Williams O. R. - Segregation and Common Sense

8/17/2019 Williams O. R. - Segregation and Common Sense

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/williams-o-r-segregation-and-common-sense 1/213



SEGREG TION ND COMMONSENSE



SEGREGATION and

COMMON SENSEBy

0 R. WILLIAMS Sr

FORUM PUBLISHING COMPANY 3 4 N W

BTJJ.YSnt T

B osto n 1 5 Massachuse t ts



CoPYliiGHT 1961 BY 0. R Wu.LLU«s Sa

PluNTBD IN T D UNITED S u n s OP l a n c

TKB MEADOR Puss BOSTON MAsSAcHUsETTS





CONTENTS

PA GE

Introduction

The Rights of Man 2

The Rise and Fall of N ations 72III

What Do es the N egr;o Want • 104IV

The Comm unists a nd Integr ation 118

vGod and Segregation 129

VI

Forced Int egration is Slavery 165

VIIThe School desegregation D ecision is Baseless • 169

VIIIT h e Rem edy and What We Can Do 186

IX

Conclusions 202

7



INTRODUCTION

That there may be a better understanding as to thenecessity, and the justice of racial segregation, I writethis little book. Therefore , with this end in view , Iwill not have too much to say concerning the legalaspects of this important issue; but on the other hand,

I will endeavor to determine whether segregation isRight or Wrong -based on COMMON SENSE,THE RIGHTS OF MAN, and THE RIGHTS OFGOD. This I will do, because-many times--there isa vast difference in a law being legal and a law being

Right. f a thing is Wrong, no law, or legalauthority can make it Right by declaring that it is

Righ t. While on the other hand , if a thing isRight , no law, or legal authority can make itWrong by proclaiming that it is Wrong.

Before the Civil War , the Constitution of theUnited States recognized the institution of slavery;and the Supreme Court, by its decisions, upheld theright to hold human beings in bondage. So, as a resultof this, Negroes were forced to perform services forthe white people of th is Nation. But being recognizedby the Constitution and held legal by the SupremeCourt did not make the institution Right , becauseslavery was W rong ; and neither the Constitution,or the Supreme Court could make it Right by up-holding slavery. Because Right is Right and

Wrong is Wrong -regardless of any constitution , law , or court decision.

So it must be obvious , if great issues are to be



1 INTRODUCTION

settled-based on Right --other sources of informa-tion must be sought, other than the Constitution anddecisions of the Supreme Court. Because-as we haveseen-the Constitution and the decisions of the Su-

preme Court, do not always furnish the needed in-formation by which a Right decision-based on

Right can be made. Because slavery was Wrong ;yet neither the Constitution, nor the Supreme Courtsaid that it was Wrong, prior to the Civil War.

Therefore, it is a possibility- if Abraham L incolnand others-had not looked beyond the Constitutionand the decisions of the Supreme Court for guidance,as to whether slavery was Right or Wr o n g that slavery would exist today in these United States.

Now , once again-as it was a hundred years a g o -the people of this Nation are faced with a great issue

t h e issue of racial segregation; and in many respects,it raises questions that are far greater and more im-portant , than the question of slavery. And on thisissue of racial segregation, the Constitution has nothingto say-not one word, one way or the other, whethersegregation is Right or Wrong . But in 1896, theSupreme Court ruled that segregation in public schoolswas Constitutional; but then in 1954, the S 'upreme

Court-turned completely around-and said: segre-gation in public schools was unconstitutional.Now, one thing is certain: Both of these decisions

cannot be Right ; neither can both be Wrong.Because it is not possible for anything to be Rightone minute, and then Wrong the next minute. Butthis was the situation on May 17, 19 54. On this date,one minute before the Supreme Court rendered itsschool desegregation decision, segregation was Rightin public schools; but the next minute-this same date-segregation in public schools was Wrong -al l



INTRODUCTION 11

this was said in effect by the Supreme Court of theUnited States, but on differen t dates.

Therefore, in view of these facts that cannot bedisputed, we the people of these United Sta tes mustlook to other sources, besides the Constitution and theSup reme Court, for guidance, as to whether racia lsegregation is Right or Wrong .

So, with this end i n view, I write this little book,which I have named, SEG RE GA TION AND COM

MON SENSE. And as the name implies , I will e ndeavor-from a common sense viewpoint-to deter ·mine whether racial segregation is R ight or

Wrong. And in doing this, my case in support ofracial segregation, will be built upo n this foundation:T H E RIGHTS OF MAN; and T H E RIGHTS OFMAN will be grounded in the laws of nature and thelaws of God. I know of no better source than these.Because, in the final analysis, God is the source of allthings. And if we know what a re the RIGHT S OFMAN; and t hen, and then only, may we know whetherracial segregation is Right or Wrong. So t

this end, I have devoted the first chapter of this boo k,titled, T H E RI GHTS OF MAN.

T he issue of r acia l seg regation r aises many questions, and one of these questions is this : Will interracial marriage between Negroes and whites, producean infe r ior race? Wel l - I have done much researchwork on this subject. I have read the works of quite afew anthropologists, and this is what I find: those anthropologi sts, who believe in race-mixing, contend thatinter-racial marriage between any of the diverse racesof mankind, will not produce an inferior race . And

to support this, th ey point out the hybri d vigor thatis obtained by crossbreed ing, both plants and animals.But here they stop. T hey do not tell the whole story



12 INTRODUCTION

of crossbreeding of plants and animals: They do nottell that for a crossbreeding program with eitherplants or animals to be successful it must be controlled; they do not tell that you cannot breed fromthe offspring of crossbred n i m l ~ w i t h o u tproducingan inferior herd; and they do not te l l i f a crossbreeding program to e successful-you must at all timeshave pure blood animals to cross. And neither dothey tell you in a nation whe re inter -racial marriage

is permitted-JWhere they are going to get more purebloods to inter -marry when the races become amalgamated into one. And remember: you must have purebloods to inter-marry otherwise you will have amongrel inferior race. No these anthropologists donot tell the whole truth conce rning crossbreeding. Butin the chapter: THE RISE AND FALL OF NATION I tell the whole story.

Another question that is often asked: What doesthe Negro want? Why is the Negro not satisfied tosend his children to segregated schools? And why isit that the Negro wants to force the white man tomix and mingle with him in all the various walks oflife?

All these are reasonable questions but the answers

given by Negroe s

are not satisfactory .So

to find theright answer I have done much resear ch work con·cerning these questions. I have read the works ofmany persons who believe in race -m ixing ; and allthese persons agree on one thing: that there is a largesegment of Negroes who do not like the color ofblack when it is applied to themselves; that all theseNegroes would like to see their childre n have a lighter

color than themselves; and that in homes where thereare differe nt shades of color the lighter skin childrenalways get better treatment. Now what does all this



INTRODUCTION 13

mean? I t can mean only one thing: That there aremany Negroes who do not like being Negroes; they

want to be white people. So it is just natural thatthis segment of Negroes would like to see the colorof black vanish from the Negro race. But this theNegro cannot do by himself . He must have the helpof the white race. To get th is help the white racemust be made to associate with Negroes. This theNegro knows will sooner or later end in inter-racialmarriages. This is what the N.egro wants. In thechapter: WHAT T H E NEGRO WANTS I will tellthe whole story.

But the white race as a whole--wants no part ofinter-racial marriages; they do not want to become amongrel race by mixing with Negroes; but this is thefinal goal of those Negroes who are seeking the endof racial segregation. So, if by forcing the ra ces to

associate together in schools and other places thewhite and Negro races become a mongrel race thenthis will be forcing the white ra ce to do a job or aservice for the Negro ra ce. And now remember this:whenever any person or persons are forced to do ajob or to perform a service for others no matter bywhat name it may be called that is slavery. So u

things now stand the white people of these United

States are being forced into slavery forced intolavery in the service of the Negro race. This I will

discuss n detail in the chapter: FORCED INTE-GRATION IS SLAVERY.

Many religious organizations many preachers andothers in the field of religion are demanding the endof ra cial segregation on the ground that segregationviolates the laws of God. And when th ey are reminded that God by creating and then segregatingall the various races y natural barriers was really



14 INTRODUCTION

the first segregatio nist, they react by saying something like this:

God made man; and from this one man, all the different races were developed by natura l processes, suchas envi ronmental factors and other natural causes.

So, the literature--concerning the origin of thevarious races--put out by the religious organizations,and preachers, who are demanding the ending ofracial segregation, is ike reading a book on the theoryof evolution . They seem to think that because Goddid not create all the races when Adam was created,then God had nothing to do with cr eati ng the differentraces of mankind. But this means nothing. God is allpowerful; and because H e did not make all ra ces whenAdam was created, is no good reason why God couldnot do this job at a later date. Because-among otherthings-we have much definite pr oof that God did not

finish allHis

work when the wo rld and Adam werecreated. For instance, God did not give Adam thesame set of rules to live by that He gave Moses. Godcommanded Adam and Eve, saying: Be fruitful, andmultiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it ; andnot to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good andevil. But Adam and Eve disobeyed God and weredriven from the Garden of Eden. But then God did

not give Adam a code of laws to liv e by; the T enCommandments were not given to Adam . Adam wasonly told that death was the penalty for disobeyingthe commandment not to eat the forbidd en f ruit; andaft er Adam and Eve had eaten the forbidden fruit,God only told Adam that he could only eat bread bythe sweat of his face.

Now, may I ask, why did God not give Adam a codeof laws-such as the Ten Commandments-to live by?And why did God not give the Ten Commandments



INTRODUCTION 5

to Noah, or Abraham, or Isaac, or some one else,instead of Moses? Did not the people from Adam

till Moses need a code of laws by which to live by?f so, then why did God wait so long to do this? Then

if the world needs a savior today, did the world not

need a savior in the time of Moses? f i t did, thenwhy did God wait until 1960 years ago to send His

Son, Christ, to save a sinful world?The answer to these questions is: God was not

ready to give the world the Ten Commandmentswhen He created Adam; and neither was He readyto give the world Jesus Christ until 1960 years ago.But when God was ready, He gave the world the Ten

Commandments and Christ, His Son . And we knowthat God did these things, because we have the proofthat He did; yet, there is no record in God s w o r d -at the time that Adam was created - that God was

goingto

give theTen

Commandmentsto

Moses; andneither was there any r eco rd a t this t ime tha t Godwas going to give a sinful world His Son, as its Savior1960 years ago .

Likewise, there is no record in God s w o r d a t thetime of Adam tha t God was going to create thevarious races of mankind--sometime in the future.But we have the evidence that all races were created

by God, by His own word that He created every thing .(See Col. 1 :16) And if Go(f created every thing, thenthe mere fact that the different races exist, is proofthat God was their Creator. And because God did notmake all races when He made Adam, is no reason whyGod is not the Creator of all races. This only provesthat God waited until He was good and ready beforeHe made the several races of mankind, just like He

did not give the world the Ten Commandments andHis Son, Jesus Christ, until He was ready . In the



6 INTRODUCTION

chapter: GOD AND SEGREGATION, I will tellthe whole story.

The School Desegregation Decision of May 17,19 54, was based upon the allegation that it madeNegro children feel inferior to go to segregatedschools. Then the question ia this: f the going tosegregated schools do give Negro children a feelingof inferiority, then is this feeling of inferiority detrimental to these children. The Supreme Court said itwas, but offered no proof. But on the other h a n dif going to segregated schools do give Negro childrena feeling of inferiority--unless this feeling of in-

feriority is harmful to the well being of Negro children, the Desegregation Decision has no foundation.And in the chapter: THE SCHOOL DESEGREGATION DECISION IS BASELESS, I will prove-byknown facts-that the feeling of inferiority is notharmful to a person; but on the other hand, most often,it is the driving force that, seemingly, makes many aperson do almost the impossible.

To conquer the world and establish a one-worldCommunist Government-with a classless societyis the final goal of the Communists. And to reachthis goal, the Communists will stop at nothing: theywill use every ruse and method of deception that canbe

imagined-even murder when that will serve theirpurpose.And the Communists consider racial tension as

their most powerful weapon to be used in reachingtheir goal in these United States. And to make useof this weapon of racial tension, the Communists haveinfiltrated our every walk of l i fe-our schools, ourchurches, our labor and all other organizations. Thisis not a wiid assertion, and in the chapter: THECOMMU .NISTS AND INTEGRATION I will



INTRODUCTION 17

offer convincing proof that will show that the Com-munists are the real force behi nd the drive to endracia l segregation .

Now if the issue of racial segregation is ever to besettled satisfactorily to all concerned both whitesand Negroes then we all Negroes as well as whites

m u s t understand the meaning of the followingterms:

What is liberty? What are the rights of man? How

may we know when the rights of one man conflictswith the rights of others? And what do we mean ythe term equal r ights?

The refore to the end that I may shed some lighton the meaning of these things I now write the firstchapter of this book: T H E RIGHTS OF MAN.



SEGREG TION ND COMMON

SENSE



Segregation and ommon SenseCHAPTER

T H E RIGHTS OF MAN

What are the rights of man? What is liberty?

These are age-old questions; they are as old as manhimself; and they have never been answered, satisfactorily. And no two questions are as important toall mankind as these. Because, whether or not allpersons shall have the right to enjoy all their Godgiven rights, depends upon the interpretation placedupon these two terms.

And in my opinion, nothing has caused more bloodshed, throughout the entire history of the world, thanthe controversy over what are the rights of ma n, orwhat is the meaning of the word, liberty. But in spiteof this the conflict goes on, and i ts solution seems nonearer today than it did a thousand years ago . Astime moves on, these unanswered questions keep pacewith it, all the while causing strife, grief and sorrow

among men .Many men have long realized that the world is inneed of a clarification , as to what. are the rights ofman , or what is meant by the word, liberty. AbrahamLincoln was one of these men. During the Civi l War,on April 18, 1864, at Baltimore, Maryland, in aspeech, among other things, he sa id :

The world has never had a .good definition of the

2



SEGREGATION AND COMMON SENSE

word liberty, and the American people, just now, aremuch in want of one. We all declare for liberty; butin using the same word we do not all mean the samething. With some the word liberty may mean for eachman to do as he pleases with himself, and the productof his labor; wh ile with others the same word maymean for some men to do as they please with othermen, and the product of other men's labor. Here aretwo, not only different, but incompatible things, called

by the same name, liberty. And it follows that eachof the things is, by the respective parties, called bytwo different and incompatible things-liberty andt yranny.

The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep'sthroat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd ashis liberator, while the wolf denounces him for thesame act, as the destroyer of liberty, especially as thesheep was a black one. Plainly the sheep and wolf arenot agreed upon a definition of the word liberty; andprecisely the same difference prevails today among ushuman creatures, even in the North, and all profess·ing to love liberty. Hence we behold the pro cess bywhich thousands are daily passing from under theyoke of bondage, hailed by some as the advance ofliberty, and bewailed by others as the destruction ofliberty.

Here, Lincoln gives us a good example as to howmen can differ over the meaning of what is liberty,while at the same time, all proclaiming to be cham-pions of liberty. But right here, Lincoln left us wherehe started: he never attempted to give the world agood definition of the word, liberty . So, we are right

where we were in 1864: The world has never had agood definition of the word liberty, and the American• h fpeop e, JUSt now, are muc t want one .



SEGREGATION AND COMMON SENSE 3

Whether or not, the word liberty can be defined soth at its interpretation will be satisfactory to all, isdoubtful. But there is no reason to believe that it can-not be defined so that when we speak of a man s lib-erty, we will know what we are talking about.

The issue of racial segregation is the greatest issuet ~ t has confronted the America n People since theCivil War. This issue, like all other issues, involvesthe rights of man. But the very nature of the ques-tions that are raised over racial segregation, makesthis issue stand out.

T he Negro declares that segregation destroys hislib erty; and many white people agree with him. Buton the other hand, ma ny othe r white people proclaimto the world that the forced mixing of the racesdestroys the liberty of the white man. Obviously, oneof these opinions is right, and the other is wrong. So,

the question must be: which is right and which iswrong .

So, in view of this difference i n opinion as to whoseliberty is being dest ro yed, it must be obvious, thatif the issue of racial segregation is ever settled, satis-factorily, we must, somehow, come to a decision asto what the word , liberty ineans. T his is the majortask that confronts us today. Because unless we knowwhat we mean when we speak of a man s liberty, noone can truthfully say, whether or not racial segrega-tion is right or wrong.

While the Constitution of these United States spellsout certain very important rights of the people of thisNation, it fails to give us a rule by which we may de -termine what are the rights of man in and under all

circumstances.The D eclaration of Independence is a grea.t docu-ment; yet it sheds but little light on how we may know



24 SEGREGATION AND COMMON SENSE

what we mean when we speak of a man's liberty. I tmerely asserts that all men are entitled to certainrights, when it declares:

We hold these truths to e self -evident: That allmen are created equal; that they are endowed by theirCreator with certain unalienable rights; that amongthese are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Thus it can e seen that the Declarat io n of Independence speaks of the rights of man, only, in general

terms; and because of this, the word--equal and theword-libe rty, are the two most abused words in theEnglish Language today. Their interpretation is beingconstrued in a way that will destroy all LIBERTY.

The term: Th at all men are created equal, is interpreted by those, who are clamoring for race-mixing, to mean that all men, having been created equal

t h a t because of this equal creation, all races shouldbe integrated in all the various walks of life.

But there is much evidence to prove that J efferson,the author of the Decl aration of Indep endence, neverhad any such idea in his mind when he wrote: Thatall men are created equal. Jeff erson first wrote :

That all men are create d equal and independent.But l ater, he drew a line through the wo rds , and independent. Why Jeff erson did this, I do not know;but this I do believe: f these two words had not b eenstruck from the Declaration of I ndependence, i t ismore than a possibility that there would be no troubleover racial segregation in this Nation today; and Ifurther believe that if Jefferson had thought that someday an attempt would be made to force the white people of this Nation to associate with Negroes., then he

would have let these two words, and independentstay in the Declarat ion of Independen ce. BecauseJeff erson's lat er writings prove, beyond a doubt, that




he believed that the white and Negro races should beforever free and independent of each other.

In the book, Sketches of the Life, Writings andOpinions of Thomas Jefferson, by B. L . Rayner,published in 1832, by A. Francis and W. Boardman,on page 164, is a statement by Jefferson, which clearlyshows what be thought about whites and Negroes living together, in the same country, once the Negroeswere free. · H e said: ·- Nothing is more ce rta inly written in the book of

f ~ ~ than that these people are to be free; nor is it Jesscertain · that ·the two races, equally free, cannot live inthe same g{)Vel'nment.· Thus · spoke Jefferson, pla inly and clearly. Therefore , in view of this statement, it cannot be construedthat Jefferson's assertion: That all men are createdequal ; and because of this equa l creation, all men,

regardless of race, or color, should be forced to associate together in all the various walks of life. Buton the other hand, this statement does show that J efferson did believe that the Negro should be as free asthe ·white man; b ut once free, he believed that theNegro should enjoy all his freedom within the Negrorace. f Jefferson had not believed this, he would nothave said: nor is it less certain that the two races,equally free, ·cannot live in the same government.Nothing can be plainer than this to prove that J efferson was a st rong believer in racial segregation, andin the SEPARATE BUT EQUAL DOCTRINE,long advocated by the South.

Lincoln, like Jefferson, be lieved that the best solution to -the racial problem-once the Negroes werefree-was to deport and re-settle them in anothe rcountry. But this -was not done; we still have theNegro with us; and the Supreme Court has declared



26 SEGREGAT ION AND COMMON SENSE

that racia l segregation is unconstitutional in publicschools and other public places. But a court decision

-wi thin itself-does not mean that any given deci -sion is right, based on what is right, or what is wrong.

f it did, the D re d Scott decision of 1857, would havemade the institution of slavery right. Based on theConstitution, this decision could have been right; butbased upon the rights of man, this dec ision was wrong.

Now, the Supreme Court-basi ng its decision onwhat the Courts say is the Constitution-declaresthat racial segregation is wrong in public schools andvarious other places. But bas ed upon THE RIGHTSOF M A N - T H E RIGHTS OF ALL MEN, is thisdecision, which forces white people to associate withNegroes, RIGHT, or is it WRONG?

Although realizing the immensity of the task, I willattempt to determine-based upon THE RIGHTS

OF M A N - T H E RIGHTS OF ALL MEN, regard-less of race, creed, or color-whe ther racial segrega·t ion is RIGHT , or is WRONG.

I have no quarrel with the statement: That allmen are created equal. Because all this can mean isthat all men-being created equally f ree-a l l menshould have all the rights, in all fields, and to all things-where , only, an individual has a legitimate interest.

And the individual ca n be either an individual person,or an individual group of persons, such as a city, acounty, a state, a nation, a company, a religious or anyother organization, or any one of the various racesof mankind. Any of these-when taken as a whole isan individual. To understand this, is a starting pointto the understanding of the meaning of real Liberty.

Now, I think that we can say-without fear of con-tradiction-that there can be no rights to others, tothings that belong, only, to an individual. Then it




follows: that if you force an individual to give r ightsto others to things that belong, only, to that indi-

vidual, then you destroy the rights of that individual;and it does not matter whethe r that individual is anindividual person, or individual group of persons, suchas any one that was named above.

A man s home is individual property; and if youshould force the owner of a home to let another mancome into his home with equal rights with the ownerof that home, then you would destroy the fr eedomand rights of the owner of that home. And if thiswas done to all homes, then there would be no homes.

Any business whether owned by an individualperson, or a group of persons, is an individual anindividual business. Force any business to give equalrights to others, who own no interest in that business,then not only the rights of that business would be

destroyed, but the business itself. Apply this samerule to all businesses, then no one could own a business.There are many organizations in the United States,

such as fraternal, labor , religious and so on. Eachand every organization no matter what kind it is,is an individual an individual organization. Forceall organizations to give equal right s, within each oftheir respective organization, to others who are not

members, then you would destroy the rights of allorganizations. And under such conditions, there couldbe no organizations of any kind.

There are fifty states n these United States. Eachof these states is an individual an individu al state.Force any one of these sta tes to give equal rights inits interna l affairs to aU the other states, then youwould destroy the rights of that state. Apply thissame rule to all the states, then there would be nosovereign states.




Likewise, there are many nations in the world. Eachof these nations is an individual an individual na

tion. Force any one of these nations to give equalr ights in its internal affairs to ~ n y other nation,then that nation s rights will be destroyed. Do this toall nations , then there will ·be no free nations.. AndI am sorry to say that there are some nations todaythat have been forced to · do this very thing; and inthese nations, there is no freedom. This is not theory;this is facts.

So, it boils down to this: Force all individual persons, or all individual groups of persons, to give equalrights to others to things that belong, only to themselves , then you will destroy all freedom. Under theseconditions, there could be no freedom of religion;there could be no f r e e o ~of speech or of the press;there could e no kind of free enterprise; neither

could there be any self government; and there couldbe no individual states, · or individua l nations. In factu n d e r conditions like these there could be, only,

a one-world government, with complete dictatorialpower over all persons.

Is this what we want? Well, that is what it meanswhen you force an individual be it an individual person, or an individua l group of persons, such as anorganization, a community, a city, a county, a state,or a nation to give equal rights to others to thingsthat belong, only, to themselves.

We are told that there are five races of men: white,black, brown, yellow and red. Each of these races isan individual an individual race. ·And as an individual,each race should e given the same rights concerningthings that belong to i t a s is given to any other individual.

The color of the skin and all other racial charac-




teristics of the va rious races belong respectively toeach individual race. Therefore if you force the whiterace to let the Negro ra ce to come into the white racewith equal rights the right to freely mix and minglein schools and other places--then you will destroy therights of the white race to perpetuate its own race.Because sooner or later inter-racial marriages willtake place; and in the end there will be no white race

only a mongrel race can be the final result. And this

will bo--when it happens--just as destructive to in-dividual freedom as it would be to force a man tolet another man come into his home with equal rights.

n one case you destroy the rights of a man and ahome; and in the other case you destroy the rightsof the white ra ce and the white race itself. In bothcases you destroy the rights · of individuals. In onecase you destroy the rights .of an individual person;

and in the other case you destroy the rights of an in-dividual race one of the races of mankind.

In these United States all men have the right toown a home and raise a family; but no man has alegitimate right to raise a family except in his ownhome.

Likewise the Negro race should have the right tohave and to enjoy every right that the white race has;but all the rights of the Negro r ace should be exercised within the Negro race. And under conditions likethese both races would be equally free. And it is morethan reasonable to believe that this is what both Jefferson and Lincoln had in mind when they advocatedthat once the Negroes were free they should be colonized in another country.

f all men are created equal then it follows thatall men having been created equal a ll men should beequally free. And if all men are equally free then all




men should be equally fre - to protect and defendwhatever belong to them, be it a piece of property,such as a man s home, or be it the color of a man sskin. And if the white race-by NATURE S LAWS--does not have the right to protect the color of itsskin, then the white race was not created equa l withthe Negro race. And the white race does not havethe right to protect the color of its ·own skin, if it isfor ced to mix and mingle with Negroes. But the white

race was created equal with the Negro race; therefore,by NATURE S LAWS-the LAWS of GOD-thewhite race does have the right to defend its own selffrom destruction by being forced to mix with theNegro race . But by the edict of the Supreme Court,the white race does not now have the right to per-petuate its own race; and the Negro race knows this.But this is what the Negro wants. He does not wantthe white race perpetuated; he wants it mongrelizedwith the Negro race, and for this reason:

The Negro does not think that he was createdequal with the white man, when it concerns the colorof his skin. He thinks that his Creator showed par -tiality toward him, when He made him with a blackskin and the white man with a wh ite skin. The truthof this assertion can be found in the fact that a greatmajority of Negroes do not like their own color. Andin the chapter : WHAT DOES T H E NEGROWANT, I will present the evidence that more thanproves that most Negroes do not like the color oftheir own skin. And when any person has somethingthat he does not like, then the natural th ing he does ,is to get rid of it, if possible. And by attempting to

force the white race to associate with him, the Negrois trying to do this very thing-he is trying to get ridof his own color. Because, he knows that if the races




can be forced to associate together in the end theraces will be amalgamated . And when this amalgamation is completed, the Negro knows that there willbe neither a white race, nor a Negro race. Only amongrel race can be the end result. Th is will destroythe white man's rights, or liberty--either one youwant to ca ll it is correct; but it will not destroy therights of the Negro, because this is what he wants.The Negro wants equality--equality of skin color;

and he does not care for destroying the rights of thewhite man to get this equality. Yes, equality of skincolor is what the Negro wants out of race mixing.And this is the reason that you hear so much aboutwhy the Negro should be given equality, and so littleabout preserving LIBERTY.

The real force behind the drive to force racial in-

tegration is none other than the Communists. Allothers are mere tools in their hands.

In the writings of many of the so-called modern social scientists, you can lind much evidence to th is effect.Most of these writers are Communists, or belong toa Communist front organization, or have done workfor the Communists in some manner.

Among these writers is Gunnar Myrdal. He is aSwedish Socialist, and he is the man who wrote thebook, 11 11 America Dilemma. And from the pagesof this book, the Supreme Court said it dependedupon, mostly , for its authority to desegregate theschools of these United States. And no man has evershown a greater contempt for the Constitution of theUnited States than Myrdal . On page 12 and 13 ofhis book mentioned above, Myrdal made this state

ment:The Constitution of the United States is in many

respects impracti cal and ill-suited for modern condi-




tions, and its adoption was nearly a plot againstthe conunon people. .

This one statement should be enough to open theeyes of any one who might have any doubt as to thepurpose of Myrdal's writings.. But . if this was notenough, then the next statement by Myrdal should.This assertion will be found on page nine of the samebook noted above. Here Myrdal, either scorns LIBERTY itself, or he has no true conception of ·the mean

ingof

the word, liberty, when in speakingof

LIBERTY, Myrdal said:I t is a vague ideal: Everything turns around whose

liberty is preserved, t what extent .and in what direction. In society liberty for one may mean the suppression of liberty for . others. . • . . In ·· America aseverywhere else-and sometimes, ·perhaps, on theaverage, a little more ruthlessly-liberty often pro

vided an opportunity for the stronger ·to rob theweaker.

Nothing could be more untrue than this s t t ~ m n t

This is true, because LIBERTY is no vague idea.LIBERTY means freedom; and where there is freedom, oppression does not exist .

Then Myrdal continues by · stating that in theUnited States, there is a conflict between equality andliberty and that Equality is slewly winning.

But this statement is also untrue . Because wherethere is LIBERTY, there can be no conflict betweenequality and LIBERTY. · Where there is LIBERTY,all will have LIBERTY; . and all will have equalitywhere equality is . due. This I will more fully explainlater on. ·

But Myrdal does not hesitate to say whose LIB·ERTY must go in favor of equality, when it concernswhat he calls discrimination against Negroes. On ·page




574, of his book mentioned above, Myrdal shows histrue colors, when he made this statement. ·

When there is substantial discrimination present,liberty for the wh ite person has to be overru led byequality.

Here Myrdal is speaking of discrimination of theNegro race by the white race. And in Myrdal 's opinion, there is no greater discrimination against theNegro race than racial segregation. Therefore, Myrda l is saying, in effect: I know that racial integrationwill destroy the LIBERTY of the white man; butthe Liberty of the white man must be sacrificed on thealtar of mongrelization, so that the · Negro can hav eequality--equality of the color of the skin--not toofar in the distant future.

Now, in view of this, it must be obvious that theSupreme Court must have been brainwashed by the

social scientists, such as Myrdal and others; otherwise,the Supreme Court never would have relied upon thewritings of Myrdal and other social scientists for itsauthority to desegregate the schools of these UnitedStates . I t just does not make sense. Because, Myrdalsays--in effect that with racial integration, the LIBERTY of the white man must go out the door.

Not only has the Supreme Court been brainwashedconcerning racial segregation, but many other Americans. In no other way can it be explained why so manyare howling and clamoring for integration of thewhite and Negro races; while at the same time, theymust realize that with the races integrated, that someday there will be no white race.

So, in face of all this, something must be done: agreat many people of these United States and theworld must be un-brainwashed. In some way, thepeople of this Nation and the world must be made to




understand the real meaning of the word, liberty. Because we are faced with the same situation today as

the world was in 1864, when Lincoln said: The worldhas never had a good definition of the word liberty,and the American people, just now, are much n wantof one.

Never in the whole history of the world has theAmerican people, and the other people of the worldneeded to have a clarification of the word, liberty than,right now. But time will not wait for this to be done.And I will not attempt to do what no other man hasdone; but 1 will endeavor to explain the meaning of theword, liberty, so that we may know what we meanwhen we speak of a man's liberty.

Liberty s no vague idea. Only those-like Myrdal-whose only wish is to confuse the minds of men,thereby making them easy prey for the acceptance of

the Communist doctrine of a one-world classless society, ever expresses this viewpoint. Because all m e nwho have a true conception of the meaning of LIBERTY-know that where LIBERTY exists, theres no oppression; and that oppression can exist only

under the rule of tyrants.And where there is LIBERTY, there can be no

conflict between equality and LIBERTY. Because

where there s LIBERTY, all men will have LIBERTY; but where there is LIBERTY, all men cannot have equality, except in their own sphere. Forexample-as I have stated before-all men have alegitimate right to own a home, have a wife and raisea family; but no man has the right to go into anotherman's home and demand equal rights in that home.\Vhen all men have a right to own a home, have a wifeand raise a family, all men have equal rights in thisfield. This is the true meaning of equality; and when



SEGREGATION AND COMMON S&'iSE 5

used in this sense, there can never be a conflict betweenequality and LIBERTY.

In the field of education, this same pr inciple holdstrue. As I have stated previously, the Negro is en-

titled to every right tha t the white man has; but theserights should be exercised within the Negro race. Andthe Negro child is entitled to as good an education asany white man's child; but this education should be obtained in a Negro school; and when this is done, theN egro child will have equality wit h the white child, inthe same sense that all men have equa l rights---in theright to raise a family-when all have the right toown a home and have a wife. And when this principleis recognized and adhered to, all men will have LIBERTY; and all men will have equality within theirown sphere, such as a man's own home, his own lodge,his own church and so on; and above all, within his

own race .Now, we have been talking about som e of the thingsthat are necessary if there is to be LIBERTY for allmen; and it must now be evident that LIBERTY doesnot m ean that a man can do as he pleases. f this wasthe meaning of LIBERTY, only the strong wouldhave LIBERTY; and might would not make right,but might would rule, oppressing the weak and thelame. So, we see - i f all men are to have LIBERTY ,then all men must be restrained. But how , when andwhere this restraint is to be applied, is now the question before us. D aniel Webster once said: Libertyexists in proportion to wholesome restraint. Thismeans much , but still it leav e ' us in the dark, as tohow, when and where this restraint should be applied,so that all will have LIBERTY.

The main reason- think-why no one has evercome up with a good definition of the word, liberty, is :




LIBERTY has always been thought of as only one ofthe rights of man. The Declaration of In dependencespeaks of LIBERTY as being among man s unalien-able rights. But LIBERTY is much more than one ofman s rights : LIBERTY is the sum total of all thelegitimate rights of man, together with the right toexercise these rights. And when we undertake to de-fine LIBERTY as one of the rights of man, I mdoubtful that it can e done . But if we take a look atLIBERTY

, as all the rightsof

man, then , I thinki t

ispossible that we may get somewhere.That old definition of LIBERTY: that a person

may do as he pleases, so long as he does not interferewith the rights of others, is not enough . The weaknesshere is that it does not provide a rule by which we mayjudge what are the rights of the other man. A gooddefinition of the word, liberty , must provide us with a

rule by which we may judge, not only what are yourrights and what are my rights; but it must also, tellhow we may know what are the rights of all m en. Be-cause only by knowing how to tell where your rightsend, and my rights begin, may we be able to knowwhat we mean when we speak of a man s LIBERTY.

