King on a Knock at Midnight

King on a Knock at Midnight

by Thomas Allen

In “A Knock at Midnight,” Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 53–64, Martin Luther King, Jr. discusses various devastations facing mankind with an emphasis on the decline of moral standards, the church, and race. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

King begins by discussing the potential for a third world war and its devastation. Then, he mentions some of the devastation from which science has saved mankind. Unfortunately, science cannot save mankind from the destructive forces that he now possesses — nuclear weapons.

Such a bleak future causes many people to have emotional and psychological problems. Fear, anxiety, and depression paralyze many.

Next, King discusses the moral crisis. “Moral principles have lost their distinctiveness.” (P. 55.) For many people, absolute right and wrong become what the majority accepts. “Right and wrong are relative to likes and dislikes and the customs of a particular community.” (P. 55.)

Continuing, King remarks that the cardinal sin has become “Thou shalt not be caught.” Consequently, “the cardinal virtue is to get by.” (P. 55.) He writes, “The Darwinian concept of the survival of the fittest has been substituted by a philosophy of the survival of the slickest.” (P. 55.)

Then, King comments on the church. Church membership has grown, yet moral standards, i.e., not only sexual morality but also honesty, integrity, etc., have declined. (The church has continued to fail to achieve one of its important missions: instill high moral standards. Today, moral standards continue to decline along with church membership. Not only is sexual immorality rising, but so are lying, stealing, etc.)

King blames the rise of immorality on a loss of faith. “[M]en have lost faith in God, faith in man, and faith in the future.” (P. 57.) For many people, life is meaningless. Yet, without hope, a person cannot really live.

Next, King writes, “Everybody wishes to love and to be loved. He who feels that he is not loved feels that he does not count.” (P. 58.) (A person wants people whom he knows to love him — especially the people whom he loves. He seeks love in the concrete instead of in the abstract. King implies that people desire to be loved in the abstract. Abstract love is the type of love that abolitionists gave the slaves. Once the slaves were free, most abolitionists offered them no personal love or assistance. On the other hand, most slave owners loved their slaves, and most slave owners cared about their slaves when they were freed, and many tried to help them.)

Then, King discusses the plight of the Negro. Patiently, the Negro has knocked on the door of the Christian church begging for social justice. He chastises the church for not condemning racial segregation and failing to promote integration. (Today, King would praise the church. With rare exceptions, all churches condemn racial segregation and promote integration. The few who question integration are mostly mute. A strong correlation seems to exist between the church promoting integration and social justice and the decline of the relevance of the church and the rise of immortality [stealing, lying, sexual perversion, etc.]. Has the church’s replacement of the gospel of Jesus with the gospel of King made the country better?)

Continuing, King states, “What more pathetically reveals the irrelevancy of the church in present-day world affairs than its witness regarding war?” (P. 59.) (If King means to bring about peaceful solutions, he is right. If he means supporting bellicosity, he is wrong. Today, most churches seem to prefer war to peace — especially when Israel is involved.) He notes that during World War II, churches endorsed and supported the warmongers.

Next, King condemns the church for not siding with the poor over the rich. (That is, the church does not promote forced wealth distribution, the welfare states, a guaranteed income, etc. that King advocated as the solution to what he considered economic injustice. Most churches today advocate King’s economic policies. Nevertheless, such promotion has hastened rather than slowed the church’s decline into irrelevance.) King condemns the Russian Orthodox Church because it “became so inextricably bound to the despotic czarist regime that it became impossible to be rid of the corrupt political and social system without being rid of the church. Such is the fate of every ecclesiastical organization that allies itself with things-as-they-are.” (P. 59.) (Today, most likely, King would praise these churches that have allied with the federal government in implementing most of King’s social and economic recommendations. Does this explain the decline of the church into irrelevancy? These churches have to be abolished before people can free themselves from King’s crippling policies.)

Then, King remarks that the church is “the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state and never its tool.” (P. 59.) (Throughout the Civil Rights Era, the church has been a poor conscience. It has been more of a tool than a guide or critic.) According to King, if the church does not actively advance the struggle for peace, economic justice (the welfare state), and racial justice (integration, quotas, etc.), it will atrophy into an irrelevant social club. (Although the church has failed as a peacemaker, it has ardently advanced King’s economic and social justice. Still, it has atrophied into an irrelevant social club.)

King condemns the notion of a Negro church and a White church. The church should be fully integrated. (Apparently, King prefers a mongrel church and wants to destroy an important part of the Negro culture: the Negro church. Contrary to what King believes, Whites did not initiate racially separate churches; Negroes did — at least in the South. In the South, Negroes used to attend the same churches that Whites attended. However, they wanted their independence, so they established their own churches.)

Continuing, King describes two types of Negro churches. “One burns with emotionalism, and the other freezes with classism.” (P. 60.) The emotional church reduces “worship to entertainment, places more emphasis on volume than on content and confuses spirituality with muscularity.” (P. 60.) The class church “has developed a class system and boasts of its dignity, its membership of professional people, and its exclusiveness.” (P. 60.) Its “worship service is cold and meaningless, the music dull and uninspiring, and the sermon little more than a homily on current events.” (P. 60.) (King’s objection to both types of churches seems to be that they did not fervently preach King’s economic and social justice.)

