integrate them. “How the hell does God ‘dispise amalgamation”?” He told the Israelites not to integrate (amalgamate) themselves with the people of the promised land; instead, He told them to segregate from them.

I never said that the races evolved. God created them; therefore, we should promote policies that protect and preserve them (segregation and separation) and not policies that genocide them (miscegenation and amalgamation). Why do you want to destroy the races that God created? You must since you oppose policies that protect and preserve them and endorse policies that genocide them.

If King got his morality from the Bible, why was he a fornicator? Why was he, like you, a promoter of policies that resulted in the genocide of Blacks?

Idiot: What makes you think that King was a fornicator? oh, wait, are YOU judging him by BIBLICAL standards?

Whatever. What policies did King promote that resulted in the genocide of Blacks?

Name one. I dare ya.

Me: Since King’s morality comes from the Bible and since King had sex with women other than his wife, then, according to you, biblical morality approves of people having sex with women other than their wives.

King promoted integration. Integration leads to interracial marriages and mating. Interracial marriages and mating lead to the breeding of the races involved out of existence. And that is genocide. King promoted interracial marriages. You also want to genocide Blacks.

Idiot: So according to you, interracial marriage promotes genocide? wow. Just wow. How sick and pathetic.

You also need to educate yourself on the definition of “genocide.”

(Spoiler alert: the definition does not include interracial marriage)

Idiot: I don't know if King was faithful or not. Who was the other woman?

Well?

Idiot: “according to me???” Quote me where I said that the Bible supports adultery.

Waiting ....

Idiot: Em, no. The Cushites are descendants of CUSH. Grandson of Noah, and the father of Nimrod. The land of Cush in the Bible is ETHIOPIA.

The African lands south of Egypt. Please read a Bible before you post.

There is NO translation of the Bible that uses the term "race." Never. None, Nada, Zip, Zilch.

All Bibles were translated from the original Hebrew (and some Aramaic like the Book of Daniel) into the other languages DIRECTLY.

Hebrew > Greek

Hebrew > Latin

Hebrew > English

etc. etc etc.

So we know there is no reference to different “races” at all. Only different tribes. That is just a fact.

And yes you did say the races “evolved.” Try to be more clear and specific because when you pose a question about “creation vs evolution” in the same breath, that is the obvious assumption.

As for your idiotic question, “Why do you want to destroy the races that God created?”

I do not want to destroy anything. But as far as mixed marriages, I have no problem with that.

As for your “ass-umption,” it doesn’t even make sense, : “You must since you oppose policies that protect and preserve them and endorse policies that genocide them.”

What the hell does that even mean? What the hell policies would “protect and preserve races” without being blatantly racist???

And just explain to me how anyone would “genocide races??” Well?

Me: The American Standard Version, which may be the best literal translation of the Bible, uses the word “race.” If you had consulted the link that I gave you, you would have learned that Cush was Arabia and not a region south of Egypt.

Idiot: Actually, the best literal translation is The King James Bible.

And please quote chapter and verse where any Bible uses the word “race.”

Idiot: Whaaa !!! ????

Ok, so explain “intellectual hernias, racial nihilism, invincible ignorance, terminal ignorance, mental imprisonment, cognitive dissonance, arrested development, delusional psychosis, and dissociation of sensibility.”

What does any of that even mean, and how does it intellectually bolster your opinion?

Mmmmm? Waiting ...............................

Me: I thought that you were ignorant and could be educated. However, I have discovered that you are stupid and beyond hope. Therefore, I must follow Mark Twain’s advice.

Idiot: FAIL! Was Mark Twain’s advice to crawl away with your tail between your legs? LMAO!

Cya.

Me: Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. – Mark Twain

I have been arguing with an idiot and do not want to be dragged down to your level.

Idiot: LOL! Look at your posts dear. Do who see whole paragraphs of childish invectives in mine? Nope.

I did not let you drag me down to YOUR level, as evidenced by our posts for all the world to see.

Nice try, no fly. You're done here.

Idiot: Sorry kiddo. We ALL KNOW where pastors and reverends, including Rev. King, get their morality from. THE BIBLE. EVERYBODY already knows that. You cannot deny that and maintain any illusion of credibility or integrity. End of that story.