I t is like this: Only by knowing the landm arks be-tween your neighbor s property and your own, are youable to know whe n you are not trespassing on you rneighbor s property. Likewise, unless there is someclear cut rule by which you may judge where yourrights end; and where the rights of your n eighbo rbegin, you may not be able to ascertain-at all times-whe the r or not, you are inte rf ering with the rightsof your neighbor. Your LIBERTY-as well as a llothers -d

epe nds on this.The

question then is :How

we may judge what are the rights of man--the ri ghtsof all men? Answer this question co r r ectly, then you




will be able to tell what is LIBERTY-what is theLIBERTY of all men.

f a man has LIBERTY he has the right to life;he has the right to the pursuit of happiness; he hasthe right to ownership, to both tangible and intangiblethings; he has the right to both freedom of speech andfreedom of religion; he has the right t equal oppor -tuniti es; he has the right to equality before the law;he has the equal right to participate in the choosing of

the form of government under which he lives, and theelection of the officials of that government; he has aright in all things , both tangible and intangible, inwhich he has a legitimate interest or share therein;and he has equal rights in all things, both tangi .bleand intangible, in which he has an equal legitimate in-terest or share therein. The right to all these thingsis a man's U B E RT Y- t h e LIBERTY of all men.

Deny a man the right to these things, then th at mandoes not have LIBERTY.

All the legitimate rights of any man, taken together- w i t h the right to exercise these r ights- is that man'sLIBERTY . But all men do not have the same r i g ~ t s

Men, only, have legitimate rights where th ey have alegitimate int erest or share in whatever is under con -sideration. And there is nothing mysterious about this .We all know that a man should have no rights in anything, where he does not have a legitimate interest orshare. This is an important princip e; and if we willkeep it in mind, then it should not be too difficult tocome to an understand ing as to what are the leg itima terights of any man, or any group of men- in and underall circumstances .

At the risk of becoming monotonous , in th e fol-lowing pages, I will be using the word, legitimate,quite often. In this work, there is no other word that




will quite take its place. For instanc e it is possiblefor a man or group of men to obtain the legal rightsto some particular thing through a legal process oflaw by falsifying the facts concerning that particularthing. Rights obtained in this manner might be legal;but no rights obtained y misrepresenting the factscould be said to e legitimate or RIGHT. So in thesense that it is RIGHT-regardless of the legal as-pec ts - will e using the word legitimate.

Also the manner in which I will e using the wordinterest needs explaining .A man might e interested in a certain piece of

property; But just being interested would not give himany legitimate rights in the property. But if he owneda share in the property then he would have a legiti-mate interest in that property; and a legitimate interestgives legitimate rights. I n this sense I will be usingthe word interest.

Now there is one fundamental principle upon whichthe rights to all rights is based: Before a man ca nhave a legitimate right in any thing- i t matters notwhat it i s - he must first have a legitimate share orinterest in that thing. I t must not e a spurious in -terest; i t must e genuine .

There can e no exceptions to this. Because if yougive a man a right where he does not have a legitimateinterest then you would e giving him the right tointerfere with the rights of others; and this wou lddestroy the LIB ER TY of others.

Then it boils down to this: Wherever a man has alegitimate inte rest or share h has legitimate rights.But where a man does not have a legitimate interest

or sha re then he should have no rights. And wherea man has all the legitimate interest or shares in any -thing then that man should have all rights in that



SEGREGATION AND OMMON SENSE 39

thing. But where a man h s an equal interest orshares in a thing with others- the number does notmatter- then he should have equal rightt in thatthing.

l l this that I have been saying is nothing newbut a few simple illustrations will make it more easyto understand the meaning of LIBERTY.

f a man owns the whole of anything such as a cer-tain piece of property then he owns all the interest

in that property. So under these conditions this manshould have all the rights in that property . But if twoor more men-the number does not matter-own apiece of property together all owning an equal sharethen all should have equal rights in that property be-cause they all have an equal legitimate interest.

This principle holds true whenev er or whe reverthe rights of man are involved; and it matters not

whether it concerns tangible or intangible things . Forinstance all men that live under the same governmenthave an equal interest in that government. The merefact that they live under the same government givesthem this equal interest. Therefore all men that liveunder the same government should have equal rightsin the voice of running that government.

So on and on it goes: where there is a legitimateintere st there is a legitimate right; and where thereis an equal legitimate interest there should be equalright s ; but where there is not a legitimate interestthen there should be no rights. Keep all this in mindthen we ca n define the word lib erty.

LIBERTY is the right of all persons-regardlessof race creed or color- to partake of or to sha rein all things regardless of what it is-whenever how-ever or whereve r there is a legitimate interest; andeach and every person or group of p ersons partaking




of, or sharing-all according to their respe ctive legiti-mate intere st, therein.

LIBERTY as here defined , provides a rule by whichwe may judge what are the rights of any man, or anygroup of men, such as an individual person , an or-ganization, a business , a company, a city, a county, astate, a nation, or one of the races of mank ind i n

and under all circumstances. It tells how we may judgewl ere the rights of one man ends, and where the rightsof the other man begins: Give all men rights wherethey have a legitimate interest- all according to theirlegitimate interest; but give no man any rights, wherehe does not have a legitimate interest; do this, thenall men will have LIBERTY. And under conditionslike these, the strong will never oppress the weak;and only under conditions like these ca n the LIB-.ERTY of all me .n be secure . And then it follows that

onlyn

.natio ns

that provide and make it possible forconditions, such as these to exist, do all men haveLIBERTY.

LIBERTY as here defined, is no vague idea, like·Myrdal described it to be. Because, we all know-thatif there is to be UBERTY for all persons-all menmust be restrained, otherwise, none except the strongwould have LIBERTY. Well-here it is pointed out,

when and how much any man must be restrained, sothat the other man may have LIBERTY too. Andhere, all men are restrained-all according to th eirr espective legit imate interest that they may have in anyparticular thing.. Down through the ages, the weak have been op-pressed by the str ong. But never in all history hasFREEDOM; while oppression means tyranny. So,means the opposite of oppression : LIBERTY meansLIBERTY been responsible for this. Be ca use Liberty




both LIBERTY and oppression cannot exist at thesame time in the same place. Therefore there canbe but one conclusion: where there is oppression thereLIBERTY does not exist.

The right to all things must come from some source.To e legitimate all rights must come from the sourcethat has the authority to give grant or to dispose oflegitimately . Because we know that only from therightful owner can we get a legitimate title which

gives us the legitimate interest; and which in returngives us our legitimate rights. We know that this istrue because when we buy a piece of property suchas a home it must be purchased from the one who hasa clear title to the property otherwise it is impossibleto get a clear title.

God is the Creator of all things; and being theCreator of all things God is the rightful owner of allthings; and being the rightful owner of every thingGod is the Supreme authority over every thing .

Therefore God being the Supreme authority overall only God has the authority to grant to all mankindthe Ri ght to all rights LIBERTY. And UBERTY

t h e RIGHT to all rights is a gfft from God.The right to life is the one right that God has given

to all men. Therefore it is reasonable to believe thatGod intended that all men regardless of skin colorshould have an equal right to enjoy life. And to thisend it is necessary that all men of all races creedsand colors should have equal opportunities in all thevarious walks of life; that they should nave equalrights and equal justice under the law; and that theyshould have equal rights in choosing the form of

government under which they live and a voice in theelection of the officials of that government . In allthese things all men have an equal legitimate interest




t h e s e things concer n all men alike and in the samemanner .

But God did not create all men alike . Taking together, a ll men that have--generally speaking thesame skin color and other similar bodily characteristic s

a r e called a race a race of mankind.Now, it is also reasonable to believe that God

having made all th e races different, such as the colorof the skin, and other racial traits that it was God spurpose, from the beginning, for each race to beequally free and independe nt o f each other; and eachrace being, equally, free, each race shou ld enjoy itsfreedom within its own race. And may I ask, if thiswas not God s intention, why did H e make the va riousr aces, and then place each race in a different part ofthe world? Man has been the mixe r of the races andnot God.

T he right of ownership is one of man s rights; andwithout this right, a man does not have LIBERTY.And the Constitution of the United States guaranteesthe right of ownership; and the laws of God sustainsthis right. And the right of ownership carries wit hit the right to use, the right to enjoy, and the right todispose of as one pleases; and the things that a manrightfully owns, no one else has the right to use, to

damage or destroy, either directly or indirectly, fo rhis own personal use, or othe rwise.

The white man was born with a white skin and othe rracial characteristics that distinguish him from allother races. A man s life, together with th e body thatcontains his life, with all its individual racia l characteristics., is a gift from God. And God being the soleowner and Supreme authority over everything, a giftfrom God carries a . clear title of sole ownership. T husit must be obvious that a man is the one and only




owner of his own body together with all its racialtraits. And remember that when a person owns thewhole of anything that gives him all the l eg itimateinterest in that thing; and when a person holds all thelegitimate interest in a thing then he has all the l egitimate rights in that thing.

The refore being the sole owner of all its own racialcharacteristics the white r ace has all the legitimaterights that may concern or affect the white race in

any manner. And having these rights all members ofthe white race--acting as individuals or as a whole-should have the right to protect their own race frominfluences that will in the end destroy the race itself.And without this right the white race does not haveLIBERTY the right to protect itself from utterdestruction. And I am sorry to say that today thisis a fact the white race does not have LIBERTY.It has lost its right to protect itself from influencesthat will sooner o r later cause the white race to vanish from the fa ce of the earth.

Th e Supreme Court by the school desegregationdecision on May 17 1954 dealt the blow that endedthe freedom of the white r ace in its relati ons with theNegro race. That decision forces the white race tosend its children while they are young and th eirminds are in the formative s tage to integratedschools. This forced mingling of the races whilechildren are young can lead only to one thing themongrelization of the races. But this is what theNegro wants; this is his final goal. And unless theschool desegregation is reversed the white race willbe performing by force a job the Negro has long

wanted done. To fuse his blood with that of the whiterace thereby losing his identity as a Negro haslong been the desire of a large majority of the Negro




r ace. But by himself the Negro has been unable toreach this goal; so the Negro with the help of otherforces has persuaded the Supreme Court to force thewhite race to associate with Negroes in schools andother places. Thus by this forced mingling of the racesmaking it possible for the Negro to reach his goa l ofthe amalgamation of the races the white race is beingforced to do a job for the Negro r ace a job theNegro race cannot do without the help of the white

race. So call it what you may whenever however orwher ever any person or persons are forced to do a jobfor others that is slavery. And that is where everymember of the white race is right now in slaverydoing a service for the Negro. A service th a t theNegro must have if his goa l of racial mongrelizationis reached.

Down through the ages there has been some race

mixing. But in Great Britai n Western and Northweste rn Europe there have never been much race mixing of diverse ra ces. The people of these countries areall closely related by blood; all having come from thesame original stock the Aryan race. And it was fromthese countries that most of the ancestors of the whiterace of these United States came from. And becausethe ancestors of the white race came from countrieswhere they were proud of their race and did not mixtheir blood with other diverse r aces we now have awhite race in the United States.

But if these ancestors--of the white race of ourshad been forced to mix and mingle with Negroes athousand years ago it is more than probable thattoday there would be no white race in the United

States.But the ancestors of the white race of the UnitedStat es had racial pride. They believed in racial in




tegrity; and they were proud of their own race. Andbecause these ancestors of ours believed in racial integrity and had racial pride the great majority ofthe people of this Nation are white and not a mongrelrace. But the destiny of the white ra ce was in theirhands; it was in their power---whether or not therewould be right now in this Land of OURS a whiterace or a mongrel race. But they were true to thetrust that we thei r unbo rn heirs would have hadthe right to expect of them; and because of this youand I can proudly say: our grandfathers and grandmothers and our fathers and mothers were white.

\ Vhile they lived our forefathers were the custodians of the white race. They had the right to eitherto stay white or to mix their blood with other racesand by so doing become a mongrel r ace. Bu t theywere not forced to mix with the Negro or any other

diverse race . And believing in racial integrity theydid not mix their blood; they stayed white; and because they stayed white we have a white race today.

Now we the living of the white race are the cus

todians of the white race just now. The destiny ofthe white race is now in our hands. Will we be faithful to the trust that now rests in our hands as ou rforefathers did and not mix our blood with that of

the Negro so that ·a thousand years from now therewill be a white race?

There is no doubt in my mind but that the greatmajority of the whi te people of these United Stateswishes to preserve the integr ity of the white race justas much as our forefathers did. But if the white raceis t be able to do what its forebears did then thewhite race must have the same rights that our forefathers had the right not to be forced to mix andmingle with other divergent races such as the Negro.




Especially is this true with young children. Forceyoung children to mix and mingle with Negroes in

schools and other places and they will lose their ra cialpride that pride that is so necessary if the races arenot to become mongrelized . This is true because oncethe white race loses its racial pride there is nothingthat will prevent interracial marriages; and that willmean the end of the white ra ce.

And the foundation has been laid that makes thispossible. The Supreme Court bas said that our publi c schools must be integrated; it has said that ourchildren--o ur small children must associate withNegroes must mix and mingle with Negroes at thetime their minds are in the formative s t age. At thistime chi ldren do not questi on the right or the wrongor the good or the bad of a thing. They go to schoolfor one purpose to learn; and they learn whatever

is placed before theme

it good or bad or right orwrong. So place them among Negroes while they areyoung and the foundation is laid for the developmentof friendships that will lead to the acceptance ofNegroes as life partners in marriage.

So it must be obvious that with th e forced mixingand mingling of the races in public schools and otherplaces we of the white race today do not have the

same right to keep the integrity of the white that ourforefathers had. Our ancestors were free to choosetheir own associates; but we of the white race do nothave that freedom. And may I ask what is morewrong than forcing the white race to associate withthe Negro race ? And may I answer it by saying thatnothing can be more wrong. Because in all naturebirds and animals practice segregation; and only manhas forced their mixing. Are men no better thananimals?




For more than a hundred years the Communistshave been preaching the doctrine of a One-WorldClassless Society dominated and controlled by theCommunists.

Now for such a society as this to exist over allthe world there can be but one class of human beingsall over the world. And for such as this to be all menmust be placed on the same level in all fields in all thevarious walks of life. In other words if there is everto be a classless society world wide all men mustsomehow become the same in all fields the same astwo black eyed peas in the same pod; otherwise therecan never be a classless society . And in the field ofeconomics we know that the only way that this canbe done is to take away from those who have moreand give it to those who have less until all are on thesame level economically. But if all the races of man

kind are to become the same the blood of all racesmust be fused and blended together; otherwis e thisis impossible; and without all mankind becoming thesame as to r c i ~characteristics a classless societyis an impossibility. Because in a classless society allthings must be the same .

Now the Communists know that there are fundamental differences in the various races of mankind.And they know that so long as the white race believethat there is a fundamental difference in the races thenjust so long will the white race fight for its racial integrity. So there was work to be done. Somehow t hewhite race must be made to believe that there wereno fundamental differ ences b etween the races. To dothis the minds of men must be changed in their beliefand attitude toward ra ce. To this end the importanceof race had to be minimized minimized to the extentso that all racial pride would be lost . This was a




must, because they knew that as long as men had ra cialpride, they would fight for the r ight to ke ep theirrespective races pure. And to accomplish this purpose,as well as other aspects of their program for worldconquest, the Communists la id the plans more than ahundred years ago. And in a speech by Karl Marx,at the meeting of the First (Communist) In ternational, at Amsterdam, Holland, in 1872, revealedwhe re the Communists should exert their greatest ef

forts, in their drive for world conquest , especially inthe United States, when Marx declared:But we do not assert that the way to reach this

goal is the same everywhere. We know t hat the institutions, the manners and the customs of the variouscountries must be considere d, and we do not deny that

there are countries like England and America . • •where the worker may obtain his object by peaceful

means. But not in all countries is this the case.Here in a few words, Marx told the Communists

the things that they must do, so as to soften up thepeople of the United States and the world, therebymaking them easy prey for the accepta nce of the Communist doctrine of a classless one-world government,controlled and dominated by the Communists.

In substance, Marx said to the Communists: ysome means or the other, we must get into the manyand various institutions, throughout the wor ld the

various institutions of learn ing, o f relig ion, and allother institutions, regardless of their nature. And ineffect, Marx continued: When you get into those institutions, go to work and do whatever is necessary tochange the customs and mann ers , of all people, of all

nations, as to their ide als concerning their government,their religion, their LIBERTY and their r ace be




cause all this must be done, if there is to be a classlessone-world government, and we its master.

We know that this was the meaning of Marx'swords, because that is just what the Communists havedone in these United States. We know that they haveinfiltrated into all institutions of every walk of lifein this Nation--our colleges, our un iversities, our religious institutions, the labor and fraternal, and all

other organizations, of whatever nature.In order that the white people of these United

States would lose their r acial pride and become in-different as to preserving their racial integrity, theCommunistts have devised many schemes.

One of these schemes is what is known as the ra cialequalitarian doctrine-the doctrine that there is nofundamental difference in the various races of mankind . And what minor differences there are, were

brought about by environmental influences;or in

otherwords, by the process of evolution . And all t h o s e

as far as I have been able to ascertain-who believein this racial equalitarian doctrine--believe that natural causes were the factors that brought all theseveral races into being, instead of being separatelycreated by a Divine Power. And because of this, itcan be certain that none of those-who are preaching

this racial equalitarian doctrine--are working for thebest interest of their Creator--God.

The Daddy of this racial equalitarian doctrine,in these United States- in my opinion, and I do notthink that I will e contradicted-was Franz Boas , ananthropologist . Boas came to the United States fromGermany in 1886; and for many years, he was a professor at Columbia University. And his racial equalitarian philosophy has had a most profound effect uponthe minds of many people, concerning Race -what



S SEGREGATION AND COMMON SENS E

is race? not only he re in the United Sta tes, but throughout the entire world. Some idea of how vast this influen e has been, may be gained f rom a statemen t byMyrdal. Myrdal-as you will remember-is the manwho has the g reatest c ont em pt for the Constitutionof the United States, a nd who thinks that Li berty is a

vague idea ; a nd whose writings the Supreme Courtrdied on, mostly, for its authority for its School Desegregatio n D ecision.

O n page 96 in his book, An A merican D ilemma,M yrdal makes this stateme nt : I t is now becom ingdifficult for even popular writers to exp ress otherviews than the ones of r acia l equa litarianism and stillretain intellectua l respect.

Now, for three quarters of a e nt ury, Boas's racialequa lita rian doctr ine has been taught in the many in-

stitutions of learning of this Nation to our young

people, as scientific facts. And in our higher institutions of learning, such as the colleges and universities,and even the theologica l seminaries, much emphasishas been placed on the teaching of this racial philosophy. So, in view of this, there is no wonder that somany of the better educa ted people o f these UnitedStates are clamoring for the end to racial segregation.Because we are mostly what we have been taught.Burn all the books; then teach tha t the world is flat;and n a few generations, th at is what the wor ld willbe lieve.

But in spite of the acceptance by so many of the socalled intellectuals, Bo as's theories are not scientificfacts; but instead of being scientific facts, they areworthless - they mean nothing. And there is muchproof to back up this assertion; a nd in another chapter, I will give some of th is proof . But this is not




necessary, because Boas's own words prove that his

r acial philosophyis

without foundation.Boas spent a lifetime teaching the doctrine of racialequalitarianism. But when he came to die, Boas wasnot sure-was not sure that all those long years hehad been teaching the right thing. Why? Because,just as he was dying, Boas said, I have a new theoryabout race Margaret Mead, the author of thebook, 11 d n nthropologist at Work, tells of Boas's

death, on page 55 of that book as follo ws:On D ecem ber 29, 1942, Boas was given a lun ch

for his old friend Paul Rivet at the faculty club atColumbia University. A glass of wine in his hand, hesaid, ' I have a new theo ry about race and fellback dead.

What was this new theory? No one knows, becauseBoas died before he had time to explain its natur e.But the very fact that Boas had a new theory at allabout race, proves that he himself did not believe-upto the time of his death- that his theories were scientific facts. Because when a person has proven-beyond a doubt- that a thing is a fact, then he does nottry to prove that it is something else . For instance,after Benjamin Franklin had proven that lightning

was electricity, he never again tried to prove that itwas something else.But in spite of these facts, this r acial equalitarian

doctrine of Boas continues to be taught in our schools,as scientific facts. And our young people are still accepting them as scientific facts, and will as long asthey are taught as such.

So, in view of these facts, there is no wonder that

we are faced with a ra cial problem today. And thereis no wonder that the so-called intellectuals of thisNation- in all walks of l i fe-are raving and howling




for the mixing of the ra ces . And if there is such athing as mass brainwashing th en it has been doneright here in these United States.

But the Negro does not go all the way with thisracial equa litarian doctrine. And while the socia lscientist raves over the color of the skin of the variousraces as being only a minor difference and of littleimportance the Negro p roves--by his own attitudetoward the color of his own skin-that he thinks that

the bl ack

color of his skin makes a great differencebetween the Neg ro and white race. There is muchproof to support this assertion . And the so-called so-

cial scientists are well aware of this fact.During the past few decades there have been much

investigating and writing concerning the Negro andhis problems. I have read quite a few books writtenby these investigators . And all those that I have read

agree on one thing :That within the Negro race there is no socia l equal

ity between dark skin and light skin Negroes; and evenin homes where there are children some with darkskin and some with light skin the re is conflict and dis-

crimination. Concerning this conflict and d iscrimination-within the Negro race on account of colorCharles S Johnson on page 267 in his book Grow-ing p in the Bla ck Belt, says this:

The social va lues associated with color have ex-

tremely serious consequences for Negro youth. Conflict situations may develop between families and arisewithin families. I t often happens that darker childrenin families feel that their parents give preference tothe children of lighter complexion . • . . Children

may apply color values unfavo rab lyto

one or theother of the parents or find themselves apologizingfor the dark complexion of a parent. They may even




harbor re sentment against the parent who was bio-logically responsible for their · own undesirable ap-pearance.

Edward B. Reuter, n his book, The AmericanRa e Probl em , makes this statem ent :

Within the ra ce , as between the ra ces, co lor is aphysical fact that automati call y classifies.

Donald Young , in his work, American MinorityP eople , says this:

Dark Negroes themselves look up to and envyth ei r lighter brothers, although they may hate themfor th eir a ccide ntal advantage of complexion.

Many more similar quotations from oth er writerscoul d be given, but at this time, these should be enoughto show that the Negro puts a very high value on awhite skin-the color of the white man. And f romthis, it must be obvious that the N egro thinks that

there is a vast differen ce between the Negro and whitera ce . In other words, the Negro thinks that the colordifference of the r aces -wi th in itself-makes the dif-ference-a great diff erence.

And with all this conflict and discrimination w ithinthe Negro ra ce a U because some Negroes are of alighte r color than others, is it not more than reason -able to believe that the Negro will never be satisfiedwith anything short of th e complete fusion o f theblood of the Negro ra ce with that of the white race.This is true, becau se only by the fusion of t ~ bloodof both ra ces, can there be a sameness in color of wha twas once the white and Negro ra ces. And only whenthis happens and all p eople become the same color,will this co nfl ict and discrimination, because of co lor

differences end. This is true - -n ot because the whiter ace discriminates against the Negro ra ce because o fthe N egr o's color; but it is true, because the Negro




does not like being a Negro-he wants to be a whiteman. But this being impossible, the N egro will neverbe satisfied, until the whole Negro race becomes aswhi te as possible, by fusing the blood of the Negroand white race together. In the chapter: WHATT H E NEGRO WANTS , I will discuss this morefully.

But in spite of this obvious re aso n why Negroeswant to force white people to associate with them, theso-called social scientists are using every means thatcan be thought of that would cause white people toassociate with Negroes, in all places and under allcircumstances. To this end, some are saying that thereare no such thing as races; that the term, races is a

myth ; and in fact, there is only one race-thehuman race .

Those who are prea ching this one-race doctrine

know what they are doing. They know that once thisone-race doctrine takes roots and grows, then themembers of the white race will become apathetic asto the meaning of their own race; and on ce this be-com es a fact, the PATH that leads to the mongreliza tion of the races will be wide open, with no stops1gns

Let us examine some of the argu 'flents of one ofthe mo st out-spoken of these one-race advocates . Inhis book, Man's M t Dang erous Myth The Fallacyof Race, Ashley Montagu, an anthropologist , makesthese startling statements:

" The idea of 'race' represents one of the greatesterrors, if not the greatest error, of our time, and themost tragic. . . . Certain ly it is true that many scien

tists have attempted to classify and fit the varieties ofmankind into definite groups, the so-called 'races,' but




all such attempts have thus far met with completefailure.

Nothing could ·be more absurd than this statement;but if the white race can be made to believe it, in duetime, it will be t rue-there will be ·but one ra ce.

In their effort to prove that the Negro got his blackskin by natural processes, Montagu and others arguethat the black skin of the Negro is an adaptive protection against the actinic rays of the sun which Montagu says are dangerous. But concerning this, letus listen to Montagu himself when he declares:

Black skin appears to represent a character of anadaptive value which in some groups followed uponthe loss of the body-covering of hair. Thus, most apesand monkeys which possess an abundant hairy coathave white skin beneath the hair

I t should be obvious that black and white skins

are, in their own ways, characters of physiologicalimportance for the survival of the individual. In hotclimates those individuals would be most favored whopossessed skins sufficiently dark to cut off the dangerous actinic rays of the sun. In cool climates, wherethe rays of the sun are not so intense and the bodyrequ ir es a certain amount of sunlight in order to function proper ly those individuals would be at an advantage-that is to say, over a considerable periodof t ime-who were characterized by a lesser amountof p i ~ e n tin the skin.

Now, may I ask why was nature so unkind to theNegro, so that it took off his hairy covering and lefthis naked body exposed to those so-called d a n ~ e r o u s

actinic rays of the sun; and while at the same time and

under the same climatic cond itions, the hairy coveringsof the apes and monkeys were left on?Surely environmental influences were not the cause




of this strange phenomenon. Because the native homesof monkeys, apes and Negroes, were all in a hot

climate . f this were environmental influences at work,then it is strange to me that it will work one way onmonkeys and apes; and then under the same conditions, reverse its action on the Negro . I t just doesnot make sense.

The facts are that Montagu's theories concerningthe origin of the black skin of the Negro has no foun

dation. Because the white man has been able to livein any part of the world, from the hottest to theco ldest , without being harmed by the so-called dan·gerous actinic rays of the sun. And the pages ofhistory show that the white man has lived in some ofthe hottest lands of the world, for thousands of yea rs,withou t ever becoming a Negro. Mesopotamia hasone of the hottest climates that can be found anywhere;

yet, in that land, the white man deve loped one of thegreatest civilizations of the ancient world.

The fa ct of the matter is that when the origin ofthe color of the Negro's skin is attempted to be ex-

plained by natural causes, then you are in deep waterand no way to escape. For proof of this statement, Iwill turn to Charles Darwin. Darwin was not thefirst man to teach the theory of evolution; but he wasthe first man, who taught i t in such a way- tha t inth e end, by making so many people believe in i t - tha tthe belief in this theory, in time, may change the wholecourse of human events. But Darwin, when facedwith the bard cold facts, which were open to all theworld, openly proclaimed to the world that climaticf actors were not responsible for producing the differ

ent skin colors in the various races. In his book , TheD escent of Man, Darwin tells the story like this:




Of all the differences between the races of man,the color of the skin is the .nost conspicuous and oneof the best marked. I t was formerly thought that thedifferences of this kind could be accounted for by longexposure to different climates; but Pallas first showedthat this is not tenable, and he has since been followedby about all anthropologists. This view has been rejected chiefly because the distribution of the var iouslycoloured races, most of whom have long inhabited

their present homes, does not coincide with corresponding differences of climate. Some little weight may begiven to such cases as that of the Dutch families, who,as we hear on excellent authority, have not u n e r ~ o n e

the least change of colour after residing for threecenturies in South Africa. An argument on the sameside may likewise be drawn from the uniform appearance in various parts of the world of Gypsies andJews . The Esquimaux live exclusively on animal food;they are clothed in thick fur, and are exposed to intense cold and prolonged darkness; yet they do notdiffer in any extreme degree from the inhabitants ofSouthern China, who live entirely on vegetable food,and are exposed almost naked to a hot, glaring climate .The unclothed Fuegians live on the marine productionsof their inhospitable shores; the Botocudos wanderabout the hot forest of the interior and live chieflyon vegetable productions ; yet these tribes resembleeach other so closely that the Fuegians on board the

eagle were mistaken by some Brazilians for Botocudos. The Botocudos again, as well as the other -

habitants of tropi-cal America, are wholly different

from the Negroes who inhabit the opposite shores ofthe Atlantic, are exposed to a nearly similar climate,and follow nearly the same habits of life.




Thus Darwin explodes the theory that the color ofthe skin of the various ra ces of mankind was broughtabout by environmental influences, such as climate,diet, kind of clothing, or to other factors due to cli-

matic conditions.In one case, Dar win found people that did not dif·

fer grea tly from each other; yet, one group, the Es-kimos , lived in the far North; and the other group, theinhabitants of South China, lived in a very hot climate.

But in another case, Darwin found that the BotocudoIndi a ns and other inhabitants of tropical America,were "wholly different" from the Negroes of Africaon the opposite side of the Atlantic , that were exposedto a climate that was "nearly similar"; and whosehabits of life were "nearly the same."

Then , D arwin goes on to sta te : "Some little weightma y be given to such cases as that of the Dutch fam-ilies , who, as we hear on excellent authority, have notundergone the least change of colour after residingfor three centuries in South Africa. An ari Ument onthe same side may likewise be drawn fr om the uniformappearance in various parts of the world of Gypsiesand Jews ."

Gypsies and Jews are scattered ove r the world , in

hot, temperate and cold climates;but

wherever theyare found, they look l ike gypsies and Jews long ex -posure to all kin ds of climatic conditions have notchanged their physical characteristics.

To have any foundation , the theory that climaticconditions are responsible for the color of the skin ofthe various races, we should find these things: In allsimilar climates , we should find simila r color of skin;

all people who have lived in hot climates for o n ~periods of time, should be of the same color; and allpeople who have li ved in temperate or co ld climates ,




should be white the colder the climate the white rthey should be; and the hotter the climate the blackerthey should be. But we do not find things like this.

At the dawn of historica l times we found the Negroin Africa . As a whole Africa has a very hot climate;but the Southern end of Africa is in the temperatezone; but no white man was found there. Also inSouthern Asia another hot place the Negro wasfound. L ater on the Negro was found in Australia andother islands. But there were other places with tropi-cal climates that had no Negroes. Why not?

From Northern Africa to Nort he rn Europe thewhite man was found. Also in Southwes t Asia thewhite man made his home. Mesopotamia one of thehottest places on earth was the home of the whiteman who built the greatest civi li zation of ancienttimes. But no Negroes were found here . Why not?

From Southern China which is very hot to thearctic region whi ch is very cold is the home of theyellow race. No white race developed in any part ofthis region hot or cold. Why not?

But now we come to the most mysterious land ofall; that is if climate is the maker of the variousraces of mankind. From the ardic region of NorthAmerica to the Southern end of South America noNegro or white man ever made his home until 1492when Columbus discovered America. Befor e this onlythe Eskimos who dwelt in the arctic regions of NorthAmerica and the Ind ians who roamed the remainderof this vast land were known to have made theirhomes in this great land.

Now in view of the claim made by some anthro-

pologists and othersthat

the different races of manwere brought about by different climatic conditionssuch as a hot climate produced the Negro; and a




temperate or cold climate produced the white racewhy did a white race not develop in the Americaswhere there is so much land that has a temperate orcold climate? And why was there not a Negro racein tropical South America which has a climate that is

so similar to that of tropical Africa?f climate has been the producer of the races of

mankind then all natives of Northern Asia shouldhave been white; all Eskimos and Indians of NorthAmerica should have been white; all natives of Central and tropical South America should have beenNegroes; and the natives of the Southern end of SouthAmerica should have been white.

Therefore the theory that climate is the maker ofthe various races just does not make sense. A theorybased on a supposition that gives different resultsunder similar conditions is worthless. So it follows

that the theory that the color of the skin of the different races is due to different climatic conditions hasno foundation.

But in spite of this the so-called social scientistscontinue to teach-as scientific facts- in the schoolsof these United States that the different races ofmankind came into being by natural causes such asclimatic conditions. And all this is producing a mostprofound effect upon the people of this Nation. I t iscausing the people of all races to become apathetictoward their own race-making them so indifferentas to the real meaning of what is meant by RACE,until they are accepting and doing the very things thatwill in the end destroy all races. By doing this theyare giving up one of their most sacred r ights- theright to perpetuate their own race .

Another scheme that is being used to confuse thepeople of the white race so that they will become un·




concerne d and complacent in regard to racia l purity,is that o race-mixing itself. When this subject isr aised, you will hear statements, something like this:

What are you talking about? The races are alreadymixed; you are many hundreds o years late to begintalking about racial purity. So, why wo r ry about al ittle more mixing?

I t is true that there has been race-mixing all downthrough the ages. No one can deny this. But it is

also true that we still have a white race, a Negro race,a yellow race, a brown race and a red race.And there is anothe r thing that is true; and this is

obvious to all: There has never been a law made byman, or proclaimed by God that has not been brokenby man.

T he laws o God and the laws o these UnitedStates forbid murder. And the punishment for mur.der in this Nation is either death or life in prison; butin spite of the extreme punishment, men continue tokill each other. And just as there have been somerace-mixing ever since the different races came in contact with each other, likewise, men have been committing murder ever since Cain slew Abel.