King writes, “The church today is challenged to proclaim God’s Son, Jesus Christ, to be the hope of men in all of their complex personal and social problems. Many will continue to come in quest of answers to life’s problems.” (P. 61). (Many churches are failing this challenge because they preach the gospel of King and his disciples.)

In closing, King comments on the bus boycott in Montgomery, Alabama.

Like many people, King is good at identifying problems but poor at providing solutions. Although King does not offer specific solutions for most of the problems that he discusses, he implies that implementing what he advocates will solve them. However, his solutions only exacerbate the problems rather than alleviate them. One of his problems is believing that the Bible teaches integration and amalgamation. On the contrary, it teaches segregation and separation.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Andrew Johnson

Andrew Johnson 

Thomas Allen

On pages 88–89, in Facts and Falsehoods Concerning the War on the South 1861-1865 (Memphis, Tennessee: A. R. Taylor & Co., 1904), George Edmonds gives a good description of President Andrew Johnson’s emotional demise as president. He compares Johnson, who was deceived to abandon his State, with the Confederate soldier who honorably defended his State and country.

Johnson joined the enemy of his kindred. However, those whom he joined turned against him. Consequently, he pined away in melancholy. He illustrates what happens to a person whose envy drives him to hatred.

Edmonds writes:

“With one of these little pardon papers in his pocket, though his fields were laid waste, his peach-trees cut down, his cattle killed, his cotton gins, barns, stables, dwelling houses, all heaps of ashes, over which stood the chimneys ‘lone sentinels over the ruin;’ despite all this devastation, the poor Confederate soldier returned to his despoiled home with a feeling of satisfaction in the thought that at least the ground under his feet would be a resting spot for wife and little ones to stand on and work in, and look up from to the blue heavens above, and they thanked God for that much saved from the awful deluge of blood and the awful waves of flame that had swept over their country. My brother described the striking change he had observed in Mr. Johnson, the difference in the man since last they parted, the one to enter the camp of his people’s deadliest foes, and the other to take up arms in defense of home, country, life, liberty; all that men hold dear. Then Mr. Johnson was a strong, vigorous man, fronting the world and fate, hopefully expecting high success in life. He was now in the highest office in the land, but his aspect, his eyes, showed no pleasure in that success. A deep depression seemed to weigh upon him; hope, happiness seemed to have fled. The whole man seemed to be weary, care-worn; yet in spite of all that might be seen the man’s grim resolution to hold his own to maintain at the risk of his life the policy he had determined to pursue. Though Johnson was on the conqueror’s side and my brother on the conquered, the latter was more to be envied. He felt that satisfaction which comes from having performed a duty to the best of his ability. His soul was tortured by no remorse. He yielded to the inevitable without a murmur, realizing, as all the men of the South did, that it is no new thing in the sad history of humanity for the wrong to triumph over the right. The writer of this believes that Andrew Johnson did not join hands with the Republican party for any purpose of despotic rule. He abandoned his people because he was deceived into the belief that Republicans were fighting to restore the Union of our fathers. Though a man of strong native abilities. Johnson’s faculties and information were within limited boundaries. He knew but little of the Southern people beyond his own East Tennessee. In his own State, Johnson’s political enemies had accused him of anarchistic tendencies of intense hatred of the wealthy class. One orator had boldly, from the stump, said ‘Andrew Johnson so hates rich men, he curses God in his heart because He had not made him a snake, that he might crawl in the grass and bite the heels of rich men's children.’ One can imagine the horror that must have overwhelmed Johnson when he discovered that the party to serve which he had abandoned his own people and State, was monarchistic to its heart core, and had no intention of restoring the Union of our fathers; instead was determined to kill it, and erect on its ruins an Imperial Government. And to aid these men he had played traitor to his own State, to his own people! Who does not believe when Johnson came to know the truth, remorse, like a venomous serpent, lifted its head in his breast and fastened its fangs in his heart and gnawed and gnawed night and day. He had forever forfeited the affections of his own people, and now the men of the party he had served during the war hated him as fiercely as they hated the conquered ‘Rebel’ lying with iron fetters on his feet in the dungeon cell of Fort Monroe. Though every day of his life a thousand curses were hurled on the name of that ‘Rebel’ in Fortress Monroe, though iron chains and ball abraded and tortured him, though he was on the conquered side and Johnson among the conquerors, there is reason to believe that patient prisoner was a less miserable man than the man in the White House. The former felt no pangs of remorse; he well knew the more he was cursed and reviled, the tenderer and stronger would be the love of his own people. He was threatened with the death due to felons and assassins, but he knew no accusation of his enemies would abate one jot the reverence, the esteem his own people gave him. What recompense had Johnson? Where could he look for affection, for sympathy? Not one particle of pride or pleasure did Johnson derive from the high office he was in. The same Nemesis which had struck down his predecessor as he was about to take his seat for another four years on the throne of power, had upon Johnson her sleepless eyes, and, as he set his foot on the first step of Power’s throne, that Nemesis touched it with her fatal finger, and lo! it became like unto red hot iron, scorching, shriveling, tormenting his very soul day and night during the whole period of his stormy term.”