Me: You claim that pastors and reverends, including Rev. King, get their morality from the Bible. Consequently, homosexual pastors and fornicating pastors like King get their morality from the Bible — really?

Idiot: ??? We all know that Pastors and Reverends get their morality from the Bible, as do all Christians. Once again you are desperately trying to create a diversion to get out of the corner you are painted in to.

Yes, Reverend King got his morality from the Bible. It's that simple.

Idiot: OH Lord, I can’t answer the question, so let me divert with childish ad hominems [sic] so I don’t have to admit how closed my mind is! Worse than concrete! lmao!

Idiot: Actually YOU did say that. And ONLY you since you misquoted King.

Martin Luther King NEVER said we shouldn’t follow laws we didn’t vote for, except in the context of those who were DENIED the right to vote. It wasn’t a reference to the general population.

Martin Luther King said we had a duty to NOT follow *IMMORAL* laws. I provided his quote for you. And this pertained to EVERYONE.

Big difference.

And my question to you, was which laws that we did not vote for (ie; the Ten Commandments) should we not follow, since we obviously didn’t vote for these laws.

THE END

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

King on the World House – Part 2

King on the World House – Part 2

Thomas Allen

To solve international poverty, King writes “The rich nations must use their vast resources of wealth to develop the underdeveloped, school the unschooled and feed the unfed.” (P. 189.) (In other words, reverse colonialism: Instead of Whites countries exploiting nonwhite countries, nonwhite countries exploit White countries. This exploitation has been extended to allow nonwhites to invade White countries without restrictions or limits while granting these nonwhites the privilege to plunder, oppress, rape, maim, and kill Whites with little or no penalty. On the contrary, Whites who complain about being maltreated by nonwhites are penalized.)

Continuing, King states that the great and rich countries must “provide capital and technical assistance to the underdeveloped areas.” (P. 188.) These countries need to provide much more aid than they have provided — enough to sustain economic growth. Wealthy countries “must promptly initiate a massive, sustained Marshall Plan for Asia, Africa and South America.” (Pp. 188-189.) (Although not at the level that King wanted, rich countries, especially the United States, have provided an enormous amount of aid. However, they send aid to the government of the recipient country; consequently, only a small portion goes to the people who need it. Most of the aid goes to enrich officials of the recipient government and to the politically connected in the country receiving the aid and the country sending the aid. As for the Marshall Plan idea, European countries that received the most aid, e.g., Great Britain, under the Marshall Plan took longer to recover than countries that received little or nothing, e.g., Germany.)

Continuing, King writes, “The aid program that I am suggesting must not be used by the wealthy nations as a surreptitious means to control the poor nations.” (P. 189.) (That is, aid must be given with no conditions attached and no oversight.) Moreover, aid must be given with “a compassionate and committed effort to wipe poverty, ignorance and disease from the face of the earth.” (P. 189.) (Thus, if aid is given with an inappropriate motivation, it does the recipient country no good. How absurd! Despite the motivation, the recipient will use his lucre the same way if it comes without conditions.) Nevertheless, King implies that much of the aid will be wasted instead of improving the health, education, and wealth of the people. Such waste is caused by these colonies becoming independent countries. 

King credits the economic growth of the West to being relatively underpopulated and an abundance of iron ore and coal. (If true, when the Europeans landed in the Americas, they should have found a level of economic prosperity similar to what Europe had. The Americas were relatively underpopulated and coal, iron ore, and other natural resources exceeded that of Europe. Likewise, with Africa, when the Europeans landed in sub-Sahara Africa, they should have found a level of economic prosperity similar to Europe’s. Like the Americas, Africa was relatively underpopulated and had natural resources that far exceeded Europe’s. King errs because he fails to account for nonphysical genetic differences.)

Because the emerging new governments of former colonies, “confront staggering problems of overpopulation. There is no possible way for them to make it without aid and assistance.” (P. 190.) (Thus, King admits that nonwhites are inferior to Whites because Whites made it without aid and nonwhites cannot. Moreover, the primary reason that these new countries were “overpopulated” was that the European colonial powers created conditions conducive to population growth.)

King declares, “that we must use our resources to outlaw poverty.” (P. 191.) (Thus, King declares that Jesus erred when he said that the poor will always be with us. Jesus did not mean that we should not help the poor from our personal estates, which we should. However, one should not plunder [tax] another person and give the loot to the poor — as King wanted to do.)