All men do not commit murder; but some men do.But nobody recommends repealing all laws againstmurder, just because some men kill their neighbor.Be cause to do so, would legalize murder, and no person's life would be safe. To repeal laws against murder, is no way to safeguard lives .

Li kewise , there have been some race-mixing, smce

time immemorial; but just because there have beensome race-mixing, is no valid reason why all laws

against race-mixing be outlawed, because, su rely, therepealing o all segregat ion laws, will not promoteracial purity; but instead, it will make it impossible




for the white race, or any other race to protect itselffrom complete destruction . In principle, there is nodifference in repealing all laws against murder, therebyplacing all persons' l ives in peril, than there is in repealing all laws against racial segregation, therebyplacing in peril the perpetuity of all races. Surely allraces have this right, based on the laws of na tu re -the laws of God. And because of this, the laws of allpeople should proclaim racial freedom the freedom

that gives to all races the right to freely perpetuatetheir own respective race.Race-mixing is contrary to the laws of God the

Creator of all things. There is much proof of this as-sertion to be found in the Scriptures; but one of thestrongest proofs is not to be found in what God said,but in what He did.

I t is an old saying: Actions speak louder thanwords. And so it is with God and racial segregation:what He did about separating the different races,speaks louder than what H e said about it. We knowthat this is true, because at the beginning of historicaltime, all races were segregated, each in a differentpart of the worl d . Thus God was the first segregationist.

fyou should visit a farmer, who had a number ofdifferent breeds of cattle; and if each of these breeds

were separated from each other by good strong fences,would it be necessary for this farmer to put big signsall over his farm, stating that he did not want his different breeds of cattle mixed with each other? Ofcourse not. The mere fact that the cattle were separated from each other by good strong fences would

be sufficient proof to show to the world that thisfarmer wanted his catt le separated from each other .

Likewise, the mere fact that God separated the dif -




ferent races from each other, should be more thanample proof that God intended that the r aces be kept

separated from each other for all time. So, if the lawsof man make race mixing at the same t ime theseman made laws invalida te the laws of God.

f all the laws in every nation throughout the worldwere repealed against murder, chaos, terror and muchkilling would be th e results. But terrible as it wouldbe all mankind would not be killed.

But repeal all segregation laws and force the intermingling of all races throughout the world; andsooner, or later, the results will be the amalgamatio nof all races into one. Then, all the races that nowexist, will be no more in a sense they will be dead.

Of all the schemes to lull the men and women ofthe white race into comp lacency, the one that interracial marriages will not result in an inferior mongrel

race, is the most absurd . But because this covers somu ch ground, I will not discuss it here . In the chapter:THE RISE AND FALL OF NAT IO NS, I will tellthe whole story concerni ng the crossing of the variousraces .

Still another scheme that is being used to pull thewool over the eyes of the white race, is the one thatproclaims that inter-racial marriage is a personalmatt r a m atter that concerns only the marriagepartne rs. That if a Negro and a white person wish tomarry each other, then that is nobody s business, except their own. But this is shallow thinking at itsworst. Becaus e when a white person marries a Negro,it becomes much more tha n a personal matter i t isa matter that concerns the whole white race.

Earlier, we learned that a person had a right wherehe had a legitimate interest; but we also learned thathow much right a person had in a particular thing,




depended upon how much legi timate interes t he hadin that thing . f he held all th e legitimate inter est,then he had all rights in that thing . But if others thenumber does not matter had an equal legitimate i nterest with him in that th ing, then all who had thisinteres t, would have an equal legitimate right to protect t hat thing from destruction . So, in a case likethis--whatever anyone, who had a legitimate rightin that thing, did to that th ing would concer n everyone who had a legitimate right in that thing. L et usput it this way:

Every person in these United States has a legitima teinterest in the welfare of this Nat ion; and because ofthis legitimate interest in the Nation s welfare, everyperson has a legitimate right to see that th e Nationis protected from within and from without from thosewho would destroy it. And whatever any person might

do to jeopardize the welfa re of the Na tion , woul dconcern every person in the Nation. Th erefore, noone will dare say that it woul d be just a personal matter for s ome person to turn over secret informationto another nation, if this would lead to the destructio nof this Natio n.

L ikewise, every white person is a membe r of thewhite race; and every wh ite person, being a memberof the white race, ha s an equa l legitimate interest-in everything that concerns the white race as a whole .And this equal legitimate interest, gives every personof the white race an equal right to everything thatconcerns the white r ce as a whole. So, whateve r anymember of the white race might do that would lead ,or might lead to its own destruction, concerns everyperson of the white race. Ther efore, in view of this,how can anyone say: int er-racia l marriages are ju st




personal matters? Be caus e inter-racial marriageswill destroy all rac es, sooner or later.

When a child is young, it is innocent and unlearned.At this time of life, a child has an open mind; and itis eager to grasp whatever in the way of knowl edgethat is thrown its way. But being unl earned , a childhas no way of knowing, whether or not, what it istaught in school, or elsewhere, is good or bad fo r it ,or for future generations. So, it is obvious, that mostoften, a child accepts as truths and facts whatever it istaught. And because of this, nothing but truths andfacts should be taught a ch ild. Therefore, because ofthis, a child should never be taught theories. Theoriesshou ld never be taught to children until they are mature enough and have gained enough knowledge toreason for themselves. To attempt to teach a theoryto a child before it is old enough and has gained

enough knowledge to reason for itself, is not teachingthat child; but on the other hand, it is indoctrinatingthat child.

The doctrine of racial equalitarianism is not a provenfact; and the forces, that are preaching this racialphilosophy, know that mat ure men, with reasoningpower, will not accept it--unless they were indoctrinated with it while they were young. These fo rces

are well aware of the Biblical axiom: Train up achild in the way he should go: and when he is old hewill not depart from it. But they don 't intend to

train up the young people of this Nation ''in theway they should go ; but the so-called social scient istsintend to train up the young children in the waythat they want them to go.

For many years, this racial equalitar ian doctrinehas been taught to young people in colleges and universities: but now it is being proposed-and it is being




done in some pl aces--that this racial philosophy be

taught in the lower grades to the very young. And

the best way that I know for you to see that this is trueis to let some of these so-called social scientists speakfor th emselves . Otto Klineberg, a socia l psychologist,in his book, Race Differences, has this to say:

There is no need to pass laws against miscegenation. The human race is one, biologically. There areno subvarieties whose genes are mutually incompatible,or whose crossing will necessarily lead to degeneration.Race mixture is not in itself harmful if the parents'stocks are healthy . . . . Once science has demonstrated that there is nothing in the brain or blood ofother races which justifies our ill -tr eatment of them,it becomes important to see that this knowledge isdisseminated. In this respect, the schools have a particularly important function to perform. f attitudes

are tobe

changed in the face of the forces tending toperpetuate them, the only hope is to reach themearly, and to give to children habits of favorable reactions to other races which will stay with themthrough life.

Another so-called social scientist, Ashley · Montagu,an anthropologist, in his work, uThe M osl DangerousMyth The Fallacy of Race, states it this way:

I t is through the lower and upper grade schoolsthat the most significant work can e done in clarifyingthe minds of individuals concerning the facts relatingto the varieties of man and in educating them in theproper mental attitudes Our children must betaught that a certain form of nose or a certain skincolor is in the physical scales of values neither betternor worse than any other .

Thus speak two so-called social scientists. Butthroughout this Land of ours, there are many more




like them who believe that the only way that thegreat masses of people can be made to accept thisracial equalitarian doctrine is to get to them whilethey are young while they are so young that theyare not capable to reason things out for themselves.

But this does not mean that a person cannot bemisled after he is old enough to reason things out forhimself. Because before a person is capable of reasoning a thing out to a logical conclusion he must be

as well informed on one side as he is the other; otherwise his reasonin g cannot be sou nd and his conclusions will be in line with the side on which he was thebetter informed. And by taking advantage of this theforces--who are crying from the hill top the by-waysand the house tops for racial integration have beenable to indoctrinate many young people in our collegesuniversities and our religious institutions with thisracial equalita ri an doctrine. Th is is why so many ofwhat is known as the better educated people includingpreachers are the most ardent supporters of this racial equalitarian philosophy.

But all people do not go to college. But most children do go to lower grade schools. This is why theseso-called social scientists believe that if the great majority of the American people are ever to be made toaccept this racial equa lit arian doctrine then it must betaught them while they are in grade schools.

Most grown-ups of these United States are rationalpeople. And if thev are as well informed on bothsides of most any subiect they are capable of rea ching-a sound conclusion. This is a well known fact that isre cognized by all people. Therefore in view of this

i f this racial equalita ri an doctrine is a scientific factand the grownup people of these United States arepresented with the cold hard fa c t s a re they not capa -




ble of reaching a sound conclusion as to the facts inthe case?

There can be but one answer to this question: I f

there are no fundamental differences between the various races of mankind, and the facts of this, are placedsquarely before the mature people of these UnitedStates then we must say that they would be capableof arriving at the right conclusion a just verdict toall concerned. And if this be t rue and it is t u -

why do the so-called social scient ists say: I f attitudesare to e changed in the face of the forces tending toperpetuate them, the only hope is to reach them early,and to give to children habits of favorable reactionsto other races which will stay with them through life.

In other words, what is said here is this: We knowthat we do not have the proof to prove that thereare no fundam enta l differences between the var iousrac es of mankind; and we know, that the great majority of mature men and women eing capable ofrea soning for themselves will never accept the theorythat there are no fundamental d ifferences between theraces; therefore, the only way this un-proven doctrineof racial equalitarianism would ever be accepted bythe vast major ity of all people, would be to teach itto un-learned children, who were not old enough toreason for themselves.

Now, in view of this, we can come to only one conclusion: When men have no way to get the masses ofpeople to accept a theory , or a do ctrine, eJOCept toreach them, while they are young, un-learned andbefore be ing old enough to reason for themselves , thenthat theory or doctrine can be nothing but an un-sound

theory or doctrine. So, in view of this , we must conclude: the th eory of racial equalitarianism is unsoundand is without a foundation.




Now, before goi ng further, I want to get one thingstraight: The doctrine of racial equalitarianism is atheory that there are no fundamental differences be-tween the various races of mankind . I t has nothingto do with--one way or the other - whether the racesare equal or not equal. Things can be equal; yet, theycan be different. For instance, one farmer may havea herd of black cattle; and another farmer may havea herd of white faced Herefords; and these different

herdsof

cattle can be equa lin

economic value; yet, noman, who knows cattle, would say that there was nofundamental difference between these herds of cattle.Because, whatever i t is that is necessary to make athing what it is, that is a fundamental thing. So inthe .case of these two herds of cattle, the color of eachh e r d - i f nothing else - makes each herd what it is;so, this difference in color, must be a fundamental

difference between these herds of cattle .Likewise, because the Negro is black and the white

man is white, does not mean that they are not equal to

each other, or that one is superior to the other. Butthis difference in color does mean that there is a fundamenta l difference between the races. Because-what

ever i t is that makes a thing what it is, that thing is afundamental thing; and one thing that makes a Negrowhat he i s - i f nothing else--is the color of his skin;and the one thing that makes a white man what he -

if nothing e lse- i s his white skin; therefore, in viewof this, there must be a fundamental difference be-tween the Negro and white race .

Kline berg, a social psychologist says: The humanrace is one, biologically speaking.

Tothe extent

thatall races are capable of mixingtheir blood, we must agree. But because i t is possible

for all races to mix their blood, this does not mean




that it is Right -RIGHT according to the RIGHTSOF MAN or RIGHT in the SIGHT of God. Andin the chapter: T H E RISE AND FALL OF NATIONS I will show that a mixture of diverse racesis not to the best interest and well being of all mankind; and in the chapter: GOD AND SEGREGATION I will show that race-mixing is not RIGHTin the SIGHT of God.

Self preservation is the first law of nature. So, inview of this, how can racial segregation be wrong anddiscriminatory against the Negro? Does not a manhave a right to build a fence to prevent his whitecattle from mixing with his neighbor s black cattle?

f he does-and you know he does-then segregationis RIGHT and not WRONG. Because racial segregation is only a fence-a social fence; and this socialfence is the only effective barrier that the white man

has erected to prevent the white race from mixing itsblood with that of the Negro race . And is not theperpetuation of the white race of more importancethan the perpetuation of a certain breed of cattle?

f it i s - and it must be- then we can say that theRight of the white race, or any other race, to separateor to segregate itself from all other races, is a GodGiven-RIGHT.

Now, in view of all of th isin view of all thingsconcerning the RIGHTS OF M A N - i t must be

obvious that segregation does not destroy anyRIGHTS that belong to the Negro. But on theother hand, racial segregation is based upon oneof the soundest principles known to man: theprinciple that there can be no RIGHTS to others,to things that belong, only to an individual, or onlyconcern an individual. This is true, because withoutadherence to this principle, there can be no individual




LIBERTY of any kind: no ind ivid ual homes no in-dividual businesses of any kind no individual organi-zations no individual counties no indiv idu al states noindividual nations and so on; and without adherenceto this principle there can be no individua l races ofmankind not for long. But if this one principle isadhered to there will be LIBERTY for all regardlessof race creed or colo r and oppression for none .




CH PTER

THE RISE AND FALL OF NATIONS

Hi st ory and Anthropology, the science of man , havebeen a lifetime hobby of mine. I have studied both

extensively, because to know history, you must knowman; and to know man you must know history. Andbecause of my lifelong occupation, a farmer, the studyof plant and animal breeding became a necessity . Be-cause of this, much of what I have to say on this subject, has been gained from experience.

Why have so many nations , down through the ages ,built great civilizations, flourish for a time , then without any apparent reason , wither away and perish; orto be conquered by some weaker and less culturednation? This question has never been answered satisfactoril y. But one thing stands out : no great civilizat ion no matter whether it was a large or small nat ion has ever perished within itself; or has been conquered by a smaller ar weaker nation without first. itspeople became apathetic and complacent; or in otherwords, thev lost that go-get-em spirit which is sonecessarv if any people are to accomplish anythingworthwhile.

Then the question arises: what have been the factorsthat have caused the people of so many great civilizations to bec ome apathetic and complacent that cau sedthem to fall from greatness?

China built one of the great civilizations of ancienttimes. And unlike the other great civilizations of thetimes, it did not wither away and perish; it lived on for




thousands of years almost w ithout cha nge; while atthe same time other civilizations--some greater tha nthat of China - withered away and died. Why may weask did the civilization of China endure for thousandsof years yet others as great or greater soon passedaway?

The Jews are another people who built a civilization thousands of years ago. Their nation was conquered before the birth of Christ. They were driven

from their native land and are now dispersed ove rthe whole face of the earth; yet the civilization thatthe Jews built did not perish from the ear th i t livedon eve n until today . Why?

The answer to these questions can be summed up ina few words like this: Race m ixing or crossing on theone hand; and relatively speaking no race mixing orcrossing on the other hand.

For a good many yea rs it has been known that themating of unrelated animals is likely to produce off-

spring with mo re vigor than the parental stock. Thisphenomenon is called heterosis or hybrid vigor.

This knowledge is being put to good use by thefarmers of th is Nation right now. In the productiono meat animals crossbreeding is being used extensively. Crossbred animals often show more vigorbetter feed conversion and increased growth.

In the poultry industry most all poultry grown inth is country at this time for both meat and eggs arethe offspring of crossbreeds. The meat type chickenfrom crossbreeds has more vigor better and fastergrowth with more efficient feed conversion; and theegg type chicken from cross breed parents has more

vigor lays more eggs lays over a longer period otime without molting and its feed conversion basedon number of eggs laid is much better .




Other crossbred farm animals produce results simi-lar to these. So, all this crossbreeding of farm animalsadds up to more dollars in the pocket of the farmers.These are facts; they cannot be de nied.

But the farmer is not stopping here . He is usinghis knowledge of that hrbrid vigor to grow bette rcrops of higher yields of most all farm crops today.By far, the greater part of the corn grown in this Na-tion now is grown from hybr id seed. Then there can

be no denying of the fact that the crossbreeding ofboth farm anima ls and plants is beneficial, not only tothe farmer, but to all mankind.

But this is not the whole story concerning the cross-br eeding of animals and plants. f it was, I wouldstop right here and concede that race mixing or cross-ing was good for all mankind. But we cannot stophere; we must go on and tell the whole story. Whenthe whole story is told, I am fully convinced that youwill agree with me that the mixing and cross ing of thevarious races of mank ind in the manner that wouldbe necessary so that the offspring of these crosseswould continue to have hybrid vigor like the offspringof crossbred animals and plants , is an impossibility.

Gener ally speaking, a hybrid is the offspring of

unrelated parents, either of animals or plants. To bemost profitable, it is necessary for both parents to bepure bred. To b reed one crossbred animal to anothercrossbred animal can result only i n a mongrel herdwith the loss of hybrid vigor. But right here , we will

let an authority speak on this subject. In their work,Breeding and Improvement of Farm Animals, Vic-

tor rthur Rice , Professor of Animal Husbandrv. at

the University of Massachusetts, and Frederick New·comb Andrews , Professor of Animal Husbandry, at



SEGREGATION ~ COMMON SENSE 7

Purdue University, make this statement in regard to

the crossbreeding of hogs:C rossbreeding can be continued as a steady policy

only by going to pure bred for the boars needed forreplacement. Crossbred animals have a lower valueas transmitters of inheritance. Crossbred sows maybe used successfully for breeding i f the boar is a purebred. In this way the hybrid vigor of the crossbreddam in nursing and rearing pigs may express itself

n o u g ~tomore than compensate for the

low ervalueas a transmitter of inheritance. No such offset for

his lowered transmitting value could exist in the caseof a crossbred boar. Planless and unsystematic crossing may quickly result in a mongrel herd from whichthe owner will get neither profit nor pride of ownership."

Professor C. C. Palmer o f the National School of

Animal Breeding, Pleasant Hill , Ohio, has this to sayin general, concerning the crossbreeding of animals:

" The success of crossbreeding depends largely uponthe excellence of the breeding stock which is utilized.After the system is under way there is a tendency to

lower the high standards of excellence in the purebred stock which is being crossed and if this is in-

dulged in, the quality and usefulness of the c ross bredswill suffer. For the continuation of the system of

crossing it is necessary to ma ntain two lines of breeding, one to supply the pure bred foundation stock forcrossing and the other to supply the cross bred animalsthemselves."

Thus you see that you cannot breed cross bred animals to cross breds, without your herd becoming in-

ferior and unprofitable. Pure bred animals mated topure bred animals, most often produce offspring that

is superior to the parental stock; but cross bred ani-




mals mated to cross bred animals, always produceoffspring that is inferior to the parental stock, result-ing in a herd of scrubby mongrels.

This same principle holds true in the crossbreedingof plants. Plants grown from hybrid seed have morevigor with an increase n yield of a better quality, mosttimes; but on the other hand, plants grown from hy-brid seed of the second generation is inferior to theparental stock and produces a lower yield. For in-

stance, if a farmer grows hybrid corn, it is necessaryto buy seed every year, as the second generation ofhybrid corn usually drops from 10 to 5 per cent n

yield.I t is not possible to crossbreed just any and every

kind of animals, and then expect to get that hybridvigor that is so necessary to give quicker and bettergrowth with a more efficient feed conversion. You

must have good purebred animals to cross, i you areto expect the offspring to be superior to the parentalstock. But some times, even, with good purebredstock, the offspring is not better than the parentalstock. When this happens, they say that the cross didnot nick ; and when the offspring is superior, it is

said that the cross nicked. The only way that across can be known to nick or not to nick is bytrial. In support of this statement, I turn again toprofessors Victor Arthur Rice and Frederick New-comb Andrews, with their own words as follows:

The growing realization of the need for goodpurebred sires for use in crossbreeding is both a chal-lenge to the breeder and an assurance that his crea-tions will be in high demand and at a good price. I t

will be most unfortunate for all concerned if cross-breeding comes to be considered a panacea for com-mercial meat production and the idea adopted that




mating anybody s son of some breed with everybody sdaughter of some other breed, or grade, would alwaysgive desirable results. Actually the value of crossbreeding lies in the genetic merit of the stocks crossedand whether the genetic complexes complement eachother. We will not get any more out of a cross than

. .e put t n t •

Thus it shou ld be readily seen that crossbreedingis not magic i t is far more than just waving the magician s wand. To be 3uccessful, it must be controlledon a scientific basis. To crossbreed, indiscriminately,can only result in an inferior mongrel herd.

For the accuracy of these statements of mine, inaddition to the authorities that I have given, I referthe reader to any reliab le plant or animal geneticist.

In view of these facts, I say without any reservations, that it is impossible to mix or cross any of the

diverse races of mankind, without developing an inferior mongrel race. This is so, because y u cannotcontrol the crossbreeding of human beings, like youcan plants and animals. T o control the crossbreedingof human beings , would mean that the offspring of across of two diverse races could never marry andraise families; and in order to keep the crossing orcrossbreeding program going, in some way, or somehow, you wou ld have to continue to get purebreds ofthe races being crossed from somewhere. f you didnot have a pool of each race being crossed to drawfrom, sooner or later, you would run out of purebredsto cross. When this happened, you would have twoalternatives: You could let the crossbreeds die outand become extinct, or you could let the offspring of

the crossbreedsmarry

and raise familie s, thereby pro·clueing an inferior mongrel race.But a control program for the crossbreeding of man -




kind is unthinkable. But also , it is fooli sh, and unthinkable to believe that the diverse ra ces of mankindcan be crossed without producing ra ces that are in·ferior to the parental stock.

But the equalitarian one-race social scientistswould have us to believe otherwise--they would haveus believe the crossing of diverse races will not produce an inferior race. But their statements concerningrace crossing are so contradictory until they have no

value. Most often they do not tell the whole storyabout crossbreeding of plants and animals; and whe nthe whole story is told, they hedge with assertionsthat some of the principles that apply to hybridizationof plants and animals do not apply to mankind. Forinstan ce they acknowledge that the offspring of thefirst generation, of plants, animals and man are likel yto have more vigo r and vitality than the parent stock

of each ; but w hat they will not acknowledge is that inman, the vigo r and vitality due to crossing diverseraces of man, will not decline after the first generation.But this does not make sense. f part of the principleconcerning the crossbreeding of plants and animalsdoes apply to man, then there is no logi cal reason whythe whole does not app ly.

So, in spite of the scientific evidence to the contrary,our equalitarian one-race social scientists are broadcasting the message to the world that race crossingof the diverse races of man is beneficial to all mankind. On page 102 of his work, (IM an's Most Dan-gerous Myth The Fallacy of Race , Montagu writes:

There can be little doubt that those who deliverthemselves of unfavorable judgments concerning race ·

crossing are merely expressingtheir

prejudices. Forwithin the framework which encloses the half-castewe are dealing with a conspicuous example of the ac-



SEGREGATION AND tOMMON SENSE 9

tion of socially depressing factors, not with the effectsof biological ones. The truth seems to be that far

from being deleterious to the resulting offspring andthe generations following them, interbreeding betweendifferent ethnic groups is from the biological stand-point highly advantageous to mankind.

Then on page lOS, Montagu glorifies the advan-tages of hybrid vigor, resulting from the crossbreed-ing of plants and animals, as he continues:

Utilizing the knowledge of hybrid vigor, animalgeneticists have succeeded in produ cing offspring thatfor particular desired characters are in every way su-

perior to the parental stock, while plant geneticistshave succeeded, by the same means, in producing enor-mous increases in sugar cane, corn, fruits, vegetablesand other economically important foodstuffs. Suchhybrids are not inferior to their par ents, but exhibit

qualities farsu

perior to those possessed by either ofthe parental stocks . • •ere Montagu does not tell the whole story. e

does not tell that it is not wise to breed from the off-

spring of crossbred animals; because after the firstgeneration, the hyb rid vigor so noticeable in the firstgeneration decreases in succeeding generations. Neitherdoes he tell you that it is not wise to plant the secondand succeeding generation seed of crossbred plantsthat results in decrease yields.

But on page 106, Montagu adm its that it is possiblethat there will be a decline in vigor, after the firstgeneration of the offspring of a cross of the differentraces of mankind. Uet Montagu speak for himself,when he declares:

All ethnic groups of mankind belong to the samespecies, and all are mutually fertile, as are the result·ing offspring of mating between the members of such




groups. The evidence, though by no mea ns conclusive,suggests that among human beings, as among other

forms of life, hybrid vigor is most markedly characteristic of the first generation of hybrids. In the suc·ceeding generations there would appear to e a gradual decline in vigor . . .

But on page 130, Montagu contradicts this statement by saying:

T rue hybrids are, of course , only the first filialgen e rat ion of crosses; but since all human hybrids arepolyhybrids--that is hybrid for a very large numberof genes--hybridization in mixed human populationswill often extend over a period of many generations.

This last statement contradicts the one before itand it has no foundation. For instance, the offspringfrom a cross between a Negro and a white personcould not be polyhybrid-it could be nothing but aplain first generation hybrid, resulting from a crossbetween a Negro and a white person; and there is noscientific evidence that the hybrid vigor-if there wasany-resulting from such a cross would extend intomany future generations. Bas ed on the same assumption, we could say that all animal hybrid are polyhybrids; and because of this, the hybr id vigor of allcrossbreeds would extend into many future genera

tions . But facts do not bear this out. Facts, as wehave shown, concerning the crossbreeding of bothplants and animals, show that hybrid vigor, resultingfrom crossbreeding, declines after the first generation.

Th ere has been no experimental work on the crossbreeding of the different races of mankind, as therehas been in the breeding of plants and animals; so,

the only thing that we have t go on-based on scientific facts--is the experimental work done with plants




and animals . I have searched far and w ide and I havebeen unable to find anything that would lead to the

conclusion that the hybrid vigor, resulting from thecrossbreeding of plants and animals, carries beyondthe first generation. Therefore, I say without reservation, that the assertion that the hybrid vigor, resu lting from crossing of diverse races of mankind, isbaseless--it has no foundation whatever. But on theother hand, we have much historical evidence thatproves without a doubt, that the r o s ~ i n gof diverseraces of mankind has been detrimental to mankind.This, I will produce a little later in this chapter. Butbefore we get to that, let us listen to the man, who,in my opinion, is the Daddy of all this equalitarian one-race doctrine. This man is Franz Boas whomI have already mentioned . But Boas--like so manyothers--fails to prove that race crossing is not dele

teriousto

mankind.On

page sixof

his work,Race,

Language and Culture, Boas admits that much thatwe know concerning the heredity in man has beenlearned from the knowledge gained from the experimental work that has been done with plants and animals, when he states:

The actual occurrence of intermingling leads usto consider what the biological effect of intermixture

of different types may be. Much light has been shedon this question through the intensive study of thephenomena of heredity. It is true we are hamperedin the study of heredity in man by the impossibility ofexperimentation, but much can be learned from observation and through the application of studies ofheredity in animals and plants.

But apparently, Boas never learned anything fromthe vast amount of experimental work that has beendone concerning the breeding of both plants and ani-




mals; because, if he had, surely, his att itude towardrace crossing in man wou ld have been quite different.

Because, as I have stated previously, it is a recognizedscientific fact, that to crossbreed p lants and animals,indiscriminately, can result in nothing but a mongrelherd in animals that is inferior to the parental stock;and in plants, a much reduced yield .

In the face of the known facts concerning cross-breeding of both plants and animals, it is hard tounderstand how a statement can be made like the onefound on page 13 of Boas's wo rk, «Race, Languageand Culture, when he says:

I believe the present state of our knowledge justi-fies us in saying that, while individuals differ, biologicaldifferences ·between races are small. There is no rea -son to believe that one race is by nature so much moreintelligent, endowed w ith great will power, or emo-

tionally more stable than another, that the differencewould materially inftuence its culture. Nor is thereany good reason to believe that the differences betweenraces are so great that the descendants of mixed mar-riages would be inferior to thei r parents. Biologicallythere is no good reason to object to fairly close in-breeding in healthy groups, nor to intermingling ofthe principal races .

We have a number of breeds of cattle. Biologicallyspeaking, there can be no great difference betweenthem. All belong to the same species and are mutuallyfertile. But crossbreed them, indiscriminately andyou produce inferior stock. This is where Boas failedto learn from sc ientific facts.

So far, I have been presenting scientific evidence,gained from experimental work with animals andplants, to show what is liable to happen if the differentraces of mankind are crossed. So now, I will ~ r s n t




historical facts facts that will show the evil effectsof race crossing down through the age s When thesefacts are made clear, it should be obvious why nationshave risen, built g reat civi lizat ions, flourished for atime, then wither away and perish.

The first evidence that I wish to present is fromthe man that I have just been quoting Franz Boas.I have stated previously , that apparently, Boas neverlearned anything fr om the facts gained from the ex-perimental work that has been done with plants andanimals on crossbreeding. In addition to this, I nowsay that it seems that Bo as never learned anythingfrom observ ing historical facts on this same subject.Because, if he had, and at the same time, had k ept inhis mind the scientific facts that had been gained fromplant and animal experimentation, he never wouldhave made the statement that I am about to quote.

But he made it and you will find it on page five of hiswork that we have been quoting from. Now listenwhile Boas condemns himself, when he declares:

Although it is not necessary to conside r the greatdifferences in type that occur in a population as dueto mixture of different types, it is easy to see thatintermingling has played an important part in thehistory of modern populations. Let us recall to our

minds the migrations that occurred in early times inEurope, when the Kelts of Western Europe sweptover Italy and Eastward to Asia Minor; when theTeutonic tribes migrated from the Bla ck Sea westwardinto Italy, Spain and even i nto North Africa; whenthe Slav expanded northeastward over Russia, andsouthward into the Balkan Peninsula; when the Moorsheld a large part of Spain, w hen the Roman and Greekslaves disappeared in th e general population, andwhen Roman colonization affected a large part of the




Mediterranean area. I t is interesting to note thatSpain's greatness followed the period of greatest racemixture, that its decline set in when the populationbecame stable and immigration stopped.

Thus the man has spoken-the man who is con-sidered one of the greatest, if not the greatest authority on the science of man; the man who proclaimedto the world, that environment and not race has beenthe chief factor in the building of civilizations; them n whose equalita rian one -race doctrine has beenaccepted by our colleges, universities and religious in-stitutions, as scient ific facts-this is the man, withoutrealizing what he was doing, gave us all the proof thatis needed to explain the rise and fall of nations. Also,this is the man whose last wo rds on this earth were:

I have a new theory about race • Probably, atlast Boas realized that he had been mistaken all the

time. Who knows?In one paragraph, Boas explained the why, or thecause for the decline and fall of the great civilizationsthat have risen and fell down through the ages. Without realizing what he was doing, Boas did an extragood job-no one could have done better. H e wastrying to convey the idea that because Spain's greatness followed the period of greatest race mixture,

then surely, the mixing of the different races, must bebeneficial to mankind.

But Boas had forgotten what had been taught formany years concerning the crossbreeding of plantsand animals. He had forgotten that the most vigorand vitality , resulting from crossbreeding, showed upin the offspring of the first cross, or first generation;and he seems, also to have forgotten, that after thefirst generation, if crossbred animals were bred to




each other, it would re sult in a mongrel herd of inferior animals.

f the same principles found in crossbreeding plantsand animals applies to human beings, then it is possiblethat race mixing played an important role in producingthe greatness of Spain. But it should be remembered,that if race mixing was an important factor n Spain sgreatness--then based on the same principle--the decline and fall of Spain from greatness, was due to the

continued, indiscriminate, mixingof the

first crossbreeds. That is the final outcome of all indiscriminatecrossbreeding .

That is the way it happened in Spain. The variousraces mingled and mixed indiscriminately . Then aftera time, there were no more races of pure blood. Allraces became amalgamated into one mongrel race; andif we have learned anything from the vast amount of

experimental work with both plants and anima ls thenthat mongrel race could be nothing but infer ior to theraces that were mixed to form that mongrel r ace.

People are what make a nation. No nation is anystronger than its people. A nation with a people whoare vigorous, fu ll of vim, vitality and enthusiasm, isa strong nation. Such a nation is almost invincible,except by a much larger nation with like stamina. Butwhen any nation, for any re ason, loses qualities likethese , then that nation becomes a weak nation, therebybecoming easy prey to other nat ions that have vigorand enthusiasm. Spain became such a nation beforeshe lost her greatness.

Scientific facts g i n e ~from work done with bot hplants and animal breeding, prove conclusively, thatto

crossbreed animals, indiscriminately, results in aninfer ior herd and in plants, the results are the same.But in the mixing, or crossing of the different races




of mankind the mixing or crossing is always doneindiscriminately. This is true because it is impossibleto control the mixing of human beings like you canin th e breeding of animals. Therefore the logicalconclusion that can e arrived at concerning the mix·ing or crossing of the diverse races of man is thatit cannot e anything except detrimental to all man-kind.

The pages of history prove that this is true not

only in Spain but in many other nations. Not onlydo the pages of history show that race mixing wasdetrimental in an ie nt times; •but the p ages of currenthistory show that the same thing is true now. Thiscan be seen right now by any one who will just opentheir eyes and take a look at the various nations ofthe world. This I will make dear later; but rightnow let us go back to ancient times and take a look

around.There are many things about the ancient world that

we do not know and never will know. But there is onething that we know that stands out Many manytimes down through the ages civilized nations havebeen overcome and subdued by a people or a nationthat was less civilized and with a smaller force thanthe conquere d nat ion. As a rule great civilized na-tions are not conquere d by smaller nations that areless civilized. But powerful civilized nations aftermixing their blood with different races have beenovercome and conquered by barbarian s that were lesspowerful. But of course there have been many smallnations that have been subjugated and destroyed bylarger and more powerful nations just by mere brute

strength . But right here I want to make one thingclear:When I speak of a different or diverse race I mean




a race such as the black race the yellow race thewhite race the Semitic o r Aryan race; and not just abranch of one of these races such as the Celts theAngles the Saxo ns the Franks or the Teutons allthese being merely branches of the Aryan race.