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern articles.

King on Loving Your Enemy

King on Loving Your Enemy

Thomas Allen

In “Loving Your Enemy,” Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 45–52, Martin Luther King, Jr. discusses loving one’s neighbor and its necessity, meaning, and importance. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

Beginning, King writes, “Probably no admonition of Jesus has been more difficult to follow than the command to ‘love your enemies.’”  (P. 43.) (King failed to obey this commandment. He showed little love for Southerners and none for segregationists. If he truly loved Southerners, he would not have deliberately created situations that he knew would injure them and destroy their property. Moreover, he would not have advocated their cultural genocide.)

Continuing, King writes, “Upheaval after upheaval has reminded us that modern man is traveling along a road called hate, in a journey that will bring us to destruction and damnation.” (P. 44.) Then, he comments that Jesus’s commandment is not that of a utopian dreamer; it “is an absolute necessity for our survival.” (P. 44.) Moreover, it “is the key to the solution of the problems of our world.” (P. 44.) (Today, most Negroes reject King’s advice as the riots, other acts, and the protests of Black Lives Matter prove. Pure hatred motivated their removal and destruction of monuments of Southern heroes — and one with which King probably would have agreed.)

Next, King discusses the practical application of Jesus’s command. He asks, “How do we love our enemies?” (P. 44.) First, people must be able to forgive. Without forgiveness, loving one’s enemy is impossible. Forgiveness “must always be initiated by the person who has been wronged.” (P. 44.) (In King’s mind, Negroes had been wronged because of segregation and discrimination. King never forgave segregationists. Today, many Negroes cannot forgive Whites because Whites have wronged them by not giving them every privilege and benefit that they demand. Now, the great wrong is not paying them reparations for acts that today’s Whites never did.)

King writes, “Forgiveness does not mean ignoring what has been done or putting a false label on an evil act. It means, rather, that the evil act no longer remains as a barrier to the relationship.” (P. 45.) Then, he says, “But when we forgive, we forget in the sense that the evil deed is no longer a mental block impeding a relationship. . . . Forgiveness means reconciliation, a coming together again. Without this, no man can love his enemies.” (P. 44.) (Thus, King showed that he never forgave segregationists. He could never reconcile himself to segregation. As long as segregationists remained segregationists, they created a mental block for him that impeded his relationship with them. Only if segregationists converted to integrationists could King forgive them.)

Then, King notes that if a person finds some good in his enemy, he is less prone to hate his enemy. (King seems never to find any good in a segregationist.) He writes, “We recognize that his [i.e., the segregationist] hate grows out of fear, pride, ignorance, prejudice, and misunderstanding.” (P. 44.) (His comment may be true of Northern segregationists, but it is not true of most Southern segregationists. Southerners did not base their attitude toward Negroes on ignorance, prejudice, or misunderstanding. The attitude of Southerners toward Blacks was based on 400 years of observation, knowledge, thought, reason, and facts. Consequently, they were not prejudiced against Negroes; they were not prejudging Negroes. Likewise, with 400 years of observation and knowledge, ignorance did not guide them. If they feared Negroes, it was because Negroes are more prone to violent acts than are Whites.)

Next, King writes that “we must not seek to defeat or humiliate the enemy but to win his friendship and understanding.” (P. 45.) (Whenever King failed to win the friendship and understanding of a segregationist, he sought to defeat him. That is why his “nonviolent” movement was so violent. Moreover, friendship depends on more than understanding. Understanding often leads to hostility.)

Continuing, King discusses why people should love their enemy. Returning hate for hate leads to more hate. (Returning hate for hate, whether real or perceived, has been the modus operandi for much of the civil rights movement. It has been so successful that it has gotten Whites to hate Whites in the name of loving Negroes.) “Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” (P. 47.) (Thus, King shows that the civil rights movement rests on hatred and not on love. After all the benefits and privileges that Whites have given them, most Negroes still believe that Whites hate them. Further, more racial hatred and division exists today than during the Jim Crow Era. However, most of this hatred is directed toward the White race. Even many Whites hate their own race.)

Correctly, King writes, “The chain reaction of evil — hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars — must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.” (P. 47.) (Most policies and programs promoted by King plus Zionism and Communism, both are a Jewish creation, prevent the chains of evil from being broken.)

Again, King correctly notes that “hate scars the soul and distorts the personality. . . . [H]ate is an evil and dangerous force.” (P. 47.) He comments on the bloodthirsty mobs inflicting unspeakable violence on Negroes. (In the years following the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, bloodthirsty mobs of Negroes have inflicted unspeakable violence on Whites and other races. Thus, the civil rights movement has been successful in flipping victims and perpetrators.)

Once more, King correctly remarks, “Hate is just as injurious to the person who hates. . . . Hate destroys a man’s sense of values and his objectivity. . . .  It causes him . . . to confuse the true with the false and the false with the true.” (P. 48.) (The deleterious effects of hate are seen in the Antifa and Black Lives Matter riots and other race riots of recent decades. Hate has destroyed the sense of values and objectivity of many Negroes and Whites. It has caused them to replace the truth with falsehood and beauty with ugliness.)