About one thing, King is correct: “A final problem that mankind must solve in order to survive in the world house that we have inherited is finding an alternative to war and human destruction.” (Pp. 191-192.) (On this point, King-idolizing conservatives, especially neoconservatives, ignore the greatest conservative ever, the archconservative King. Most of these conservatives adore every war that they have ever seen. People with the right connections can make a great deal of money from war.)

Continuing, King writes, “There is no need to fight for food and land. Science has provided us with adequate means of survival and transportation, which make it possible to enjoy the fullness of this great earth.” (P. 192.) (King sounds like a proponent of free trade.) He detests the notion of fighting wars in the name of peace and condemns leaders who do so. These leaders seek “a peaceful world order, a world fashioned after their selfish conceptions of an ideal existence.” (Likewise, King sought a peaceful world order fashioned after his selfish conception of an ideal existence.) He contends that peaceful ends must be pursued through peaceful means.

Then, King suggests “that the philosophy and strategy of nonviolence become immediately a subject for study and for serious experimentation in every field of human conflict” (p.194) including relations between nations. (King seems to want countries to resolve conflicts among themselves following his method of “nonviolent” protests. For decades, the CIA has been following King’s method. If a government [a segregated State or city] does not bow to the CIA’s [King’s] demands, the CIA supports the opponent’s [openly violent civil rights groups] of the government and brings it down via a coupe, civil war [riots], etc.)

Then, King states, “The United Nations is a gesture in the direction of nonviolence on a world scale.” (P. 195.) (If true, the United Nations is a failure. As many, and probably more, violent conflicts have occurred since its creation than before. However, the real purpose of the United Nations is not to prevent violent conflicts. Its purpose is to serve as a foundation for a despotic world government that a few oligarchs control.)

Next, King writes that “true nonviolence is more than the absence of violence. It is the persistent and determined application of peaceable power to offenses against the community.” (P. 195.)  (What is this application of “peaceful power?” It looks a lot like the application of legalized coercion, i.e., war. Covert war is what King used to destroy the South.)

King argues for “a revolution of values to accompany the scientific and freedom revolutions engulfing the earth.” (P. 196.) (King had a warped sense of freedom. Traditionally, freedom means that the government does little beyond the minimum to protect life, liberty, and property. Freedom means no welfare state, no guaranteed income, no affirmative action or quotas, no public school system, and none of the many other things that King wanted governments to do. Concerning race relations, just about the only acts that a government could take are those necessary to prevent or discourage genocide.)

Continuing, King declares, “We must . . . shift from a ‘thing’-oriented society to a ‘person’-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.” (Pp.196-197.) (King-idolizing conservatives take note: You need to oppose the free market economy. Either King is exposing his ignorance of a free market economy or he hates it. A free market economy is people-oriented. If producers do not provide people with what they want or need at a price that they can afford, they make no profit. Without property rights, i.e., the right to use their property as they think best, producers are hampered in providing people what they desiderate. The foundation of a free market economy is cooperation. Moreover, a free market economy does a better job of conquering the great triplets than does King’s approach of massive governmental intervention that is based on envy and the lust for power.)

Then, King describes capitalism and Communism. (His description of Communism is accurate. His description of capitalism is what happens when governments interfere in a free market economy for wars, favorites, or picking winners and losers.)

King argues for a fascist economy — the melding of capitalism and Communism. “The good and just society is neither the thesis of capitalism nor the antithesis of Communism, but a socially conscious democracy which reconciles the truths of individualism and collectivism.” (P. 197.) (This is a description of fascism: the concatenation of the collective and the individual with oligarchs deciding what is a good and just society. Moreover, King should be rolling over in his grave with joy since nearly every country in the world today has some form of fascist political economy, and most did at the time he wrote.)