In ancient times there was a land known as Mesopotamia or Babylonia. This land lay between tworivers the Tigris and the Euphrates in SouthwesternAsia. Between these rivers was a fertile plain that

was arid but with irrigation it was very productive .On the West of these rivers was Arabia the home ofa great race--the Semitic; and on the East and Northwas the home of another great race the Aryan. Eachof these races alone was capab le and did producegreat civilizations; but o nce the blood of these tworaces was mixed it seems like that they become thedestroyers of civilizat ions.

Never in all h istory has there been more race mixing than in ancient Mesopotamia; a nd never in allhistory has so many civilizations been destroyed thanin this land.

The first people to occupy this land are known asSumerians. To what race they belonged is uncertain .Most historians say their origin is unknown; but L.A.Waddell with much seemingly reliable proof ofrecent date claims that they were of the Aryan race.But this does not matter because all authorities agreethat they were of the white race but ot of the Semiticrace. But this we do know: They built one of thegreat civilizations of ancient times; that it was flourishing 4000 yean B.C.; and that it contined to flourishfor many centudies afterwards. But at last things

began to happen. About the year 2800 B.C. the Sumerians were subdued by a Semitic people with aleader by the name of Sargon. These people were far



88 SEGRE GATION AND COMMON SENSE

less civilized than the Sumerians but the two racesmixed their blood. Then for almost 3000 years after

this Mesopotamia was inv aded and conquered timeafter time. It was a continued process of conqueringand race mixing with the co nqu ered then being con-quered in return by a fr esh unmixed people. Some-times th e conquero r was the Semi tic people from theWest; then again it was a people of th e Aryan racefr om the East or Northeast . But remember in allthese cases it was an unmixe d people that was lesscivilized that was subduing and conquering a peopleo f mixed blood. T here was no exception to this u n t ~

Alexander the Great br ought all the Persian Empireunde r his control. Could all this be just a coincidence?

Next we go to Greece. When the people of theAr ya n ra ce entered Greece they found a people thatwere highly civilized especially wa s this true off shore

on the island of Crete. These peop le and the Aryaninvaders mingled and mixed their blood. This mixtureof people built the civilization of Greece the greatestcivilization of ancient t imes and in many respec ts the greatest of all times .

So here aga in as in Spa in we are confro nt ed withan actual case whe re the facts seem to indica te thatra ce mixing is beneficia l to mankind. Here we seeGreece with an insignificant army withstanding all theons laughts of a mighty Persian a rmy. Next we witnessAlexander the Great conquering the mighty PersianEmpire. Surely this lo oks like ra ce mixing ca n benothing but beneficia l to mankind. But hold on th isis not the whole story.

For many centuries after the first Aryans enteredGr eece many of these same people continued to comeinto Greece from time to time thereby bring ing innew blood of the same Aryan race. But after Greece




became a great nation , much foreign blood of many

races was brought in a l l being mixed to form anotherone of those mongrel races that can be nothing but aninferior race. After this took place, the people ofGreece lost their vigor, their energy, their vitality andenthusiasm. All this resulting in a people that wereapathetic and complacent. So, when the leg ions ofRome appeared , they had no will to fight they felleasy prey to the Romans.

The story of Rome, in most respects , is similar tothe story of Greece. One difference is that when theIndo-E u ropeans invaded Italy , there was not a h igh lydeveloped civilization as found in Gre ece Anotherdifference is that historians have given us a more com·plete detailed information in regard to the declineand fall of Rome. Otherwise the story is the same.The people of Rome were full of energy and enthusiasm; they had that spirit that gets things done; andthey built one of the great civilizations of all times.From a tiny nation, Rome grew into a mighty empire

t h e greatest the world had ever known up to thattime. Rome was supreme.

But Rome, like many other nations, mingled herblood with that of many different races. Her peoplelost that go-get-em spirit; they no longer had thatenergy of their forefathers; they became complacent;they refused to fight for their country, forcing thenation to hire foreigners to defend their native soil.All this made Rome an easy prey to the barbarians ofthe North. Once invincible, Rome was conquered byan army of a·bout 15,000 barbarians.

The story of Spain, I have already told. The story

of all these nations from M esopotamia in the Eastto Spain in the West is the same : The decline andfall of each of th ese nation s took place following the




period of greatest race mixture. Only after race mixing did these nations become weak. Scientific evidence proves that ra ce mixing can be the major factorin producing a nation of weaklings; and the pages ofhistory proves that this is a fact.

This does not tell the whole story of race mixing.o far we have ·been studying the r esults of race mix

ing; but before we proceed with this let us pause andstud y the results of little or no race mixing.

Chinais

the only nation that built a great civilization in ancient times that has endured down throu ghthe ages almost un changed until recentl y. Whileother ancient civilizations such as Egypt Babylonia Persia Greece and Rome have completely vani shedfrom the scene China lives on. There must be areason. There is a reason a losrical reason.

Yes China had her trouble. Time after time she

was invaded from the North by barbarians the Huns.She built a great wall 1500 miles long to protect herNorthern frontiers but this was not entirel y successful. The Huns kept coming but they were never ableto compl etely subjugate the Chinese. But the peopleof China as a whole never lost their enthusiasm forthe love of their country; they never lost that vim andvigor that is so necessary if a nation is to live on; andbecause of this they never became complacent like theGreeks the Romans and other people that mixed theirblood with other races. Thus it can be said that thesurvival of the civilization of China is due to the nonmongrelization of the whole people of China. Butafter all th e evil effects of race -mixing has left itsmarks on China.

Asa result of the invasions of the barbarians inthe North some race mixing took place. So because

of this there are two distinct · types of people in China




o n e in the North, the other in the South. Mary A.Nourse, a historian, describes these different people inher work, A Short History of the Chinese, like this:

The Chinese people, like the country, can be dividedinto two main divisions: northern and southern-twodistinct types. The northerner is tall and broadshouldered , slow of speech and slow to anger; thesoutherner, short, slender and agile, excitable and fieryof temper .

From this description, it can readilybe

seen thatthe people of the North do not have the vigor, thevim and energy as the people of the South. They area complacent people, lacking in that never-die spiritthat is so necessary to sustain a great civilization. f

the whole population had been like these people, thecivilization of China would have perished long, longago.

Boas and others argue that it is environment thatmakes the difference-that the hot climate of Africais responsible for the backwardness of the Negro racetoday. But facts do not substantiate this. Because we

find one of the greatest civilizations of ancient timeswas produced in one of the hottest places on e a r t hMesopotamia. This was the first great civilizationproduced by the white race. Then we find that thiscivilization vanished from the earth when its peoplemixed their blood with other races. Then we find

other civilizations rose to take its place, in all casesthe conquerors being of un-mixed blood.

Then after thousands of years of this conqueringand being conquered, the civilizations of the white racebegan to move West from Southwestern Asia-the

cradle of the white race's civilization .Beginning with the Persians, a branch of the Aryanrace, all the great civilizations of Europe have been




made by different branche s of the Aryan race. Asthese people pushed Westward they conquered theybuilt great civilizations; they flourished for a time;they mixed their blood with other diverse races thenthose civilizations perished .

This Westward movement continued until there wasno place farther West to go. So other branches ofun·mixed Aryan people began to build civilizationsin Northwestern Europe. As a whole these people

have never mixed their blood with other d iverse racesas those of Southwestern Asia and Southern Europedid . I t is true that the people of Northwestern Europeare composed of various branches of the Aryan racesuch as the Celts the Saxons the Angles the Franksand the Teutons. These have all mixed with eachother . But they are all of the same race; and no civilization made by a mixture of any of the various

branches of the Aryan ra ce has ever decayed. Buton the other hand we find that all the great civilizations that were made by the Aryan race in Southwestern Asia and Southern Europe decayed andperished they all mixed their blood with differentraces and not bran ches of the same race.

So today we find the most progressive people ofthe white race not in Southwestern Asia not in Southern Europe but in Northwestern Europe Englandthe United States Canada and other places where thepeople are of the un-mixed Aryan race.

Although there is no evidence to prove that themixture of any or all of the various branches of theAryan race with each other has ever been detrimentalto any civilization there is plenty of evidence to prove

that the mixing of certain branches of the white racetogether is harmful to the well being of mankind. Aspointed out previously the Semitic r ace a branch of




the white raceis a great race; and the Aryan r a c eanother membe r of the white r ace is another great

r ace; but the cold facts are: no great civilization hasever endured where the major population was a mixture of these two races.

In China we have the same problem except it isbetween different branches of the yellow race. InChina the mixing took place in the North. So it isin the North that we find the most un-progressivepeople of China . On the other hand in South Chinawhere the climate i hot we find the most progressivepeople of China. This is the regio n that produces theleaders of China.

Here in China on the one hand we have the mostprogressiveness in the South where there was littleor no race mixing while in Europe on the other handwe find the most progressive nations in the Northwhere there has been the least race mixing in Europe.I n both cases the most progressive p ~ o p lare foundwhere there have been the least race mixing; and notjust where the climate happens to be the hottest. Howcan Boas and his followers account for this?

Yes there is a difference-maybe not too much jnra ces-but when different races are mixed there is agreat difference . A difference so great that the destiny

of all mankind can be changed by it.The Jews are a unique people. As far as numbersgo they are insignificant. They never have been anumerous people. Neither have they ever built agreat empire. No people have ever been persecutedmore; and no people have ever been driven from theirnative home scattered ove r all the face of the earth- then after all this retain their identity.

But in spite of all this they built a civilization that




is unique i t has no equal. Never have a people sosmall in numbers accomplished so much.

The civilization of the Jews was built around onething: the belief in one Supreme God. From thiscivilization man has received the greatest literatureever produced the Bible. This Bible taught the Jewsthe evil effects of race mixing. Although there havebeen some mixing with other races on the whole theJews have followed the teachings of the Bible con·cerning race mixing. Persecutions and being banishedfrom their native land have not deterred the Jews fromkeeping their racial integrity.

In unity there is strength. Though persecutedwherever he has gone nevertheless the Jew h as pro spered. He has prospered to the extent until longlong ago he became master of the financial world.This in itself is a great accomplishment. No other

people have done so much. Without the unity of theJew ish race it would have been impossible for theJews; and if they had mixed their blood with otherraces there could have been no unity. Thus it can beseen that the Jews have done much concerning materialthings by retaining their racial identity; but in com-

parison with other things this is very little.Stop and ponder just one moment please t ry to

imagine in your own mind what the consequenceswould have been had the Jews mixed their blood withthat of the Egyptians during their long stay in Egypt.

f the Jews had mixed their blood with that of theEgyptians that would have ended the Jewish r a c e -there would e no J ewish ra ce today. Besides thisthe whole course of human history would have beenchanged. There would have b een no Moses to haveled the children of Israel out of Egypt; there wouldhave been no Moses to have received the Ten Com-




mandments from God; there would have been noneof the prophets of the Old Testament; there would

have been no Joseph and Mary unto whom Christwas born; and there would not be a Bible like the onethat we have now. What we would have for a BibleI cannot say; but I do say that it would be impossibleto have the Bible that we have today. Why? Justbecause a ll these things came by the way of the Jews

t h e Jews were the instruments in the hands of Godthat brought these things to pass. But we could not

have gotten these things from the Jews if there wereno Jews; and there would have been no Jews if theyhad mixed their blood with that of the Egyptians.

Thus we can see that the whole course of humanevents could have been changed just by the simple actof the Jews mixing with the Egyptians. Then thequestion arises: would the destiny of mankind havebeen served better if the Jewish ra ce had become extinct in that remote period of history by ra ce mixing?

f not is it not reasonable to believe that mankindcan be served today and in the future better by allracial types remaining what they are now?

But the Jewish people held steadfast they did notmix their blood; so the civilization that the Jewsbuilt lives on thus proving that a race that keeps its

racial purity is worth much. Yes the civilization thatthe Jews built is unique; but without racial purity itwould never have been.

So far we have been studying the effects of racemixing in Europe Asia and part of Africa; but nowlet us consider what race mixing is doing in the Ameri-

. .cas · · •As I have stated previously the people of · the

United States and Canada are a mixture of the variousbranches of the Aryan race. This is true as a whole




though there are other minor elements. But Southof the Rio Grande we fin a different picture. From

Mexico on Southward to the Southern end of SouthAmerica we fin a mixture of many diverse races . Inmost of the countries it is Spanish Indians and Ne-groes. But in Brazil it is Portuguese Indians andNegroes. Then . remember that the Portuguese andSpaniards were both a mixed people before they cameto the New World. In none of the countries South ofthe Rio Grande has there ever been a color line . Sowe have the same picture in the Americas that we havein Europe.

In Southern Europe we found the most race x-

ing of diverse races; and in Southern Europe we

found the least progressive nations. In NorthwesternEurope where there is the least race mixing of diverseraces we fin the most progressive nations of Europe.

Likewise in the Americas we fin the most racemixing of diverse races South of the Rio Grande; andSouth of the Rio Grande we find the least progressivenations of the Americas. North of the Rio Grandewe fin the United States and Canada where there isthe least race mixing of diverse races in all theAmeri cas . Here we find the two most progressive na -tions in all the Americas.

No nation in all history in such a short period oftime has ever built a greater civilization than theUnited States. There is no comparison between theUnited States in any field of progress with any nationSouth of the Rio Grande . Why Most of thesecountries were settled long before the United Statestherefore it cannot be because they have not had aslong a period to develop their resources. So we mustlo ok elsewhere for the answer. In the face of all theevidence that we have gone over there cannot be but




one log ical answer race mixing . But we have someof that evidence right in South America.

Argentina and Uruguay have populations that aremade up of more people of the white race , and h ve-the least racial mixture of diverse races than any other ·countries South of the Rio Grande; and in these two ·countries, there is more progressiveness than in theother countries South of the Rio Grande.

n our studies, we have found that no great civiliza

tion has ever decayed and perished within itself; orwas conquered by a smaller and weaker nation, without first, its people becoming mixed with various otherdiverse races . Then we find today that the most progressive nations are made up of people of the leastracial mixture . Then I have been unable to find asingle nation that was much mixed with diverse races,but what was a backward nation.

With all this staring us in the face, there can be butone answer to the question: Why great civilizationshave risen, flourished for a time, then wither and fadeaway within themselves; or be subdued by a muchweaker and less civilized nation? While I would notattempt to deny that there may have been other con-tributing factors that played a part in the fall of greatnations, the major factor can be none other than justone thing race mixing with diverse races.

But in spite of the vast amount of evidence in support of this assertion, there has been much done in aneffort to disprove th is statement. One medium thathas been used to accomplish this, is the so-called intelligen ce tests . Boas, Klineberg and others have mademuch use of this in their endeavor to prove that racial

mixing is not detrimental to mankind. These testshave covered whites, Negroes, half breeds and others.But the value of these tests is worthless; because they




do not cover enough ground , and they do not extendover a o ~ enough period of time. Ther e can benothing learned from testing the offspring of the firstgeneration of plants or animals of crossbreeds. Re-

member, that it is in the first generation-if there is

any- that hybrid vigor shows up. M any fanners, totheir sorrow, have bred the offspring of their cross-bred animals, bec use of the fine showing of the off-

spring of the first generation .But history gives us a record extending over a long

period of time that proves, without a doubt, that .themixing of diverse races of man has resulted in pro-ducing mongrel races that were inferior to the racesfrom which they sprang.

Again, Boas proves our point, without int ending, orrealizing that he was doing it. The an cient civilizationsof Southern Europe were made by people of the

Aryan race; they mixed their blood with other diverseraces and passed away. Th e civilizations of Northernand Northwestern Europe were made by the same race

t h e Aryan race. As a whole, the people of North-ern and Northwestern Europe, are still of the Aryanrace. Not one civiliza tion in this part of Europe hasever decayed and passed away. Let Boas, in his own

words, in his work, ce Language and Culture,on page 11, t ell the story, when he declares:

I refer to the many comparative tests of the intel-ligence of individuals of various European types andof Europeans and Negroes. North Europeans testedin our country were found as a whole decidedly su-perior to South Europeans, Europeans s a whole toNegroes.

Thus Boas tells us that there is a difference betweenNor .thern and Southern Europeans. Hi sto ry t ells uswhat made this difference .




Klineberg gives us a similar pi-cture. On page 153of his work, Race Differ ences , he says this:

Among European immigrant groups, Italians havein general made a poor showing. In a series of studiestheir I.Q.'s ranged from 76 to 100, with an averageabout 87. Poles do equally poorly and in the Armytests were even slightly below the Italians. Immigrants from northwestern Europe have in genera lbeen more successful, and the demonstration by the

Army psychologists that in the test results the immigrants from Great Britain , Holland, Germany andthe Scandinavian countries were superior to othershas been corroborated by more recent studies.

Thus Klineberg confirms Boas' assertion that thereis a difference in the mental capacity between Northernand Southern European.

But before we conclude this chapter, let us take alook at Bra zil. Bra zil in size is larger than continentalUnited States. But other than in size, there is nocomparison between the two countries. Brazil, likeChina, is more progressive in its Southern part. Brazil,also like China, has had the least race mixing in theSouthern part. I will let Lawrence F. Hill tell thisstory. n page 231, of his recent history of Brazil,called Brazil, he has this to say:

The center of economic activity is in the South, including the states immediately north and south of theTropic of Capricorn; Sao Paulo, Minas Gerais, Riode Janeiro, Espirito Santo, and the Federal District.Although these states comprise only one -sixth of theland area of Brazil , they include more than half ofits population. The white man predominates in the

r egion as a whole. Before 1939 these states were thesource of 8 per cent of Br azilia n agricultural production and 88 per cent of the manufactured output.




They had 74 per cent of the railways, 67 per cent ofthe roads, 90 per cent of the electric power, and 89per cent of the factories. Only water transportationconnects this region and the dry, sparsely populated,and backward northeast

The northern region embraces the coastal parts ofthe states of Maranhao and Piaui, and the states ofCeara, Rio Grande Do Norte, Paraiba, Pernambuco,Alagoas, Sergipe, and Baia . In Sergipe, Baia, and

Espirito Santo the population is darker in color thanfarther south and remnants of the colonial economypersist. The northern region has languished since theabolition of slavery and is retarded agriculturally andindustrially. In 1938 the total value of its productionwas estimated at $196,000,000, an average of lessthan 5 cents an acre, or about $12.63 per inhabitant.

Such are the conditions in Brazi l -a nation larger

than continental United States, and settled 100 yearsearlier: In the Southern portion, where the white manpredominates, there you find the most progressive andprosperous people of the nation; but on the otherhand, in the Northern portion-where the mixed -bloods predominate-you find a backward and un-progressive people.

These conditions in Brazil are not exceptions; suchconditions are world wide. Wherever a pure bloodrace predominates-with one exception-regardlessof race , there you find a more progressive people, ascompared with a mixture of that race with a diverserace. The one exception to this are the pure bloodNegroes in their native land. As we all know, theNegro race has made but little progress, except where

he has come in contact with the white man; and wewell know that the mulattoes of the United Stateshave made more progress than the pure blood Negroes



SEGREGATION AND COMMON SENSE 1 1

of Africa and elsewhere. But this does not prove tha ta people that are a mixture of the white and Negro

racea are superior to the white race. But on the otherhand known facts prove as in the case of Brazil andother nations that a people who are a mixture ofwhite and Negro blood as a whole are inferior to apeople with relatively pure white blood. This I chal-lenge the world to prove otherwise.

But do not be misled by propaganda. To misleadyou you will e told that many new and superiorvarieties of plants and breeds of animals have beenproduced by crossbreeding. Well these are facts;

will not attempt to deny them; this is not necessary.But the ones who will try to mislead you will not tellyou the whole story . Because of this will briefly doso.

While it is true that many new and superior varie-

ties of plants and breeds of animals have been devel-oped by crossbreeding all this has been done undera controlled breeding program such as crossing thebetter strains of plants or animals of any of the manyspecies; then selecting the best of such a cross forbreeders for the next generation; and then continueto breed from only the best of each succeeding gen-eration over a period of years only by such a breed-ing program can a better variety of plants or breedof animals e developed by crossbreeding . And nonew worthwhile varieties of plants can be developedby crossing just any of the many varieties of any spe-cie and continue to plant a t random year afteryear the seed from such a cross . Neither can youcross just any of the breeds of animals of any speciethen breed a t r andom from the offspring of sucha cross and produce a herd of animals that are evenas good as the pa rental stock. This is true because



1 2 SEGREGATION AND COMMON SENSE

a s I have previously stated-the hybrid vigor resulting from crossbreeding of plants and animals is

lost after the first generation. Therefore to breedfrom the offspring of cross bred animals means aninferior herd; and to continue to plant -af ter thefirst generation-the seed from crossbred plants itmeans a reduced yield for the farmer. All farmerswho plant hybrid seed corn are well aware of thisfact; they ~ p o wthat they must buy new seed from thebreeder each year or suffer a reduced yield. And anyfarmer who produces crossbred meat animals knowsthat he must have pure blood animals to cross otherwise his he rd soon .becomes unprofitable.

And all this is not my theories. But instead-allthat I have been telling you are proven facts by wellknown plant and animal breed e rs well versed in plantand animal genetics. So it boils down to this:

f the same principles apply to mankind-and Boasand other anthropologists say they d o - a s they do inplant and animal breeding then the crossing of thediverse rares of mankind can result in nothing but inferior human beings. And there can be no such thingas developing a superior race in mankind by crossingthe different races--because if this was possible at all

i t would have to be done under a controlled breed

ing program such as I have described for plants andanimals. But such as this being ·done with human be-

ings is unthinkable. So in effect plant and animalbreeders have said that to cross the diverse races ofmankind will produce inferior races; and as I havepreviously stated past and present historical factsprove beyond a doubt that this is true. And onceagain to show you that past history does p r o v ebeyond a doubt- that race-mixing in the past has produced inferior races I want to call your attention once




agai n, to Boas' statement concer ning Spain , when hesaid:

It is interesting to note that Spain's greatness fol·lowed the period of greatest race mixt ur e and its de·cline set in when the populatio n became stable andimmigration stopped.

What Boas has told us here is this: After imm igr ation stopped, soon, there were no more pure bloodsto mix in Spain; and when there were no more purebloods to mix, Spain's decline set in. Well th is isexactly what plant and a nima l breeders have shownby experimentation: that you cannQt breed f rom theoffspring of cross bred anima ls without developing aninferior, un-profitable herd; and if the see d of crossbred plants after the first generation a re planted,the yield will be reduced.

Well a l l this is what happened in Spain: After

immigration stopped, the re were no mo re pure bloodsto be crossed, so the people of Spain became an in·ferior people, as compared to the people previous an dduring the mixing. Therefore, it must be obvious thatthe major factor causing the downfall of Spain wasthe mixing of diverse races.

And what happened in Spain, happened to Rome ;it happened to Greece; and it happened to all theother great ancient civilizat ion s: They all fell afterbeing mixed with diverse races. And today a ll na·tions whose population is a mixtu re of diverse ra s -

are backward nations, as compared with nat ions withthe least mixture. There are no exceptions to this,and I challenge the world to prove otherwise. Therefore, it must be obvious that race mixing of diverseraces have pla yed the major role in the fall of thegreat nations down through ages.




CH PTER III

WHAT DOES T H E NEGRO WANT

What does the Negro want Of course there aremany things that the Negro wants; but in this discussion, we will only consider what the Neg ro wantsa1 1d hopes to get from integrated schools; and whydoes he want to mingle with the white race in publicparks, cafes, hotels , sw imm ing pools, trains and allother places.

Some people do not always tell what they want inwo rds . We are all acquainted w ith this kind of maneu ·v.ering. Especially, is this true, when some one is aftersomething that he must keep a secret if he hopes toge t it. So, it is not uncommo n to hear the expression:

Th at man's actions show that he is after someth ingelse. So, we must always watch a person's actions,especially is this true, when a person is sponsoringsomething that will be beneficia l to himself.

The Negro is not satisfied with schools th at areequal to those of the white ra ce; the Negro is not

satisfied with parks, swimming pools, cafes, railwaycoaches, hotels and othe r public places that are equalin every r espect to those of the white ra ce. No, he isnot satisfied , no matter if his school is better than thewh ite man's schoo l. He is only satisfied when his chil·dren c n sit down beside white children - that is theonly kind of school that the Negro wan ts . It is obv iousthen that the Negro wants somethi ng more than anequal opportunity for his childre n to get an education.






authors of the various books that I have just mentioned-without intending to -have given us that in

formation. I have read many of these books, includingMyrdal's An American Dilemma, those writtenunder the direction of the American Youth Commission, and quite a few of the many others . Of all themany write rs on the Negro subject, they are almost100 per cent in agreement on one thing. That onething goes like this:

That there is color discrimination within Negro

groups-a dark color being looked upon as a badge oflowly status; that in homes where some of the chil.dren have dark skin, and some light skin, quite often,there is friction in such homes-the children with thedark skin feel like their parents give preference tothe lighter skin children; that a light skin is a greatadvantage in seeking a marriage partner; and that

Negroes seek marriagepartners of

light skin sothat

their children will have a heritage of whiter color.Myrdal in his work, A n American Dilemma, ex-

plains it like this: The American order of color castehas even more directly stamped the Negro class systemby including relative whiteness as one of the main factors determining status within the Negro community

Darker Negroes who rose from the masses to

distinction in the Negro community by getting an education or by conducting successful business enterprisesshowed an almost universal desire to marry light skinwomen and so to become adopted members of thelight-colored aristocracy and to give their children aheritage of lighter color. Blackness of skin remainedundesirable and even took on an association of badness . . . Perhaps of even greater importance is thefact that the Negro community itself has accepted thiscolor preference. In conversation Negroes often try




to deny or to minimize this fact . But there are a number of indications which an observe r can not he lp re

cording. For one thing, many individual Negroes willbe found, when speaking about themselves, to ratetheir own color lighter than it actually is , but practically none to rate it darker. T he desire on the partof Negro women of all shades a nd in all social classesto bleach their skin and st raighten their hair ob-served decades ago by Ray Stanna rd Baker andWilliam Archer has been the basis for some of themost important Negr o B usiness and some of thelargest fortunes. Cosmetics for such purposes aremost prominently advertised in the Negro press. Thepictures of the social lions displayed on the socialpages of the Negro newspapers give evidence in thesame direction, as does listening to the undertones ofconversation in Negro society even when an outsider

is present.Cliques, clubs, and social life in general seem to be

permeated b y this color p reference. The color problem enters into the Negro home, whe re childre n showdifferences in shades, and into the schools. In marriage selection, s we have had occcasion to mentionpreviously, it becomes a dominant factor.

I n his work, Negro Youth at the Crossways,E. Franklin Fraz ier states it like this :

Color differences within the same family may become the basis of invidious distinctions. In thoselo wer -class families whe re the sense of family solida rity is strong, the parents will attempt to prevent discussions concerning these differences. But in familieslacking a feeling of solidarity, color differences maybecome the source of bitter antagonism. The child ofdark complexion not only may become bitter towardmembers of his own family but may also co nstantly




engage in aggression toward those in the outsideworld. Frazier continues by saying:

Many lower-class youth say frankly that if theywere born again they would prefer to be white, andit is true that Negro newspapers both create and reflect thi s attitude through their numerous advertisements of products to whiten or bleach the skin.

In speaking of co lor discrimination in schools byteachers, Frazie r had this to say: But the overwhelming opinion on this point, in Louisville as in Washington, was that the teachers favor the lighter children,especially those of the upper class. Let us therefore,hear what the children have to say on this point. Athirteen-year-old girl asked the interviewer, 'Do youknow Miss X at Y School?' and without waiting fora reply con tinued:

' I hate her. When she gives plays she only puts the

real light children in them w ith long pretty hair. Shealways lets them go on her errands, too. An' she don'tnever let no dark childre n do nothin'. Or, if she doeshave to use 'em in a play, she always gives 'em theshortest, backwardest parts.'

Frazier goes on and quotes a number of studentswhose statements are similar to the one quoted here,then he continues:

Du ring an interview with a teacher who denied thatany preference was shown upper-class or lighter children, the interviewer observed that on three occasionswhen the teacher wanted a pupil to run errands or dosomething for her a light child was selected despitethe fact that severa l dark children eagerly sought theattention of the teacher when she asked for volunteersto run errands or do whatever was to be done.

To show the color discrimination that is practicedin cliques and clubs, Frazier declares:




Generally, color discrimination among upper-classyouth appears in the more intimate groups such ascliques and clubs. This was apparent in one of theexclusive clubs among high school boys. Accordingto severa l members of the club, membership . is limitedto 'boys of good characte r, outstanding achievements,good manners, and a good fami ly background.' I t istrue that the boys who compose the club measuredup to these requirements. But there were boys having

the same qualifications who sa id they were excludedbecause of their dark complexion. A study of the skincolor of the members revealed that with one exceptionthey ranged in color from medium-brown to a faircomplexion. • • . The presence of the single memberof dark-brown com plexio n was on the surface a refutation of the statements of dark upper-class boys thatdark boys were excluded, but a study of the actual

situation indicated that the upper-class dark memberof the club owed his membership to the fact that hispretty, light-skinned sisters were sought after by themembers of the club.

I could go and give many more statements that aresimilar to these, and written y differe nt authors; butthese should e sufficient to conv ince anyone that thereis much discrimination, among Negroes, because ofcolor. All this can mean only one thing:

Negroes, as a whole, do not like th e co lor of blackwhen it is applied to themselves; that if it was possible,they had rather be white themselves; but this beingimpossible, they will seek the fairest-skinned marriagepartner possible, so that their child ren will be whiter.

But many of the investigators of the Negro problem,

place the blame for the Negro s attitude toward hisown colo r on the white man. They say the reason canbe found from the v.aluation pla ced on a white skin by




the white man, valuing a dark skin as a badge of inferiority.

But is the white man to blame for this? Is the Negro to blame? What are the facts? We have thefacts. Let us take a look-in that way, we will kno w

In Brazil, there is no color l ine-a dark color is notlooked upon as a badge of inferiority; inter-racialm arriage between all races is not frowned upon; a manis looked upon according to his achievements and notacco rding to the color of his skin; yet, in Brazil, theNegro does not like his color-not a bit better thanthe Negro in the Unit ed States .

Donald Pierson has studied the Negro problem inBrazil, and has written a book on this subject, titled,Negroes in Brazil. He tells the story like this:

Miscegenation is also favored in Bahia tod ay bythe prestige which ordinarily attaches to the so-called

whiter child. Dark mothers who bear whiterchildren consider themselves especially favored andare so looked upon by their immediate associates. Ablack mother proudly showed her light child and said,'Estou limpando a minha' ( ' I am cleansing my race') .One also often hears in Bahia th e expression melhorando a raca ('improving the breed').

Joao Varella , in a booklet entitled a Bahia o

Senhor do Bomfim, reproduces the figure of a Negrowoman bearing a young child bound to her back bya wide cloth. 'When the child was black and ugly,'Varella writes, 'he was usually carried in this fashion .If , however, he was a coisa mais limpa ( literally, 'acleaner thing'), he was borne in front, in his mother'sarms, so that all the world might the more readily seehim.'

The desire ~ marry 'whiter' is not limited to thefemale portion of the black population. Successful




males here, as in Haiti and the United States, generally seek to insure furthe r their status a nd that of

thei r children by marrying lighter-colored women. Acommon expression heard in this· connection is : I don'twant to go back to Africa.'

Thus it can be seen that in Brazil where there is nocolor line, the Negroes there, just don't like being Negroes-they don't like being black. That is the way itis in Braz il and that is the way it is in these UnitedStates. This is what the Negroes, for years, have

been telling the many investigators of the Negro problem. Here is a sample of what Negroes think aboutblack as stated by Charles S . J ohnson, on page 59

of his work, Growing Up in the Bla k Belt, whenhe states:

T he interviews revealed results similar to thoseof the tests. Some of the reactions to blackness wereas follows: 'Black is too black,' ' Bl ack is ugly,' 'Blackpeople are mean,' 'Black isn't like flesh,' 'Black is badbecause people make fun, and I don't think it looksgood either,' 'Black peopl e can't use make-up,' 'Blackpeople are evil,' 'Whit e looks better than black,' Noblack people hold good jobs,' 'Black people can't looknice in their clothes,' 'You can't get along with blackp eople, ' 'Black looks dirty,' 'Black people have to goto the kitchen and scrub,' 'Even in college they don'twant to take in black students,' 'Black youth are calledby such derisive names as 'Snow,' 'Gold Dust Boys,''Blue Gums,' 'Midnight,' 'Shadow,' Haint, 'Dusty,''Polish,' and 'Shine.'

Why, or how a person came into possession of something that he does not lik e, is not too important everytime. But the plain truth is: if any person has anything

i tis immaterial what that thing i s - tha t he doesnot like, then that person is going to get rid of that




thing, if it is possible to do so. That is human nature-Negroes are humans.

So, it is imma terial, why, or how the Negro cameto dislike his own colo r. The important thing is thatthere is a large segment of Negroes that don t liketheir own color . This being true, it is just natural forthe Negro to want to rid himself of the th ing that hedis likes so much. He would be going contrary tohuman nature if this was not true. Therefore, i t is

easily understood why Negroes have been seeking, fora very long time, marriage partners with skins of thelighter colo rs. The Negro just simply wants his identity as a Negro to become lost. He would lik e to see

the color black, as applied to himself, wiped cleanfrom the whole face of the earth.

But the Negro knows that this can never be done,unless the re is wholesale inter-racial marrying with

the white race; and he also knowsthat

tpere can neverbe wholesale marrying between whites and blacks , unless there is wholesale associat ion of the two races witheach other, especially between the children of theraces while they are young. He knows that all humanbeings are, mostly, what they have been taught, especially while they were young.