Then, King writes, “There will be no permanent solution to the race problem until oppressed men [i.e., Negroes] develop the capacity to love their enemies.” (P. 50.) (For once, King places some responsibility for improving racial relations on Negroes. Usually, he places all the responsibility on Whites. Nevertheless, love did not overcome the race problem. Force did this by shifting the oppressed from Negroes to Whites. That is, Whites are now the oppressed and Negroes are the oppressors. [In reality, the oligarchs are the oppressors. They have merely switched the oppressed race and the oppressing race.]) Although the Negro has suffered racial injustice, either real or perceived, he should not abandon the obligation to love. Negroes should overcome their opponents’ capacity to inflict suffering by enduring suffering. “We shall meet your physical force with soul force.” (P. 50.) (Most Negroes, including King, rejected this advice. They overcame suffering with force and violence and not with endurance. They meet physical force with physical force. Often, they meet passivism with physical force.)

Continuing, King states, “Do to us what you will, and we shall continue to love you. We cannot in all good conscience obey your unjust laws [i.e., segregational laws], because noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good.” (P. 51.) (Many Negroes failed to continue to love their enemies because they did not love them to begin with. Although King does not define an unjust law here, he does elsewhere. An unjust law is a law that affects people who are denied the right to vote; these people are not obliged to obey that law. See “The Real King” by Thomas Allen.)

King concludes, “Love is the most durable power in the world.” (P. 51.) He condemns the use of force. (If King condemned using force, why was his civil rights movement based and built on force? Force, not love, overthrew the South and segregation in both the South and North. As King remarks, empires built on force crumble. Since the civil rights movement was built on force, it is now crumbling. It is tearing the country apart.)

Like nearly all humans, King failed to live up to Jesus’s commandment to “love your enemy.” Most of the programs and policies that King promoted prevented people from loving their enemy, even in the sense that Jesus meant. 

King always considered segregationists as his enemy. He may or may not have loved them; he probably convinced himself that he did. However, if he is judged by his fruit, that he loved them is highly questionable because he always displayed ill will toward them.

King fails to discuss indifference. Most people neither hate nor love people about whom they know nothing. They are indifferent; they give them no thought. Before people love or hate someone, they have to think about him. No one thinks about everyone all the time. No one thinks about people whom he does not know exist.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social articles.

A Discussion with an Imbecile

A Discussion with an Imbecile

Thomas Allen

In response to an article about some people wanting to use the Fourteenth Amendment to prevent Donald Trump’s name from appearing on ballots, I posted a comment. In my comment, I noted that Lincoln and the Republicans rebelled against the Constitution, but the South did not. (https://wltreport.com/2023/09/01/president-trump-scores-huge-court-victory-election-ballot/#comment-6277814175) [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.]

Then, an imbecile responded: “Like continuing SLAVERY?” At first, I thought that he was ignorant and was confusing the Fourteenth Amendment with the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery. Consequently, I replied that the Fourteenth Amendment had nothing to do with slavery. “However, it does prove that Negroes were not and could not be citizens under the Constitution that the founding fathers gave us.”

Instead of trying to refute my statement, he smeared me with today’s greatest smear word: “racist.” Thus, he proved that he lacked the intellect to refute me or that he knew that I was right and could not refute me.

Responding to his reply, I stated that “it takes one to know one.” Then, I noted that he was a racist by several of the 800 definitions of racist in “Are You a Racist?” and asked which one he was using for me. He answered with more derogatory invectiveness. Our discussion is in the Appendix.

After discussions with this imbecile in other articles, I can make more intelligent inferences about him. He suffers from the worst sort of stupidity: arrogant stupidity. Moreover, he is a Confederaphobe and a staunch Zionist. No truth is going to enter his brain. (I respond to him not to educate him because he is beyond salvation but to educate others.)

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment reads:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. 

It prohibits persons who had taken an oath to support the Constitution and who had engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution from holding public office.

The South did not rebel against the Constitution. Before Lincoln became President, almost everyone in the country knew that a State had the right to secede.

The Constitution that the Confederacy adopted was similar to the US Constitution but with some improvements. These improvements included:

1. The President served a six-year term and could not be reelected for another term.

2. The President had a line-item veto of appropriation bills.

3. The House or Senate could require cabinet secretaries to appear before it to answer questions.

4. Bills that Congress passed could only address one subject.

5. It prohibited protective tariffs.

6. It prohibited subsidies to private companies and corporate welfare.

7. States could enter treaties with other States to regulate waterways.

8. States could levy taxes on ships using their waterways.

9. States could impeach certain federal officials.

Also, States were allowed to issue bills of credit, paper money, which was regressive. The US Constitution prohibited the States from issuing bills of credit.

On the other hand, Lincoln and the Republicans did rebel against the US Constitution. They uprooted and overthrew the very foundation of the Constitution.