With his Luddite tendencies, King declares “With righteous indignation, it [the true revolution of values] will look at thousands of working people displaced from their jobs with reduced incomes as a result of automation while the profits of the employers remain intact, and say: ‘This is not just.’” (P. 198.) (King seems to want nonwhite countries to industrialize. Yet, industrialization, i.e., automation, costs people their jobs. Over the centuries many jobs have been lost to automation. Most automation has replaced people in grueling, dangerous, or monotonous jobs that most people dislike doing. Automation has freed them to perform more interesting work. The industrial revolution has been built on automation. Besides, if everything is so automated that no jobs exist, then companies would quickly go out of business because no one could buy their products. What King and most other people fail to realize is that the final customer decides what jobs are needed and the pay of workers and not employers, capitalists, etc. If the government intervenes to fix wages, prices, etc. shortages occur, and the country as a whole is poorer. Nevertheless, King has a point about companies taking much more money out of a community than they invest there — this is an argument to favor small businesses over multinational corporations.)

King complains, “There is nothing but a lack of social vision to prevent us from paying an adequate wage to every American citizen.” (P. 199.) (As noted above, the final customer decides the pay that a worker receives by what he is willing to pay for the product or service. Obviously, King did not know much about economics. But, here, he is promoting his guaranteed income for every family. That is, he wants the government to plunder producers and divide the stolen loot among families or individuals.)

Then, King states, “that our greatest defense against Communism is to take offensive action in behalf of justice.” (P. 200.) (That is, the United States need to flood the world with money with no conditions attached.)

Continuing, King declares, “These are revolutionary times.” (P. 200.) (True. It was the revolution of tyranny and despotism over freedom and liberty. In the name of King’s social justice, tyranny, and despotism won.)

Next, King writes, “Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal opposition to poverty, racism and militarism.” (Pp. 200-201.) (If this is our only hope, we are doomed. Poverty is still with us as Jesus said it would be. Black racism, Yellow racism, and Brown racism have supplanted White racism, which is mostly dead. Militarism is as prevalent today as ever before as the United States seek to impose democracy and King’s social justice on every country in the world.)

King was a cosmopolitan and a globalist. He urged everyone to place humanity as a whole above his particular tribe, race, class, and nation (a people as opposed to a country). Further, he calls “for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all men.” (P. 201.) (That is, all tribes, races, classes, and nations must sacrifice themselves on the altar of globalism under the rule of the global oligarchs. Now, it becomes clear why White oligarchs supported King and his destructive work.)

In conclusion, King states, “We can no longer afford to worship the God of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation.” (Pp. 200-201.) (Where Southerners were involved, King never did stop worshiping the God of hate or bowing before his altar of retaliation.)

For decades, the White oligarchs have been flooding the country with legal and illegal nonwhites. This flooding of nonwhites greatly threatens the hold that Negroes have on America. Because they are not White, these nonwhites are demanding and receiving the same benefits and privileges given to Negroes. Consequently, Negroes are beginning to lose their control of America to these nonwhites. Unfortunately for Negroes, they cannot control these nonwhites with guilt as they have controlled Whites. When these nonwhites reach a critical mass, they will push the Negro to the lowest rung of society. Then, Negroes will look at the days of segregation and Jim Crow as the days of privilege and prosperity. For this dismal future, Negroes can think King and his civil rights movement and social justice.

After reading his book, I discovered that I have much more confidence in the American Negro than King did. He believed that the Negro was incapable of bettering himself without the aid of Whites. Therefore, according to King, Negroes need Whites to solve their problems, to support them, and to give them special privileges and benefits. Although Whites gave the Negro everything that King demanded and more — except ending wars and a guaranteed income, many Negroes still have a slave mentality, however, a perverse slave mentality. Like the traditional slave, they remain dependent on Whites, but unlike the traditional slave, they expect Whites to serve them. By obeying King’s demands, Whites have greatly damaged the Negro. The Negro as a whole would have been better off today if King and his followers had not created the turmoil that they did in the 1960s and if the Negro had been left alone to solve his problems.

To resolve his problems the Negro should free himself from his dependency on Whites. Ironically as it may seem, especially to King, Negroes would have advanced further in a more segregated society. The Black Power folks were going in the right direction, but King subverted their movement. As a result, the Negro is not much better off today than in King’s day except economically. In many social respects, the Negro is worse off.

If the Negro had followed the Black Power road instead of King’s road, he would have had the satisfaction of knowing that he raised himself up and that he is responsible for his achievements. Because he followed King’s road, he will always question his achievements since Whites gave him just about everything that he has.