I t is not generally known that there are prominent

Negroes that are declaring that the only way to solvethe ra ce problem is by miscegenation Inte r-br eedingof races), but it is true. For a long time, the Negroes

b y their actions-have been telling us that racialinter -breeding was the solution to the racial problem;but now they are telling us in words. But generallyth is is still not brought out into the open; but it is beingtalked about among the Negroes of this Nation. In

the ir book , Color and Human Nature, W. LloydWarner, Buford H. Junker , and Walter A Adams




tell the world that some Negroes are de cla ring thatthe only real solution to the race problem is the inter

breeding of the races. On page 16 of their work,u olor and Human Nature, you will find this state-ment: ,

While Negro solidarity is one response to thesegregated existence imposed upon the group, anotherfinds expression in the protest that is constantly turning up to the effect that the 'race problem can only besolved by miscegenation.'

Then on page 167 of this same work, Warner,Junker and Adams have much to say concerning a Dr.Covey, whom they say is a prominent Chicago Negrodoctor. They confirm this belief by the following statement concerning the doctor; and then follow it up byquoting Dr . Covey on the subject of miscegenation,like this:

His position is so secure that only rarely is it nec-

essary for him to talk like a race man and assert hisloyalty to the colored group. He can even tell abrownskin skin interv iewe r that he advocates miscegenation and doesn't blame Negroes for preferringthe physical attributes of the white race:

'The racial problem can only be solved by miscegenation. Inter-marriage should be encouraged, par-

ticularly in America, which is a melting pot for mostnationalities. When there is one group not absorbed,it is physically isolated and therefore easily segregated.'

Thus in this last paragraph, Dr. tovey has spokenin words wh at a large segment of the Negro population wants. He has spoke n in words what untoldnumbers of Negroes have been saying, by their actions,

for a long time . Who can be so dumb as no t to seeit? As Reuter pointed out:




In the United States almost every Negro of prominence from Frederick Douglass to Jack Johnson has

married a white woman or a light-co lored mulatto.Walter White, a long time le ader of the NAACP,proved by his actions what he believed in and what hewas fighting for: he divorced his Negro wife andmarried a white woman; and he advocated the repealof all laws prohibiting inter-racial marriages.

Shortly after the Supreme Court's school desegregation decision, White was asked by an interviewer of

the U.S. News and World Report, this question:Do you think that the association of pupils in pub

lic schools could poss ibly lead to an incr ease in intermarri age between the races?

White replied: 'That could e true. When humane ings get to know each other, friendships develop and

some of those fri endships develop into love and intomarriage.'

There is much direct proof from Negroes themselves that proves that Negroes are marry ing whitesin preference to Negroes, every time an opportunitypresents itself . In the September 5th, 1952 issue ofthe U.S. News and World Report, was a report ofan interview with Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. , a member of Congress, from the state of New York. Thesubject of that interview was: What the AmericanNegro Wants. Among the subjects discussed wasinter-racial marriages. The most pertinent questionsasked Powell concerning inter -racial marriages follow with Powell's complete answer to each question:

Q : Do you think many of the people who opposediscontinuing segregatio n are afraid breaking down ofthe social lines may lead to inte rm arriage?

A: 'Thatis

the great bugaboo used to scare them,when the truth is that when two people are in love--



SEGREGATION AND COMMON SENS E 11 5

bl ack white, Gent ile, Protestan t , Catholic-no onecan stop them .'

Q : What is the attitude of the Negro leaderstoward the intermarriage question? D o they feel thatit is a probability ove r a long period of time?

A: 'Y es, t hey do, but not as a ny conscious thingto get out and campaig n for.'

Q : T hey think that, ultimately, intermarriage willbe commonp lace in this country?

A: 'Personally, I do.'Q : Do you think that the presence of a good manyNegro troops in Europe where there's been i ntermarriage has affected the prob lem?

A: 'No, I do n 't, because I have just come backfrom an official five-month trip through Europe andthe Near East, and there is no problem over there.'

Q : You mean in termarriage is accepted?

A : 'Yes , they don' t understand our fears here i nAmerica.'Q : D o you think there is much intermarriage in

Europe?A: 'Oh, yes, a great deal.'Q : Could you say in what countries It s more

f reque n t? Is there a co unt ry that you could nam e ?A: ' I don't think I could say . I saw it all th rough

Scandinavia. I saw it all through the Benelux countriesand in Italy . '

Q : But isn't it a sma ll minority?A: 'No . In comparison with the number of N e

groes there, it was large.'Q : In comparison with the number of intermar·

r iages i n the United States, would you say that it wasan equa l or a g reater number or a lesser number?

A: 'On a percentage basis there is no comparison .I t is much more p revalent abroad. In fact, the rare




thing in Europe and Eng land is to find a couple thatis not an interracial marriage. I saw very few mar·riages of two Negro people.'

Q : I t was mostly Negro a nd white?A: 'That's right .'Q : What is the attitude of the Negro in the United

States on the subject of interma rriage? Is it discussedfrequentl y in the press?

A: 'Yes, but on an objective basis. In fact, anincreasingly large number of Negro leaders are marry ·ing whites of extremely stable and respected families .'

Q : Is there much more fraternizing in the North·ern cities between Negroes and whites , especially inthe l arge Negro centers like H arlem, than there usedto be?

A: 'Yes, much more.'Q: Is there any tendency among the Negroes to

reject that, or are they welcoming it?A: 'They a re very definitely welcoming it . n

increasing number of fine leaders on both sides aremarrying.'

Q : What is the argument that is used y Negroleaders in answer to the point that is sometimes madethat, if intermarriage continues in the next 5 or 30years, then the races will be adulterated somewhat as

they are in Cuba and Brazil?A: ' I have heard that argument, but it doesn't

amount to any argument at all from my standpoint,because we are fighting for integration, well, then,there it is I mean, you can't fight against segregationand want separation . We must be consistent.'

Q : I am not sure that that is clear - A: 'The Negro leaders are fighting against segre·

gation . Therefore, they can't have a position on one




hand against segregation and on the other hand againstinterracial marriage .'

All these answers of Powell confirm what I havebeen trying to tell you: that all the fuss for integratedschools and the forced mingling of Negroes and whitesin many other places, is only the means that leads tothe final goal interracial marriage. That is whatthe Negro wants.

Powell states emphatically that the Negro leadersare welcoming interracial marriages; but he also statesthat it is not any consc ious thing to go out and campaign for. Why? Becaus e he knows that it is notnecessary. He knows that if whites and Negroes canbe forced to associate together esp ecially childrenwhile they are young then interracial marriages wi llnaturally follow. This he knows is the history of allpast inter-mingling of different races. For proof of

this, he only has to recall the ancient civilizations ofEgypt, Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome and not too farin the distant past Spain. Then for further proof, hecan get it closer to home. He has only to look Sou th -South from the Rio Grande down through Mex.icoCentral and South America; and there before his eyes,he v iews a panorama of mongrel races all the resultof racial integration in all walks of life, thus resulting

in close social association of the various races.Integrated schools and other integrated places isthe Trojan Horse through which the Negroes hopeto bring about this close racial association, resultingin interracial marriages. That is what the Negrowants. Who is dumb? It is not the Negro. He knowswhere he is going.



l l SEGREGATION AND COMMON SENSE

C H P T E R IV

THE COMMUNIST AND INTEGRATION

I have pointed out previously that Franz Boas andhis disciples did not have any scientific basis for theirtheory that the mixing or crossbreeding of the various

races s not detrimental to mankind. But on the otherhand historical facts prove that race mixing has beenthe major factor in the downfall of all the greatcivilizations of the past; and that race mixing todaycan be blamed for the backwardness of the un-progressive nations of this world right now. Briefly letme repeat the cause for this.

Experiments with both plants and animals prove

conclusively that crossbreeding indiscriminately canresult n nothing but an inferior and unprofitable herdin case of animals; and n the case of plants a reducedyield of inferior quality. In other words for crossbreeding to be successful it must be controlled. Inthe case of animals you must always have purebredsto cross; and n the case of p l a n ~ syou must alwayshave purebred seed to cross. Thus it can be readilyseen that if a farmer can hope to continue a successfulcrossbreeding program he must always have a sourceof purebreds to cross otherwise his crossb reeding pr o-

gram will end in failure. In the case of animals orplants this s possible. The farmer can produce hisown pu reb reds or he can purchase them from someone else.

But in human beings all this is not possible. Forinstance in any nation where its population consists of




two or more different races it would be impossible topermit these races to inter-marry without all beingamalgamated into one race. In other words the timewould come when there would be no more pure bloodsin that nation . When that time came and it wouldsurely come sooner or later then such a nation wouldbe faced with the same problems that a farmer wouldhave trying to stay in the cattle business with nothingto breed from except a herd of crossbred animals.Nothing will put a farmer out of the cattle businessquicker than breeding from crossbred animals. Thisis not a theory; this is a scientific fact.

Likewise nothing has ever been as destructive tothe great civilizations built by man than the crossbreeding of the various diverse races of mankind. I twas the major factor causing the fall of all the ancientcivilizations. Therefore there is no reason to believe

that any nation that exists today can escape simila rfate if such nation permits the mixing of diverse raceswithin that nation.

There is one thing that I want to stress; and it isnot a theory i t is a fact: No crossbreeding programcan be successful no matter whether it be plants oranimals--unless it is controlled so that there will always be a supply of purebreds on hand from which

the crossing is to be made. In animal breeding this ispossible; but in human beings this is an impossibility .Therefore this being an impossibility there is notone iota of scientific proof that race mixing is notdetrimental to mankind. I t just simply does not exist.On th is I challenge the world.

Now in the face of these facts why did Franz Boasa foreign anthropologist come to these United Statesin 1886 and begin to teach in Columbia University thedoctri ne that the mixing of the various races of man -




kind would not result in any deleterious effects on mankind?

Sometimes, men put theories before the public thatcannot be easily proved; but it is a rare thing for aman to advance a theory; put every thing that he hasinto it to convince the world of its truth; yet he knowsall the while that his theory cannot stand up when itis faced with the cold hard facts. So it should be ob-vious that when this is done , there is something sinister behind the whole thing---somet hing that is nottrue , is <eing made to appear to be true.

Boas was in this position. He knew that his racialtheory could not survive if ever faced with the truth;yet he preached all his life that it was true. But whenfaced with death, he changed his tune. H is last wordswere: I have a new theory about race. What doesthis mean? Does it mean that Boas really had a new

theory about race , or does it mean that Boas facingdeath, knew that there was one that he could not deceive--God his Maker. Who knows? But any wayyou look at it , this last statement of Boas makes allhis other works worthless. But in spite of this, theacademic world accepts Bo as' works as scient ificfacts-the world goes on being deceived.

The Communists are the greatest deceivers that

the world has ever known; and the whole world knowsthis--it is no secret. The whole line of Communistpropaganda is based on deception. All the majorleaders of Communism have voiced their acception ofthe idea of deception as the most important means bywhich they hope to gain their goal of a one worldgovernment. Karl Marx, of course, being the first.

In a speech at Amsterdam, Holland, in 1872, Marx

was advising his comrades on tactics to e employedin reaching their goal, when he said: We know that




the institutions, the manners, and the customs of thevarious countries must be considered . . .

In this same spee ch, Marx, especially, mentionedAmerica and England where the goal of the Communists might be reached by peaceful means. So, it isobvious that when the plan of action was drawn upfor the seizure of the government of this Nation , thefirst objective was to place Communist teachers in ourhigher institutions of learning, such as our colleges,universities and theological seminaries. By this means,they hoped to produce the necessary leaders , righther e among us , to carry on their work of deception.This they have su cceeded in doing. This was naturalfor the Communists to do. They had been trained byMarx to do this very thing; and all advice ever givenby Marx has been followed-none has ever been repudiated.

So , in 1886--only a few yean after Marx had advised his fellow comrades when planning their planof action for the overthrow of the government of theUnited States , and other countries , that they shouldtake in consideration the institutions , manners andcustoms of all countries-we find Boas at ColumbiaUniversity , teaching his racial equalitarian philosophy

t h e doctrine environment and not race makes a manwhat he is; and that the mixing or inter•breeding ofthe different ra ces of man was not detrim ental tomankind. While sp ending a lifetime teaching a doctrine that could not e substanti ated by cold hardfacts , Boas' actions prove whose interest he wasworking for. There is evidence that prov es tha t Boasworked to further the cause of Communism. Of this,there can be no doubt.

In the April, 19 8 issue of American Mercurymagazine , Harold lArd Varney, in an article, titled,




Red Hues in the Columbia Blue, among otherthings, descr ibes Boas' connection with the Communists like this:

Appropriately, there has always been an unconcealed affinity of Boas anthropologists for socialistand Communist causes . Boas himself, after a lifetimeof pretended non-partisanship, went overboard forthe Communist line during the war. He signed thefamous March 5, 1941, statement defending the Communist P arty, then unde r national condemnation asa result of the Hitler-Stalin Pact. He was one of the17 who, on March 19, 1940 , had protested againstthe decision of the American Civil Liberties Union toexclude Communist Party members from CLUoffices. He was chairman of the American Committeefor Democracy and Intellectual Freedom which theCommunists set up in 1939. He had 5 other listings

behind his name for activity in organizations cited byofficia l government agencies as communist fronts.There can be little question where Boas' sympathiesJay. His disciples, Bernhard J. Stern and Gene Weltfish were even more conspicuous than Boas in theirCommunist front infiltrations.

Thus it can be seen that Boas served the Communistswell. He served so well until the whole academicworld has accepted his racial doctrine that has nofoundation. Today it is being proclaimed, not onlyin our institutions of learni ng, but also from the pulpits of many churches of this Nation. No people, ina ll history , has ever been more deceived than theAmerican people by Franz Boas.

There is much othe r proof that the Communists areth e instigators of all our racia l problems. In 1913,Israel Cohen, a high ranking Communist of England,




wrote a book, titled, A Racial Program For The20th Century, in wh ich Cohen wrote:

We must realize that our party's most powerfu lweapon is racial tension. By propounding into theconsciousness of the dark races that for centuriesthey have been oppressed by the whites, we can mouldthem to the program of the Communist Party.

In America, we will aim for subtle victory. Whileinflaming the Negro minority against the Whites, wewill instill in the whites a guilt complex for their ex-ploitation of the Negroes. We will aid the Negro torise to prominence in every walk of life in the profes -sions and in the world of sports and entertainme nt.

With this prestige the Negro will be able to inter -marry with the whites and begin a process which willdeliver America to our cause .

Here Cohen tells the world in plain words thatracial tension is the Communist Part y's most power-ful weapon. But he does not tell the world how thisracial tension is to be brought about. But in view ofthe tactics usd by the Communists to accomplish theirpurpose in all other fields, we could hardly expecthonest methods to be used. But lest we fo rget how theCommunists hope to reach their goal, let us refreshour memory by quoting some of the sayings of Marx,

Lenin and Khrushchev as follows:The Communist Manifesto, written by Karl Marx,said this : The Communists disdain to conceal theirviews and aims.

Lenin gave these instructions to his comrades: Wehave to use any rus e dodges, tricks, cunning, unlaw-ful method, concea lment, and veiling of the truth.

On September 17, 19 55, Khrushchev gave thiswarning: I f anyone thinks that our smiles mean theabandonment of the teachings of Marx , Engels, and



1 4 SEGREGATION AND · COMMON SENSE

Len in, he is deceiving himself cruelly. Those whoexpect this to happen might just as well wait for a

shrimp to learn how to whistle.All these things, taken together, from Marx toKhrushchev, reveal the master plan that the Com-munists have devised to be used to bring these UnitedStates under the goal of Communism . First, Marx ad-vised the use of deception in dealing with the Capital-ist Countries. Then his admonitio n was to use thisdeception in our institutions. What institutions? Of

course, he had in mind our institutions of learning,such as our colleges, universities, theological semina -ries, our churches, and all orga nizations, such as labo runions and so on.

Then Israel Cohen, a top Communist Party fun c-tionary in England , advised his fellow workers in whatfield that they should concentrate their work. Not in

these words did he do this; but it meant the samething when he said: We must realize that our party'smost powerful weapon is racial tension. Nothingcould be plainer than this. Therefore it is obviousthat the Communists have cons idered for a long timethat the racial issue was their most important fieldof work.

So, knowing that deception is one of their chief

tools in all th eir

work,it

is but reasonableto

believewhen dealing with the racial issue, the Communistswill make use of every ruse, every trick, and all thecunning that can be thought of to deceive, not only thepeople of the United States, but all the world. Thatis their method of doing all their work. That is theway Karl Marx advised it to be done; that is the wayLenin said to do it; and Khrushchev said: I f anyone

thinks that our smiles mean the abandonment of the




teachings of Marx, Engels, and Lenin, he is deceivinghimself cruelly.

Now, what more do we need to prove that theCommunists are the real force that is stirring up allour racial troubles; and what more do we need toprove that Franz Boas a man who served the Communists well--used his equalitarian racial doctrineto deceive, ot only the American people, but the people of the whole world.

But you may ask, why have the Communists beenable to de ce ive us? Do we ot have the means tocounteract this propaganda? Do we not have a freepress with its many newspapers and magazines torightly inform the people; and do we not have one ofthe finest educational systems in the world to train ouryoung women and men for leadership? Then in theface of all this, how could we be misled? How could

we be tricked and deceived when we have so manyways by which we may be informed.

To understand how all this is possible in a nationsuch as ours, we must un derstand something of thethings that go to make a man what he is. With fewexceptions, most people are, mostly, what they havebeen taught; and what we have been taught outsidethe home have taken place, mostly, in the publicschools, colleges and universities.

In our public schools, colleges and universtttes-everything can be taught, including the theory ofevolution, all forms of atheism, including Communism, and all other things that can be thought of,except one thing. That one exception is this: Godand His works cannot be taught in our pub lic schoolsand colleges. This the Supreme Court has said cannot be done in these institutions. So, while these publicinstitutions cannot teach God and His works cannot




teach that God is the creator of the universe and everything in it, these same institutions can teach that theuniverse was brought into being by all manner oftheories; and that all living things evolved from onesingle cell. Therefore it is impossible for the peopleof this Nation to be well informed concerning theworks of God; yet they are well informed concerningthe theory of evolution, atheism, and Communism.

And because of this one-s ided educational system,the Communists have been able to brainwash theAmerican people with Franz Boas equalitarian racialphilosophy-to the extent that many of the best educated people of this Nat ion-are fighting for themingling of the Negro and white races in all walks oflife. They are doing this, in spite of the fact that theyknow that in the end, that it means the m.ongrelizationof the races. Why can this be? The answer is simple:

No manis

capable of rendering a true, honest andan impartial verdict in any controversial case, unlessbe has been, equally, as well informed on both sidesof the question under consideration; and no man thatwas accused of having committed a crime, would beconsidered as having had a fair trial, if he was deniedthe opportunity to present his side of the story tothe jury. But this is the status that we fin the racial

problem n right now. The jury that is , deciding thiscase has never, really, heard but one side of this case.

The jurors that are deciding the racial case thatconcerns all our racial problems, were students-inmost cases-in our colleges and universities yesterday.I t was while attending these institutions that theyheard the evidence upon which they depend to reachtheir verdict. I t went something l ike this:

The human race is one, biologically speaking; thereis no fundamental difference between the various races,




and what difference there is, is due to environment;that environment and not race makes a man what he

is; and the mixing, or the inter-breeding of the variousraces, would not be detrimental to mankind.This about sums up the equalitarian racial philosophy

as preached by Boas and his disciples. I t leaves God,the Creator of all things out of the pi ctu re. Therefore, only one side has ever been presented to the jurythat is deciding the racial issue ; and as things nowsta nd, we can never present the evidence for the other

side where it is needed mostly-in our colleges anduniversities. This is so, because we cannot presentour evidence without bringing God and the story ofcreation as told in the Bibl e into the case. The Supreme Court has said that we cannot do this.

The Communists know what they are doing. KarlMarx knew what he was doing, when way back in1872, he told his Communist comrades, that whenconsidering the strategy to be used to overthrow thegovernment of this Nation, that our institut ions, cus-

to ms and manners must be conside red. Isra el Cohenkf\ ew what he was doing when he said, We mustrealize that our party's most powerful weapon is racialtension. All the Communists knew that if they couldinfi ltrate our colleges and universities that they wouldbe

free to indoctrinate the students of those institutionswith their ra cial philosophy without fear of any rebuttal in those same institutions, because our SupremeCourt has said that we could not do it. In view of allof this there is no wonder that Lenin declared:

First, we will take Eastern Europe, then the massesof Asia, then we will encircle the United States, whichwill be the last bastion of capitalism . We will not

have to attack. I t will fall like an over-ripe fruit intoour hands.




No, there is no need for the Communists to attackthis Nation. Their goal is being reached by brainwash-

ing through the process of infiltration, not only in ourschools, but into our every walk of life. Next to ourschools as a center of activities, come our churches .

any preachers, some conscious of what they aredoing, others are not, are carrying the Ball for theCommunists' brainwashing program.

Surely by now, you should realize that it is theCommunists that are trying t destroy this Nation by

creating racial discord.




CHAPTER v

GOD AND SEGREGATION

God is all powerful; or He has no power. God isSupreme in all things; else, He is nothing. God is theCreator of all things; otherwise, the whole Bible is a

myth. But the Bible is no myth, because God is allpowerful; He is Supreme in all things; and He is theCreator of all things . Besides the Bible, we have muchproof that is a witness to the fact that God was theCreator of the universe and all that is in it. But theBible-which is the word of <{od-is a direct witnessto this fact. And in Colossian 1 :16, we find a statement that leaves no doubt as to who is the Creator of

all things, where it reads like his:For by him were all things created, that are in

heaven, and that are n earth, v isible and invisible,whether they e thrones, or dominions, or principalities,or powers: all things were created by him, and forhim.

This, with the story of creation as told in the firstchapter of Genesis, should be enough to convince anyone-especially those who confess to believe in aliving God-tha t God is the Creator of all things.But this is by no means the case. Because we havepreachers and religious organizations proclaiming tothe world that the different races of mankind cameabout by natural causes-environmental factor, orotherwise.

In a pamphlet, titled, R a c e - W h a t does the Biblesay1 , printed and distributed by The Council For




Social Action, The Congregational Christian Churches,289 Fourth Avenue, New York 10, New York, you

will fin these statements:The Old Testament recognizes that diverse races,nations and languages have come from a commonstock by a natural process.

Apart from the distinction of J ew and Gentile theOld Testament takes for granted the existence ofmany races and nations, traces their origin to the natural course of human development, but do es not lay

down any doctrine or ideal either of separation or ofassimilation between Gentile races either in the presentor in the past.

These statements would sound more natural if theyhad come from some ardent exponent of the theo ryof evolution. But all evolutionists do not agree as tothe origin of the different ra ces, espe cially is this trueconcerning the color of the skin of the various races.And as I have pointed out previously, Darwin admittedthat environmental factors--such as different climates--could not have been responsible for the differentskin colors in the various races . Even Franz Boas, oneof the most ardent supporters of race-mixing that Ihave ever read after, holds the same views as Darwindoes on this subject. On page 58 , of his book, Race,Language and Culture,

Boas has thisto

say:At the present time it is unknown to what extentthe influences of environment may determine bodilyform. Notwithstanding the numerous claims of thefundamental effect of climate upon the body of man,we have no evidence whatever that will show that pigmentation und ergoes fundamental changes under climati c conditions; that the white race would become

darker in the tropics; or that the Negroes would become lighter in the north. Whatever statisti cs we have



SEGREGATION AND COMMON S EN SE 131

on this subject show rather a remarkable stability ofpigmentation.

Thus it is: The great Charles D arwin, one of thegreatest exponents of the theory of evolution, andFranz Boas, the anthropologist whose racial equalitarian doctrine has been accepted by many of the besteducated people of this Nation and of the entire worldas scientific facts, have declared that climatic factors,such as hot and cold climates, were not responsible

for the different skin colors in the various races.N o w - i f natural factors, such as diffe rent climates---were not the factors that produced the differentskin colors in the various races, then natural fac torssuch as different climates-could not have been responsible for creating the different races, because skincolor is the most distinguishing characteristic in allthe races. But of course, there are other racial traits

in all the races , but skin color is the one that standsou t - i t is the distinguishing feature in all races. Byit, each race can be easily distinguished from all others.T herefore, it is obvious that each race was given adifferent skin color, so that each race could be easilyidentified . So to say that the different races came intobeing by natural causes, just does not make sense. Andthe only logical answer as to the origin of the races is:God was their Creator, just like H e created everythingelse.

Thi s I want you to note carefully: I n the pamphlet :Ra e What does the Bible say? , the writer of th is

pamphlet says that the Old T estament lays down nodoctrine for the separation of any races-ex ·cept J ewsand Gentiles. But is this so? In my opinion, it has nofoundation, because in Gen. 1 :24, God gave this command to all l iving things, when He said: Let theearth bring forth the living creature after his kind,




cattle and creep ing thi ng, and beast of the earth afterhis kind; and it was so.

But you may ask, does this command apply to mankind, and if it does, does it app ly to each individualrace? The answer to these questions must be yes, be-

cause all men are living creatures; and all races ofmankind are different living creatures, just like blackbirds are different living cr eatures from red birds, orblue birds, or any of the many other different kinds ofbirds. And God has commanded that all living creatures bring forth after its k ind.

Besides the religious organizations, there are ministers of the Gospel, who are--directly, or indirectly-spreading the doctrine that natural factors---and notGod were the maker of all the various rac es ofmankind. They cannot prove this, yet they continueto spread this a theistic doctrine. s an example, let

us listen to what one minister of the Gospel has to say.The Reverend Dr. Everett Tilson, a MethodistMinister and an associate professor of biblica l theology at Vanderbilt University, and the author of thebook , Segregation and the Bible, in speaking of theorigin of the races in this book, on page twenty , makesthis stateme nt :

Though we are 'still largely in ignorance of the

exact ways in which biological processes work to formnew physical types,' at least we can say this withoutfear of reproof: no reputable scientist has yet attempted to account for the origin of the three majorracia l groups within a single generation f rom a set ofcommon parents .

Here Dr. Tilson was commenting on the theoryof the Reverend G . T. Gillespie, and others, who holdthat the thr ee major racial groups originated after th eflood through the three sons of Noah, Shem, Ham and




J apheth. And here w e find Dr. Tilson making thestatement that the scient ists do not know by what process the different races we re formed; yet he calls in thescientists to prove that the three major racial groupscould not have originated during one generation. Dr .Tilso n admits by his own statement-that the scientistsdo not have the answers as to how the different r acesoriginated, yet he calls on these same scientists to provethat the three major racial groups could not havehad thei r origin during one ge neratio n. But if Dr.Tilson had turned to the Bible for his answers-insteadof the scientists-he would have found that all thiswas possible with God. He would have found that whenGod gets ready to do a thing--no matter how impossible it looks to man--God does it, and He does it atthe time that He wants it done. And to refresh yourmemory let us take a look at a few things that man

thought were impossible, yet God did that very thing.When Abraham and Sarah, his wife, were informedby the Lord that Sarah wou ld become a mother in herold age, both Ab raham and Sa rah laughed, thinkingthat this was impossible, because it was contrary tothe laws of natu r e Then Sarah asked: Shall I of asurety bear a child, which am old? And the Lord replied: Is anything too hard for the Lord? (Gen. 18 :

13, 14) .Then when Gabriel, the angel appeared unto Mary

and informed her that she was to become the motherof Jesus Christ, Mary wondered how this cou ld be,and asked the angel: How shall this be, seeing Iknow not man? And the angel answered: . . . Forwith God nothing shall be impossible. (Luke 1:27-37).

Then aga in when Christ said that it was easier fora camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a




rich man to enter into the kingdom of God, his disciples were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then

can be saved? Then Jesus answered and said: Withmen this is impossible; but with God all things arepossible. (Matt. 19: 23-26; Luke 18 :25-27) .

Yes , with men, all these things seemed impossible,but with God all this was possible: Isaac was born untoSarah in her old age, Christ was born unto Mary; andthere is no doubt, many rich men have gone to heaven.

So, if all this-seemingly impossible to man-couldactually take place, there is no good reason to believe

t h a t through the power of God- tha t all races ofmankind could not have taken place during a singlegeneration, or a much shorter period of time as faras time is concerned. Because where God is concerned,time does not matter .

But one of two things is a self-evident truth: Eitherall races were formed by natural processes, or theywere created by God. And the scientists have neverbeen able to offer any reliable proof that the variousraces originated by natural causes. All they have tooffer as proof is their own imagination. Th ey justdo not believe that God was the Creator of the races,so from their viewpoint, there is no other alternative.I t is just like all the other aspects of the theory of

evolution: We areoff

ered unproven theories and thenasked to believe them as facts. For instance, years ago,Sir Arthur Keith, a noted evolutionist, said: Evolutionis un-proved n ~ un-provable. We believe it becausethe only alternative is special creation, and that is un-

thinkable. And then Thomas Huxley, one of thegreatest believers of evolution of all times, said without reservation, I t is clear that the doctrine of evolu

tion is directly antagonistic to that of Creation . • •




Evolution, if consistently accepted, makes it impossibleto believe the Bible.

But in spite of statements like these y noted evolu -tionists, many ministers of the Gospels, religious or-ganizations, and other religious leaders, are acceptingsome aspects of this theo ry , and some are swallowingthe whole hog. For instance, when any one acceptsthe doctrine that the different races were developedby natural processes, then that person has accepted

as facts- that this stage in the development of man-kind was due to evolution . And there is much proofthat shows that there are many in the field of religion

w h o have accepted evolution, mostly, as the meansof creation. For example, F. N. Pelou 'bet, a Doctor ofD ivinity, and the former Editor of Select otes onthe International Sunday School Lessons, in the BibleDictionary that bears his name, defines creation in this

manner:T he creation of all things is ascribed in the Bibleto God, and is the only reasonable account of theorigin of the world. The method of creation is notstated and may have been largely by evolution .

This quotation shows how confused many men ofreligion have become over the possibility that evolu -tion may have been the means by which all things havecome into being. But there is no reason for believingthis possibility, because the very foundation of evolu-tion rests upon the assumption that everything hasdeveloped or evolved from something else. But in thebeginning there was nothing until something wascreated. Therefore, evolution could not have beenthe means by which the earth and all the universecame into being, because before something was created,there was nothing from which the earth and all theuniverse could have developed or evolved from . And




this makes the whole theory of evolution unbelievable,because they have no way to explain the beginning.But even after the beginning-after the earth, a theuniverse, and life was created by God-there is noevidence to prove that a living things evolved fromsome lower form of life. But on the other hand, evengeology-the witness that the exponents of evolutioncall in, most often to testify in their behalf- is a wit-ness that God, and not evolution was the Creator of

all things. Let us look at some of the facts.The exponents of evolution rely on geology to provetheir theory, because when the fossils in the strata ofrocks first show the rema ins of ancient life, it is in thelower strata and of the lower forms of life. Theneach succeeding strata of rocks shows a higher form oflife , until finally, in the upper strata, we find the fossilsof ancient man.

But if evolution is true, we must have more proofthan this. For evolution to be true, the fossils mustshow the different forms of life of being part one thingand part something else at some stage of the evolu-tionary process, otherwise the fossils as a witness forevolution are worthless. And nowhere have any fossilsyielded any evidence showing that any living creaturewas ever a part of one kind of a creature and part of

something else. And without this there is no evidencethat any form of life ever developed or evolved fromsome other form of life. But on the other hand, thefossils show that when any form of life appeared onearth, it was full grown and in abundance. Wells andHuxley admit this when they said:

The era of ancien t life ar rived abruptly and withoutwarning.

Therefore, if ancient life arrived abruptly andwithout warning, this shows that there was no long




period of evolving from orie form of life to another,and this is a necessity, if evolution is true. And Darwin has admitted that fossils do not supply the proofthat is needed to connect the missing links of the proc-ess of evolution, when he $aid:

In the sixth chapter I enumerated the chief objec-tions which might be justly urged against the viewsmaintained in this volume. Most of them have nowbeen discussed. One, namely the distinctness of spe-cific

forms, and their not being ,blended together byinnumerable transitional links, is a very obvious diffi.culty. . • . Why then is not every geological forma-tion and every stratum full of such intermediate links?Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the mostobvious and serious objection which can be urgedagainst the theory.

Thus Darwin acknowledges that in the strata ofthe ancient rocks, there are no fossils, which show atransition of a lower form of life to a higher form;yet without this, the theory of evolution has no founda-tion. But Darwin tries to explain the absence of thisproof, like this: The explanation lies, as I believe,in the extreme imperfection of the geologica l record.(See chapter 10, The Origin of Species. ).

But may I ask, why is the geological record so com -plete as to show proof of all living things-and manyextinct-yet it holds rio evidence of any of the missinglinks, or transitional forms of any lower form of lifeto a higher form? This just does not make sense.Because it is reasonable to believe that the same con-

ditions that erased all evidence of the transitionalforms--the part forms, and the half and half forms,would have wiped out all evidence of the whole orcomplete forms of life.




So, it boils down to this : The exponents of evolut ion have no real proo f of the missing transitionall inks in the process of evolution. except their ownimagination. But they believe this, because they donot believe in creation by Div ine Power, so theythink creation by evolution is the only alternative.