Before Lincoln’s War, the United States were a federation of sovereign nations. After Lincoln’s War, the United States became a consolidated empire with the States subjugated to provinces. The United States became what Lincoln declared them to be in his Gettysburg Address.

Completing this conversion from a federation of sovereign nations to a consolidated empire was the Fourteenth Amendment, which was illegally and unlawfully ratified. Before the Fourteenth Amendment, a person was a citizen of the United States by being a citizen of a State. After the Fourteenth Amendment, a person was a citizen of a State by being a citizen of the United States. Negroes were not citizens under the original Constitution. (For more on the Fourteenth Amendment and citizenship, see “For Whom Is the Constitution Written?” and “Addendum to ‘For Whom Is the Constitution Written?’” by Thomas Allen.)

Except for Coolidge, especially Cleveland, and possibly Harding, no President has even attempted to keep his oath of office since Buchanan. Therefore, with these three exceptions, all Presidents since Buchanan, including Trump, rebelled against the Constitution if they swore their oath to the Constitution that the founding fathers gave the United States. However, if they swore their oath to the Constitution that Lincoln gave the United States, then no President rebelled against the Constitution. Rebelling against Lincoln’s Constitution is difficult. (For the difference between the Constitution that the founding fathers gave the United States and the Constitution that Lincoln gave the United States, see “What Is Your View of the US Constitution?” by Thomas Allen.)

If Trump’s name is removed from ballots according to Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, then Biden’s name and most other candidates who have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution ought to be removed.

Appendix

Me: “The way Section 3 reads, Lincoln and the Republicans rebelled against the Constitution and overthrew it. The Confederates fought to preserve it; their Constitution was almost identical with some improvements.”

Imbecile: “Like continuing SLAVERY? You’e [sic] a brain-dead revisionist!”

Me: “The 14th amendment has nothing to do with slavery. However, it does prove that Negroes were not and could not be citizens under the Constitution that the founding fathers gave us.”

Imbecile: “. . . and a disgusting RACIST!!”

Me: “It takes one to know one. By several definitions of racist, you are also a racist. Which of the 800 definitions of racists are you using (https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2016/04/are-you-racist.html)”

Imbecile: “It’s impossible to argue with the brain-less, the brain-washed, and/or the brain-dead, and you, sister, are all three, so adios!” [He did not attempt to argue his point; he immediately resorted to name-calling. He called me “sister” because my user name is Cassandra, who is a mystical Greek character who could see the future, but no one would believe her.]

Me: “At least I did not resort to insults and name calling.”

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles

King on Love in Action

King on Love in Action

by Thomas Allen

In “Love in Action,” Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 31–41, Martin Luther King, Jr. discusses Jesus’s crucifixion and the lessons it teaches, such as forgiveness and spiritual blindness, and the need for moral enlightenment. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

Beginning, King cites Luke 23:34: “Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” (P. 33) (Once more, King does not practice what he preaches. He never seems to forgive Southerners and segregationists for resisting his agenda.)

Continuing, King praises Jesus for his ability to match his words with action. (King often fails to match his words with action. However, he does imply that he fails to meet the standards set by Jesus.) He chastises people for promoting the principles of Christianity but who practice paganism, who claim that they want peace while preparing for war, or who ardently plea for justice yet pursue injustice.

Next, King discusses Jesus’s teaching about forgiveness. (However, King seldom shows forgiveness for Southerners and never for segregationists.) He notes, “Forgiveness is not an occasional act; it is a permanent attitude.” (P. 33.) (King never acquires this attitude.)

Then, King writes, “Yet Jesus taught them that only through a creative love for their enemies could they be children of their Father in heaven and also that love and forgiveness were absolute necessities for spiritual maturity.” (P. 33.) (Based on his attitude toward Whites in general and Southerners and segregationists in particular, King never achieves spiritual maturity.)

Continuing, King comments, “The potential beauty of human life is constantly made ugly by man’s ever-recurring song of retaliation.”  (P. 34.) (In a sense, King’s movement is based on retaliation — getting even for wrongs, real or perceived. It is void of the forgiveness that Jesus taught and that King claims that people ought to have.)

Next, King states his opposition to capital punishment. “Capital punishment is society’s final assertion that it will not forgive.” (P. 34.) He seems to imply that criminals should not be punished for their crimes (except segregationists). (Perhaps the reason that he opposes punishing criminals for their crimes is that on a per capita basis, Negroes commit far more crimes than other races. Also, many of his followers are rioters who are arrested for various crimes although most are never tried.)

Then, King remarks that Jesus “did not seek to overcome evil with evil. He overcame evil with good.” (P. 35.) (Once again, King falls short of Jesus’s teachings. His movement has brought far more evil than good.)

Besides forgiveness, King states that Jesus taught about people’s spiritual blindness. The men who urged his crucifixion “were not bad men but rather blind men.” (P. 35.) (Many of the men who advocated the crucifixion of Jesus were bad men, such as the Pharisees, who were disciples of Lucifer.)

According to King, people who consider war as the solution to the problems of the world, are not bad men but are blind. (Contrary to what King claims, many of these men are not blind; they are bad men. They are disciples of Lucifer; they are evil people.)