When King said that he had a dream, his dream was the genocide of the White race after all its wealth had been plundered. At least, that is the result of the policies that he advocated and promoted. Moreover, King-idolizing conservatives have been working diligently to achieve his dream — except in the economic realm where most continue to oppose guaranteed income and reparations.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on social issues.

King on the World House – Part 1

King on the World House – Part 1

Thomas Allen

In “The World House,” Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? (Boston: Beacon Press, 1968), pages 177–202, Martin Luther King, Jr., discusses the American Negro uniting with nonwhites around the world in their struggle for freedom, racism, colonialism and economic exploitation, poverty, war and peace, and foreign aid. 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 supports a world welfare system. He writes that “we cannot ignore the larger world house in which we are also dwellers. Equality with whites will not solve the problems of either whites or Negroes if it means equality in a world society stricken by poverty and in a universe doomed to extinction by war.” (P. 177.) (King-idolizing conservatives need to stop objecting to nonmilitary foreign aid and start opposing military foreign aid.)

Then, he mentions the inventions and discoveries made during the previous 100 years. (He fails to mention that Whites are responsible for these inventions and discoveries.)

Next, King states that “what is happening in the United States today is a significant part of a world development.” (P. 179.) That is, the civil rights movement needed to spread across the planet. (Neoconservatives have accommodated King by forcing his civil rights movement on the world. When necessary, they use war to impose King’s civil rights movement. White countries outside the Muslim world have surrendered to King’s civil rights movement with little resistance. However, war has been required in the White and nonwhite Muslim world. So far, most of East Asia and India have avoided having King’s civil rights movement imposed on them.)

Erroneously, King declares that what “we are seeing now is a freedom explosion” (P. 179.) (On the contrary, except for the defunct Soviet block, most countries are much less free today than they were before King’s civil rights movement. Ironically, freedom has been dying faster in the United States, the White Anglophone countries, and Western Europe than anywhere else on the planet, and these are the countries where the civil rights movement has advanced the furthest.)

Continuing, King remarks that “the era of colonialism, is at an end. East is moving West. The earth is being redistributed.” (P. 180.) (What are the American Negroes going to do when China conquers the United States? The only use that the Chinese will have for most Negroes is manual labor. They certainly will have no use for them as whining welfare recipients and habitual complainers who are never satisfied.)

Next, King claims, “Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever.” (P. 180.) (Anyone who cares about the White race, especially Southerners, who are now the oppressed, needs to hope that King is right. Negroes, who are the oppressors, need to hope that King is wrong.)

Then, King compares the biblical story of Moses demanding that Pharaoh let the Israelites go with the American Negro. (However, King does not complete the analogy. When Pharaoh let the Israelites go, the Israelites left Egypt. To complete the analogy, the American Negroes would have to leave the United States. Moreover, if King envisioned himself as Moses delivering his people from bondage, then King should have led his people to the promised land in Africa.)

King remarks that the American Negro “has been caught up by the spirit of the times, and with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow brothers in Asia, South America and the Caribbean, the United States Negro is moving with a sense of great urgency toward the promised land of racial justice.” (P. 180.) (Now, many Negroes are probably having second thoughts about uniting with their black, brown, and yellow brothers flooding America and claiming rights and privileges that Whites had given the Negro. Also, their promised land of racial justice seems void of any racial justice for Whites.)

Then, King writes, “Together we must learn to live as brothers or together we will be forced to perish as fools.” (P. 181.) (King seems to have omitted Whites from his brotherhood — except White Communists, White liberal Negrophiles, and White oligarchs. He certainly omits Southerners and White segregationists.)

Correctly, King states, “The richer we have become materially, the poorer we have become morally and spiritually. . . .  Enlarged material powers spell enlarged peril if there is not proportionate growth of the soul.” (Pp. 181-182.)

King writes, “Among the moral imperatives of our time, we are challenged to work all over the world with unshakable determination to wipe out the last vestiges of racism.” (P. 183.) (White racism has mostly vanished from the world. However, the racism of the other races is as strong as ever, and even the racism of the American Negro has been growing stronger ever since King inflamed it.)

According to King, economic exploitation is the perennial ally of racism. (If true, then the Negro’s economic exploitation of Whites proves that Negroes are racists — in spite of the accepted definition of “racist” that declares that Negroes cannot be racists.)