But in spite of all the vast amount of evidence whichshows that crea ti on by evolution is impossible, mostof the scientific world has accepted it as fa cts; and inthe field of religion, it has been accep ted to a largeextent. Then in view of this, why is this possible?T he answer is simple: We a re , mostly, what we havebeen taught; and for a hundred years__,lowly at first

t h e young people of this Nation, and the worldhave been taught in schools , especia lly in collegesand universities--<:reation by evolut ion, as scientificfacts; while at the same time, the story of creat ion

by Divine Power has not been taught to the youngpeople of this Nation in the public schools, colleges an duniversities, because the Bible can no t be taught in thepublic schools of this Natio n. And because of this,most of the young people have been taught only oneside of the story of cre ation; that is, creatio n by evo lution ; and no person is capable of r e n d e r i n ~an impartial verdict on any issue, un less he is as well informed

on one side of the issue as he is on the other. So, inview of this , there is no wonder th at so many of theintellectuals of this Nation believe in evolution thatis what they have ~ e ntaught.

But there is one th ing that is obviou s to all: Goddid not do all His work, or create all things, at oneand the same time . This is told by the story of thefossils in the rocks and by God s own word. Th elower strata of rocks cont ain th e lower forms of life,while each succeedijlg upper st ratu m shows a highe r




form of life, until finally in the upper strata are foundevidence of the higher forms of life, including man.But a s I have already po inted out that the fossilsshow that when any form of life appeared on earth,it came suddenly and in abundance; and there is noevidence in the rocks to show that a lower form of lifeever developed or evolved into a higher form of life,with the process continuing until finally man was de-veloped. This leaves the theory of evolution withoutany foundation.

But before man was created, we only have the storyas told in the rocks to show that God did not do allHis work at one and the same time; but after thecreation of man, we have God s own word that this istrue. And from God s own word, we learn that whenHe created man, He created only one man. Why allthe various races were not created at one and the

same time, I do not know. Only God can answer this.And when Adam was created, God gave him certaincommands by which to live by. But after a period oftime, God gave Noah other commands that were dif -ferent from those He gave Adam. Then when Abra-ham came upon the scene, God made a covenant withhim and gave him commands that were different fromanything that He had given Adam and Noah. Then

when Moses came along, God gave him the most com-plete set of commands The Ten Commandments-that He had ever given to any man; and to make itmore complete, these were the first commands thatapplied to all people they app ly to all people today.And may I ask, why did God do all this in this man-ner? Why were the Ten Commandments not given toAdam, or Noah, or Abraham? Why did God waitso long to give the world a code of laws by which tol ive by? Only God can answer this. But because God




did not give the Ten Commandments to Adam or

Noah o r Abraham does not prove that they d id not

come from God.Then 1960 years ago God sent His only Son J esus

Christ into a sin lost world as the Savio r of all man-kind. But Adam and Eve were sinful the people inthe time of Noah Abraham Moses and the prophetswere sinful then may we ask why did God wait so longto send H is Son to redeem a sin lost world? This tooonly God can answer. But because Jesus Christ wasnot sent into the world in the time of Adam or thetime of Noah Abraham Moses or the prophets doesnot prove that Christ is not the Son of God .

Now God could have given the Ten Command-ments to Adam just as easy as He gave them toMoses; and H e could have given His Son JesusChrist to the world at the time H e gave the Ten

Commandments to Moses butH e d i d n t - H e

wasnot ready to do these things in the times of Adam andMoses. But because the Ten Commandments werenot given to Adam and because J esus Chr ist was no tsent into the world in the time o f Moses does notminimize the power of God to do these things. Godwaits until H e is ready to do what He wills then He

acts.

Likewise because man was not created when Godcreated the lower forms of life does not mean that

man evolved from these lower forms of life and notcreated directly y God as told in the Bible. Andbecause all races of mankind were not created whenAdam was created does not prove that they weredeveloped y natural processes any more than it isprov ed that man was created y being evolved or de-veloped from a lower form of life and as I have a l-ready shown this is an impossibility.




No, because God did not create all things at oneand the same time does not minimize the power ofGod to create all things. Col. 1 :16 And those whobelieve that God created all things, believe that allthings are what they are because God created themas they are. But those who believe in the theory ofevolution, believe that all things are what they are, isby chance, and this includes man and all the variousraces-they cannot believe otherwise. So, it boilsdown to this:

The man who believes that God created man in Hisown image; that God created all races of mankind;and that God created all things, this man believes thatGod had a special reason for creating everything asHe did; and that God would want everything to remain as He had made them. Therefore , this mancannot believe in race-mixing, because, he knows that

in the end, this will destroy all races, as he believesGod created them.But on the other hand, the man who believes in the

theory of evolution, believes that all things are whatthey are by accident; he believes that by some process-which is unproven and cannot be proven-that allthings, including man, evolved from one single cell,from the slime of the ocean; and he believes that by

some , unproven, natural process, all races were developed. So, the man, who believes these things, racialintegrity means nothing to him; he has no racial pride

a l l this, because he is what he is, by accident. Andhe believes--if he believes there is a God- tha t theintegrity of the races is immaterial with God. Andthose who believe these things are using their influenceto break down racial segregation. And one of themeans that they are using is the quoting and misconstruing the Scriptures.




For instance, the Scripture (Acts 17 :26) whichproclaims that all races were made of one blood, is

hailed by integrationists, as proof that there is no needfor segregation. Because-they argue-al l races areone human family; that there is but one race-thehuman race. All this is true-they say-because allraces were made of one blood. But they seem tohave forgotten something: they have forgotten thatGod is all powerful; and they have forgotten that Godcan take the same material and make things that arevery much different from each other. For instan<:e inGen. 2:19, the Bible says this: And out of the groundthe Lord God formed every beast of the field, andevery fowl of the air . And we all know that out ofthe ground-will grow all plants, of all the many varieties, and of all colors; some being good for food, whileothers are not, and some being even poisonous----allthis being possible, only because of the miraculouspower of God.

Now, who will dare to say that there is no fundamental difference in all the many animals, or all themany fowls-all because they were all formed out ofthe ground? And who will dare to say that there isno fundamental difference in all the many plants--aUbecause they will all grow out of the ground? There

fore, it does not make sense to say that there are nofundamental differences in all the races of mankindall because they were made of one blood. Because

a s we have seen--God is able to take one substanceand make many different things out of i t -God is allpowerful.

Man and all the animals have much in common:God created all, both animals and man; therefore,

God is the father of all-anima ls as well as man. Thatlife may e sustained, all must have oxygen and food;



SEGREGATION AN D COMMON SENSE 14

and the sam e food that will grow an animal will growa man . But all this does not prove that there is no

fundamental difference between man and animals . Thatthere is a difference is obvious to all.

Where God is concerned, things can be composedof the same substance; yet there can be a vast differencen those things, or in the performance of those things.For instance, Harry Holbert Turney-High, Head ofthe Department of Anthropology and Sociology, ofthe University of South Carolina, on page 63 of hisbook, General Anthropology, has this to say:

The brain cells of apes and men are composed ofthe same chemical substances. Likewise, apes have thesame vocal apparatus as men and use them in the sameway, although their sounds only indicate subjectivestates. Why one species should be supremely articulate and gifted with symbol-making power and theother inarticulate and re latively dumb will probablyforever be inexplicable .

Here we have a concrete example of God's power.He takes the same identica l chemical substances, fromwhich He makes the brains of men, and the brains ofapes; yet while being made of the same substance,there is a vast difference in the performance of thebrains of men and the brains of apes. What makes

the difference? There canbe

but one logical answerGod. And likewise, the vocal apparatus of men andapes are the same; but there is a great difference in theway they perform--one can talk, the other cannot .What makes the difference? Here too, there can be

but one logica l answer--God.Now, when God made all the races of men of one

blood, He was only exercising His mighty power, as

He did when He made brains for men and apes. Inone instance, He takes the same chemical substances




and makes brains-brains for men and brains for apes- b u t brains that are so different-when it comes to

performance-until there can be but little comparisonbetween the brains of men and brains of apes.So, in another instance, God takes another substance

- o n e blood -and makes all the various races ofmankind. And here too, there are many differencesbetween the races, just as there are differences in theperformance of the brains of men and the brains ofapes. The color of the skin is outstanding, as well asother racial characteristics.

God , not only made all ra ces different , He separated,or segregated all races. (Acts 17 :26; Deut. 32 :3)This is a historical fact. Because, as I have previouslystated, at the beginning of recorded t ime-taken asa whole-each race occupied a different part of theworld: The Negro was at home in Africa; the home ofthe white man was in Southwestern Asia and Europe;the brown man occupied Southern Asia; the yellow mandwelt in that vast land that covers most of Centraland Northern Asia; and the red man, the AmericanIndian, roamed all the lands of the two Americas.

The fact that all races were segregated at the dawnof recorded history, should be enough evidence to con·vince anyone with an open mind, that God was thefirst segregationist. And having on ce segregated theraces, is it not reasonable to believe that God wouldwish that the races remain segregated? But the onlyanswer that I have ever seen or heard to questions thatwere similar to this one, goes something like this: Thera ces are already mixed, the exponents of integrationproclaim, so segregation is useless. But this I deny.Segregation is still worthwhile, because we still have

a white race, a Negro race, a yellow race , a brownrace, and a red rac although, I do admit that there




have been some race-mixing a ll down th rough the ages.But the jails and penite ntiarie s of this Nation are

overflowing with men-men, who have broken everycommandment, ever given by God. Now, you ministers of the Gospel, all other persons in the field of religion, and all other persons , do you recommend thatall our criminal laws be repealed-for no other reason,except, they all have been broken? Of course, youwould not. Then how can you advocate that racialsegregation be ended-just because there has been

some ra ce-mixing? It just does not make sense .On December Sth, 1957, The General Assembly of

the National Council of the Churches of Christ in theU.S.A., at St. Louis, Missouri, in a statement of policy,said this:

The G enera l Assembly of the National Councilof Churches reaffirms at this time its renunciation ofthe pattern of racial segregation, both in the churchesand in society, as a violation of the Gospel of loveand human broth erhood.

In other words, the National Coun cil of Churches,are proclaiming that the Gospe l of love and humanbrotherhood, demands the end of racial segregation-demands the end in all walks of life. This is thegreatest fallacy of all times. This is true--because theend of segregation in all walks of life can mean onlyone thing-the amalgamation of all races. And surelyGod does not wish this to be done; surely, He does notwant destroyed that which He has created; and surely

i f we believe the Bible, we must believe that Godcreated all races-He is the Creator of all things.(Col. 1 :16)

The commandment: Thou shalt love thy neighbor

as thyself, should be observed by all, as well as allothe r commandments of God. But remember this:




Th is comm andment does not command any m a n - a tany time, or any where--to love his neighbor More

than he does himself. Andin

no placein

God's word,does God command any man to love himself to theextent that he would commit ra cia l suicide. Th erefore,the Gospel of love and human brotherhood is notviolated by ra cia l segregation, because if God has notcommanded man to love himself enough to commitracial suicide, then surely, God has not commandedman to love his brethren of another race to the exte nt

that it would mean the amalgamation of the racesthis would be racial suicide. And Negroes, themselves,hav e admitted that rac ial integration, wi ll in the end ,mean racial amalgamation.

The great majority of the white race do not lovethemselves, strongly enough, to destroy their own ra ce

It is but natural for the men and women of the whitera ce to want to see their own race perpetuated. Th en

i n view of these facts-must the people of the whiterace love their Negro neighbo rs with such zeal thatthe Negroes will be permitted to destroy the whiterace? This is unthinkable, •because tliis would e lovingour Negro neighbors more than we do ourselves; andthis we are not comma nded to do. We are commandedto lo ve our neighbors, only as much, as we love ourselves. Therefore, the doctrine, that racial segregation violates the Gospel of love and human brotherhood , ha s no foundation.

The same God that gave the command: Thoushalt love thy neig hbour as thyself, gave the com

mand to keep the race pure by not inter-marrying withother races. Both these commands were given to thesame people- -the Jews. And this is direct proof fromGod

H imself,that

racial segregation do es not violateHis command: thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy-




self. Because if God had considered that racial segregation violated the Gospel of love and humanbrotherhood, then He never would have demande dr acial purity of the J ews. Th en if racial seg regatio ndid not violate the Gospel of love and human brotherhood, where the J ews we re concerned, then racia lsegregation does not violate the Gospel of love andhuman brotherhood, where all other races are con-

cerned. Because the Bible tells us that the laws thatapply to J ews, likewise apply to all people. (See Ex.12:49; Lev. 24:22; Num. 9 :14; 15 :15-16; Gal. 3 :28)

Then if racial segregation was legal in the sightof God in the days of Moses, racial segregation violate s no laws of God today, because Chr ist said:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or theprophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.(Matt. :17).

But the National Cou ncil

of Churches, many ministers, and others in the field of relig ion, are declaringthat God demanded racial purity of the Je ws, onlyfor religious purposes-so that th e rel igio n of theJ ews would not e defiled. But the reason, or for whatpurpos e God demanded racia l p uri ty of the Jews , doesnot matter. T he mere fact that segregation was demanded of the J ews, is self-eviden t proof that racial

segregation violated no laws of God in the time ofM oses; and if segregation did not violate any of thelaws of God in the time of M oses, then segregationdoes not violate any laws of God today. So, racialsegregation can not e evil in the sight of G od today.

I have mentioned this in another chapter, but nowI want to address this, especially, to all people-inthe field of re ligion-who are clamoring for racia lintegration in all the various walks of life. Willyou stop and ponder in your minds-just for a little




while what would have been the results, and the effects on the destiny of all mankind--only, if the J ews

had mixed their blood with that of the Egyptians tothe extent that they had been amalgamated into onemongrel race during their over 400 years stay inEgypt?

I do not have all the answers to this question; butther e is one thing that is a self-evident truth: Amalgamation of Je ws and Egyptians at this time wouldhave changed the whole course of history and thedestiny of all mankind. In the first place, if the J ewsand Egyptians had ·become one mongrel race, therewould have been no Jews to have been led out ofEgypt by Moses. But without any Jews there wouldhave been no Moses; and without Moses, it would havebeen impossible for God to give Moses the Ten Commandments. And without any J ews, there could havebeen none of the proph ets of the Old Testament, aswe know th em; and without any Jews, there would havebeen no Joseph or Mary unto whom Christ was born;and without any Je ws we could not now read aboutthe works performed by the twelve disciples of Christ,as now recorded in the New Testament. And noneof these things could have taken place--only, if theJew s and Egyptians had become amalgamated into a

mongrel race. Why? Just because there would havebeen no J ews, and all these things were done by Jews.What all the consequences would have been, if by

amalgamation with the Egyptians, all J ews had become non-existent, I do not have all the answers; butone thing is a self -evident fact: The Bible that wehave today could never have existed, because the wholeBible came by the way of the Jews.

Now, you ministers of the Gospel, others in thefield of religion, and all others, who are demanding




the ending of all racial segregation in all the variouswalks of life, does this mean anything to you? Doesnot the possibility of racial mongrelization-meananything to you-when it is obvious that the wholecourse of huma n events can be changed by it? Godforbids it. Why don't you?

Now in view of the facts of the evil effects, as theresults of racial mongrelization; and in view of thefact that the teachings of the Bible clearly prove thatracial segregation is no violation of the commandment:

Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, how do weaccount for so many ministers of the Gospel, and othersin the field of religion, proclaiming to the world, thatracial segregation does violate the Gospel of loveand human brotherhood ?

T wo things have made this possible: the theory ofevolution and Communism . Almost a hundred years

ago the Communists were advised-by Karl M a r x - t oseek the overthrow of the government of these UnitedStates, from with in the Nation, by infiltration of ourvarious institutions. And this was made possible inthe field of religion, by the teaching of evolution. Andpersons in the field of religion, and others, have beenmade to believe evolution as the means of creation,instead of creation by God as taught in the Bible, just

simply because evolution has been taught freely in allou r institution s of lea rning-while at the same time,creation by a Di vine Power, as told in the Bible-hasnot been taught, as a subject, as has the subject ofevolution, in the public institutions of learning--especially the colleges and universities of these UnitedStates. And because of this atheistic doctrine of evolution being pe rmitted to be free ly taught in these in-

stitutions, the Communists have been able, during thelast hundred years, to do much toward molding the



J S SEGREGAT ION AND COMMON SENSE

minds of many of the young of this Nation, for theinterest of Communism. On this, I will have more to

say a little later. But just now, let us take a look tosee a few things that the Communists are doing in thechurches and religious organizatio ns.

Ear l Browder, while he was head of the CommunistParty of the United States, made a speech to thestudents of Union Theological Seminary, in New YorkCity, in which he said: Yo u may e inte rested inknowing that we have preachers, preachers active in

churches, who a re members of the Communist Party.There are churches in the United States where thepreachers preach Communism from the pulpits, in avery primitive form, of course.

J Edgar H oover, D irector of the Federal Bureauof Investigation, while testifying before the Congressional Committee on un-American Activities, concern

ing Communism in our chu rches,on

March 26, 1947,said this: I confess to a real apprehension so long asCommunists a re able to secure ministers of the Gospe lto promote their evil work and espouse a cause thatis alien to the religion o Christ and Judaism.

Then after long research, which required muchwork, the House Committee on un-American Activities, published a list of questions and answers on the

activities of the Communists in the field of religion.From these, quote the following:Q : Are Commu nists trying to corrupt religion in

the U.S .A.?A: Yes.Q : What is their method?A: The Communist Party of the United States

assigns members to join churches and church organizations, in o rder to take cont rol where possible , and in




any case to influence thought and action toward Communist ends.

It forms front organizations, designed to attractfellow travelers with religious interest.

I t tries to get prominent religious leaders to support Communist policies, disguised as welfare wo rk forminorities or oppressed groups . In the words of EarlBrowder , former head of the Communist Party of theU.S.A.:

By going am ong the religious masses, we arefor the first time able to ·bring ou r anti-religious id easto them.

Q : What is a front organization ?A: An organization created o r captured by the

Communists t do the Party's work in special fields.The front organization is Communism's greatestweapon in this country and takes it among people who

would never willingly act as Party agents.Q : What is a fellow traveler ?A: One who sympathizes w ith the Party's aims and

serves the Party's purposes without actually holdinga Party card.

Q Are American Communists atheistic?A: Yes.Q : How do Communists work among church peo

pl e since they themselves are su ch haters of religion ?A: Communists are two-faced .In their secret Party meet ings, they make plans to

destroy religion.In public, they say religion and Communism should

be friends and that both are working for the samegoals.

Q : Are there Communist clergymen?A: Unfortunately, yes.Q : Do they admit that they are Communists?




A : Some do, but except in special cases, the Partyrequires Communists to keep their membership secret.

Q : Is Communist propaganda ever sneaked intochurch publications?

A: Yes, For instance, the Christian Register, officialUnitarian publication, has carried Earl Browder seyewash that a good Christian can be a Commu ni st .I t is significant that the minister responsible for doingthis has since been removed from his editorship by thechurch.

Q : Do Communist propagandists ever actually getbefore church groups as speakers?

A: Yes . For example, the head of the CommunistParty, on one occasion at least spoke at Union Theological Seminary in New York City.

Only a few months ago, the Legislative Secretaryof the Communist Party addressed a conference of 100ministers in Washington, D C.

Q : What about church youth groups?A: Young Communists are ordered to JOtn them.Q : Why?A: For two reasons: To win over youth to Com

munism and atheism, and to turn their groups intotools of the Communist Party.

Q : Is this done openly?

A: No. Communist youth, like Communist adults,work under cover. They won t admit being Communists if you ask them unless and until their Party directsthem to do so.

Q : Is the YMCA a Communist target?A : Yes. So is the YWCAAlso, church groups such as the Epworth League.Q : Do you mean every Epworth League or YWCA

is a Communist hide-out?A: Of course not . But we do mean that Commu-




nists do dig into such groups any way and any timethey can.

We do mean they have dug · into such groups, . andare at i t today.

We do mean that if you want to keep your own o r·ganization fit for your own family s membership, youhad better stay on the alert.

Q : How else do Communists spread atheism?A: Indirectly in Communist schools such as the

Jefferson Schoo l of Social Science in New York, andin California Labor School.

Also in the atheistic schools for children operatedthroughout the country by the International WorkersOrder.

Q : What is the People s Institute of Applied Re.ligion?

A: One of the most vicious Communist Organ iza.

tions ever set upin

this country. Declared subversiveby the Attorney General.Q : Where is it located and who are its officers? ·A: 4 1 5 ~Third Avenue, South, Birmingham,

Alabama.Rev. Claude C. Williams, d i r e c t o ~Edna Joyce

King, executive secretary; Owen H Whitfield andWinifred L Chappell, associate directors; Carl Haes

. sler, Calla E Tennant, and Clara M ..Vincent, trus-tees; Cedric Belfrage, research director .Q : What does it do?A: I t teaches Communist ideas, pretending that

they are Christian ideas .Q : What is the Methodist Federation for Social

Action?A: A tool of the Communist Party, denoun ced by

numerous loyal American Methodists . I t claims to




speak for 7 Method ist Bishops and 4,000 clerics andlaymen. Not an official church organization.

Q : Where is it located and what is it trying to do?A: 1)0 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York. Al

though st rictly unofficia l as a church organization,it is t rying to use the prestige of the Methodist Churchto promote the line of the Communist Party.

Q : What is the Protestant''?A: A magazine which fanatically spreads Commu

nist propaganda u nder the guise of being a religiousjournal.

Its avowed purpose is to Bu ild a bridge betweenChristendom and Communism. Boasts support of6,000 ministers but not actually connected with anyofficial religious organization.

Q : Where is it published and who are the officers?A: It is published by Protestant Digest, Inc., at

5215th Avenue, New York, New York. Editor:Kenneth Leslie; associate editors: James Luther

Adams, John Hammond, Gerald Richardson.Not long ago, an Air Force training manual came

to light telling about the infiltration of the Communists into the churches of the United States . The U S News and orld Report describes the incident l ikethis :

T he publ ication spoke of 'overwhelming evidence'of the ' infiltration of fellow t ravelers into churches.'I t mentioned the revised standard version of the Bible

a version sponsored by the National Council ofChurches of Christ in the U.S.A., which represents 33Protestant and Orthodox denominations. Of 9 persons who worked on the Bible, the manual said, 30have been affiliated with p ro-Communist fronts . . •projects and publications.'



SEGREG TION ND COMMON SENSE 55

The National Council called the statements'absurd,' . • .

But Chairman Francis E. Walter of the H ouseCommittee on un-American Activities said: 'Thecharges that were made are true.' Leaders of theAmerican and International Councils of ChristianChurches and the Church League of America also saidthe statements were true. Evangelist Billy James Hargis said in Tulsa, Okla., that he was the author ofmuch of the controversial material, offered to conducta public debate on the issue.

Now, there is much more information-reliable in-

formation-that could be given; but what I have givenhere should be sufficient to convince any person withan open mind that Communists are now working withinthe churches and religious organizations in theseUnited States. And being atheist, it should be obvious

to all that they are not in these places for the purposeof furthering the religion of those who believe in aliving God. So, it must be as plain, as a nose on a face,that the Communists have worked their way intochurches and religious organizations to further thecause of Communism. And there is no better way tohelp the cause of Communism in this nation, than bycausing disunity among its people. And because ra

cial tension is considered as being the Party's mostpowerful weapon, to be used in the overthrow of thegovernment of this Nation, is it not more than reasonable to believe that the Communists have in ltratedinto the churches, and other fields of religion for thepurpose of preaching a doctrine that will cause disunityamong the different races of this Nation? Therefore,it is much more than a possibility that the Communistsare the real force that is behind the push for racialintegration.




.Now this Nation was founded upon the principleof Christianity and freedom of religion; and this N a

tion has always been known as a Christian Nation; anda hundred years ago, it would have been an impossibility for an atheistic organization-such as the Communist Par ty- to have infiltrated into the churchesand r eligious organizations of this Nation, as it istoday. Now, what has happened to bring all this aboutin such a short period of time? On this , I have alreadymentioned briefly what I thought was the cause, butnow, let us look furth er int o this matter.

The Communist Party is an orga nization of atheists.Th erefore, without atheists, there could be no Communist Party. And a hundred years ago, atheists we rea lmost as scarce in this Nation, and all Christendom,as hen's teeth. But ;ill of a sudden, something hap·pened-something happ ened that made it possibl e foratheism to take roots and grow and to multiply to theextent that today the whole world is thre ate ned to beenslaved by atheism-better known as Communism.

Nothing can grow without a suitable soil, or surroundings , be it plants, animals, or theories. And now ,Charles D arwin and Karl Marx we re contemporaries;and while Marx was expounding his doct r ine of Communism, Darwin , in 1859, published his works, The

Origin of Species. And up to this time-accordingto h istory-atheists were very, very scarce. But fromthis moment, until the present time, atheism has beenon the increase throughout the entire world; and today,the atheistic doctrine of Communism is threatening toengulf all mankind.

H. G. Wells, the historian, on pages 988 -89, of hiswork, Outli ne o History, describes the effect of

D arwinism on Christianity in these words: Now, inall ages there have been sceptics in Christendom. Em-



SEGREGATION AND COMMON -SENSE 157

peror F re derick II was certai nly a sceptic; in the eighteenth century Gibbon and Voltaire were openly antiChristian, and their writ ings influenced ·a number ofscattered readers. But these were exceptional people.. . . Now the whole of Christendom became, as ·awhole, sceptical. . . .

There was a real loss of faith after 1859. The truegold of religion was in many cases thrown away withthe worn-out purse that had contained it so long, andit was not recovered.

Thus it should be readily seen that Darwinism-thetheory of evolution-has rbeen the major factor thathas caused the increase of atheism throughout theworld; and this in turn has made the increase ,of Communism possible . This is true,- because, as Wells hastold us Now the whole of Christendom became, asa whole, sceptical.

In other words, Wells tells us that the whole Christian world became doubtfu l of the power of God; andthat this faith in the power of God has never been recovered. So with this loss of faith in the power ofGod, it has been possible to convert many to the be l iefof atheism; and this in turn has made it possible toconvert millions to Communism. Let me emphasize:Communism cannot exist without atheists to support

it . But you may ask : Why has not the Christian faithin the belief of Divine Creation been able to withstand the o nslaughts of the atheistic doctrine of creation by evolution? The answer to this is simple :

For centuries there was no such thing as religiousfreedom throughout all Christendom. Who waspersecuted, depended upon who was the stronger. Andduring all this period of religious persecution-most :all education was under control of the chur<Jt.. But at




last a mov e got under way to give religious freedomto all faiths. And a fter a long t ime-what we callrel igious freedom-became a reality in most of thecivilized world. But in fact there is no such thing asreligious freedom toda y This is true-because inmost places-what we call religious freedom does notexist. In those pla ces religion-as is generally known

i s not permitted to be taught in the public schoolsystems. And this divorcing of the teaching--of whatis most often called religion-in public schools wasthought to make rel igious freedom safe and secure forall religious faiths. But th is is not so because thereis no rel igious freedom at the prese nt t ime- th roughout the world-for all people who believe in a livingGod. Now you are going to dispute this before youknow the truth but the truth will set you right.

To begin with let us see what is religion. But for

our purpose here it will not be necessary to go intoall the aspects of what is religion. But briefly if whatI believe about a living God and His works is myreligion then what the atheist does not believe abouta living God and His works is his religion-it can notbe anything else. Th erefore the only person-in theUnited States and the world-who has rel igious freedom today is the atheist. This is true because the

a theist is free to teach his a theistic doctrine of creation by evolution in the public school systems the worldover; while at the same time those who believe in aliving God are not permitted to teach in the publicschools scattered over the wor ld creation by a D ivinePo wer as told n th e Bible . That would be teachingreligion and that is not permitted. But you may saythat we do have rel igious freedom because all reli gjous

faiths are permitted to teach in their churches andpri va te schools anything that they wish concerning




their religion. Yes, this is true; but the atheist-notonly has the right to teach his religion, atheism, in his

private schools-he has the right to teach his doctrinein the public schools . And in the public schools arewhere the minds of most of the young are molded. No,we do not have religious freedom in the United States,or elsewhere. And unless a great change is made,sooner or later, atheism in the form of Communism,will engulf the world; and then the worship of a livingGod will be forbidden. We know that this is tr ue be-

cause all we have to do is to take a look as to what isgoing on in the Communist Nations at the pr ese nttime. Although religious worship is tolerated to acertain extent, we have definite proof- in spite of theclaims of the Communists to the contrary-that thereis no real religious freedom in any of the CommunistNations; and neither is there freedom of any kind.

I t is an old saying: One extreme follows anothe r.So it follows, that afte r the ch urch for centuries, hav-ing had charge of all education, then in most nationsof the Christian World, the church was separatedfrom all public educatio n; and th e religion of all faiths,who believed in a living God, has been prohibited frombeing taught in these public institutions. But all thewhile, the religion of the atheist, has been freely taught

in these public institutions. So, it should be obviousthat we do not have religious freedom for any one,except those who do not believe in a living God . So,the question arises: what should we do that we mayhave religious freedom? The answer is simple: Forbidthe teaching of the atheist doct rine of creation byevolution, in the public schools, just like we haveprohibited the teaching of all other religious faiths in

public schools. And if we will do this, then we willhave religious freedom for all-religious freedom




for those who believe in a l iving God as we ll as rel igious freedom for those who do not ·believe in a liv

ing God.Now do not get me wrong because I do believe infreedom freedom of thought as well as other things .So I would not suppress the teaching of creation byevo lution except in · the public schools . This I woulddo because the belief that all things have been createdby the means of evolution is the religion of the atheist .I t is his bel ief it is his fai th his faith in what hebelieves God has not done. In principle there is nodifference in this than there is whe re a man believes increation by God as told in the Bible. Because bothare based on faith. One believes that all things werecreaed by a living God; while the other beli eves thatall things were created by evolution which means thatall things came into being by chance or accident. Nowon the one hand we have those who believe that Godcreated all things; and this is what they believe thatGod has done. While on the other hand we have thosewho believe that all things were created by evolution;and this is what they believe what God has not done;but the principle is the same in both cases. Therefore if we are to have rel igious freedom either both ofthese beliefs or faiths must e taught in the public

schoolsor

neither one. Because both sidesof

anyissue must be equally he ard before an impartial verdictcan be rendered . And in this Nation and elsewhereth e young the future l ~ d e r sof this Nation and theworld in the public schools these young people haveonly been hearing one side of the story of crea tion;that is creation by evolut ion. So in view of thesefacts is there any wonder that the whole world is

threatened to he enslaved by atheism--better knownas Communism?




And right now racial freedom the freedom thatwould give each of the races of mankind the right toperpetuate its own race without hindrance from anyother race or races is threatened to be destroyed here in these United States. And all this has beenmade possible all because the atheistic doctrine ofcreation by evolution has been freely taught in thepublic schools of this Nation; while at the same timecreation by a Supreme Being has been prohibitedfrom being taught in these schools. And because ofthis one-sided teaching of a great doctrine the doc-trine of creation many of the people of this Nationhave lost their faith in the power of God. And as aresult of this a great number of people of this N a-tion including many in the field of religion are proclaiming that evolution and not God was the creatot:of the different races of mankind. And those w ~

believe this have no racial pride be they white orblack because they believe they are what they r ~

because of chance or accident; and this minimizes theimportance of race in the minds of those who believethat the races came into being by some unknown natural process. To these people the amalgamation ofthe races mean nothing . And if these people did notexist there would be no clamoring for the ending of

racial segregation today. Because if all men believedthat God created all things-including all races ofmankind then any man white or black would feelthat the race that he belonged to was important. Hewould feel that i t was so important that he would notwant it to be mixed with any other race. This hewould believe because he would think that God hada good and particular reason for making him whathe was. And because of this he would not think thatracial segregation is racial discrimination. Therefore




it should be obvious that if those who are now cryingfor racial integration, believed that God was the Cre·

ator of all things, there would be no racial trouble inthis Land of Ours right now. But such is not the case;and the reason for this conditio n is this:

For a hundred years now, God has been on trial,being accus ed of not being the Creator of all th ingsincluding man and the races of man. And this trialhas been taking place, mostly, in the public schools.Here the accusers, the atheists, are permitted to

present their unprove n evidence against God to thejury- Which in th is case are the stud ents of the pub licschools . But in this case, God has no one to representHim; and He is not permitted to put H is witnessthe Bible-upon the stand to testify in His defense.And without a witness to speak in H is behalf, Godhas not had much of a chance to prove Himself innocent . So, in view of this, the re is no wonder that somany of the jurors- the past and present students ofth e public schools, especially tho se of the colleges anduniversities-have voted to find God guilty as cha rg ed.And because of this, it is not diflicuft to see why thewhole world is thre atened to be enslaved by atheismbett er known as Communism; and it should be obvious,that because of this, the white race, right now, is in

danger of losing its racial freedom-the freedom thatis so necessary, if there is to be a white race a thousandyears from no w.

But there is something that I want to get straight:Every person, who believes in creation by evolution, isnot an outright atheist. But in this group will e foundthe doubters of the power of God ; and from these unbelievers in the power of God, the 100 percent atheists,

or Communists- Whi chever one you w·ant to call them- recrui t their fellow travelers and the heads of their




front organizations from. And in this group, you willfind the ministers of the Gospels, and others in thefield of religion, who are proclaiming that it is possiblethat it was God's plan to create all things by the pro cess of evolution; and in this same crowd, will e foundthose who are howling for the ending of racial segregation. And these must be the ones that Paul spokeof -who would, in the last days, have a form of godliness, but den ying the power thereof: from such turnaway, Paul declared. (See I I Tim. 3 :5) .

In 1859, Darwin published his book, Th e Originof Species, and since that time, faith in the power ofGod has steadily declined . This H. G. Wells, the historian---whom I have already mentioned-tells usabout it in his work, Outline of History. In commenting upon how Darwinism had affected the Christian world, Wells said:

Now,in

all ages there have been sceptics in Christendom. The Emperor Frederick II was certainly asceptic; in th e eighteenth century Gibbon and Voltairewere openly anti-Christian, and their writings influenced a numb er of scattered readers. But these wereexceptional people Now the whole of Christendom became, as a whole, sceptical. . . .