Correctly, King asserts, “Wisdom born of experience should tell us that war is obsolete.” (P. 36.) (The way that most political systems are designed, the worst men become rulers. Most rulers are power-hungry, sociopathic, sadistic miscreants. Most of the rest are stupid puppets whom power-hungry, sociopathic, sadistic miscreants manipulate and control. Rarely does a wise statesman rule.)

King is a proponent of disarmament. (King-idolizing conservatives take note: You need to promote disarmament even if it is unilateral.)

Then, King proceeds to comment on slavery. “Slavery in America was perpetuated not merely by human badness but also by human blindness.” (P. 37.) (Whereas King excuses most other evils, including the crucifixion of Jesus, as a result of human blindness, he declares that slavery in America resulted primarily from human badness.) “Men convinced themselves that a system that was so economically profitable must be morally justifiable.” (P. 37.) (No mention is made of Africans enslaving their fellow Negroes and selling Negro slaves for a profit to Europeans and others.) To justify slavery, theories of racial superiority were developed. (Racial supremacy did not disappear with the civil rights movement. It merely shifted from White supremacy to Black supremacy.) Religion, the Bible, philosophy, and science were mobilized to support White supremacy. (Now, religion, the Bible, philosophy, and science are mobilized to prove White inferiority.)

Continuing, King states that the blindness that justified slavery is found in racial segregation. He writes, “Although some men are segregationists merely for reasons of political expediency and economic gain, not all of the resistance to integration is the rear-guard of professional bigots.” (P. 38.) Some seek to preserve segregation because they believe that it “is best for themselves, their children, and their nation.” (P. 38.) (Segregation was less divisive and destructive than integration has been. Integration has been so demoralizing and destructive that today more Negroes are openly segregationists than are Whites.)

Correctly, King comments that segregationists claim that God is the first segregationist. Then, to disprove their argument, he offers the absurd example that some segregationists used: “Red birds and black birds don’t fly together.” (These segregationists failed to use an authentic and appropriate example of God being the first segregationist. God segregated Cain from his family after he killed Able.) 

Next, King claims that the segregationist argument that the Negro’s brain is smaller than the brain of the White man is pseudo-science. (The notion that Negroes have smaller brains on average is not pseudo-science. Actual measurements show that the average Negro brain is smaller than the average White brain.)

To support his assertion that the idea of an inferior or superior race is false, King cites several anthropologists, all of whom are left-wing Negrophiles. (If no inferior or superior races exist, why is the White race considered so inferior that it must be exterminated and policies are in place to genocide it? Such policies include miscegenation, unrestricted nonwhite immigration, affirmative action, and never-ending wars involving countries that are predominately White.)

Then, King says that the four primary types of blood are found in all races. (Nevertheless, a person’s race can be identified with a high degree of accuracy from his blood. See “Of One Blood” by Thomas Allen.)

Correctly, King writes, “Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” (P. 39.) (The history of the United States for the last 160 years proves this statement. Unfortunately, sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity have been accelerating at an accelerating pace as the years pass. The point has been reached that if the White race becomes any more ignorant and stupid, it will perish. When it perishes, so will Western Civilization and the material advantages that it has given the world.)

Then, King comments that the church is the moral guardian of the community. It must continuously remind people “that they have a moral responsibility to be intelligent.” (P. 39.) However, the church has often failed in this task. (Obviously, King is saying that the church has failed to condemn adequately the sin of segregation and to preach fervently the virtues of integration. Today, the reverse is true: Segregation is ardently condemned, and integration is fervently praised. Is the country, which now is close to splintering, any better off?)

Continuing, King remarks that Christians need to avoid intellectual and moral blindness. (That is, they need to support integration and oppose segregation. Also, they need to support a guaranteed annual income and the welfare states.) Not only must people conquer their sins, they must also conquer their ignorance.

King warns that if Western Civilization continues to degenerate, it will fall hopelessly into a bottomless void. (The programs and policies advocated by King, most of which Western Civilization has adopted, have hastened this deterioration.)

King notes that “intellectual and moral blindness is a dilemma that man inflicts upon himself by his tragic misuse of freedom and his failure to use his mind to its fullest capacity.” (P. 40.) (Unfortunately, King was never able to overcome his intellectual or moral blindness. On the contrary, he seemed to have reveled in them.) Continuing, he writes, “Only through the bringing together of head and heart —  intelligence and goodness — shall man rise to a fulfillment of his true nature.” (P. 40.) (Again, King failed. He never succeeded in uniting intelligence and goodness. He was seldom kind toward Southerners and never toward segregationists. Whatever intelligence that he had, he used to destroy them.) He defines intelligence as “a call for open mindedness, sound judgment, and love for truth.” (P. 40.) (Thus, since King was closed-minded, seldom showed sound judgment, and had little love for the truth, he lacked intelligence. To him, segregationists were closed-minded. Segregationists lacked sound judgment, while integrationists had sound judgment. Segregationists hated the truth, but integrationists loved the truth.)