Then, King comments on the racism of South Africa and claims that “the economic policies of the United States and Great Britain” (p. 183) make possible “the racist government of South Africa.” (P. 183.) (Yet, the economic policies of the United States and Great Britain brought down the White racist government of South Africa and replaced it with a Negro racist government. Ever since South Africa has been deteriorating while the Afrikaners are being genocided.)

Next, King comments on Rhodesia and the aid given to Rhodesia by “British-based industry and private capital, despite the stated opposition of British government policy.” (P. 184.) (In 1979, the White government of Rhodesia fell. The country changed its name to Zimbabwe, and Negroes gained control of the government. After the Negroes drove most of the Whites from the country, the Negroes of Zimbabwe became poorer and more oppressed than they were under White rule. However, if he had lived to see this happy moment, King would rejoice knowing that Whites no longer oppress Negroes in Zimbabwe while complaining that Whites are not given Zimbabwe ever more money.)

King writes, “Nothing provides the Communists with a better climate for expansion and infiltration than the continued alliance of our nation with racism and exploitation throughout the world.” (P. 184.) (Being a Communist sympathizer, King should not have objected to anything that aided Communist expansion.)

Then, King declares, “And if we are not diligent in our determination to root out the last vestiges of racism in our dealings with the rest of the world, we may soon see the sins of our fathers visited upon ours and succeeding generations.” (Pp. 184-185.) (The only racism that has been rooted out is that of Whites while racism in the rest of the world is healthy, strong, and growing. As a result, the Whites of the United  States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Europe, and the rest of the world are fading away as they lose the countries that they founded and built to nonwhites.)

After discussing the exploitation of Latin America, King states, “The Bible and the annals of history are replete with tragic stories of one brother robbing another of his birthright and thereby insuring generations of strife and enmity.” (P. 185.) (King’s statement is correct. However, he confounds who is exploiting whom. King asserts that Whites are exploiting nonwhites, especially Negroes. On the contrary, Negroes and other nonwhites have been exploiting Whites for decades. By that, they create strife and enmity as they war among themselves for the spoils of Whites.)

King notes that most of the revolutionaries of Africa, Asia, and Latin America were educated in the West. Before then, many had been trained in Christian missionary schools. (Thus, Communists and Communist sympathizers had infiltrated and gained controlled universities and religious organizations even before King’s civil rights movement.)

King shows that envy is a significant motive for nonwhites to claim what Whites have. “In recent years their countries have been invaded by automobiles, Coca-Cola and Hollywood, so that even remote villages have become aware of the wonders and blessings available to God’s white children. . . . Either they share in the blessings of the world or they organize to break down and overthrow those structures or governments which stand in the way of their goals.” (P. 186.) (In other words, either Whites give Negroes and other nonwhites what they demand or they will steal it.)

Then, King declares, “And when they [colored people] look around and see that the only people who do not share in the abundance of Western technology are colored people, it is an almost inescapable conclusion that their condition and their exploitation are somehow related to their color and the racism of the white Western world.” (P. 186.) (King fails to realize that Whites obtained what they have through their intelligence and other innate attributes and traits, hard work, delaying gratification, sacrificing, etc. Erroneously, King and most other nonwhites, especially Negroes, believe that most of what Whites have, they got through exploiting nonwhites. However, Whites did not have to exploit anyone to create the wealth that they have. As for colonialism, most natives of the colonies, especially in Africa, became wealthier, healthier, and safer after the Europeans arrived than they were before the European arrival.)

Next, King asserts, “If Western civilization does not now respond constructively to the challenge to banish racism, some future historian will have to say that a great civilization died because it lacked the soul and commitment to make justice a reality for all men.” (Pp. 186-187.) (No civilization has ever come as close as Western Civilization in banishing the racism of its race, i.e., the White race. As a result, the White race has lost its soul and is dying. When the White race perishes along with its  great innate innovative intelligence, the nonwhites of the world will plunge into a dark age of poverty, tyranny, and oppression.)