There was a r eal loss of faith after 1859. The true

gold of religion was in many cases thrown away withthe worn-out purse that had contained it for so long ,and it was not recovered.

I have repeated this quotation, because I wanted toemphasize that it is a historical fact that after Darwinpublished his works, The Origin of Species, faithin God and His works has declined. And there can beno doubt but that the teaching of Darwin's atheisticdo ctrine of evolution has ·been the major factor thathas caused the alarming increase in the belief in atheism




during the past one hundred years. nd I want toemphasize that without this enormous increase in the

number of atheists the world today would not bethreatened with Communism because all Communistsare atheists. So it follows that there cannot be anincrease of Communists without a comparable in creasein atheists. And the tea ching of Darwinism has madethis increase of atheists possible.

nd let me emphasize this: f it had not been forthe lo ss of faith in the power of God during th e pastcentury there would e no racial problem in th eseUnited States today.




CH PTER VI

FORCED INTEGRATION IS SLAVERY

Whenever or however any person or persons areforced to do a job or a service for other:r call it whatyou may that is slavery.

The Negroes of this Nation have a job that theywant done a job that they cannot do by themselves.They must have the help of the white race otherwisethe job cannot be done. This job calls for close asso.dation between whites and Negroes--without closeassociation between the races it can never be done .That this job may be finished in the shortest possible

time the Negro is putting his every effort into it.To obtain the needed and necessary help from thewhite race to get this job done the Negro is using amost po werful weapon the weapon of deception.While pretending that equal rights in the field of educat ion and other wal.ks of life is all that he is afterthe truth of the matter is that this is only a hoax toforce the races to associate together . The Negro

knows and all other thinking people know t ha t ifthe races can be forced to associate toget her--especially while they are young --inter-racial marriage willcome about sooner or later; and it will be sooner thanmost people think.

Inter-ra cia l marriage is the important step towardthe final goal of the Negro. The ultimate goal beingthe mongrelization of the races . With the ra cesmongrelized there will be no Negroes . Mongrelization of the races that is the job Negroes want done.




This is the job the white r ace must help the Negrow it h, ot herwise, it can never be done.

Now , the great majority of th e white peop le of thisNa tio n wis h to see Negroes have equal rights withthemselves ; but there a re not many white people thatwant to see the white and Negro races become amongrel race. But the white race is being forced to dot he th ing s th at will re sult in the amalga mation of thera ces into one mongr el race.

The majo rity of the white race do not want therac es mongrelized; but a large segment of the N egr orace wants it; and the Supreme Court has said in effect,th at the white race must do the very things that willlead to mongrelization of the races. This is a servicefo rced from the white race for the benefit of the Negr orace. A service forced from one person, or personsfor the bt nefit of others is slavery, no matter underwhat disguise this service is performed-it cannot beanything else.

T he Civil War and the thirteenth Amendment tothe Constitution, abolished lega l slavery in this Nation.But on May 17, 19 54, the Supreme Court of theseUnited States made slavery legal again-yes, legalonce more right here in this Nation-in the Nation,known as the land of the free and the home of thebra ve.

Th e Supreme Court's school and other desegrega ·ti on decisions are forcing the whi te people of th is

Nation to associate with the Negro race. Closeassociation with each other--especiall y whi le young

i s all that is necessa ry t o mongrelize the races.Th erefore, this for ced associatio n with the Neg rorace, is a forced service, performed by the white race

for the benefit of the Negro ra ce. Thi s is legal slaveryall over again.




Bu t some are sayi ng that this for ced associatio n ofNegroes and whites with each other in schools and

other places is nothing more th an compe lling the wh iterace to give equal rights and equal opportunit ie s toNegroes rights that the Constitution guarantees toNegroes. But nothing could be fart her from the tru ththan th is Be cau se there is nothing in the Constitutionthat gives the Negro race the legal right to for ce thewhite race to do the things that will destroy the whiterace. Forc ed association with each other will do this.So no matter from what angle you look at it forcedracial inte gration is slavery.

But there may be some who will co ntend that Ne-groes are justified i n wanting to mongrelize the races.That the mere fact o f being Negroes has cause dthem to be discriminated against in all walks of life .Therefore they argue it is nothi ng but natural or

huma n nature for the N eg roes

to wish to lose theiridentity as Negroes by the process of amalgamationthereb y making discrimination imp os si ble be cause ofrace. But this ca n have no bearing on the subject: thatforced racial integra tion is slavery.

I t never has been a question as to why any peoplewant jobs or services done that makes slavery a reality .It was not a question as to why the Sou th wanted

Negroes to do jobs and services that made slavery areality in the South. No the why or the re ason anypeople want to force others to perform services forthem cannot be considered whe n the ques tio n ofslavery is under consideration. T he fact that Negroeswere forced to perform service s for the people of theSouth was proof that slavery existed in the South . Th ereason why it existed had nothing to do with it.

L ikewise the why or the reason the Negroes ofthis Nation want the races mongrelized can ha ve no




bearing one way or another whether or not forcedracial integ ra t io n is slavery. he one thing and the

important thing that counts isthat

the white race isbeing forced to associate with Negroes. his is aforced service: this will mongrelize the races; there-fore this can be nothing but slavery. Yes the SupremeCourt has made slavery a legal institution in this Na-tion once more.




CHAPTER. VII

THE SCHOOL DESEGREGATION DECISIONIS BASELESS

The School Desegregation Decision of May 17,954 has no foundation upon which to stand. The

Constitution of the United States does not support it ;neither does the psychological reasoning, upon whichthe decision was made, sustai n it in the least.

That you may e better able to understand what Ihave to say concerning this decision, I quote the fol-lowing from the decision:

We come now to the question presented: Doessegregation of children in public schools solely on thebasis of race, even though the physical facilities andother tangible factors may be equal, deprive the chil -dren of the minority group of equa l educationa l oppor·tunities? We say that it does •

To separate them from others o similar age andother qua lifications solely because of their race gener-ates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the

community that may affect their hearts and minds ina way unlikely ever to be undone . The effect of thisseparation on the ir educational opportunities was wellstated by a finding in the Kansas case by a court whichnevertheless felt compelled to rule against the Negroplaintiff:

'Segregation of white and colored children in pub-lic schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored

children. The impact is greater when it has the sanc-tion of law: for the po licy of separating the races is




usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of theNegro group. A sense of inferiority affects the moti·

vat ion of a child to learn. Segregation wi th the sanction of law, th eref ore, has a tendency to retard theeducation and menta l development of Negro childre nand to deprive them of some of the benefits they wou ldreceive in a racially integrated school system.'

Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledg e at the time of Plessy V. Ferguson,this finding is amply suppor ted by modern authority.Any language in Ple ssy V. Ferguson contra ry to thisfinding is r ejected.

We co nclude that in the field of public educationthe doct rine of 'separate but equal' has no place . Separate educationa l facilities are inherently unequal.T herefore, we hold that the plai ntiff and othe rs similarly situated for whom the actions have been broughtwill, by reason of the segregation complained of, bedeprived of equa l protection of th e laws guaranteedby the 14th amendment.

Thus it can be seen that the School desegregationdecision was based solely upon the assumption thatto separate the races because of color , generates afeeling of inferio rity in the N eg ro children; that thisalleged feeling of inferiority affected the ability of

Negro children to learn; and because it affected the irability to learn, segregation was detrimenta l to N e-

gro children . Ther efore, segregation deprived Negro chi ldren of equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th amendment .

For what it called its modern authority, the Sup remeCourt cited a group of psycho logists. Severa l of thesehave been investigated by the Hous e Committee onUn -Ameri c n activities; and have been cited as beingmembers of many organizations declared by the De-



SEGREGATION AND COMMON SENS E 7

partment of J ustice to be Communistic or Communistdominated. For its chief authority, the Court said:

And see generally Myrdal, an American Dilemma1944.

This Myrdal is the same man that I have previouslycalled you r attention to who has declared that theConstitution of the United States was impracticaland unsuited to modern conditions and that its adop-tion was nearly a plot against the common people . Also, this is the same man who said that there is aconflict in these United States betwee n liberty andequality; and that in this conflict, equality is slowlywinning, and that when there is substa nt ia l discrim-ination present, liberty for the white person has tobe overruled by equality.

In this last statement, Myrdal was discussing racialsegregation, and social equal it y ~ e t w e e nNegroes and

whites. So, in substance, Myrdal has said that in orderfor the Negro to have social equality, lib erty for thewhite race must be destroyed. With its forced racialassociation, this is what school desegregation will do.This is what I have been t rying to tell you: that forcedrace mixing will destroy the liberty of the white ra ce

t h a t forced race mixing is slavery.But in spite of this, the Supreme Court used the

writings of Myrdal, mostly, for what the Court calledmodern authority for its authority in the SchoolDesegregation decision.

To think that the Supreme Court would even thin kof considering a man like Myrdal who has shown theutmost contempt-not only for the Constitution of theUnited States-but for the liberty of the white r ace,is preposterous-it just does not make sense.

Myrdal's thinking is most dangerous. Because wherethere is liberty, there can be no conflict between liberty




and equality. As I have pointed out in another chapter, there can only be equal rights, ·or equality, whereall concerned own, or have equal legitimate interest.No man has equal rights in a home that is owned entirely by another man . Likewise, by no stretch of theimagination can there ever e social equality betweenthe Neg ro and white race . Why? Because the whiterace owns everything all its racial characteristics-that makes the white race what it is. To force thewhite race to allow the Negro race to come into thewhite race and make itself at home mix and minglein all walks of l ife would be like forcing a personto permit another person to come into his own home,with equal rights, without any reservations. In bothcases, liberty would be destroyed-li-berty of the wholewhite race on the one hand; and individual personalliberty on the other hand. But in each case, the prin

ciple is the same.s we have already seen, the School Desegregationdecision was based on the theory that to segregate-children because of race, generates a feeling of inferiority in Negro children; and that this feeling ofinferiority affected the ability of Negro children tolearn. Therefore , the Court declared, segregation ofthe races in schools, deprived the Negro children the

equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14thamendment.The Court offered no proof to prove that the feel

ing of inferiority affected the ability of Negro childrento learn. This was merely the opinion of the Court,sustained, only, by a group of psychologists, such asMyrdal, whose opinions are worthless, except to thecause of Communism . So, the question arises : doesthe feeling of inferiority affect the ability of Negrochildren to learn; or is it detrimental to them in any




manner? Unless the feeling of inferiority is detrimen-tal to Negro children as alleged by the Supreme Court,the School Desegregation decision is baseless . So, letus look into this phase of the case that we may deter-mine the facts, whatever, they may be.

I t is a known fact that Communists are in ourschools, colleges , universities, theological seminaries,and even our churches. They are in these institutionsfor only one purpose: to deceive and destroy us. Todeceive us, they are teaching our young girls and boysunproven theories for facts, and things that are falsefor the truth. We go to school to learn, so when wegrow up, we are, mostly, what we have been taught.Therefore, deception in our institutions of learning, isone of the Communists' most powerful weapons.

In view o all of this, is it not more than reasonableto believe that the Communists would not pass up the

field of psychology for one of their master pieces ofdeception? No , in the field of psychology-the scienceof the mind-the Communists would never ignore.In this field , the Communists carry on their greatestwork of deception. It is in this field that the minds ofmen and women are warped; and it is in this field thatthe greatest de<:eption concerning race relations be-tween Negroes and whites has been carried on.

The very fact that several of the psychologistsnamed by the S 'upreme Court as modern authorityhave been investigated by the House Committee on Un-American activities and were cited as being membersof many organizations which have been declared bythe Department of Justice to be Communistic or Com-munist dominated, is proof that the Communists haveinfiltrated into the field of psychology. Also, the verynature of the reasoning by the Sup reme Court in theSchoo l Desegregation decision, points a suspecting



17-4 SEGREGATION AND COMMON SENSE

finger toward the Communists as being the originatorof such thinking. Why? Because the reasoning put

forth in that case is contrary to known facts.T he feeling of inferiority is a natural th ing a l -

most as natural as life itself. Why? Because, in allthis world, the re is no such thing as any thing beingsuperior, in all respects, to all other things of a similarkind. T his is true, regardless of whether it is a person,a racial group, or any of the many thousands of God sother creatures, or a man made article. f it was pos-sible to bring together the two persons , in this wholeworld, that were the exact opposite to each o t r -

one the most intelligent aud the most highly educated;the other the most ignorant and most unlearned-it would be found, that in some respects, the most in -telligent would be inferior to the most ignorant . Noone is so smart, that he cannot learn something f romthe most ignorant. The person who has failed to learnthis, has failed to learn a valuable lesson. Yes, thefeeling of inferiority is a natural thing.

Inferiority seeks compensation . This is true in a llnature, as well as everything else .

A heart that has a leaking valve, compensates forthe deficiency by enlarging; a blind person s sense oftouch and hearing become much more sensitive; the

loss of an arm, results in the other arm becomingstronger; and a deaf person s sense of observatio n iskeener . On and on, it goes in all nature whereverthere is a deficiency, there is a compensation. Like -wise, the same is true among people.

Whenever a ma n has a sense of feeling infer ior-right th en he seeks a remedy he looks around fo rways to overcome his inferiority. Because it is notthe desire of any man to be inferior to others; but tobe super ior. So, when a person sees and realizes that




he has a deficiency it becomes an asset to him insteadof a liability. I t becomes the incentive or driving forcethat spurs a person on to do all the things that he iscapable of doing. This is true in the entire field ofhuman endeavor regardless of the rea son or causefor the feeling of inferiority .

Thus only was it that Demosthenes the man withweak lungs and a stammering voice after great effortwas able to become the greatest orator of the ancientworld and one of the greatest of a ll times; that thedeaf Beethoven became the most famous of all musi-cians doing his best work after becoming totally deaf.Only the desire to become superio r in spite of defi-ciencies was this possible.

Many are the barefoot boys who we r e born inpoverty who have become famous in spite of theirinferior station in life. Abraham Lincoln was such

a boy. No person has ever had a more lowly beginningt h e n reached such heights as he- the Presidency ofthe United States .

No one could have felt more lowly than BenjaminFranklin as he trudged down the streets of Philadel -phia on that Sunday morning with a loaf of breadunder each arm while eating another; yet he becamerich and one of the most famous men of these United

States.Booker T. Washington the great Negro educatorwho was born a slave cou ld never have reached theheights he did if the feeling of a sense of inferiorityhad produced a detrimental effect upon him. No thefeeling of inferiority did not prevent Booker T. Wash-ington from getting an education; it was the forcethat dr ove him ever forward.

There is no doubt but that there are many thingsthat make Negroes--the Negro r ace as a whole-feel






because of the past re co rd of no major achievementsby the Negro race must also affect the ability of all

Negroes to learn in all fields of learning in all walksof life . Thus it would seem that if we must removeall factors that cause the Negro race to feel inferiorbefore Negroes are able to get an education Negroesas a whole are doomed to live in ignorance.

So it is not a qu estion whether or not Negroesfeel inferior they cannot feel otherwise but the ques -tion is: is the feeling of inferiority detrimental to Ne-groes? n other words would Negroes be able tolearn better or make more progress in all the variouswalks of life if this sense of inferiority could be erasedfrom their minds forever? Proven facts say no.

A sense of inferiority is the driving force that makesmen do seemingly the impossible; without it thewheels of progress would grind to a stop; withou t itno man ever accomplishes all that he is capable ofdoing; and without it no concern will ever producethe best article that it is capable of producing.

But the feeling of inferiority can never become anasset until it is realized that it exists. But once a personbecomes aware that there is something th at concernshimself that makes him feel inferior to others thenthat person begins to seek ways by which he will try

to convince the world that the bottom is not the placewhere he belongs . No man will long r emain on bottoma t least without a desperate try once he realizes

that others are on top of him unless he is actually in-ferior . Bu t by perseverance inferiors often surpasstheir superiors.

Nothing will make a boy feel more inferior thanbeing physically handicapped. Any boy that is a phys-ical weakling is at the mercy of aU the bulli es. To beable to retaliate against these bullies is the desire of all




physical weaklings. In one way or another, manytimes, they succeed.

Charles Atlas was such a boy. Being a runt and aweakling, he was pushed arou nd by all bullies. ButCharles was not satisfied to be pushed around for always. Being a weakling, he must become st ro ng. Thiswas a difficult task for a boy at sixtee n, and only weighing 97 pou nd s. But Atlas would not be dismayed . Het rained long and hard. His f riends laughed at him fo rhis efforts, but nothing stopped him, and at last, hebecame know n as the world's most perfectly developedman. t is reasonable to believe that Charles A tl aswould never have become such a man, if he had beenphysica lly norma l when he was a boy. The feeling ofinferiority was the making of Charles Atlas.

Isaac Newton was almost a failu re in school. But oneday something happened that cha nged this--changedNewton from a failure to a success . There was a bullyin the school that Newton was attending-a bully, bothphysically and in the class room. One day this bullypounded Newton with a punch that shocked Newtoninto his senses. Newton decided that in some way hewas going to show this bully that he was not the su-perior-at le ast not in all things. Physically, the re wasnothing that Newton could d o - i n this field, the bully

was superio r . But in the classroom, it was a differents tory- i t was he re that New ton proved tha t he wasnot inferior to anyone; and it was here that Newtonproved to the world that the feeling of inferiority isthe force that makes a person realize that if he is notto be an inferior, then he must pu t forth his everyeffort.

Here the feeling of inferiority was the spar k that

set to work one of the greatest minds of all times . Oncestarted, it never s t o p ~ e dT he results: I saac Newton




became one of the greatest mathematicians and philosophers that the world has ever produced. P roving

once again, that the feeling of inferiority is most oftenthe force behind the scene--the force that somehowpersuades men to do their utmost.

Sometimes, men who have made a success in acertai n business, become satisfie d with the business asit is. Most often in cases of this kind, there is notmuch competition; and the concern is ma king money.Where there is not much compet ition, there cannotbe much concern over having an inferior product. So,without strong competition, there is no incentive fora concern to make improvements; complacency be

comes the order of the day; and the n progress in thatconcern slows down. Th e Ford Motor Company is

a good example of such a concern.H enry Ford built the model T Automobile. This

was a practica l car, low in price, and serving the needsof the day. Being low in price, it was in reach of thepocket book of the commo n man. Th is made it in

great demand. F rom the sale of the model T Fordbecame rich and famous . But for many years, themodel T did not have much competition. So, in thefield of low priced cars, Ford had almost full sway.And during all the years of practically no competition,

Ford made little change, or improvement in the mode lT. Basically, the car remained the same . As far asFord was concerned, there was no need to make abet ter car . The model T was selling and making himmoney-this was enough fo r Ford.

But at last, other compa nies began to make cars inthe low price field that were in many respects superiorto the model T. This was lik e a punch on the nose;

and it woke Ford up to the realization that he was nolonger the cza r in the field of low priced automobi les.




This made Ford realize that if he was going to stayin the automobile business then he must make a better

car than the model T. Ford did something-he builta better car. But would he have built a better car ifothers had not built better cars first?

Yes it is possible that if Ford had not been madeto feel inferior in the automobile field-made to realize that others were making better cars----cars thatwere superior to the model T that the Ford car oftod ay would be nothing more than another improvedmodel T.

U this adds up to one thing: that whene ve r orwherever there is a sense of infe riority and is realizedin that place progress is made; but whenever orwherever there is littl e or no sense of inferiority inthat place there is little or no progress . Yes a senseof infe rior ity persuades men to do their utmost most

times when everything else fails.In all walks of life th e story is the same . Y o u -

no matter who you are; no matter what your professionis; no matter what is your stat ion in l i fe-you will tryto prove to the world if you have a feeling of inferiority-that you are not inferior to your fellow citizens. Because of this the world is better off. I t isthe spa rk that keeps in motion the wheels of progress.

Th e manufacturer produces a better produ ct becausehis competito r produces a better product; the farmergrows a better field of corn because his neighbor hasgrown better corn; the athlete plays a better gamebecause someone else has played a better game; andin the field of lea rning a s I have already pointed out

he grea test men of all ages have become greatbecause of a sense of inferiority. But let me emphasizeonce more that a feeling of inferiority must be rea-




lized before it can become an asset; but once it isrealized it is the spark that sets in motion the desireand ambition to overcome that deficiency-yes without it there would be no progress.

The Negro race can be no exception to this. Intheir native land Negroes for thousands of yearslived a simple lif e; their needs were few; they produced no great leaders; all living the same simple lifethere was nothing to make any feel inferior to any

others; being isolated from all other races it wasim-

possible for them to feel inferior to other races; therefore lacking this sense of inferiority the Negro racefor thousands of years made but little or no progress.Only in recent times have Negroes in their native landshowed signs of wanting to improve their condition.This can only be accounted for by Negroes beginningto realize how little the Nc;gro ra ce bas done com

pared with the accomplishments of other races thismust make Negroes feel inferior . But since these Negroes have begun to have a sense of inf eriority the yare slowly but surely beginning to take steps to convince the world that they are not inferior to otherraces.

Negroes here n the United States furnish us withmore than ample proof that the feeling of inferiorityis an asset to the Negro race and not a liability.

In this Nation there are two things that cannot beobliterated that will always stare all Negroes in theface either or both are compelled to make all Negroeshave a sense of inferiority. First the blank recor d ofachievements in their native land can do noth ing butmake Negroes have a feeling of inferiority . Secondthe mere fact that the white race was able to hold Negroes in this Nation in slavery forcing them to perform all kinds of services for the white r ace this




alone would be eno ugh to make the Negro ra ce havea feeling of inferiority. Because no man can feel equalphysically to any other man who can and does rub hisnose in the sand this will make any man feel little.Lik ewise it is impossible for the Negro ra ce to feelequal to the white race. Because figuratively speaking the white ra ce has rubbed the nose of the Negrorace in the sand not only in this Nation but throughout the world by forcing the Negro race to do themenial labor of the white race this can do nothing butmake the Negro race feel little.

As already stated when once realized the feelingof inferio rity in a p erson is the spark that sets inmotion the desire and ambition that make men seekcompensation for their deficiencies-making them tosearch for means by which this may be accomplishe d .

So whe n freed from slavery almost a hundred

years ago Negroes having a sense of inferiority andrealizing what it meant began to look around for aremedy they wanted to do something so that thefeeling of inferiority might e erased from the ir minds.To this end the Negroes of this Nation went to work

t h e y have done much. In no other place in theworld have Negroes done so much in such a shorttime. Here in these United States Negroes have

reached heights in many fields of learning and elsewhere unknown n any other place in the world.For this great progress of the Negro race there

must be a reason things just do not happen by mereaccident without a cause especially is this true of theNegro race when we must realize that the potentialabilities of the Negro race remained dormant forthousands of years. The most log ical reason for thisgreat achievement of the Negro race is the feeling ofinferiority within the Negro race. Because as we have




already seen this is the force that moves men to doseemingly the impossible the force that gets thingsdone when everything else fails.

There can be no doubt but that racial segregationhas played a major part in the great progress that theNegro race has made in this Nation. Being segregatedin most walks of life and not beil\g accepted in thehomes of the white race as social equals has no doubtmade Negroes feel more inferior than they wouldotherwise. We have proof that this has acted as anextra incentive in this Nation; and that it has been oneof the driving forces that has spurred the Negro raceon to greater achievements.

In all the countries of South America there is nora cia l segregation. H ere we find classes but they arenot based on race or color. They are based on economical factors. The rich r egardless of race or colo r

being in the highest class; the middle class being in themiddle bracket of the economical scale; and the lowestclass being in the lowest bracket of the economicalscale. And there is no prejudice against int er -racialmarriages thereby making it possible for Neg roe s tomarry within their class their choice within the whitera ce

All this adds up to this : Negroes in South America

are more satisfied with their station in life than theyare in these United States. This is so because herethey have already reached th e chief goal of the Negrorace--social equality with the white race that carriesthe privilege of marrying within the white race. Thismakes the Negroes of South America complacent be-

cause they have already reached their most cherishedgoal; so they do not have that desire and ambitionthat is so necessary if much progress is made; and wefind that in all the South American countries Negroes




are making little progress, aa compared to what theyare doing ~ the United Sta tu .

In speaking of the progress of Negroes in Brazil,Donald Pierson , on page 349 o f hia book, Negroesn Brazil, said thia:

I t is possible that the Brazilian blacks and mixedblood s, lack ing as they do in most cases the sense of

inferiority long characteristic of the Negro in theUnited States, particularly o f the mixed-blood, havebeen less activated by personal ambition. Feeling themselves less under the necessity of demonstrating to ahostile white world their individual talents and abili·ties, they have not had the same incentive for socialadvancement and, consequently, have not, perhaps, asa group, ris en in class as has the Negro in the UnitedStates.

Thus i t is: Wherever Negroes are not segregated

and accepted as soc ial equals, the achievementsof

N e-groes are l ess than in countries where segregationexists, such as the United States. This is a fact andnot a theory. Ther efo re, surely, the feeling o f inferiority is the for ce that is ever driving Negroes onto more and greater progress .

But Negroes here in the United States are not satisfie with the progress that they are making. This is

true because of one thing: Progress of the Negro racedoes not remove the ch ief cause for the feeling of infer iority within the N egr o race; and whenever thereis a feeling of inferiority in any man, or a group of

men, there is always a natural desire to have the causefor this remov ed. And as we have alread y seen, theN egro r ace i t s e l f i s the main cause for the feelingof inferiority withi n the Negro ra ce Th e Negro ra ce

has been the Do-nothing ra ce down through theages. The record of this is always staring all Negroes




in the face. So if the chief cause for the feeling ofinferiority within the Negro race is removed , the wholeNegro race must be oblite rated. This is the goal ofthe Negro ra ce; and that it may be accomplished, Negroes are exerting their every effort to force the whiterace to associate with them , knowing that this will inthe end get the job done. This is what is taking placein all co.untries where Negroes and whites associatetogether socially. ·

But in spite of all the vast amount of proof thatis at our command, that the feeling of inferiority isthe force behind the scene that puts th e zeal and ambit ion in men that causes them to do thei r utmost; andthe compelling proof that we have that amalgamationof the races, is the final goal of the Negro race, theSupreme Court , in its desegregation decisions, hassaid, in effect, that the white race must associate with

the Negro race; and, undoubtedly , knowing at thetime , that dose inter-racial association would in the endbring about racial ama lgamation. I t just does not makesense.

Based upon the fact that the feeling of inferiority isthe force that ·spurs men on to greater effort with theproblems of life than they wou ld otherwise, it must

e obvious to anyone who has given it serious thought,that racial segregation in schools and elsewhere, cannot have a detrimenta l effect upon Negroes. Therefore, the Schoo l D esegre gation decision of May 17 ,1954, being based, solely, upon the assumption thatracial segregation in schools, generates a feeling ofinferiority in Negro children; and a sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn, wemust co nclude that this decision is baseless--beingnot grounded upon the Constitution of this Nation,and being contrary to proven psychological facts.




CHAPTER VIII

T H E R E M E D Y AND W H AT W E CAN DO

The solution to the whole ra cial issue can e summedup in two words--racial freedom. The freedom ofrace the freedom that will guarantee to all races

that each individua l race shall have the right not tobe for ced to associate with any other race a t anytime in any place in schools or elsewhere.

Only upon this basis can the racial problems thatconfront us e solved. Because only with racial freedom is it possible for all the different races of mankind to be perpetuated ; and if man has any God givenrights then surely the right to perpetuate his ownrace is one of them. And the great majority of thewhite race would like to have a guarantee that a fewthousand years from now there will still be a whiter ace a white race that can look back throuj:th thecenturies as we can today and say with pride myrace the white race did this great achievement andit did that one. Some Negroes would like to have th is

same gua rantee . But without racial freedom this isnot possible ; and without racial freedom all that canbe will be a mongrel race without racial pride andno great achievements. Look the world over todayand we find this: That wherever the majority of thepopulation of any country is composed of mixed-bloodsof diverse races the people of that country have nor acial pride ; and in all such countries progress is slow

making such countries backward when compared withother countries where the majority of the populations




are of unmixed-bloods of diverse races . There is nota single except ion to this; and I challenge the worldto prove otherwise.

Yes give us racial freedom; th en all other racialproblems can be solved and solved easily and withouttrouble. For instance if we had racial freedom theSouth would not object to all qual ified Negroes voting.But self preservation is the first law of nature so withNegroes demanding that Southern whites be forced

to associate with them in schools and in other walksof life it is but natural that we use every legal meanspossible to pr event this.

Let the Negro - race recognize that the white raceis entitled to racial freedom; and then let this beguaranteed by the Constitution of the United Statesthen the two races can live together in peace underthe same government; and then both ra ces can work

together for the mutua .l benefit of •both race s i n allthings except purely social. But without ra cial f re e-dom there will never be peace betw een the two ra cesso long as there is a Negro and a white ra ce. This istrue because men usually do not give equa l rights toothers except whe re some kind of trickery has beenplayed to things that belong solely to themselves .And as I have already pointed out all the things the

racial characteristics tha t make the white race whatit is belo ng to the white race; and all the things theracial characteristics that make the Negro race whatit is belong to the Negro race. Therefore the forcedassociation of whites with Negroes in schools and otherplaces can do nothing but dest roy the liberty of thewhite race.

But Negro es and many whites deny this. Theycontend that in all matters that are purely social thatthis is an individual matter between individual members




of the two races that if a Negro and a white personwish to get married that is nobody s business, ex-cept those two. But this is one of the greatest decep-tions of all times. Why so many white people havefallen for it is a mystery. I t is like this:

When any man does anything that affects only him-self, then this is an individual matter; but whe n a mandoes something that affects both himself and others,then it becomes more than an individual matter i tbecomes a matter that concerns both the individualthat did the act, and all others that the act affects.This is why the marriage between a Negro and a whiteperson concerns more than just these two individua ls.

The white race is an individual race; and the Ne-gro race is anoth er individual race. So when twomembers of the white race marry each other, thisis purely an individual matter both from an individ-

ual personal standpoint, and, also, from an individua lra cia l standpoint. In a marriage like this where bothparties belong to the same race, it cannot in any wayhelp to bring about the destruction of that or any otherrace. Therefore, when two members of the same race,of any race, marry, then that is nothing but an in-dividual matter.

But when two persons marry that belong to dif-

ferent races, it becomes much more than an individualmatter i t is much more than an individual personalmatter; and it is much more than an individual racialmatter. B ec ause a mixed marriage, such as betweena Negro and a white person, not only concerns theparties to the marriage, but it concerns both the whiteand Negro races, including every member of eachra ce. This is true, because such mixed marriages, in

the end, will destroy both . races. This is what mostNegroes want; but most members of the white ra ce of




this Nation do not want the white race obliterated. So,every mixed marriage between a white person and aNegro, affects every member of the white race i t isone more step toward the mongrelization of the races.

Then to say that a mixed marriage ·between a whiteperson and a Negro, is just a personal matter betweenthe two part ies well i t just does not make sense.Because whatever you belong to, that gives you a legitimate interest in that thing; and where you have a legitimate interest, you have a legitimate right. Now ,every white person n this Nation is a member of thewhite race. This gives every white person in this N a-

tion a legitimate interest in the white race; and withthis legitimate interest, every member of the whiterace of this Nation has a legitimate right in the whiter ace a right to a voice in everything that affects therace as a whole . Every mixed marriage between a

white person and a Negro affects the white race as awhole enough such marriages will destroy it. So, inview of this, it is clear that every white person of thisNation has the legitimate right to say, whether or not,whites and Negroes in this Nation should be permittedto marry. Yes, marriages between whites and Negroesis much more than an individual personal matter. I tis a matter for the whole white race.

No , we do not have racial freedom in this Nation;and we cannot have it, so long as the Supreme Court sSchool and other desegregation decisions remain theso-called law of the Uand. This is true, because ourassociates and what we have been taught , especially,while we are young, determine, mostly, what we are.So, the destiny of all persons lies in the hands of tho·se

who mold their minds while they are young. This isno new theory; it is a fact that has been known all downthrough the ages.




That old maxim in Prov erbs 22 :6 Train up achild in the way he should go : and when he is old. hewill not depart from it, is well known to the forcesthat are demanding racial integration in the variouswalks of life in this Nation. These forces not onlyknow about this old proverb but they are making useof i t - no t to train a child n the way he should betrained-but in the way that will further the cause ofra cia l mongrelization. Far too many men and womenof the white race fail to realize the import ance of thisold maxim where it concer ns race relat ions. Th ey failto see that the dose association of young white andNegro children in schools and other places is justanother way of teaching young children that race isun-important-that race is just a fallacy.

In this Nation we think we hav e religious freedom.And we do except with Ath eists. All persons re-

gardless of race creed or color have the rightto worship God as their own conscience dictates; andthey also have the right to raise their children up ac-cording to th eir own fai th-th is right being made se-cure by no one being forced to send their children toa church of another faith .

But who would dare say that we had religious free-dom if all people of all religiou s fai ths were forced

to send their child ren to the same church of any oneof the many religious faiths for their religious in-structions . You know what would happen in a case likethat . When these child ren grew to be men and womenin most cases their religious faith would be that o

the church that they were forced to attend for theirreligious edu cation. f they were forced to attend aCatholic church most o them would be Catholics; butif it was one of the many Protestant fa iths or any oneof the many other rel igious faiths that exist in this




world no matter which it was the one that theywere forced to receive instruction from most likely

would be their religious faith through l ife most oftenwe are what we have been taught . So under circumstances like this there would be no religious freedom;because there can be no free choice under forced instructions.