Except in the eyes of King-idolizing conservatives, King, like the rest of us, falls far short of the example that Jesus gives us. He lacks forgiveness. Moreover, he is spiritually blind. Also, he suffers from sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. Regrettably, King fails to practice what he preaches, which is a common human trait.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Genocide of Southerners

Genocide of Southerners

Thomas Allen

To destroy the culture of an ethnic group is to destroy that ethnicity — just as deliberately killing members of an ethnicity leads to the destruction of that ethnicity. Both scenarios result in genocide or attempted genocide.

Now, let us look at some definitions of genocide. These definitions show that what has been happening to Southerners since the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation has been 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. The Armenian Genocide Museum: “[Cultural genocide is] acts and measures undertaken to destroy nations’ or ethnic groups’ culture through spiritual, national, and cultural destruction.”

3. Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary: “the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.”

4. Merriam-Webster, legal definition: “acts committed with intent to partially or wholly destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.”

As these definitions clearly show, Yankeedom and the oligarchs have been trying to genocide Southerners for more than 160 years. The following outlines this genocide.

The genocide of Southerners began early in Lincoln’s War with the wanton killing of children and women. Lincoln’s army killed them directly and indirectly through starvation. Moreover, Lincoln’s army deliberately destroyed public buildings, private houses from stately houses to slave quarters, churches, and cultural sites. Their deliberate destruction of Southern life and culture had nothing to do with war. Such deliberate destruction was genocide.

This genocide continued through the First Reconstruction as Republican bureaucrats and politicians further destroyed Southern culture and Southerners. Carpetbaggers, scalawags, and Blacks backed by the Union army looted and otherwise destroyed the South. So successful was their war to destroy the South through impoverishment, that Southerners needed more than a century to recover. 

Following the First Reconstruction, the genocide subsided somewhat and Southerners began to recover their culture. This era was when Southerners erected most of the statutes and memorials to their heroes.

With its Brown v. Board of Education (1954) ruling, the Warren Court began the Second Reconstruction and signaled the renewal of the genocide of Southerners. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Loving v. Virginia (1967), which legalized miscegenation, became highly important weapons in the genocide of Southerners.

While genociding Southerners via miscegenation, the Yankee oligarchs through their agents — primarily scalawags, carpetbaggers, and Blacks — attacked the culture and symbols of the South. A major casualty was the Confederate flag. Among other casualties were songs such as “Dixie” and “Carry Me Back to Old Virginny” and most songs that contained the word “slave” or praised the South. Statues and memorials of Southern heroes were torn down. Even streets, buildings, institutions, and military bases were renamed to remove references to Southerners. The cultural genocide of Southerners is almost completed.

Although the genocide of Southerners during the Second Reconstruction (1954 to present) has not been one of physically killing Southerners, it has been rapidly destroying their culture and heritage. Once an ethnicity’s culture is destroyed, it is dead though its people may continue to live.

Most people seem to believe that for genocide to be real, it must occur over a few years — a decade at most. They are wrong. Assyrians have been enduring off-and-on genocide and ethnic cleansing longer than have Southerners. Muslims have been trying to genocide Assyrians longer than Yankees have been trying to genocide Southerners.

The genocide of Southerners began with the deliberate and wanton killing of Southern civilians during Lincoln’s War and continued during the First Reconstruction. During the Second Reconstruction, the genocide of Southerners has focused on erasing their culture and to a lesser extent via miscegenation.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern articles.

King on Being a Good Neighbor

King on Being a Good Neighbor

Thomas Allen

In “On Being a Good Neighbor,” Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 21–30, Martin Luther King, Jr. discusses a good neighbor, altruism, pity, and sympathy. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

According to King, a good neighbor is not passive; he is actively involved in life-giving deeds. (In other words, he meddles in other people’s affairs. Thus, the United States have been a good neighbor since the end of the Cleveland administration as they seek to meddle in the affairs of most other countries.) Further, being a good neighbor is not “a moral pilgrimage that reached its destination point but in the love ethic by which he journeyed life’s highway.” (P. 21) (That is, a good neighbor meddling knows no end.)

Next, King uses the story of the good Samaritan as an example of a good neighbor. (However, King and his followers seldom acted like good neighbors toward Southerners and never toward segregationists.) A good neighbor is altruistic. (Yet, King was never altruistic toward Southerners and especially segregationists.)

King preaches universal altruism (for Whites, but not for Negroes except for Negroes who opposed his movement). Neighborliness is an altruism that transcends tribe, race, class, and nation. (Nevertheless, King is void of such altruism. Whites are to sacrifice themselves for Negroes, but Negroes are not to give Whites anything. The rich and middle class are to sacrifice themselves for the poor while the poor are just to take. Segregationists are to sacrifice themselves to integrationists, but integrationists are never to give segregationists anything.)

While condemning a narrow group-centered attitude, King promotes a narrow group-centered attitude (— everything for the Negro.) The concerns of countries with their own interests lead to war. Manufacturers concerned with their own personal interests replace their workers with machines. (If workers were never replaced with machines, we would still be living in the stone age.) Expressing his desire for socialism and wealth redistribution, King condemns manufacturers who oppose the redistribution of wealth. (King-idolizing conservatives should promote the redistribution of wealth.)