Then, King declares, “Another grave problem that must be solved . . . is that of poverty on an international scale.” (P. 187.) He believed that Whites had the resources to rid the world of poverty. He states “that famine is wholly unnecessary in the modern world.” (P. 187.) (This is mostly true. When a natural disaster causes a famine, international aid usually arrives quickly to alleviate the problem. However, most famines are political. That is, the government of the country where the famine is occurring is the cause, and foreign aid offers little relief since the offending government receives the aid. War is another political problem that causes famine. The elimination of war and oppressive governments, like nearly every country has today, would eliminate most famines.) He offers several solutions for eliminating famine. (However, he fails to recognize that governments often prevent some of the solutions that he offers. King believes that governments are altruistic and benevolent, except in the South, whose governments are malevolent. Moreover, before Whites were driven from Africa, they were improving and increasing agricultural production.)

Furthermore, King favors controlling the population growth of the planet. He notes, “Most of the large undeveloped nations in the world today are confronted with the problem of excess population in relation to resources. But even this problem will be greatly diminished by wiping out poverty.” (P. 188.) Economic security and education lead to smaller families. Stabilization of the population depends on stabilizing economic resources. (One technique that the White oligarchs have used for population control besides easily available abortion is to inject people, especially Negro women, with sterilants disguised as medicine.)

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on social issues.

The Batchelor Brothers

The Batchelor Brothers

Thomas Allen

[Editor's note: Unfortunately, the formatting system for this blog is not suited for poetry. It inserts a line for a hard return.]

May twentieth, eighteen and sixty-one,

Independence declared their beloved State.

To a deadly war in a fiery din

Volunteered the valiant Batchelor brothers

Of Nash County—Jackson, Henry, and Van.

To defend family, loved ones and home,

To fight for precious liberty and God,

Is what they sought, not glory, wealth, or fame.

To repel the invading horde of blue

Is why they fought a bloody war so grim.

In North Carolina they joined and trained.

Under the great General Lee they fought.

In war-torn Virginia they took their stand.

The Batchelor brothers of Company I,

With the thirtieth, fought for blood-soaked ground

Of the Virginian towns, forests, and fields.

From these sacred pure lands they strove to drive

Satan’s great regiments from their strongholds

Back into hell across the Potomac

Into the odious vile northern wilds.

After defending the town of New Bern

From marauding Yankees, Jack, Henry, and 

Van marched to the sound of the battle horn,

North to Virginia to the Seven Days’

Battle with little chance to pause and mourn.

Mechanicsville, Cold Harbor, Malvern Hill,

They slew the evil Yanks driving them back.

Henry and many good Southerners fell

Wounded that day in July on the field

Before Malvern Hill that stretched half a mile.

Two months later to Maryland they went—

Jack and Van. To Sharpsburg they did travel.

The battle they encountered was no feint.

Blood flowed free as they faced twice their number.

Green turned red before the fighting had quit.

This one day, September seventeen, was

The bloodiest day of the four-year war.

So withdrew Satan’s cruel soldiers en masse

Taking a wounded Van with them but soon 

Paroled him. To Virginia they would cross.

The devil’s thirst was nearly quenched with blood

And his hunger satisfied with bodies

Down the Bloody Lane where gullies flowed red.

With landscape carpeted with blue and gray,

The first cost of tyranny had been paid.

Many a good Southerner had been lost, 

But their struggle for priceless liberty

Had just begun against the Northern beast.

Thus ended the summer of sixty-two.

To Virginia they returned undisgraced.

The year of sixty-three, the year of great

Battles—Chancellorsville and Gettysburg—

The three brave Batchelor brothers went to fight.

With the great General Lee, they marched. With

Stonewall Jackson’s foot cavalry they fought.

At Chancellorsville, victory they won

When Jackson’s famed foot cavalry outflanked

The Devil’s flanking horde and spoiled his plan. 

Intense combat had broken the Devil’s

Back; northward fled the swine without rapine.

But good Lee’s greatest victory came dear.

His most eminent general he lost.

How horrible is the nightmare of war!

Henry gave an arm while Jack fell wounded

As his fame grew for coolness under fire.

Lee had lost his right arm and Henry his.

For Henry the combat ended, and Jack 

Was out the remainder of the year as

Was many other good Southern soldiers;

For this miscreant they had to oppose.

Northward to Gettysburg Sergeant Van marched

Through Maryland to Pennsylvania.

For the despot’s heart, he now boldly searched

In the bowls of hell in a Northern town.

He drove the foe from Gettysburg but torched 

It not. For two more long days he remained. 