Neither can there be racial freedom where whiteand Negro children are forced to associate togetherin schools and other places. The mere fact that whiteand Negro children are forced to associate togetheris a form of instruction a forced form of instruction that will cause most white children to lose theirracial pride. And once children lose their racial pridewhen they grow into manhood and womanhood theybecome fit subjects for inter-racial t:narriage. Not because of their free choice; but because of forced closeassociation with Negroes. Yes racial freedom is animpossibility where there is forced association.

But the Supreme Court has said in effect in theSchool and other desegregation decisions that thewhite race must associate with the Negro race sowhat can we do about it? There is but one answer tothat question: Let us work with all our might to getthose decisions reversed. We a re in the right; we have

the evidence to get those decisions reversed; and theywill be reversed if we will only put ou r every effort tothe task that confronts us. Let us take heart in whatthe Negro has done. To say that there is nothingthat can be done just because the Supreme Court hasspoken is to acknowledge defeat. This the Negronever did in all the days that the Supreme Court heldthat segregation was constitutional.

In 1896 the Supreme Court held that separate butequal schools were constitut ional. The re-action of




Negroes to this decision was not to say that the Su-

preme Court has spoken and there is nothing further

we Negroes can do about that decision . No insteadof saying that nothing could be done they went towork; they did something; and after a lapse of 8

years that decision was reversed. How d id they doit? The answer to this question is simple: With thehelp of the Communists they molded the minds of theAmerican people to serve their purpose the Communists be ing the brains of the whole scheme workingbehind the sce ne. By sneaking into our higher institutions of learning with their racial propaganda theCommunists have been able to serve both the Negroand their own cause at the same time. This they havedone well. The y have worked long and hard over along per iod of years; by their racial propaganda theyhave misled a large segment of the American people;they are well entrenched; and the work necessary toundo what has been done will be long and hard. Butwe are not helpless; we are well armed well armedwith proof convincing proof that disproves everytheory that h as been advanced i n the support of racialdesegregation; and that in the end will restore ra cialfreedom in these United States.

In the name of equality racial freedom has been

destroyed . Now; in the nameof

libertywe

must restore rac ial freedom. We have the weapons to do thejob; if only we have brains enough to use them. Sohow best to use the weapons that are at our commandis ou r major problem. In other words how can webest get our message to the American people; and wemust get it to all the people of this N ation . Becausewe are too few in nu mbers here in the South to get

the job done by ourse lves. So we must have meansto get our message to all parts of the Nation other-




wise failure stares us in the face. So, it boils down tothis: In some way, or some how, we must get the

message of our crusade to the people of the North tothe people of the East and the people of the We s tif we can do this, we win, otherwise, we lose. It is asaimple as that. The plain fact is that we must havehelp outside the South.

But under present conditions, we can get no helpfrom other sections of the Nation. Outside the South,all organized forces are against us: The press andother means of communications are against us; andboth the Democratic and Republican Parties areagainst us- in plain words, the people in other sec-

tions of the Nation who believe as we do have no wayof letting it be known to the Nation . Why don't wemake a way? Yes, we can make a way.

Men, as a rule, discard things when they become

useless to them. .Many times, we all do not wish topart with things that have served us well; but attimes in our lives, this becomes necessary, if we are tomove forward-the old being discarded for the new,if conditions make it necessary.

A political party is an organization. As an organiza-tion, a political party is useful, or is of service to thepeople who support it, only, if the fundamental prin-

ciples of that party are in agreement with the prin-ciples of the people who support that party.So, when any people support a political party whose

fundamental principles agree with theirs, then thatparty becomes an instrument of usefulness to them

i t becomes the vehicle which carries to all partsof the Nation the message that tells what they believein; and it tells it to all the Nation, and if need be, theworld, why they believe in such principles.

But if a people supports a political party whose




fundamental principles are d ifferent from theirs, thenthat party is of no service to those people-in fact, i t

becomes a "stumbling block" in their " pathwa y" - the"pathway" that would lead others to better understand their problems. This is true, because no p erson,or any political party will go so far as to do that whichwill be harmful to the cause which they believe in.

Today, the fundamental principles of the NationalDemocratic Party are not in agreement with those ofthe Southern peop le Th is alone, m akes it impossiblefor the N a iona Democ ratic Party to be of any usefulse rvice to the South; but it is not satisfied to just donoth ing for the South- i t is doing the South muchharm i t has and is, right now, working for the thingsthat will destroy the freedom of the South-its racialfreedom. Yes, the party that the South calls its ownhas become usele ss in the South's struggle to preserveits way of life. Instead of being the "vehicle" to carrythe message of the story of the pr inciples for whichthe South stands, and why the South believes in thoseprin ciples, the party of our fathers ridi cules the Southbefore the Nation and the world .

No political pa r ty is wort hy of the support of anypeople, if that party will not support the principles ofthe p eople who support that party. And we see and

knowthat

theNat

ional D emocraticParty

is not proclaiming to the Nation and the world that our Southern way of life should be preser ved. But this is whatthe party of our fathers should be doing , if it is to beworthy of our support .

So, as things now stand, the Sou th has no organizedforce in the North the East, or the West to fight itsbattles--to tell the whole Nation why racial segrega

tion is not discrimination against the Negro; to tellthe whole Nation why r acia l segregation does not




violate the Gospel of love and human brotherhood ;and to tell the whole Nation, that to force the whiterace to let Negroes come into the white race, makethemselves at home, is no different in principle thanforcing a man to let some other man come into hisown home, and make himself at home. In the firstcase , the white race would be destroyed; in the secondcase, the man's home would be broken up and de-stroyed; and in both cases, liberty would be destroyed

l iber ty of the white race on one hand, and libertyof the man on the other.So, it is: the South is not represented in the Nation,

outside the South. Then, is it any wonder that we arelosing our freedom? What else can we expect, notbeing represented throughout the Nation?

But you may say that the South is represented inCongress by its Senators and representatives just like

any other part of the Nation , so what are you talkingabout? Yes, this is true; but the fact remains, thatunless the party that you belong to agrees with youon fundamental issues, you will not be representedthroughout the Nation, as you would be if your partywas in agreement with you. I t is like this: In the daysgone by, most Democrats believed in a low tariff; andmost Republi cans believed in a high tariff. So in thosedays, in all parts of the Nation , the need for a lowtariff was proclaimed by most Democrats; and, like-wise, the need for a high tariff was proclaimed by mostRepublicans; and because of this, all sections of theNation were well informed on the tariff issue inthose days, the tariff issue was a fundamental i ssue-it concerned the whole Nation. Likewise, today, theracial issue is a fundamental issue i t concerns thewhole Nation. But outside the South, both the Demo-crats and the Republicans are straining their every




effort for racial integration. This leaves the Southwith no organized force-in the North in the Eastor the West- to carry the ball for ra cial segregation. How can we be so dumb? Because, so long, aswe con tinue to support the National Demo crat ic Party,just so long, we will be without an organized forceto carry our fight into all corners of the Nation for racial segregation. This we must have-we must havehelp outside the South-otherwise the fight is over.

The cho ice is ours. What shall we do? There is butone logical thing to do: reorganize our forces--reorganize our forces on grounds, so that the people n

other parts of the Nation, who believe as we do , canjoin us. f we can do this, then we will have the meansto car ry our message to all parts of the Nation. Butif we are to do this, a new political party must be born

a National Par ty -a party that those people in

other parts of the Nation, who believe as we in theSouth do, can join. Yes, there would e people in theNorth, East and West ·that would join us if they hadsomething to join. But as things are now , they havenothing to join that can be of any help to the South.Who is to blame for this? We are.

Although the numbers of a new political party--outside the s·outh-might be small, it would furnish anucleus from which to grow-a central point fromwhich the message of the South cou ld be distributedto all parts of the Nation-this is what we must have.

But we are told that if we leave the DemocraticParty, then we will lose our sen iority rights in Congress; that at the present time , men from the Southhold important committee chairmanships in both theSenate and House of Representatives; and that wemust hold on to these positions. But may I ask, whathave we gained by holding on to our seniority rights?




The answer to this question can be but one thing: Wehave lost our freedom. Then, may I ask, having lostour freedom, while holding on to our seniority rights,how can we hope to win our freedom back by travel-ling down the same road? This looks like an im-

possibility . So, it just does not make sense, if we keeptravelling down the same old road.

But again, we are told that we cannot do anythingby forming a third party-that a third party has nevergot any where . But may I say, that all who believethis, that they should take a refresher course in UnitedStates history. Because there was one third partythat changed the whole course of events in this N a -tion; and with the right kind of backing, it is possiblethat another third party can, once again, change thecourse of events in this Nation . At least, it is wortha try; we have nothing to lose.

For many years, this Nation was in turmoil, beforethe Civil War, over the question, as to whether ornot slavery should be extended into new territory. TheSouth wanted the right to take their slaves into anynew territory that was opened up for settlement; andthe North opposed any extension of slavery into anynew territory. From 1820 until the Civil War, severalcompromises were made on this question. The com-

promise of 1820 admitted Missouri as a state intothe Union as a slave state, but excluded slavery for-ever in the rest of the territory included in the Louisi-ana Purchase, north of the southern boundary of Mis-souri. The Mexican War added new territory to theNation. This brought on the compromise of 1850over the extension of slavery into this new ter ritory,resulting in admitting California into the Union asa free state; and leaving the question of slavery in




the rest of the Mexican Cession to the local inhabitantsto decide.

The Ordinance of 1787 excluded forever slaveryin the Old Northwest ter rit ory north of the OhioRiver. But th e Kansas.Nebraska Bill another compromise permitted the inhabitants of the territories ofKansas and N eb raska to decide for themselves whether or not their state was to be slave or free. Thisbill was passed in March 1854 and as all th e othercompromises it made it possible for slavery to be ex-tended into new territory. So there seemed to be noend as to where the exte nsion of slave ry would cometo a halt. But in the North there were men who weredetermined th at slavery should not be permitted tobe extended into any more territory. With this determination these men formed a new par ty-a thirdpar ty- the Republican Party.

This new pa r t y a third party-went pla ces because it stood for a principle-a principle that wasright. Because slavery was wrong then; it has alwaysbeen wrong; and it is wrong today.

Slavery is as w r ~ n today as it was in 1854 whenthis new third pa r t y - the Republican Part y was born.But something has happened to change the RepublicanParty s attitude toward slavery since 1854. T hen it

was the Negroes who we re slaves--they were theslaves of white men-forced to do services for whitemen. The Republican Party was opposed to this-opposed to slavery.

But how things have changed. T he Negroes werefreed-they are now free. But now the men andwomen of the white race of this Nation have beenmade slaves-slaves for Negroes. Because as I have

pointed out the white race is being forced to associatewith Negroes in schools a nd other places; and that




this close assoc iation of the races will in the end re-sult in inter-racial marriages, resulting in the amalgamation of the races. This is what the Negroes want

t h i s is a forced service for Negroes by the whiterace. Call it what you may, a forced service is slavery.And the National Republican Party as well as theNational Democrat Party, is working for the enslavement, not only of the people of the South, but all theNation. Surely, they know not what they are doing

t h e y have been blinded by propaganda for equalrights, failing to realize that there can be no equalrights to anything , any where, or at any time-wherethere is not an equal legitimate interest-without destroying the rights of those to whom the legitimateinterest belongs. And all the legitimate interest-theracial characteristics of the white race-belong to noone, except the white race. Therefore, within the

white race, the Negro can have no legitimate rights .But Negroes, themselves, acknowledge that close s-sociation of the races will bring about inter-racialmarriages . So, forced association of whites withNegroes can do nothing but destroy the liberty of thewhite race.

Yes, things have changed since the 1850 s. Thenthe North was organizing a new political par ty-athird par ty- to stop the extension of slavery into newterritory. The North was right then, but the Northis wrong now; the South was wrong then; but now,it is the South that is right.

Now, the South is faced with a problem of stoppingthe enslavement of the white race of this Nation. Thesurvival of the white race of this Nation, and probablyof the world, depends on what is done now. In allhistory, no greater principles have ever been involvedin any crusade than those now involved in the crusade




in behalf of racial freedom. So, if the battle cry:Negro slavery shall not be extended into any morenew territory was sufficient for a third party victoryin the 1850's; then surely, the battle cry for freedom- rac ia l freedom for the white ra ce should be morethan sufficient to carry a third party to victory in the1960's.

Yes, the going would be slow. We could not expectvictory over-night. But if you are going somewhere,

you must travel toward your goal, otherwise, youwill never get there. The National Republican and theNational Democratic parties are not going our w a ythey are headed in the opposite direction from thegoal that we are seeking. So if we are ever to expectto reach that goal-racial freedom-we must lookfor another vehicle n which to make our journey.At the present time, there is no vehicle available

for the journey. So, we must make o n e - a thirdpolitical party.To be effective, a third party must be national in

scope-it must include the whole Nation. o thisend, I call on the people of the whole Nation-thepeople of the North, the people of the South, thepeople of the East, and the people of the West - toform a new political par ty-a party that will standfor ra cia l freedom. By doing this, the roots ofracial freedom will take roots and grow throughoutth is Nation, re sulting, once again, in racial freedomfor the white race , and all other races.

Self preservation is the first law of nature . So ifwe, the people of the South do not think that thereare people in the North, in the East, and n the West,who will not join the South in its fight for racial freedom, then, we are only fooling ourselves. All that isneeded is th e means to carry the message of ra cia l




freedom to them. A National political party thoughit might be small to begin w it h i s the only vehiclethat wlil carry that message to the whole UnitedStates. And once the message is understood by othersoutside the South, the numbers for racial freedomwill grow. So, a party founded upon racial freedom,will not e a splinter party that will wither away anddie after a short duration . A party founded upon aworthwhile principle, lives on the right to racia l

freedomis

a worthwhile principle.




CHAPTEll IX

CONCLUSIONS

All through this book, I have tried to emphasizethese things: That no person regardless of who heis rich or poor, high or low; regardless of race, creedor co lor t h a t person shoul d have no rights wherehe does not have a legitimate interest; that no personis entitled to equal rights, except in those things wherehe has an equal legitimate interest; and that any per-son, who is given any rights, to any thing, where hedoes not have a legitimate intere st, that person isnot given any rights, because no person can e given

any rights whe re he does not have a legitimate interest.Where a person does not have a legit imate interest,only a special privilege can be given. And a specia lprivilege is not a r ight i t is a favor.

Upon the following principle hinges the right toliberty of all men; and without it being strictly ad-hered to, no man s lib erty is secure: Give all menrights in or to all things, both tangible and intangible

where they have a legitimate interest, all accordingto their legitimate interest; then deny all men anyrights, in anything, whe re they do not have a legiti-mate interest, then all men will have the right to freelyexercise all their legitimate rights this is liberty.

Upon this principle, the right to racial segregationis based; and upon this principle, we, the people ofthe white race, have the legitimate right to demandracial segregation.

As I have stated severa l times, all the things the




racial characteristics--that make the white race whatit is are God given, be cause the people of the whiterace are born with them. Be ing born with these racia ltraits, gives the white race ~ the legitimate interestand all the legitimate rights, n all things, where it concerns racial matters of the white race .

So, it should be conceded as a National Policy-that in all things where it would affect the racial affairsof the white race, there Negroes have no business .

Because,as

we have seen, Negroes have no legitimateinterest in the things that affect the racial affairs ofthe white race; and where there is not a legitimate inte rest, there should be no rights.

So, when whites are forced to associate with Negroes in schools and other places, that is not givingNegroes equa l rights; that is giving Negroes a specialprivilege a special privilege at the expense of the

lrberty of the white ra ce . Give the white race all itsrightful rights concer ning ra cial matters within its ownra ce then the white ra ce wi ll have racial freedom; andrac ial freedom carries with it the right of racial segregation.

f Negroes would only real ize and concede theright of racial freedom to the white race, then bothraces could live in peace, and under the same governme nt; and then both r aces could work in harmony forthe common good of both races. But without racialfreedom, there may be forced racia l mixing; but therecan be no racial peace under these conditions.

But the forces that are clamoring for racial integration are sayi ng: that more than two thirds of theworld s population belongs to colored races; and thatin our dealings with these colored people, racial segre ·gation is hurting our prestige with them; that our in -




fluence with them ia not what it would be-only, ifwe had complete racial integration.

But this is not true . Racial segregation is not hurt·ing the prestige of this Nation. But what is hurtingthe pre stige of the United States with the colored peo-pl e of the rest of the world is this: Because of falsepropaganda by the for ces that would destroy the gov-ernment of this Nation and the world, the coloredpeople of the world have come to have a misconceptionof what racial segregation really means. They havebeen made to believe that ra cia l segregation is racialdiscrimination; and that wherever racial segregationexists, there colored people do not have equal rightswith white people. So now, let us tell these peoplethe truth.

Let this Nation proclaim to the wot;ld the truthabout racial segregation: Let this Nat ion tell the

world, that r acial segregation means racial freedom- t h e freedom that guarantees to all races the right,of each and every race, to develop its talents andabilities, within its own race; and the rig ht of eachrace to perpetuate its own race, with out molestationfrom any other race. Then let the world know that theforcing of the white race to mix and mingle with col-ored people, does not give equal rights to colored

people; but instead , it gives them a spe cial privilege;and special privileges are not permitted in the UnitedStates, because this Nation was founded upon theprinciple of '.'equal rights for all, special privileges fornon e - e qual rights for both white and colored races.

Tell these things to a freedom loving world; liveup to them, then the world will recognize that in fact,this Nati on is the Land of the Free and the Homeof the Brave . This would put the world on noticethat the people of the United States were Brave




enough to stand up for their rights; and then-andthen only-will the pr estige of this Nation rise; and

when we do this nations like Russia will respect theUnited States but not before No ra cia l segregationwill do no harm to the prestige of this Nation- i f theworld knows the truth.

Neither Jefferson or Lincoln believed in slavery;but both believed that once the Negroes were freethat it was not possible for whites and Negroes to livein the same count ry under the same government; andboth these great Americans believed that the best thingto do with the Negroes-once they were free-was tocolonize them in another cou ntry. But this was notdone; we still have the Negroes with us; and in someway whites and Negroes must live in the same coun -try and under the same government. But the twora ces can neve r live in peace together in these United

States-without racial freedom-the freedom thatwill guarantee that the two races will not be forcedto mix and mingle in any of the various walks of life .So Negroes and whites who are working for r acialintegration must in some way e made to understandthat racial freedom is the foundation-and the onlyfoundation-upon which racial peace can e built inthis Nation; and that the attempt to build racial peace

on any other foundation will ultimately fail.Racial integration is contrary to the laws of nature.In all nature of all the many and various kinds ofbirds each kind separates itself from all other kinds;and in the animal kingdom each of the many speciesseeks its own kind. This we call instinct; and this -

stinct of birds and animals to separate themselvesfrom others of the bird or animal kingdom as thecase may be must e God given; and this God giveninstinct is proof that God is a segregationist-it is




proof that it is the will of God that all creatures created by God should remain as He created them; other

wise, birds and animals would not have this naturalwisdom-the wisdom which is so necessary-if thevarious kinds of birds and animals are to be perpetuated upon this earth.

But in man, there is a difference that birds and animals do not have. Man not only has the power ofinstinct; but man has the power of reasoning. Andbecause of this , God did not rely, alone, upon the instinct of man to perpetuate the different races of mankind. But instead-God by H is word and actions-proclaimed to the world that He demandedthe racial integrity of all races. This God did by demanding racial purity from the Heb rew people andby His actions, by separating all races by naturalbarriers. And by demanding racial purity from the

H ebrew people , God let the world know that He required racial intej: rity from all races ·. This is true,because the Ten Commandments and all othe r commandments of God in the Old Testament, were at firstaddressed, only, to the Hebrew people. Thereforeif the Ten Commandments and other commandmentsof the Old Testament apply to all people, then thecommandment that was addressed to the Hebrew people for racial purity, likewise, applies to all peopleotherwise, the whole Bible is the greatest hoax everperpetrated upon all mankind . But the Bible is not ahoax, so we must concede that God's command to theHebrew people for racial integrity applies to allpeople.

The right to racial segregation is based upon theRIGHTS OF MAN. And the RIGHTS OF MANmust be grounded in this principle: That no manshould have any rights where be does not have a legiti-




mate inte rest; and based upon this principle no manor any group of men will have any rights to things

that belong only to an individual an individual per-son or an individual group of persons. When thisprinciple is finally recognized and some day it willbe then the Negro race will not be permitted to forcethe white race to associate with the Negro race be-cause the white r ace is an individua l a n individualrace; and as an ind ividual race the white race is en-titled to all rights that all other individuals have; andwhen this is done the white race will have racial free-dom .

Racial segregation is right because only withsegregation can all the races be kept relatively pure;and without segregation sooner or later all races willbe amalgamated into one mongrel race. And as Ihave already proven by facts that cannot be dis-puted that all mongre l races that have been madeby mixing diverse races are inferior races as com -pared to the races that were mixed to produce themongrel races.

Equal rights do not mean that all persons or allraces have the right to exercise all their rights at anyplace o r i n some cases in the association withjust anybody. Because in this Nation in many cases

a person hast ~

freedom of choice with whom hewill enjoy his rights. For instance all men havethe right to own a home and raise a family; but noman has the right to go out and force any woman thathe may choose to come into his home and e his mate.Because i this was permitted the freedom of choiceof a life partner of all women would be destroyed .Likewise all Negroes of this Nation have the rightto as good schools for the ir children as white peopledo for theirs. But to force white children to go to




school with Negro children will destroy the freedomof choice with whom white children associate with of

every white child in these United States . Such conditions as these are un-thinkable; but this is what isbeing for ced upon the white people of this Nationtoday. Because white people are being forced to as-

sociate with Negroes regardless of their choice.In this Nation, every man is free to own a home.

But unfortunately, some men own much better and finerlooking homes than others. And no doubt in somecases at l eas t a man s prestige would be raised inthe eyes of many people and he would feel more im-

portant himself, only, if he could move out of hishumble home and into the more finer home of hisneighbor, and make his home there with equal righ ts.But in these United States at least so f a r n o matterhow inferior it may make a man feel to live in his lowlyhome, no man can move out of his home into thebetter home of his neighbor . Yet, upo n this same principle, th e Supreme Court desegregated the schools ofthis Nation--desegregated the schools because--saidthe Court i t made Negro children feel inferior togo to their own schools. Therefore, if the SupremeCourt can force white people to let Negroes comeinto white schools, because the Court thinks that it

makes Negrochi

ldren feel inferior to go to their ownschools, then the Supreme Court can force all menwith better homes to let all men with lowly homescome into their homes, because there can be no doubtbut that the man in the humble home must feel inferiorto the millionaire at least in some respects. So--callit what you may the leveling process that is beingused to force Negroes and whites to associate to

gether in schools and other places, is nothing but pureand simple Socialism. Because if we are to com-




pletely eradicate the feeling of inferiority in this Na-tion then there can be no classes : There can be no rich

or poor; there can be no blacks and whites--all mustlook alike feel alike be alike and act alike otherwisesomeone will still feel inferior. And the SupremeCourt on May 17th 1954 by its School Desegregation Decision--act in motion the machinery that willin the end bring about a classless society in theseUnited States. That decision was the first a t tempt-by court order to eliminate the feeling of inferiority

in this Nation; and to think it was done by forcingwhite people to associate with Negroes. So if whitepeople can be made to associate with Negroes inschools for the purpose of eliminating the feeling ofinferior ity in Negro children then there is nothing tokeep the Court from saying that white people musttake Negroes into their homes for the same purpose.And this can end in nothing but a classless society-the goal of the Communists. All this is Communismin action .

And Communism is in action in these United Statesbecause the Communists have been able to infiltrateour every walk of l i fe our schools our churches ourmany various organizations and all other places wherehuman beings gathe r. And the Communists have beenable to infiltrate our every walk of life with theiratheistic doctrine because the belief in a living Godwas first undermined by the teaching of the un-Godlytheory of evolution in our institutions of learning including the theolog ical institutions of this Nation. Andall this has been made possible by the simple fact thatall those who have been sponsoring Communism evolution and all other doctrines of atheism have been

able without any restraint to teach them in all ourinstitutions of learning; while at the same time the




teaching of the story of creation as told in the Biblecannot be taught in the public schools of this N a

tion . To teach the B ible, is to teach religion; and religion can not be taught in the public schools of theUn ited States, so say our courts, ·because this wouldbe un-constitutional. But what is rel igion? The answerto this question should not be too difficu l t. Because inspite of the great number of what we call religiousfaiths, it boils down to this:

Whatever a man believes, or does not believe-

when it concerns God and His works that is thatman s religion. So, the man, who believes that God isthe Creator of the universe and all the things that arein it, together with all His other works, that is thatman s relig ion . While on the other hand, the atheist,who does not believe that there is a living God; butwho believes that the universe and all things that arein it came about in some myster ious way; and whobelieves that man and all living things evolved bychance from a single cell from the slime of the ocean

a l l this must be the religion of the atheist, becausethese are the things that the atheist does not be l ieveabout God. And if the things that one man believesabout God and His works are that man s religion, thenthe things that another man does not believe aboutGod and His works, must be that man s religion itcannot be anything else.

Therefo re if it is un-constitutional to teach in thepublic schools of this Nation the religion of thosewho believe in a living God, then it should be un-constitutional to teach in the public schools--the religionof those who do not believe in a living God. But suchis not now the case. Because the atheist is free to

teach his religion in the public schools of this Nation;but those who believe in a living God cannot teach




their religion in the public schoo ls in these UnitedStates. The atheist is able to teach in publi c schools

t h e story of creation by evolution; but those whobelieve in a living God cannot teac h i n public schools

t h e story of creation by God as told in the Bible.So in view of these facts there is no wonder that somany preachers are preaching Cr eation by evol utioninstead of Creation by God. And there is no wonderthat so m any of our better educated people of thisNation are clamoring for the end of racial segregation: Th e atheist is permitted to teach without restraint creation by evolution in the publi c schools;while creation by Di vine Power is not permitted tobe taught in the public schools of this Nation; andthe effect of this has been to cause many persons tolose their racial pride. And this in turn has madeit possible for the Communists to infiltrate our institu

tions o learning including our theological insti tu·tions with their ra cial equalita ri an one-race oneworld classless society philosophy . Because you cannot get away from the fact that we are mostly whatwe have been taught. And here in the United Stateswe have been teaching one side only of the story o

creation in our public schools that is creation byevolution. And no man is capab le o rendering an im-

partial verdict unless he is as well informed on oneside as he is the other . So in view of these fa cts there can be no doubt but that the teaching of thetheory of evolution in our schools has played a majorrole in causing the racial un; rest that exists in thisNation today.

I have not wr itten this book in an atmosphere o

hate because I am no Negro hater. I am no betterthan any other man regardless of race creed orcolor who tries to be a man. But I belong to one race




and th e Negro belongs to another; and in my way ofthinking, each race should have the right to live withinits own ra ce without interf erence-when it might affectthe right of the other race to perpetuate its own r a cefrom any other race. And the association of whitesand Negroes toget her, will in the end mean the endof both ra ces.

And the believing in racial segregation, does notnecessarily make any man a Negro hater. I have neverheard Abraham Lincoln called a Negro hater, yetLin col n's own words prove that he believed in racialsegregation . On num erous occasions, Lincoln madestatements that left no doubt of this. In a speech atSpringfie ld, Illinois, on June 26, 1857, Lincoln saidthis:

There is a natu ral disgust in the minds of nearly allwhite people at the idea of indiscriminate amalgama

tion of the white race and the black race

. • .A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation; hut as immediate separationis impossible the next best thing is to keep them apartwhere they are not already together.

I f whites and black people never get together inKansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas. This is

one self-evident truth.

A few colored persons may get into the free statesin any event; but their number is too insig nifican t toamount to much in the way of mixing blood . . .

Such separation, if it is ever to be effected at all,must be effected by colonization • • The enterpriseis a difficult one, but 'where there is a will there is away' and what colonization needs most is a hearty

llI • • •

Then in a debate with Stephen Douglas, at Ottawa,Illinois, on August 21, 1859, Lincoln. declared:




I have no purpose to introduce politica l and socialequality between the white and black races. There is

a physical difference between the two, which, in myjudgment, will forever forbid their living togetherupon the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch asit becomes a ne cessity that there must be a difference,I am in favor of the race to which I belong having thesuperior position.

And then when Lincoln signed the Emancipatio nP roclamatio n he proclaimed to the Nation and theworld what he thought about ra cial segregation andwhat he thought should be done about it in thesewords:

My Emancipation Proclamation was linked withthis plan. There is no room for two distinct races ofwhite men in America, much less for two distinct racesof whites and blacks .

I can conceive of no greater calamity than theassimilation of the Negro into our social and politicallife as our equal . . •

' 'Within twenty years we can peacefully colonizethe Negro and give him our language, literature, re-ligion, and system of government under conditions inwhich he can rise to the full measure of manhood.

This he can neve r do here. We can never attain

the ideal unionour

fathers dreamed, with millionsof

an alie n inferior race among us, whose assimilation isneither possible nor desirable.

Thus spoke the great Emancipator-not in h t -

but because he believed that the only way to preventthe Negro and white races from being amalgamatedinto a mongrel race was to keep them separated. ThisLin coln proclaimed to the world, because he believed

that racial integrity was best for the Negro race; thatracial int egrity was best for the white race; that racial




integrity was best for the welfare of all these UnitedStates; and that racial integr ity was best for all man-

kind .Ther efore, if racial integrity was good for the wel -

fare of this Nation a hundred years ago, then thereis no good reason why racial int egrity is not for thebest interest of th ese United States today. And if theseparation of the races a hundred years ago was thebest means by which to prevent the mixing of the bloodof whites and blacks, then there is every reaso n to be-lieve that separation of the races today is the bestmeans by which to maintain the integrity of the races.And on the othe r hand- the best means by which theraces may be mongrelized-is to force them to asso-ciate together in schools and other places. Nothingcan be plainer than this . So, it boils down to the factthat if we are to have racial integrity, we must haveracial separation.

And if we are to believe the Word of God, we mustconcede that the separation of the ra ces is in accordwith the will of God, because H e has commanded allliving creatures to bring forth after its kind . (Gen.1 :24) So, if we leave out all other considerations,this one command is more than enough to prove thatit was God's plan- in the beginning-for all races

to be segregated during the duration of time. Becausenothing can br ing forth after its kind if it is mixedwith something else.

Neither have I written this book-believing thatmy race, the white ra ce is the superior ra.ce-in allr espects-to all other races. This I believe, becauseI do not believe that th ere is anything-within itsfield-that is superior, or the inferior-in all respects

t o all other similar things . So, it may be that oneman is superior to all other men in some respects; but




uo man is superior to all men in all respects, regardlessof what race he belongs to. And just as no man is SU•

perior to all other men in all respects, no race ofmankind is superior to all other races in all respects.

But just as all men have special talents, so do eachof the various races; and each race can best developits own talents within its own race; and when it is notmixed with a diverse race. This I have shown to e afact by producing evidence that proves that all

mongrel races that were produced by the mixing ofdiverse races are inferior races-as compared with theraces that were crossed to produce the mongrel races.

But the right to racial segregation by the white raceis not a question, as to whether or not the white raceis superior to the Negro race; but on the other hand,it is a question of Rights -the rights of man-therights of the white race-without being molested by

the Negro race- to perpetuate its own race. Andracial segregation is justified because it conforms withthe laws of God; and race-mixing is wrong, becauseit violates the commands of God for racial purity.This it does by making it impossible for each race to

bring forth after its kind, as commanded by Godof all living creatures.

Therefore, it must be mo re than obvious that racialfreedom-the freedom that would give, each andevery race, the right to perpetuate its own race, with ·out interference from any other race-is a God givenright. But the Supreme Court -by forcing whites andblacks to associate together in schools and other places

h a s denied the white people of these United Statesthis right. But this right must be restored; it must bedone by the Supreme Court reversing its decision, declaring racial segregation un-constitutional. And to




you i f there are any--who think that this cannot bedone remember this:

In 1896 the Sup reme Court declared that segregatedschools were constitutio nal . Then for fifty eight yearswe had segregated schools; and we would have segregated schools today only if all Negroes after thisdecision was made had said: The Supreme Court hasspoken; 110 there is nothing that we can do. But aUNegroes did not say th is. They believed that some

thing could be done; and after working for fifty eightyears that decision was reversed they did something.And th is the Negroea with the help of the Communista were able to do by telling half truths concerning aU phases of race mixing. By doing this theyhave brainwashed the American people. And this theyhave been able to do by molding the minds of theyoung of this Nation to suit their purpose; and to ac-

complish this they have made use of all our institutions of learning of which I have already explained.So--now we the people who believe in the integrity

of the races must undo all this. We must by tellingthe whole story and the whole truth--concerning allphases of race mixing--convince the whole world thatrace mixing is wrong; that race-mixing is contrary tothe laws of nature and the laws of God; that forced

race-mixing denies each race its God given right toperpetuate its own ra ce; that the results obtained inexperimental work done in crossbreeding of both plantsand animals prove beyond a doubt that the un-controlled mixing of diverse races of mankind can resultin nothing but inferior races; and that both past andpresent historical facts prove that down through theagea that the mixing of diverse races--have resultedin producing inferior races as compared to the un-mixed races that were mixed to produce the mongrel




ra ces. The reason for all this I have already ex-plained in the chapter: THE RISE AND FALL OFNATIONS and needs no further explanation.

But with all this vast amount of proof at our com·mand conce rn ing the evil and harmful effects of racemixing to all mankind-if we will only use i t i n thenot too far distant future th e white race will onceagain have racial freedom. And once the white race hasra cial freedom-and the Negro ra ce con<:edes this

Documents

Williams O. R. - Segregation and Common Sense