Then, King condemns Whites who do not sacrifice themselves and all that they have for Negroes. Failure to do so robs the Negro of his personhood, strips him of his dignity, and leaves him dying along the wayside. (Whites have sacrificed much of what they have for the benefit of the Negro. Whites pay Negroes to loaf and have large families, give them jobs for which they are not qualified, allow them to break the law with impunity, and give them a host of other benefits and privileges denied Whites. Yet, most Negroes are still not satisfied. Now, Whites are denied their personhood, stripped of their dignity, and are dying along the wayside. Further, Whites grovel before Negroes begging forgiveness for things that they have not done.)

Continuing, King condemns people for failing to think of people of other races, nationalities, religions, etc. “as fellow human beings made from the same basic stuff as we, molded in the same divine image.”  (P. 24.) (However, King fails to free himself of his narrow-mindedness. He always promotes the interest of the Negro even at the expense of others. Moreover, especially regarding Southerners and segregationists, he fails “to remove the cataracts of provincialism from [his] spiritual eyes and see men as men.” [P. 24.])

Furthermore, King condemns Whites who do not see Negroes as human beings first. (Yet, King seldom sees Southerners as human beings first and never sees segregationists as human beings. He usually sees them as subhumans or lower vermin.)

Then, King remarks that many people do not aid Negroes because of fear. If they support integration and oppose segregation, they fear losing their jobs, prestige, and status. Further, they fear attacks on their person or property. They may also fear going to jail. (Now, Whites fear these things if they support segregation and oppose integration. Also, they fear these things if they oppose the benefits and privileges that Blacks have but are denied to Whites. As a result, many Whites grovel before Negroes.)

Continuing, King writes, “The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy. The true neighbor will risk his position, his prestige, and even his life for the welfare of others.” (P. 26-27.) (Today, most people prefer temporary comfort and convenience to defending the White race and the country as founded. Consequently, most people are not true neighbors. Most likely, King would endorse today’s lack of neighborliness.)

Then, King writes, “True altruism is more than the capacity to pity; it is the capacity to sympathize.” (P. 27.) (King and most of his followers are void of altruism. Not only do they not pity Southerners or segregationists, but they also have no sympathy for them. Actually, many have a negative pity for them. King and his followers may pity them for being too stupid or ignorant to agree with King.)

King defines true sympathy as “the personal concern that demands the giving of one’s soul. . . . [S]ympathy grows out of a concern for a particular needy human being. . . . Sympathy is fellow feeling for the person in need — his pain, agony, and burdens.” (P. 27.) (That King would have had sympathy for Southerners and especially segregationists is hard to believe.)

According to King, pity is doing something for people, and sympathy is doing something with people. Pity without sympathy leads to paternalism. (Pity void of sympathy has mostly guided the civil rights movement. Progressives, liberals, and many conservatives have made the government parents of Negroes. It supports a large number of unwed mothers with children. It has given Negroes all sorts of unearned benefits and privileges. In short, the government is a parent who has made its Negro children spoiled brats.)

King pushes integrated church congregations and implies that Whites are responsible for segregated church congregations. (However, at least in the South, Negroes are the ones that initiated the segregation of church congregations. They wanted to be independent of Whites.)

Continuing, King writes, “The law cannot make an employer love an employee, but it can prevent him from refusing to hire me because of the color of my skin.” (P. 29.) (Because of forced or implied quotas to prove non-discrimination, employers hire based on race. Unqualified Negroes are hired instead of qualified Whites to prove that the employer is not racially discriminating although he discriminates against Whites. King would have supported this discrimination because he promoted it.)

Next, King declares, “Court orders and federal enforcement agencies are of inestimable value in achieving desegregation, but desegregation is only a partial, though necessary, step toward the final goal that we seek to realize, genuine intergroup and interpersonal living.” (P. 29.) (In other words, King is promoting miscegenation. Consequently, he shows that he despises the American Negro. Miscegenation leads to breeding the American Negro out of existence, which is genocide. While King recognized that desegregation and integration were the road to miscegenation, White promoters of desegregation in the 1950s declared that miscegenation was not a goal of integration and would increase only slightly.)

Moreover, King believes that forced association leads to harmony and love. It could never lead to contempt and hostility. (Yet, the latter has occurred much more often than the former — probably because forced association violates God’s law of racial separation. What would have surprised King is that more contempt and hostility has arisen from Negroes than from Whites —thus, the desire of Negroes to segregate themselves from Whites, and Whites objecting to such segregation.)

Then, King claims, “True integration will be achieved by true neighbors who are willingly obedient to unenforceable obligations.” (So far, integration has failed to live up to King’s promotion. More often than not, integration has led to disharmony and hostility — especially by Negroes as the Black Lives Matter riots showed — than to harmony and love.)

King falls far short of living up or even attempting to live up to his description of the good Samaritan. He is void of altruism and sympathy — especially for Southerners and segregationists. Thus, by his description of neighborliness, he is not a good neighbor. Moreover, integration has failed to achieve the harmony that he declares it would achieve.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.