The carnage of those two days, he was spared

As Satan’s lust was fed and good men pined.

Once more death was king and agony queen.

Against metal, mortal man cannot stand.

Then back to sweat Virginia Van retired.

Pursued by the Devil’s heartless horde through

The land until they met at Kelly’s Ford.

Here the thirtieth suffered large losses.

Many were captured including Van. Feared

They the worst, and the worst certainly came.

To prison they went. Van to Point Lookout.

The fighting had drawn to an end for him.

Here he stayed until the last year of war,

But he would surely suffer in this tomb.

His brutal captors dragged him off to hell.

In a damp cell he was forcibly thrown.

Hunger and cold he endured in this hole

While his fat guards burned bodies for their warmth.

Disease and death filled this sadistic hall.

Deprived of medicine, clothing, and food

In the land of plenty, this want friends were

not allowed to alleviate with aid.

As their hopelessness grew, their life became

Filled with despair. All suffered; many died.

The year of sixty-four had arrived with

One brother in prison and the other 

A cripple; Jack alone stood in their path.

With his ragged clothes and empty belly,

He would keep on fighting the behemoth

Of the North, for he held liberty dear

And knew it was not free. He continued

The struggle against Satan’s great empire.

Disease and want reared their ugly faces.

With fortitude the men in gray stayed pure.

The Great Slaughterer had taken command

Of Satan’s horde. To send his troops against

Southern lines till their shoot was spent, he planned.

He would turn his blue Yankees red, for no

Simpler or deadlier plan could be found.

What did death matter to him. His foe weak,

And he strong. At his beckoning, he had

The world; surely he would make the South shake.

He could sacrifice ten of his to kill

One of theirs. Southern blood the ground would soak.

In the Wilderness Jack met him and fought

At Union and Mule Shoe the battle raged.

With death all about, would it be his fate?

Line after line, wave after wave, on they

Came, bleeding and dying as they were shot.

On to Cold Harbor move the Southern men

Where the fighting intensified. More died

As the Great Slaughterer forced his troops on, 

But the Southern lines held, and the massive

Bloody assault proved futile while death won.

Summer came and into Maryland crossed

Jack with Early’s corps. To Washington, the 

Tyrant’s capital, they hastily raced.

He began to see the buildings and lights

Of Satan’s place as the distance closed.

Panic filled the wicked hearts as the front

Came to the Sodom on the Potomac

Where he heard depravity’s mournful rant.

But victory was not theirs. With evil’s

Strength too strong, back to Virginia he went.

To the defense of Petersburg, he came

In the last year of war. Here he would

Make his last great stand against the vile crime

That had destroyed his homeland. As he faced

The enemy’s siege, he long to be home.

Attack and counterattack, on he fought

Though he knew he had lost. But liberty

He held dear, so he continued to fight.

Weary and tired of cold and hunger, of 

Sweet home he thought. Would he die here and rot?

Then came spring, and the last great march he took.

To Appomattox Jack went. The advance

Guard was he of a future black and bleak.

On the Yankees he fired that dark morning

Of April nine, the day the South was struck

Down, the end of time, the day the South died,

The day Lee surrendered. Jack lingered on

Another weary week before he laid

Down his arms and received his parole at

Bunkeville Junction. He gave his lifeblood.

Four years they had lost, Henry, Jack, and Van.

Home they now returned to rebuild their lives

From the ruins of war. Much had to be done.

The great joy of reuniting with their

Families was short-lived, for much more pain

They would suffer. That which they had feared most

Came to past. Yankee oppressors swooped down

To devour them with a great vengeful thirst.

Allying themselves with the black horde and

White Southern traitors, the South they would waste.

Their State was reduced to a province with

No self-government. Black ignorance filled

The land. They were governed by the black death.

Their homes were pillaged; their women were raped.

Their lands burned beneath Satan’s evil wrath.

With their liberties gone, despair filled all.

They would have perished if it were not for

The hooded white knights coming forth to heal

A dying nation by driving Satan’s

Worse out of the South and back into hell.

From the Glory of War by Thomas Coley Allen (Franklinton, NC: TC Allen Co., 2006)

Copyright © 2006 by Thomas Coley Allen

[Note: Jack Batchelor is the author’s great grandfather.]